an investigation into debswana’s readiness to successfully...

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

i

An investigation into Debswana’s readiness

to successfully implement a knowledge management

strategy

A Research Report

presented to

The Graduate School of Business

University of Cape Town

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

Masters of Business Administration Degree

by

Balisi Bonyongo and Nischal K. Sancho

November 2002

Supervisor: Mr. Kurt April

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researchers wish to thank the following people who have helped us directly and

indirectly in the completion of this research report:

Our supervisor, Kurt April, Senior Lecturer at the Graduate School of

Business.

Debswana Diamond Company for giving us the opportunity to carry out this

research project. Also, to all the interviewees and survey respondents for

giving generously of their time and their insights.

Our families for their infinite patience and support.

Jenni Kenny for her assistance with transcriptions.

Professor Trevor Wegner for his advice on statistical analysis.

We certify that, except where noted, the report is our own work and all references

used are accurately reported throughout the text.

Signed:

Balisi Bonyongo

Nischal K Sancho

27 November 2002

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

iii

ABSTRACT

Successful implementation of a knowledge management (KM) strategy depends on an

organisation’s ability to optimise the interaction between people, processes, and

technology. The ability to create, share, retain and use knowledge is increasingly

becoming a source of competitive advantage. Corporations and governments are now

actively seeking for new ways of capitalising on people’s knowledge to sustain value

creation. The difficulty faced by these organisations is deciding on where to start

with the process of developing knowledge systems, and once started, to maintain the

momentum. Despite this, several multinational corporations, governments and non-

governmental organisations (NGO’s) have successfully implemented KM systems.

One common approach these organisations adopted was to conduct an assessment of

their capabilities, strengths and weaknesses with respect to the KM processes of

creation, capture, storage, sharing, and application.

This research report assesses these processes in Debswana to determine its readiness

to successfully implement a KM strategy. The assessment focuses on the key

business enablers of people and process management, organisational culture and

structure, performance measurement, organisational strategy and planning, and

information management and technology. The research findings indicate that

Debswana is ready to successfully implement a KM strategy. However, the

organisational culture and structure business enabler has the highest potential of

inhibiting sustainable implementation. Drawing on the research findings, an

implementation framework is proposed.

Keywords: Knowledge management, knowledge management processes, readiness

assessment, organisational culture and structure, people and process management,

performance management, organisational strategy and planning, information

management and technology

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

iv

Contents pg.

1. INTRODUCTION ....….…………………………………………….... 1

1.1 Debswana Background ……………………………………………….. 1

1.2 The Study Problem …………………………………………………… 2

2. THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS …………... 4

2.1 The Research Question ……………………………………………….. 4

2.2 Objective …………………………………………………………….... 4

2.3 Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………. 5

3. LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………. 6

3.1 Defining Knowledge ………………………………………………….. 6

3.2 The Concept and Definition of KM …………………………………... 8

3.3 The Relevance of KM to Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage 9

3.4 Knowledge Management Models …………………………………….. 11

3.4.1 Knowledge Category Models ………………………………. 11

3.4.2 Intellectual Capital Models …………………………………. 14

3.4.3 Socially Constructed Models of KM ……………………….. 15

3.5 Considerations for successful implementation of KM ………………... 20

3.5.1 Criteria for defining organisational ‘readiness’ …………….. 23

3.5.2 Organisational Culture ……………………………………… 23

3.5.3 Performance Management ………………………………….. 25

3.5.3.1 Knowledge Management Performance Scorecard … 26

3.5.3.2 Knowledge Management Behaviour Framework …. 27

4. THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND APPROACH …………………. 30

4.1 The Relevance and Importance of KM Research in Debswana ……… 30

4.2 The Research Process ………………………………………………… 31

4.2.1 Research Design …………………………………………….. 32

4.2.2 Exploratory Research ……………………………………….. 32

4.2.3 Primary Research …………………………………………… 35

4.2.3.1 Primary Data Collection …………………………… 37

4.2.3.2 Sampling …………………………………………… 38

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

v

4.2.3.3 Questionnaire Design ……………………………… 39

4.2.3.4 Data Analysis ……………………………………… 40

5. DATA ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………. 43

5.1 Exploratory Research …………………………………………………. 43

5.2 Primary Research ……………………………………………………… 43

5.2.1 Sample Details ……………………………………………… 43

5.2.2 Readiness Assessment ……………………………………… 44

5.2.2.1 Organisational-Level Readiness …………………… 45

5.2.2.2 Operational-Level Readiness ……………………… 47

5.2.3 Business Enabler Analysis ………………………………….. 49

5.2.3.1 Factor Analysis ……………………………………. 49

5.2.3.2 Significant Differences per Grouping Variable …… 53

6. KEY FINDNGS AND INTERPRETATION ………………………... 57

6.1 Exploratory Research Findings ……………………………………….. 57

6.2 Primary Research Findings …………………………………………… 67

7. IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK FOR DEBSWANA ………. 72

7.1 Proposed Conceptual Implementation Framework …………………… 75

7.2 Strategy and Planning Model …………………………………………. 76

7.3 Implementation Structure Model ……………………………………… 79

7.4 Leadership and Management Commitment Model …………………… 81

7.5 Organisational Culture Model ………………………………………… 82

7.6 People and Process Management …………………………………….. 84

7.7 Information Management and Technology Model …………………… 87

7.8 Performance Management ……………………………………………. 88

7.9 Change Management Model ………………………………………….. 89

8. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………….. 93

9. REFERENCES ………………………………………………………… 95

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

vi

APPENDIX 1: EXPLORATORY RESEARCH QUESTONS ………….. 103

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF EXCO MEMBERS INTERVIEWED ………… 105

APPENDIX 3: DESCRIPTIVE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ………… 106

APPENDIX 4: SUMMARY OF EXPLORATORY RESEARCH ……… 113

APPENDIX 5: PATTERSON GRADING SYSTEM AT DEBSWANA .. 127

APPENDIX 6: BASIC DESCRIPTIVE STATICTICS …………………. 128

APPENDIX 7: RESULTS OF t-TESTS …………………………………. 130

APPENDIX 8: CATEGORISED BOX-AND-WHISKER PLOTS FOR

INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS FOR EACH BUSINESS ENABLER ... 132

APPENDIX 9: FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS …………………….... 135

APPENDIX 10: GROUPING VARIABLE SIGNIFICANT

DIFFERENCES (ANOVA) FOR INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS ..... 128

APPENDIX 11: BP AMOCO: LEARNING BEFORE, LEARNING DURING

AND LEARNING-AFTER ……………………………………….. 158

APPENDIX 12: DEBSWANA BALANCED SCORECARD …………… 160

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

vii

INDEX OF TABLES

pg.

Table 3.1: Levels of Use in the CBAM ………………………………….. 28

Table 3.2: Role and Behaviours for the Levels of KM Skill …………….. 29

Table 4.1: Classes of Research Design …………………………………... 32

Table 4.2: Stratified Target Population Details ………………………….. 39

Table 5.1: Sample Details for Individual Operations and Grades ……….. 43

Table 5.2: Mean Values for Business Enablers to Assess Readiness ……. 45

Table 5.3: Individual Questions with Mean Values Significantly Less

Than 3.0 …………………………………....……………………… 46

Table 5.4: Mean Values for Business Enablers between Operations ……. 47

Table 5.5: Individual Questions with Significant Differences between

Operations ……………………………………………………….… 48

Table 5.6: Themes for the Overall Factor Analysis ……………………… 49

Table 5.7: Themes for Factors Associated with People and Process

Management ……………………………………………………….. 50

Table 5.8: Themes for Factors Associated with Organisational Culture

and Structure ………………………………………………………. 51

Table 5.9: Themes for Factors Associated with Performance Measurement 51

Table 5.10: Themes for Factors Associated with Organisational Strategy

and Planning ……………………………………………………….. 52

Table 5.11: Themes for Factors Associated with Information Management

and Technology ……………………………………………………. 52

Table 6.1: Important Themes Associated with Business Enablers ………. 68

Table 7.1: Elements of the NCS Knowledge Journey …………………… 75

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

viii

INDEX OF FIGURES

pg.

Figure 3.1: The Recursive Relations between Data, Information and

Knowledge ………………………………………………………… 7

Figure 3.2: The Knowledge Value Chain ………………………………… 8

Figure 3.3: Nonaka’s (1995) Knowledge Management Model ………….. 12

Figure 3.4: Hedlund and Nonaka’s (1993) Knowledge Management Model 13

Figure 3.5: Boisot’s (1987) Knowledge Category Model ……………….. 13

Figure 3.6: Intellectual Capital Model of Knowledge Management (Skandia) 14

Figure 3.7: Demarest (1997) Knowledge Management Model ………….. 15

Figure 3.8: Modified Version of Demarest’s (1997) Knowledge Management

Model ……………………………………………………………… 16

Figure 3.9: Schwandt’s (1995) Organisational Learning Model ………… 17

Figure 3.10: The Relationship Chart …………………………………….. 20

Figure 3.11: Health Check Model ………………………………………… 21

Figure 3.12: Framework for the Readiness Assessment for Successful

Implementation of a Knowledge Management Strategy ………….. 24

Figure 5.1: Sample Details Split by Operation, Grade, Length of

Operational Service, and Length in Current Position ……………... 44

Figure 5.2: Business Enabler Categorised Box-and-Whisker plot ………. 46

Figure 5.3: Categorised Box-and Whisker Plot Highlighting Differences between

Operations for Business Enablers and Overall Readiness ………… 48

Figure 5.4: Categorised Box-and Whisker Plot Showing Differences between

Grades of Respondents ……………………………………………. 54


Respondents of Varying Length of Organisational Service ………. 55


Respondents of Varying Length in Current Position ……………… 56

Figure 6.1: Significant Differences between Grades for Individual Questions

and Business Enablers …………………………………………….. 70

Figure 6.2: Significant Differences between Lengths of Organisational Service

for Individual Questions and Business Enablers ………………….. 71

Figure 7.1: Conceptual Implementation Framework …………………….. 76

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

ix

Figure 7.2: Strategy and Planning Model ………………………………… 77

Figure 7.3: Implementation Structure ……………………………………. 80

Figure 7.4: Leadership and Management Commitment …………………. 82

Figure 7.5: Organisational Culture Model ……………………………….. 84

Figure 7.6: People and Process Management ……………………………. 85

Figure 7.7: Information Management and Technology ………………….. 88

Figure 7.8: Performance Management Model …………………………… 89

Figure 7.9: Change Management Model ………………………………… 91

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

RESEARCH REPORT MBA 2002 An investigation into Debswana’s readiness to successfully implement a knowledge management strategy

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Debswana Background

Debswana is a diamond mining company operating in Botswana. It is a 50-50

partnership between the government of Botswana and DeBeers. The company is

central to the development of Botswana, with its principal product, diamonds

contributing 30 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 70 percent of export

earnings and 50 percent of government revenue (www.debswana.com). The

contribution to GDP by diamonds is very significant when compared to the country’s

GDP, which is estimated at P 28.9 billion for the period 2000/2001 (Gaolathe, 2002).

It operates four diamond mines in the country: Jwaneng, Orapa, Letlhakane and

Damtshaa, and the country’s only colliery. The latter three are collectively referred to

as OLD mines.

In line with Debswana’s mission to assist Botswana in diversifying its economy away

from heavy reliance on diamonds, the company runs a corporate development

business unit that oversees investments in non-core businesses. Through this unit, the

company has invested a total of P 20 million. Half of these funds have been invested

in farming, and the rest in promoting and facilitating the development of

commercially viable enterprises in Botswana through PEO Holdings (Pty) LTD. This

is a venture capital company established by Debswana and De Beers to assist in

promoting involvement of Botswana citizens in business. Further investments are

planned for the tourism sector. These initiatives reinforce Debswana’s position as

Botswana’s leading economic growth engine.

The company’s vision is to become a global benchmark mining company. It has thus

developed a strategy that is congruent with this vision. The balanced scorecard (BSC)

is used for translating the vision and strategy into reality. The BSC is used at

corporate and operational levels. Scorecards have been developed for all levels of

employees in the organisation, and provide a basis on which business, operational and

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


2

individual performance are managed. The force behind Debswana’s success is its

workforce of approximately 6000. The company employs some of the best-trained

and well-educated workforce in the country, and provides a range of excellent

benefits for its employees. It uses leading-edge technology in its mining and diamond

extraction processes, producing some 25 million carats annually. This makes

Debswana the largest producer of diamonds by value.

1.2 The Study Problem

Futurologists Toffler and Toffler (uit Beijerse, 1999) commented that the real value of

companies like Compaq or Kodak, Hitachi or Siemens, depends more on the ideas,

insights and information in the heads of their employees and in the data banks and

patents these companies control than on the trucks, assembly lines, and other physical

assets they may have. Thus, capital itself is now increasingly based on intangibles.

The insightful view provided by Toffler and Toffler is corroborated by an observation

made by Rowley (1999) which stipulates that there is an agreement that the

knowledge-based society has arrived, and that those organisations that will succeed in

the global information society are those that can identify, value, create and evolve

their knowledge assets. The forces of technology, globalisation and the emerging

knowledge economy are creating a revolution that is forcing organisations to seek

new ways to reinvent themselves.

Neef (1999) takes Rowley’s observation further and suggests that a knowledge-based

economic revolution is taking place, and it comes in a matching set: knowledge

management for organisations and knowledge-based economies for nations

themselves. He argues that both are part of a major evolutionary economic movement

which is beginning to reshape the global economic structure, and knowledge

management should therefore be seen as one of the most concrete and important set of

practices and policies that an organisation can adopt. This marks a significant step in

an enterprise’s evolution toward becoming a global, learning organisation that can

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


3

survive in the knowledge-based economy.

Knowledge management (KM) is a process that helps organisations find, select,

organise, disseminate, and transfer important information and expertise necessary for

activities such as problem-solving, dynamic learning, strategic planning and decision-

making. To improve the effectiveness of knowledgeable experts, information systems

groups, at several organisations, have started creating databases for knowledge,

information maps and custom-made applications.

KM emerged with not only the need to be cost-efficient and managerially effective in

problem-solving, decision-making, innovation and all other elements needed to

maintain and develop a competitive edge, but also more specifically, to capture,

catalogue, preserve, disseminate the expertise and knowledge that are part of

organisation memory that typically resides in the organisation in an unstructured way

(Gupta, Iyer and Aronson, 2000).

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


4

2. THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS

The business community has articulated the following core KM objectives, through an

analysis described in KPMG (1999), as Levett and Guenov (2000: 258) states:

• supporting innovation, the generation of new ideas and the exploitation of the

organisation’s thinking power;

• capturing insight and experience to make them available and usable when,

where and by whom required;

• making it easy to find and reuse sources of know-how and expertise, whether

they are recorded in a physical form or held in someone’s mind;

• fostering collaboration, knowledge sharing, continual learning and

improvement;

• improving the quality of decision-making and other intelligent tasks; and

• understanding the value and contribution of intellectual assets and increasing

their worth, effectiveness and exploitation.

Debswana Diamond Company has recognised the need to embrace KM, and

potentially embark on implementing a KM strategy. This proposal is directed towards

understanding whether Debswana is ready to implement a KM strategy in order to

realise some, or all, of the associated benefits.

2.1 The Research Question

Is Debswana ready for successful implementation of a KM strategy?

2.2 Objective

Primary Objective

The primary objective of the proposal is to determine whether Debswana is ready for

successful implementation of a KM strategy.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


5

2.3 Hypothesis

Primary Hypothesis

Debswana is ready for the successful implementation of an explicit KM strategy.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


6

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Defining Knowledge

Lynch (2000: 479) suggests that if knowledge is to be used in strategy development,

then we need to be able to recognise it, so some form of definition is important. He

recommended adoption of the following definition by Davenport and Prusack (1998:

5):

Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of the knowers. In organisations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organisational routines, processes, practices and norms.

Similar to this, Bender and Fish (2000: 126) suggest that:

Knowledge originates in the head of an individual and builds on information that is transformed and enriched by personal experience, beliefs, and values with decision and action-relevant meaning. It is information interpreted by the individual and applied to the purpose for which it is needed. The knowledge formed by an individual will differ from another person receiving the same information. Knowledge is the mental state of ideas, facts, concepts, data and techniques, recorded in an individual’s memory.

According to uit Beijerse (1999), Weggeman states that knowledge is a personal

capacity that should be seen as the product of the information, the experience, the

skills and the attitude which someone has at a certain point in time. Another

dimension to Weggeman’s definition of knowledge, cited by uit Beijerse, suggests

that knowledge should be seen as the capability to interpret data and information

through a process of giving meaning to these data and information, and an attitude of

wanting to do so.

Importantly, these definitions also tell us what knowledge is not:

• Knowledge is not just data (a set of discrete, observable facts about

events); and

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


7

• Knowledge is not just information (a message, often in a document or

some other form of communication, which certainly has meaning, but little

depth).

Other literature (Ahmed, Lim and Zairi, 1999; Van Beveren, 2002) further support

this view. Bhatt’s (2001) paper posits the idea that the relationship between data,

information, and knowledge is recursive, and depends on the degree of the

“organisation” and the “interpretation” as seen in Figure 3.1. Data and information

are distinguished based on their “organisation”, and information and knowledge are

differentiated based on their “interpretation”.

Figure 3.1: The Recursive Relations between Data, Information and Knowledge

We conclude from these definitions that knowledge essentially describes the ability of

a person to put a pattern to sets of data with the aim of creating information. Once

created, a deduction is made of meaning, based on skill, experience, and other

personality attributes. In the next sections, the concept and definition of knowledge

management is explored, together with the various interpretations offered by experts

in this field.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


8

3.2 The Concept and Definition of KM

De Jarnett (1996) describes KM as knowledge creation, which is followed by

knowledge interpretation, knowledge dissemination and use, and knowledge retention

and refinement. Quintas, Lefrere, and Jones (1997) describe KM as the process of

critically managing knowledge to meet existing needs, to identify and exploit existing

and acquired knowledge assets and to develop new opportunities. Further, Brooking

(1997) suggests that KM is the activity which is concerned with strategy and tactics to

manage human centred assets.

Weggeman, in uit Beijerse (1999), links the definition of knowledge and management

of knowledge through the “knowledge value chain” (see Figure 3.2). He distinguishes

four successive constituent processes in the process of KM. First, the strategic need

for knowledge needs to be determined. Second, the knowledge gap needs to be

determined. This is the quantitative and qualitative difference between the knowledge

needed and that available in the organisation.

Figure 3.2: The Knowledge Value Chain

In the third place, this knowledge gap needs to be narrowed by developing new

knowledge, by buying knowledge, by improving existing knowledge or by getting rid

of knowledge that has become irrelevant. Fourth, the available knowledge is

disseminated and applied to serve the interest of customers and stakeholders (uit

Beijerse 1999).

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


9

This value chain approach encompasses the definitions made by De Jarnett (1996),

Quintas, Lefrere, and Jones (1997), and Brooking (1997), and emphasises strategic,

personal, organisational and cultural aspects, which are as important as the

technological side of KM. We settle on the following inclusive definition by uit

Beijerse (1999: 102):

Knowledge management is achieving organisational goals through the strategy-driven motivation and facilitation of (knowledge) workers to develop, enhance and use their capability to interpret data and information (by using available sources of information, experience, skills, culture, character, personality, feelings, etc.) through a process of giving meaning to these data and information.

The definition clearly links the concept of knowledge to people, and how the link

should be managed to achieve organisational goals.

3.3 The Relevance of KM to Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage

Where more traditional economies focused on land, labour and capital as their main

production factors, in the knowledge-based economy knowledge is becoming a

production factor on which competitive advantage rests. This macro-level

observation has implications at micro-level; companies have to deal with this

emphasis on knowledge in their business” (uit Beijerse, 1999: 102). In supporting

this view, Rowley (1999) has described the forces of technology, globalisation and the

emerging knowledge economy as driving discontinuous change in organisations,

which are now forced to seek new sources of competitive advantage. In this new

knowledge based global market place, an understanding of KM and its effective

implementation is increasingly crucial for business.

The notion that people are a company’s best resource can no longer only be expressed

in words, but will require deliberate action from top management in organisations.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


10

The interaction between people, technology and business processes determines the

extent to which knowledge can be harnessed to give an organisation competitive

advantage. This view is complimented by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), who

describe knowledge as the one certain source of sustainable competitive advantage in

a highly uncertain environment. They also assert that the consistent creation of new

knowledge, its diffusion throughout an organisation, and its embodiment in new

technologies and products, are critical to organisational success. Civi (2000), on the

other hand, looks more broadly at organisational and socio-economic macro trends,

stressing the need and justification for KM as being created by competition-induced

reduction of workforces and the associated departure of knowledge–rich employees.

Tied to these trends is the reduced time remaining and new employees have to acquire

knowledge, as well as the loss of knowledge caused by earlier retirement ages and

increasing labour market mobility. The associated loss of knowledge may have an

impact sufficiently serious to force major changes in strategic organisational

direction.

The views of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Civi (2000), amongst others, suggest

that the ‘winner of orders’ for businesses in the twenty-first century will lie

predominantly on how well they manage their intangible assets especially knowledge

and knowledge workers. Hence, over the last decade, it is evident that large

multinational corporations have been adopting KM strategies. A study published by

The Conference Board and sponsored by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in 2000 yielded

evidence of increasing adoption of KM by large organisations with eighty percent of

the 158 global corporations surveyed having explicit KM strategies. The study

further predicted that by 2005, 60% of global corporations would have company-wide

KM programs. It further found that many firms were linking KM and organizational

learning in order to improve productivity and efficiency. The early-adopters include

prominent global corporations such as Johnson & Johnson, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP

Amoco, Ford, Intel, Philips, Siemens and Volkswagen. Davenport, De Long and

Beers (1998) provide examples of companies such as Dow, Texas Instruments,

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


11

Buckman Laboratories and Hewlett Packard, that implemented KM projects and

significantly increased revenues and reduced costs. This link to economic benefit has

led knowledge-intensive organisations such as Buckman Laboratories, Ernst & Young

and McKinsey & Company to spend respectively 2.5%, 6%, and 10% of their

revenues on KM.

Similarly, Bhatt (2001) points to a number of researchers who have highlighted the

competitive advantage gained by companies such as 3M, Buckman Laboratories,

Skandia, and Xerox as a result of KM initiatives. In explaining this, he emphasises

that organisational knowledge is formed via unique patterns of interactions between

people, technologies and techniques. These patterns cannot be traded in the market

place nor imitated by other organisations, thus offering sustainable competitive

advantage. He categorises knowledge into foreground knowledge - which is easy to

capture, codify, and imitate- and background knowledge, which is tacit and sticky and

thus difficult to replicate. The intensity of the symbiotic relationship between

foreground and background knowledge is seen as forming the organisation’s core

competencies and providing sustainable competitive advantage, as described by

Hamel and Prahalad (1990).

3.4 Knowledge Management Models

Literature identifies three categories of KM models. These are knowledge category

models, intellectual capital models and socially constructed models.

3.4.1 Knowledge Category Models

These types of model categorise knowledge into discrete elements. Nonaka’s model

is an example of an attempt at giving a high-level conceptual representation of KM

and essentially considers KM as a knowledge creation process. In its simplest form, it

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


12

is shown in Figure 3.3 (McAdam and McCreedy, 1999: 95).

Knowledge is considered as consisting of tacit and explicit elements. Tacit

knowledge is defined as non-verbalised, intuitive and unarticulated. Explicit or

articulated knowledge is specified as being in writing, drawings, computer

programmes, etc. (McAdam and McCreedy, 1999).

Figure 3.3: Nonaka’s (1995) Knowledge Management Model

The model assumes that tacit knowledge can be transferred through a process of

socialisation into tacit knowledge, and that tacit knowledge can become explicit

knowledge through a process of externalisation. It also assumes that the explicit

knowledge can be transferred into tacit knowledge in others through a process of

internalisation, and that explicit knowledge can be transferred to explicit knowledge

in others through a process of combination.

McAdam and McCreedy (1999) argue that perhaps knowledge transfer in

organisations is much more complicated and convoluted than this simple matrix

suggests. A more elaborate version of Nonaka’s model, the Hedlund and Nonaka’s

(1993) KM model (Figure 3.4) draws similar criticism from these authors.

Socialisation Externalisation Internalisation Combination

Tacit Explicit

Tacit Explicit

to

from

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


13

Figure 3.4: Hedlund and Nonaka’s (1993) Knowledge Management Model

Individual Group Organisation Interorganisational

Domain Knowing

calculus

Quality circle’s

documented analysis

of it’s performance

Organisational

chart

Supplier’s patents and

documented practices

Cross-cultural

negotiation skills

Team co-ordination

in complex work

Corporate

culture

Customer’s attitudes to

products and

expectations

The model assumes four levels of ‘carriers’ of knowledge in the organisation, namely;

the individual, the small group, the organisation and the interorganisational domain

(important customers, suppliers, competitors, etc.). According to McAdam and

McCreedy (1999), while this model is helpful in that it relates the carriers to the types

of knowledge, it remains problematic in that it assumes the carriers, like the

knowledge, can be simply segregated. They further make a comparison of the above

models to that of Boisot (1987), presented in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5: Boisot’s (1987) Knowledge Category Model

Boisot’s (1987) model considers knowledge as either codified or uncodified, and as

diffused or undiffused, within an organisation. The term “codified” refers to

Articulated Knowledge Tacit Knowledge

Proprietary Public Knowledge Knowledge Personal Common Knowledge Sense

Undiffused Diffused

Codified Uncodified

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


14

knowledge that can be readily prepared for transmission purposes (e.g., financial

data). On the contrary, “uncodified” refers to knowledge that cannot be readily

prepared for transmission purposes (e.g., experience). “Diffused” knowledge refers to

that which can readily be shared while “undiffused” refers to knowledge that is not

readily shared. McAdam and McCreedy (1999) argue that Boisot’s (1987) model

suffers the same limitations as Nonaka’s (1995) model in that codified and uncodified

are but two categories of knowledge. Also, the idea of diffused knowledge is rather

general and it is not clear if it includes incorporating knowledge within the

organisation, as well as spreading it.

3.4.2 Intellectual Capital Models

A number of models in literature represent KM as essentially intellectual capital (IC).

A typical model is the Skandia IC model from Chase (1997: 90) shown in Figure 3.6.

The model assumes that IC or KM can be segregated into human, customer, process

and growth elements which are contained in two main categories of human capital

and structural/organisational capital.

Figure 3.6: Intellectual Capital Model of Knowledge Management (Skandia)

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


15

However, this intellectual capital view of KM ignores the political and social aspects

of KM. Also, like Nonaka’s model, it assumes that KM can be decomposed into

objective elements rather than being a socio-political phenomenon. This mechanistic

approach can result in simplistic approaches to complex social-related issues, e.g.,

reward and recognition, power relations, empowerment, etc. (McAdam and

McCreedy, 1999).

3.4.3 Socially Constructed Models of KM

This group of models views knowledge as being intrinsically linked within the social

and learning processes within the organisation. A typical example of this type of

model is shown in Figure 3.7 (Demarest, 1997: 377).

Figure 3.7: Demarest (1997) Knowledge Management Model

The model emphasises the construction of knowledge within the organisation. This

construction is not limited to scientific inputs but is seen as including the social

construction of knowledge. The model assumes that constructed knowledge is then

embodied within the organisation, not just through explicit programmes but through a

process of social interchange. Following embodiment, there is a process of

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


16

dissemination of the espoused knowledge throughout the organisation and its

environment. Ultimately the knowledge is seen as being of economic use in regard to

organisational outputs. The solid arrows in Figure 3.7 show the primary flow

direction, while the unfilled arrows show the more recursive flows. The model is

attractive in that it does not assume any given definition of knowledge but rather

invites a more holistic approach to knowledge construction. Perhaps the solid arrows

or main flow is a limitation in that it implies that recursive flows are less important. It

also implies a simplistic processual approach while, in reality, the flows of knowledge

transfer may be extremely rapid and circulatory, as in the case for some forms of

action learning (McAdam and McCreedy, 1999).

A modified version of Demarest’s (1997) KM model is displayed in Figure 3.8. It

seeks to address limitations in the original model by explicitly showing the influence

of both social and scientific paradigms of knowledge construction. According to

McAdam and McCreedy (1999), this model also extends the “use” element to cover

both business and employee benefits.

Figure 3.8: Modified Version of Demarest’s (1997)

Knowledge Management Model

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


17

A perspective by Schwandt (1995) asserts that organisational learning assumes that

systems of social actions are non-linear and open, and inherently evolve towards

higher states of complexity. Consequently, organisations must deal with the human

collective and the patterns associated with their social structures and cultures.

Schwandt (1995) argues that this requires simultaneous focus on both organisational

performance and learning. He proposes a dynamic organisational learning model that

is grounded on Parsons’ (1951) social action system theory (Figure 3.9). This theory

suggests that both performance and learning processes have the capacity to change or

disrupt the equilibrium in the organisation-situation relationship. However, change in

the “social system” itself occurs only through the learning process, not the

performance process. It is related to the basic assumptions held by the organisational

culture.

Figure 3.9: Schwandt’s (1995) Organisational Learning Model

[Based on Parson’s (1951) Social Action System Theory]

Purpose Means Ends

ADAPTATION

Environmental Interface

GOAL ATTAINMENT

Action and Reflection

PATTERN MAINTENANCE

Meaning and Memory

INTEGRATION

Dissemination and Diffusion

Exte

rnal

In

tern

al

Focu

s

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


18

Taking the Parsonian (1951) theory further, Schwandt’s (1995) model provides a way

of viewing organisational behaviour that can explain how people in an organisation

collectively engage in the dynamic social actions associated with learning. In this

context Schwandt (1995: 370) defines organisational learning as a system of actions,

actors, symbols, and processes that enables an organisation to transform information

into valued knowledge which, in turn increases its long-run adaptive capacity. He

reiterates the point that learning is focussed on the system’s ability to adapt to its

environment, not just through a performance orientation, but rather through a creative

capacity that influences the cultural values of the collective.

The model defines four learning subsystems:

• Environmental Interface (Adaptation),

• Action and Reflection (Goal-Attainment),

• Dissemination and Diffusion (Integration), and

• Meaning and Memory (Pattern-Maintenance).

The Environmental Interface subsystem functions as the informational portal for the

organisational learning system. It consists of a collection of interdependent activities

and actions that responds to signals from both the inside and outside of the

organisation, determining the information it seeks and disperses. This subsystem

includes acts directed at surveying customers, public relations, research efforts,

lobbying, and other means of scanning the environment. It also includes activities

that provide screening of information and data, such as monitoring news broadcasts

and printed literature.

The Action-Reflection subsystem creates valued knowledge from new information. It

is the nucleus of the organisational learning system. The processes in this core

function are reliant on the variables associated with the dynamic operation of the

business. They exist at two levels of action: the first level pertains to routine actions

that characterise the day-to-day operations of the organisation, and are governed by

standard operating procedures; and the second level is related to major actions which

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


19

are perceived by the organisation as having significant impact on its adaptive

capacities. According to this subsystem, reflection exists at both levels of action in

different forms and intensity. The organisation can reflect on its actions from three

different perspectives: the processes used in the action, the content or results of the

action, and the underlying premises of the action. Each of these reflection

perspectives combines with a level of action to create knowledge, which is the goal of

the learning system. The double-loop learning concept suggested by Marquardt

(1996) supports these perspectives. The concept looks at deeper organisational norms

and structures, questioning the system on why failures or successes occurred. He

suggests that on reflection, an organisation should challenge the validity of these

norms and structures in terms of organisation, action and results.

Schwandt’s (1995) third subsystem, Dissemination and Diffusion exists to transfer

information and knowledge among the subsystems. It includes acts of

communication, networking, management acts of co-ordination, and other roles

supporting the movement of information and knowledge. The technical processes

include electronic data transfer mechanisms and audio-visual means. Dissemination

processes are those that are more purposefully directed and are governed by formal

procedures and policies. Diffusion techniques represent more informal processes

such as rumours and informal communications. Garvin (2000) shares this view by

suggesting that new ideas, information and knowledge must diffuse rapidly

throughout the organisation, extending from person to person, department to

department, and division to division. Eventually, all these must be embedded in

organisational “memory,” appearing as policies, procedures, and norms to ensure that

they are retained over time.

According to Schwandt (1995), the fourth subsystem, Meaning and Memory, provides

the foundation from which the other subsystems draw guidance and control. The

premise upon which this subsystem is based is that learning is dependent on some

shared understanding. The memory portion of the subsystem contains a series of

storage mechanisms, each with its own retrieval schema. The storage systems are the

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


20

individuals, the culture, the ecology, the transformations, and the structures. This

subsystem’s operation includes both human and technical processes, for example,

records, databases, routines, and people. Human processes include collective and

individual remembering and the use of consensus to construct the collective history.

Of all the socially constructed KM models, Schwandt’s (1995) organisational learning

model provides a comprehensive and credible basis on which organisations can

develop KM strategies. It provides a means of understanding how the KM processes

of “acquisition”, “storage”, “sharing” and “use” take place seamlessly. The model

ensures a focus on the collective’s capacity to learn, act, unlearn and learn, and it

makes a point that the environment for this to happen should be enabling and

supportive. The emphasis therefore is on organisational culture and its ability to

allow people to collectively act on information and knowledge, and reflect on the

outcomes of their actions as a means of learning.

3.5 Considerations for Successful Implementation of KM

While literature provides numerous viewpoints and approaches to knowledge

management, successful application in organisations has remained elusive. Research

into organisations that have implemented knowledge management provides insight

into possible reasons. We highlight key findings from a survey of senior managers at

25 international organisations, tackling the question: “Where does knowledge

management add value?” (Chong, Wilhelmij and Schmidt, 2000).

The research indicates that few organisations have explicit goals, and tangible

deliverables, for their knowledge management projects. They do not have a clear and

purposeful vision for the management of knowledge, suggesting that there is ample

scope for enhancing the match between business objectives and the prudent

management of knowledge assets. This finding implies that knowledge management

implementation must be seen as part of the organisation’s strategic plan, designed to

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


21

add measurable value.

Emanating from this research, Chong, Wilhelmij and Schmidt (2000: 376) developed

a relationship chart that maps out the relationship between capabilities, management

activities and enablers (Figure 3.10).

Figure 3.10: The Relationship Chart

This chart offers an organisation with a potential tool for implementing a KM

strategy. According to the chart, a business case for knowledge management projects

should be based on the treatment of knowledge as a system of interconnecting internal

capabilities (business enablers) of a company. These include aspects such as social

and cultural enablers, leadership and human development tools, compensation

schemes and technological infrastructures, with knowledge representing the

understanding of the relationships and interactions between business assets. This

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


22

helps ensure knowledge becomes more meaningful in the business context. Chong,

Wilhelmij and Schmidt (2000) conclude that successful organisations should excel in

managing the awareness and diffusion of these core competencies.

While this model incorporates all the dimensions included in the knowledge

management models discussed previously, it introduces two critical aspects to the

implementation framework: risk and performance management.

Figure 3.11 is yet another model developed by Chong, Wilhelmij and Schmidt (2000:

376), for use as a high level health check for auditing the required business enablers,

to build the necessary internal capabilities. The argument for this model is that it is

crucial for making explicit the relationship between business enablers and

capabilities, and for carrying out a knowledge risk assessment.

Figure 3.11: Health Check Model

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


23

3.5.1 Criteria for Defining Organisational ‘Readiness’

The researchers believe that assessment of organisational ‘readiness’ for

implementation of a KM strategy should be based on the model by Chong, Wilhelmij

and Schmidt (2000), as shown in Figures 3.10 and 3.11. Based on these, the

researchers have developed a framework for readiness assessment for the successful

implementation of a KM strategy (see Figure 3.12). It summarises the business

enablers in defining ‘readiness’ as follows:

• People and Process Management (P&PM);

• Organisational Culture and Structure (OC&S);

• Performance Measurement (PM);

• Organisational Strategy and Planning (OS&P); and

• Information Management and Technology (IM&T).

The researchers believe that information technology is an enabling tool that can be

acquired with access to capital, and therefore does not provide sustainable advantage

on its own. Hence, only organisational culture and performance management will be

further explored, in light of intellectual capital being mentioned in Section 3.4.2.

3.5.2 Organisational Culture

No knowledge management system can work without an organization undergoing a significant cultural change (Greengard, 1998: 93).

For this study, we define culture as the shared values, beliefs, and practices of the

people in the organization. Culture is reflected in the visible aspects of the

organization, like its mission and espoused values. But culture exists on a deeper

level as well, embedded in the way people act, what they expect of each other and

how they make sense of each other’s action. Finally, culture is rooted in the

organisation’s core values and assumptions. Often these are not only unarticulated,

but so taken-for-granted that they are hard to articulate, invisible to the organisational

members.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


24

Figure 3.12: Framework for the Readiness Assessment for Successful

Implementation of a Knowledge Management Strategy

Peop

le a

nd P

roce

ss M

anag

emen

t W

hat a

re th

e pe

ople

and

pro

cess

man

agem

ent

issu

es th

at n

eed

atte

ntio

n?

Info

rmat

ion

Man

agem

ent a

nd

Tec

hnol

ogy

Wha

t is t

he ro

le o

f inf

orm

atio

n m

anag

emen

t and

te

chno

logy

?

Org

anis

atio

nal C

ultu

re a

nd S

truc

ture

W

hat a

spec

ts o

f org

anis

atio

nal c

ultu

re a

nd

stru

ctur

e ne

ed m

anag

emen

t atte

ntio

n?

Org

anis

atio

nal S

trat

egy

and

Plan

ning

Is

or

gani

satio

nal

stra

tegy

de

sign

ed

with

em

ploy

ee

part

icip

atio

n,

and

alig

ned

to

man

agem

ent o

f peo

ple?

Perf

orm

ance

Mea

sure

men

t W

ill th

ere

be v

alue

cre

atio

n, a

nd h

ow w

ill it

be

mea

sure

d?

Acquisition/Creation

Intermediation/Embodiment/Storage

Sharing/Dissemination/Diffusion/Socialisation

- Management style - Relationships - Organisational learning

- Financial measures - Business processes - Behavioural measures

- Leadership - Strategy communication - Employee participation

- Employee development - Rewards & recognition - Innovation & creativity

- Information availability & accessibility - Collaborative technology

Management of

Knowledge

Bus

ines

s Ena

bler

s K

M T

hem

es

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


25

Because of these layers of culture, people can often act in ways inconsistent with the

organizations articulated mission and values, but consistent with it’s underlying core

values. Following this definition, in an organisation with a knowledge sharing

culture, people would share ideas and insights because they see it as natural, rather

than something that they are forced to do. They would expect it of each other and

assume that sharing ideas is the right thing to do (McDermott and O’Dell, 2001).

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) state that to direct individual knowledge for

organisational purposes, an organization should develop and nurture an environment

of knowledge sharing, transformation, and integration between it’s members. To

expand it’s collective knowledge, an organisation should make every effort in

developing meaningful interactions between the communities of practice. In brief,

knowledge management refers to changing corporate culture and business procedures

to make sharing of information possible (Bhatt, 2001).

Bender and Fish (2000) also conclude that knowledge management requires profound

changes in compensation, training, education, and especially culture. They suggest

that a culture needs to be created that values employees as the most important asset of

an organization.

3.5.3 Performance Management

Where does knowledge management add value? In answering this question,

organisations need to consider aspects of how value will be measured. In the survey

of 25 senior managers done in the UK, alluded to under section 3.5, the findings

indicated that only a very limited number of companies had a mechanism to track the

return on investment in knowledge-based competencies or related intangible assets.

The majority were not able to determine the business value of their investment in this

area. Most respondents agreed though that they had lost business opportunities as a

result of poor knowledge practice (Chong, Wilhelmij and Schmidt, 2000). The

authors identified two criteria for assessing value-added or return on investment in

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


26

core competencies related to KM implementation:

• The first criterion is the use of financial indicators such as cash flow and

return on capital employed for measuring corporate performance.

• The second requires the use of capability indicators such as the extent of

documentation and sharing of plans, policies and information for auditing

knowledge flow. Figure 10 is proposed as a model or framework for

organisations to regularly assess themselves against other companies with

recognised good knowledge practices in order to identify performance gaps

and areas for improvement.

The criteria proposed by Chong, Wilhelmij and Schmidt (2000) provides a high level

view on how to measure value added, almost to a point of being abstract. de Gooijer

(2000) provides a more specific approach to use in measuring the performance of KM

strategies. Two models are proposed for measuring knowledge management

performance and knowledge management behaviours: a performance framework

based on the balanced scorecard approach, and a behaviour framework that identifies

levels of practice demonstrated by individuals. The knowledge management

performance scorecard maps the objectives for knowledge management across the

balanced scorecard’s key results areas. The knowledge management behaviour

framework identifies seven levels of knowledge management skills for demonstrating

collaborative behaviour.

3.5.3.1 Knowledge Management Performance Scorecard

The KM performance scorecard adapts the balanced scorecard approach put forward

by Kaplan and Norton (1996), in which an organisation measures its performance in

four key results areas (de Gooijer, 2000):

• financial performance;

• internal business processes;

• customers; and

• growth.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


27

de Gooijer (2000) goes on to explain that in recognition that the overall success of an

organisation depends on all the aspects of the business performing well, the balanced

scorecard takes into account internal factors as well as the relationship a firm has with

its customers and shareholders. In formulating a performance management

framework, she suggests a mapping process of the key results areas for knowledge

management across the scorecard. These are considered to be:

• strategy;

• products and services;

• information infrastructure (technology and content);

• processes;

• relationships; and

• culture and behaviour.

3.5.3.2 Knowledge Management Behaviour Framework

The behavioural framework, defined in terms of learning and learned behaviours, is

directly linked to the key result area people: culture and behaviour in the KM

performance scorecard. The framework is informed by the concerns-based-adoption-

model (CBAM) developed by Gene Hall and his associates at the University of Texas

at Austin in the early 1970’s (de Gooijer, 2000). The Somerset Consulting Group, in

de Gooijer (2000), stated that the CBAM makes several assumptions about change. It

assumes that change is a process, not an event, is made by individuals first then

organisations, is a highly personal experience, and entails developmental growth in

feelings and skills. The CBAM asserts that people go through predictable stages in

adopting an innovation (de Gooijer, 2000: 307). Table 3.1 shows these stages.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


28

Table 3.1: Levels of Use in the CBAM

How can the CBAM system be adapted for describing KM behaviours within a

performance management framework? de Gooijer (2000: 309) proposes Table 3.2 as

a competency model that can be used within a typical employee performance

management system. She further proposes the model outlined in Table 3.2, which

emphasises the relationship between supervisor and supervisee and suggests that it is

a critical success factor in both implementing change and assessing its effectiveness.

By distinguishing between organisational performance and individual behaviour, the

design of these frameworks provides for “hard” business measures to be linked to

“fuzzy” social measures in a coherent way. Importantly, learning, which is a

fundamental precursor to, and an activity within, knowledge processes is explicitly

acknowledged and included in KM performance (de Gooijer 2000). The scope of

these performance measurement systems gives a comprehensive approach that an

organisation that implements KM strategies can adopt.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


29

Table 3.2: Role and Behaviours for the Levels of KM Skill

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


30

4. THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND APPROACH

4.1 The Relevance and Importance of KM Research in Debswana

Why is Debswana considering KM?

According to Debswana’s Deputy Managing Director, knowledge management is

necessary for the following reasons:

• The knowledge assets, especially the human assets, will increasingly become

critical to the company’s survival in the diamond industry. Debswana’s vision

is to become a global benchmark mining company, and has through the

balanced scorecard framework, elevated the human capital perspective to the

top of its strategic objectives.

• Debswana wants to capture and retain the knowledge and skills of its

workforce. This is necessary, given the uniqueness of the diamond extraction

and sorting technologies commissioned during the last five years. The

technological capability is unique because it was developed in-house through

the Debswana/De Beers partnership.

• Debswana operations are subject to major and frequent changes that include

expansions and introduction of newly developed technologies. These changes

require the use of historical information and knowledge, as well as innovations

to create new solutions for the company. The capability to access the

information and knowledge needs to be created.

• The company wants to create structures and processes that will capture new

knowledge and skills as they are developed and acquired by employees, and

analyse such skills for immediate application or storage for future use. This

will form the basis of Debswana-specific best practice approaches to the

diamond business, establishing the company as a leader in the industry with

respect to innovative application of technology and processes.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


31

Based on this background, the research will be of value to Debswana in formulating a

KM strategy, and more importantly assist the company in the implementation of such

a strategy.

4.2 The Research Process

Researchers should remember that the task before us is to answer the research question, not to revalidate our methodology. We should be open to all types of knowledge and methodologies, including probability, insight, common sense, and anything else that can help us to answer the question. The question should determine the methodology. The methodology should not determine the question (Besag, 1989: 15).

The initial research comprised a comprehensive review of available academic

literature, from both electronic and traditional sources. This enabled the researchers

to become acquainted with both historical, and recent, theory and practice in the

general KM field, as well as theory more specifically related to the research question.

Conceptual models, theoretical constructs, and case studies relevant to the research

objective were identified (presented in Section 3).

The point of departure that determined the research process and methodology was the

research question. This influenced, amongst others, the following:

• Choice of research design;

• Measurements;

• Data collection and analysis; and

• Recommendations.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


32

4.2.1 Research Design

The choice of research design is the overall strategic choice made with the purpose of

coming up with an approach that allows for answering the research question in the

best possible way – within the given constraints. Ghauri, Grohnaug and Kristianslund

(1995) state that there are three main classes of research design for problems that may

vary in structure, i.e., how well they are understood (see Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Classes of Research Design

Research Design Problem Structure

1. Exploratory Unstructured

2. Descriptive Structured

3. Causal Structured

The research design used in this study can be classified as partly qualitative (grounded

theory) and partly quantitative (descriptive) as it contains elements of exploratory and

conclusive research, generated by carrying out in-depth interviews and surveys

respectively.

4.2.2 Exploratory Research

Exploratory studies are described as a valuable means of discovering what is

happening, to seek new insights, to ask questions and to assess phenomena in a new

light (Ghauri, Grohnaug and Kristianslund, 1995). The general suggestion thereafter

is to use the insights gleaned from the exploratory study to further undertake more

comprehensive research.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


33

Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe (1991: 74) suggest that interviews are appropriate

when:

1. it is necessary to understand the constructs that the interviewees use as a

basis for their opinions and beliefs about a particular matter or situation;

2. one aim of the interview is to develop an understanding of the

respondent’s ‘world’ so that the researcher might influence it, either

independently or collaboratively as might be the case with action research.

They further recommend this method of data collection as being highly suitable for

exploratory and inductive types of study, although one of the potential limitations is

that they demand a skilled interviewer.

The exploratory side of the research, namely, the in-depth interviews, was based in

part on grounded theory. What most differentiates grounded theory from much other

research is that it is explicitly emergent (Huberman and Miles, 1994). It does not

necessarily test a hypothesis. It sets out to find what theory accounts for the research

situation as it is. In this respect, it is like action research: the aim is to understand the

research situation and to discover the theory implicit in the data (Huberman and

Miles, 1994). The strength of this method is that the researcher can shift the focus of

the study as the data is collected, as it is quite common that the outcome will be

unknown at the start, so the direction may change in accordance with the kinds of

information gathered (Huberman and Miles, 1994).

The general goal of grounded theory research is to construct theories in order to

understand phenomena, i.e., and the recurrent general features of the world that we

seek to explain. A good grounded theory is one that is: (a) inductively derived from

data, (b) subjected to theoretical elaboration, and (c) judged adequate to its domain

with respect to a number of evaluative criteria (Mouton and Marais, 1991).

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


34

Two types of interviews are possible in research (Ghauri, Grohnaug and

Kristianslund, 1995: 64). The first type is a survey research interview, where a

standard format of interview is used with an emphasis on fixed response categories

and systematic sampling, and loading procedures combined with quantitative

measures and statistical methods. The second type is unstructured interviews, where

the respondent is given almost full liberty to discuss reactions, opinions and behaviour

on a particular issue. They also provide some discussion of a semi-structured

interview. These differ from unstructured interviews as topic and issues to be

covered, sample size, people to be interviewed, and questions to be asked have been

determined beforehand.

In order to assess Debswana’s ‘readiness’ to implement a KM strategy, the

researchers decided that initial exploratory research was required in seeking new

insights related to the following areas:

• Strategic relevance of knowledge, and it’s management;

• Benefits of KM;

• Barriers and risks to KM; and

• Key elements of successful KM implementation.

Based on these topics, the researchers conducted twenty three semi-structured, pilot

interviews (see Appendix 1 for corresponding questionnaire that was used to guide the

interview process) with Debswana’s senior management. This format was chosen to:

1. enable the comparability of responses across multiple interviews and across

Debswana’s three operations;

2. reduce potential interviewer bias; and

3. reduce the requirement for a high level of interviewing skill.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


35

The sample included Debswana executive committee members at their three

operations (see Appendix 2 for interviewee list and designation). Interviews were

conducted between 24 June 2002 and 05 July 2002. All interviews were recorded on

audio tape, and later transcribed. The relevant themes and findings were then used to

guide the subsequent descriptive research.

4.2.3 Primary Research

Qualitative methods involve exploration, the first step in inquiry (Mouton and Marais,

1991). Quantitative methods involve verification, the last step (Mouton and Marais,

1991). Although preliminary exploration is usually necessary, and always helpful,

exploration also requires verification. The weakness of verification alone is that since

experiments and other standardized formats (such as the scale and the standardised

interview) are narrow and rigid, one needs to have considerable knowledge before an

adequate testing procedure can be designed (Mouton and Marais, 1991).

When combined with qualitative methods, part/whole morphology can be used to

approach seemingly intractable problems in the human world, generating

comprehensive hypotheses to the point that they might be tested. When combined

with quantitative methods, the same two steps can lead to the comprehensive testing

of the hypotheses they generate (Mouton and Marais, 1991).

Qualitative studies geared toward face validity only, neglect reliability. Face validity

is important; it means that an analysis of meaning can be related to ordinary language,

a vast repository for understanding the complexity and subtlety of human expressions.

But ordinary language is also a repository of bias, a bastion of the cultural status quo.

Face validity alone can never be a sufficient basis for determining meaning (Mouton

and Marais, 1991).

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


36

Quantitative studies oriented toward reliability, neglect validity. Reliability is also of

great importance; it insures repeatability. But erroneous procedures can be repeated

as easily as correct ones. Reliability alone also cannot be a sufficient basis for

determining meaning (Mouton and Marais, 1991).

Both approaches are rational, but only in part. Reliance on face validity exemplifies

substantive rationality. This approach is sensitive to the particularities of situations,

just as procedural rationality is attuned to their general features (Huberman and Miles,

1994).

Data in grounded theory are idiosyncratic to particular investigative contexts. They

are not as stable and general as phenomena. Data are recordings or reports that are

perceptually accessible (Mouton and Marais, 1991). Thus, they are observable and

open to public inspection. Phenomena are not, in general, observable. The

importance of data lies in the fact that they serve as evidence for the phenomena

under investigation (Mouton and Marais, 1991). In extracting phenomena from the

data, researchers often engage in data reduction using statistical methods. Generally

speaking, statistical methods are of direct help in the detection of phenomena, but not

in the construction of explanatory theories (Mouton and Marais, 1991).

It is important to realise that reliability of data forms the basis for claiming that

phenomena exist. In establishing that data are reliable evidence for the existence of

phenomena, we control variously for confounding factors (experimentally and

statistically). While reliability is the basis for justifying claims about phenomena, we

will see later that judgments about explanatory coherence are the appropriate grounds

for theory acceptance.

The notion of robustness, which has long been considered important in science,

carries with it the idea that there need to be multiple means for establishing the nature

and existence of phenomena. Strategies of multiple determinations are important

because they are the major means by which we establish the reliability needed to

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


37

justify claims about phenomena (Mouton and Marais, 1991).

Internal validity will naturally precede external validity (or generalisability). The

most important threats to internal and external validity are: invalid constructs,

inaccurate measurements, unreliable data, invalid conclusions and non-representative

sampling.

4.2.3.1 Primary Data Collection

The researchers recognise that data and methodology are inextricably interdependent.

It is for this reason that the research methodology will be dictated by the data to be

collected.

Surveys and questionnaires are the most popular data collection method in business

studies (Ghauri, Grohnaug and Kristianslund, 1995: 58). The major types of

questionnaires are descriptive and/or analytical. Questions and variables are included

in analytical surveys. Independent, dependent and extraneous variables are controlled

through statistical techniques (Ghauri, Grohnaug and Kristianslund, 1995: 59). On

the other hand, descriptive surveys are concerned with identifying the phenomena

whose variance we wish to describe. Here the focus is more on a representative

sample of the relevant population than on the analytical design, as researchers are

concerned principally with the accuracy of the findings and their generalisability

(Ghauri, Grohnaug and Kristianslund, 1995).

The researchers decided that the most relevant technique to collect the data required

to prove or disprove the research hypotheses, and answer the research question, will

be obtained through a descriptive survey. This survey was informed by the outcomes

of the exploratory research, as well as relevant literature.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


38

4.2.3.2 Sampling

Sampling is necessary to find out what is typical of the whole, by gathering data from

a representative portion of the population. Sampling designs can be divided into

probability sampling and non-probability sampling designs. In a non-probability

sample, the probability that a particular unit will be included in the sample is

unknown. In a probability sample, all units have known, but not necessarily equal,

probabilities of being included (Ghauri, Grohnaug and Kristianslund; 1995).

The researchers chose a probability sample, using the stratified random sampling

technique. The reason this was preferred to a simple random sampling technique was

to ensure that Debswana’s three operations, as well as respondents from different job-

grades, get better representation. Ghauri, Grohnaug and Kristianslund (1995) list the

following advantages of stratified random sampling over simple random sampling:

1. can give higher precision with the same sample size, or alternatively the same

precision with a smaller sample;

2. can also give separate results for each stratum; and

3. simplifies the data collection.

Population details are presented in Table 4.2. The population was stratified by

respondent geography (operation) and designation (Patterson grading system as in

Appendix 5) according to the following criteria:

• operation: Jwaneng, OLD Mines, and Head Office,

• grade: C-band, D-band and E-band.

The D-band and E-band target populations are both absolute numbers including both

upper (U) and lower (L) categories within the grades. The C-band target population is

an estimate (15% of the total C-band population) based on the number of artisans,

graduates, and operators with O-levels.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


39

Table 4.2: Stratified Target Population Details

Grade OLD Mines Jwaneng Head Office Total

E-band (U&L) 13 10 11 34

D-band (U&L) 160 111 15 286

C-band* 132 92 14 238

Total 305 213 41 558 * estimates based on the number of graduates, artisans, and operators with at least O-levels

A response rate of 25% for each of the overall categories was considered desirable.

4.2.3.3 Questionnaire Design

A structured questionnaire (i.e., a fixed response format) was preferred over the

unstructured (or open-ended questionnaire), because it was considered simpler to

structure the data for analysis (see Appendix 3).

The front page of the questionnaire contained:

(i) Brief definitions of Knowledge as described by Bender and Fish (2000:

126), Knowledge Management as described by Bukowitz and Williams

(1999) and Skyrme (1999), as well as Coaching (Gerich, 2001) and

Mentoring (Mind, 1993:26);

(ii) The purpose of the questionnaire; and

(iii) A note on the confidentiality of the information.

Questions were designed to assess the KM business enablers previously discussed, as

follows:

Questions 1.1 to 1.14: People and Process Management (P&PM),

Questions 2.1 to 2.22: Organisational Culture and Structure (OC&S),

Questions 3.1 to 3.5: Performance Measurement (PM),

Questions 4.1 to 4.7: Organisational Strategy and Planning (OS&P),

Questions 5.1 to 5.12: Information Management and Technology (IM&T).

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


40

Question-ratings were based on a 5-point Likert score, which allowed for statistical

manipulation.

The questionnaire was web-based, and responses were automatically captured in a

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

4.2.3.4 Data Analysis

All the data was numeric in nature. The data was transferred from spreadsheet to

STATISTICA v6.0 so that the necessary statistical analyses could be processed

conveniently. The level of significance used for highlighting differences was chosen

as 5% (i.e., p-values < 0.050 represent significant differences).

4.2.3.4.1 Descriptive Statistics

The percentage respondents and the sample percent per section were determined first.

Thereafter, each of the sixty questions was analysed to generate the following

descriptive statistics: mean, median, maximum, minimum, variance, standard

deviation, standard error, and skewness coefficient. These results were also generated

for each business enabler (as defined in Section 3.5.1), represented by the mean of the

corresponding questions, as well as a variable for overall readiness, represented by

the mean of the five business enablers. The actual data and descriptive statistics are

presented in Appendix 6.

4.2.3.4.2 t-Test for Single Means

A single sample t-test was used to test the means of all individual questions, the

means of each business enabler, as well as the overall readiness variable against a

reference constant of 3.0. The output of the test included mean values, standard

deviations, standard errors, degrees of freedom, t-values, as well as p-values for all

the variables. These results are presented in Appendix 7.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


41

Graphical presentations of these results for all variables are also shown in categorised

box-and-whisker plots in Appendix 7. The box is represented by ± the standard error

(SE), and the whisker is represented by ± 1.96 times the standard error (1.96*SE).

Presentation of the results in this format highlights significant differences between

individual variables and the reference constant (3.0).

4.2.3.4.3 Measures of Association

The main applications of factor analytic techniques are to:

1. to reduce the number of variables, and

2. detect structure in the relationships between variables, that is to classify

variables.

Therefore, factor analysis was applied as a data reduction or structure detection

method to find and group latent variables in the overall data set, as well as for each

business enabler. The first factor is generally more highly correlated with the

variables than the second factor. This is because factors are extracted successively

and will account for less and less variance overall. Results of the factor analysis,

including Eigenvalues, factor loadings, and a scree plot are presented Appendix 9.

4.2.3.4.4 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

The least significant difference (LSD) method was used to analyse significant

differences for business enablers and overall readiness for each of the following

grouping variables:

• operation (Jwaneng, OLD Mines, and Head Office);

• grade (D band, C band, and E band);

• length of service in years: <3 years, 4 to 10 years (4/10), 11 to 15 years

(11/15), and >15 years; and

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


42

• length in current position in years: <3 years, 4 to 10 years (4/10), 11 to 15

years (11/15), and >15 years.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


43

5. DATA ANALYSIS

5.1 Exploratory Research

A summary of the transcribed semi-structured interviews with Debswana EXCO is

presented in Appendix 4. This summary includes both examples of comments made

by EXCO members, as well as key findings.

5.2 Primary Research

5.2.1 Sample Details

The percentage of total respondents and percentage for each stratification variable

(operation and grade) were determined first. The overall response rate was

approximately 33% (184 from a possible population of 558). This ensured

approximately 25% representation of the population for all the categories in both

operation and grade. Discussions with Professor T. Wegner (UCT Statistics)

confirmed that this representation was acceptable. The absolute numbers and

percentage responses are presented in Table 5.1.

Tale 5.1: Sample Details for Individual Operations and Grades

Operation Grade Sample

Representation Jwaneng OLD

Mines

Head

Office

C-Band D-Band E-Band

Number of

respondents

98 76 10 74 88 22

% of population 46 25 25 31 31 65

Pie charts for the sample were constructed and split by operation, grade, length of

organisational service, as well as length in current position. These are presented in

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


44

Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Sample Details Grouped by Operation, Grade, Length of Operational

Service, and Length in Current Position

Operation

Head Office, 10

OLD Mines, 76 Jwaneng, 98

Grade

D Band, 88

E band, 22

C Band, 74

Length of Organisational Service

4/10, 59

11/15, 26

< 3, 46

> 15, 53

Length in Current Position

< 3, 86

11/15, 10

> 15, 21

4/10, 67

5.2.2 Readiness Assessment

Basic descriptive statistics is presented in Appendix 6. Because of the large sample

size and number of questions for each business enabler, moderate skewness for

individual questions were deemed acceptable as recommended by Professor T.

Wegner. This allowed the researchers to continue with t-tests and significance testing

without altering the sample data.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


45

5.2.2.1 Organisational-Level Readiness

Results of the t-test for each business enabler are shown in Table 5.2. These include

the mean value and p-value for each of the business enablers, as well as the overall

readiness variable. The highlighted p-values indicate mean values significantly

different to the reference constant of 3.0 chosen to test the hypothesis. The standard

deviation (Std. Dev.), number of respondents (N), standard error of the mean (Std.

Err.), t-value, and degrees of freedom (df), for the individual questions, each business

enabler, as well as for the overall readiness variable are presented in Appendix 7.

Table 5.2: Mean Values for Business Enablers to Assess Readiness

Business Enablers Mean p-value People and Process Management (P&PM) 3.18 0.0000 Organisational Culture and Structure (OC&S) 3.14 0.0001 Performance Measurement (PM) 3.36 0.0000 Organisational Strategy and Planning (OS&P) 3.50 0.0000 Information Management and Technology (IM&T) 3.34 0.0000 Overall Readiness 3.30 0.0000

All the mean values are significantly greater than 3.0. These results are also presented

in a categorized box-and-whisker plot (see Figure 5.2) summarising the range of mean

values and the spread of data.

The categorised box-and-whisker pots for individual questions, representing each

business enabler, are presented in Appendix 8. A summary of the questions with

mean values significantly less than 3.0, as well as the emergent concerns, are

presented in Table 5.3.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


46

Figure 5.2: Business Enabler Categorised Box-and-Whisker Plot

Mean ±SE

±1.96*SE P&PMOC&S

PMOS&P

IM&TOverall

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Table 5.3: Individual Questions with Mean Values Significantly Less Than 3.0

Question

No. (Q)

Mean

Value

Emergent concern

People and Process Management

1.4 2.37 Encouragement of risk-taking

1.5 2.74 Encouragement of experimentation

1.6 2.58 Employee promotion linked to acquiring and sharing knowledge

1.8 2.64 Thinking creatively to solve problems

1.13 2.81 More team-based rewards than for individual performance

1.14 2.59 Employee motivation to share knowledge and experiences

Organisational Culture and Structure

2.8 2.80 Sharing lessons from experiences is an established practice

2.9 2.74 People take time to reflect on key issues after projects end

2.12 2.57 People are encouraged to acknowledge and share their failures

2.13 2.71 Disagreement is an opportunity to learn

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


47

2.18 2.64 The organization is flexible rather than rigid

Organisational Strategy and Planning

4.4 2.80 We sit down at least once annually and decide what information,

knowledge, and work practices are relevant going forward

Information Management and Technology

5.1 2.81 Sharing knowledge and experiences is possible without IT

5.5 2.63 Established ways for employees to document and share experiences and

learning are well embedded into organisational work routines and used

frequently by employees.

5.8 2.62 The Intranet is used extensively to share knowledge and experiences.

5.2.2.2 Operational-Level Readiness

Individual operations were also assessed for readiness. The mean values for each

business enabler as well as for the overall readiness variable are presented in Table

5.4. The spread of data between operations per readiness criteria is shown in Figure

5.3.

Table 5.4: Mean Values for Business Enablers between Operations

Business Enabler Jwaneng OLD Mines Head OfficePeople and Process Management 3.20 3.17 3.04 Organisational Culture and Structure 3.16 3.13 3.02 Performance Measurement 3.37 3.36 3.30 Organisational Strategy and Planning 3.54 3.48 3.23 Information Management and Technology 3.42 3.26 3.13 Overall Readiness 3.34 3.28 3.14

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to establish whether significant

differences for each of the business enablers existed between operations. The only

significant difference was for the ‘Information Management and Technology’ criteria.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


48

Jwaneng has a significantly greater result than the OLD Mines (p = 0.0412). There

are two questions whose results significantly influence this result. These are

presented in Table 5.5.

Figure 5.3: Categorised Box-and-Whisker Plot Highlighting Differences between

Operations for Business Enablers and Overall Readiness Jw

anen

g

OLD

Min

es

Hea

d O

ffic

e

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Peop

le a

nd P

erfo

rman

ceM

anag

emen

t

Jwan

eng

OLD

Min

es

Hea

d O

ffic

e2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

Org

anis

atio

nal C

ultu

re a

ndSt

ruct

ure

Jwan

eng

OLD

Min

es

Hea

d O

ffic

e2.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.8

Perf

orm

ance

Mea

sure

men

t

Jwan

eng

OLD

Min

es

Hea

d O

ffic

e2.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.7

Org

anis

atio

nal S

trate

gy a

ndPl

anni

ng

Jwan

eng

OLD

Min

es

Hea

d O

ffic

e2.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.6

Info

rmat

ion

Man

agem

ent &

Tech

nolo

gy

Jwan

eng

OLD

Min

es

Hea

d O

ffic

e

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

Ove

rall

Rea

dine

ss

Table 5.5: Individual Questions with Significant Differences between Operations

Mean values Question Number (Q)

Jwaneng OLD Mines

p-

value

5.7 Information is a resource that is shared between all

departments and operations in our organisation.

3.43 3.09 0.0316

5.8 The Intranet is being used extensively by all

employees for sharing knowledge and experiences.

2.85 2.34 0.0001

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


49

5.2.3 Business Enabler Analysis

5.2.3.1 Factor analysis

5.2.3.1.1 Overall Factor Analysis

Factor analysis on the questionnaire data set produced 17 principal factor components

that accounted for over 68% of variance in the data (see Appendix 9). Inspection of

the scree plot presented in Appendix 9 shows that the graph flattens out after factor 5.

Hence, the 5 most important factors that emerged in decreasing order of importance

are summarized in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Themes for the Overall Factor Analysis

Factor Question No.

(Loadings)

Emergent Themes

F1 Q 2.7 (0.719) Sharing of knowledge and experiences

F2 Q 4.7 (0.812) Implementation will result in better participation

F3 Q 5.9 (0.778) IT systems as a business enabler

F4 Q 2.10 (0.785)

Q 2.11 (0.763)

Learning through feedback

F5 Q 1.12 (0.759) Motivation through non-financial company benefits

5.2.3.1.2 Factor Analysis for each Business Enabler

The factor loadings for individual questions representing each business enabler are

also presented in Appendix 9.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


50

a. People and Process Management

Four principal factors accounting for more than 53% of variance in the data were

extracted from the 14 questions related to this business enabler. These are

summarized in the following table.

Table 5.7: Themes for Factors Associated with People and Process Management

Factor Question No.

(Loadings)

Emergent Themes

F1 Q 1.11 (0.758)

Q 1.5 (0.671)

Q 1.4 (0.664)

Management commitment to employee development

Encouragement of experimentation and of risk-taking

F2 Q 1.10 (0.839)

Q 1.9 (0.832)

Motivation through participation in key decisions and challenging

work assignments

F3 Q 1.3 (0.720)

Q 1.2 (0.666)

Motivation of knowledge acquisition and sharing through

incentives

F4 Q 1.12 (0.773) Motivation through non-financial company benefits

b. Organisational Culture and Structure

Five principal factors accounting for more than 59% of variance in the data were


summarized in Table 5.8.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


51

Table 5.8: Themes for Factors Associated with Organisational Culture and

Structure

Factor Question No.

(Loadings)

Emergent Themes

F1 Q 2.8 (0.745)

Q 2.7 (0.734)

Q 2.3 (0.732)

Sharing of knowledge and experiences

F2 Q 2.10 (0.863)

Q 2.11 (0.849)

Learning through feedback

F3 Q 2.16 (-0.70)

Q 2.18 (0.691)

Organisational flexibility and hierarchy

F4 Q 2.5 (0.703) Incentives for individual knowledge

F5 Q2.6 (-0.813) External learning applied to work

c. Performance Measurement

Two principal factors accounting for more than 66% of variance in the data were

extracted from the 5 questions related to this business enabler. These are summarized

in the following table:

Table 5.9: Themes for Factors Associated with Performance Measurement

Factor Question No.

(Loadings)

Emergent Themes

F1 Q 3.1 (0.917)

Q 3.2 (0.890)

Value of KM at an organisational level must be built into

individual performance management system

F2 Q 3.4 (0.832)

Q 3.5 (0.750)

Use of new ideas to assess success of a KM strategy, which will

ultimately contribute to improved financial performance

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


52

d. Organisational Strategy and Planning

Three principal factors accounting for more than 70% of variance in the data were

extracted from the 7 questions related to this business enabler. These are summarized

in Table 5.10.

Table 5.10: Themes for Factors Associated with Organisational Strategy and

Planning

Factor Question No.

(Loadings)

Emergent Themes

F1 Q 4.7 (0.859)

Q 4.6 (0.807)

KM implementation will result in better employee participation

and focus on best practices

F2 Q 4.4 (0.850)

Q 4.5 (0.840)

Knowledge requirement assessment when allocating resources

F3 Q 4.1 (0.898)

Q 4.2 (0.871)

Understanding of the organisational strategy and alignment of

work accordingly

e. Information Management and Technology

Four principal factors accounting for more than 63% of variance in the data were


summarized in the following table.

Table 5.11: Themes for Factors Associated with Information Management

and Technology

Factor Question No.

(Loadings)

Emergent Themes

F1 Q 5.6 (0.740)

Q 5.9 (0.726)

IT infrastructure and systems as an enabler to connect to

information requirements

F2 Q 5.11 (0.749) IT allows ease of access to information and best practices

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


53

Q 5.3 (0.712)

Q 5.2 (0.703)

F3 Q 5.5 (0.892)

Q 5.4 (0.824)

IT must support the capturing and sharing of knowledge as the way

business is done

F4 Q 5.1 (-0.843) IT is an enabler for sharing knowledge and experiences

5.2.3.2 Significant Differences per Grouping Variable

There are three other grouping variables, aside from ‘Operation’, that allow further

analysis of the data set.

• Grade (C band, D band and E band);

• Length of organizational service in years (4/10, 11/15, >15, <3); and

• Length in current position (4/10, 11/15, >15, <3).

The ANOVA results showing significant differences between individual questions for

the above three grouping variables are presented in Appendix 10. These results will

be useful in developing a framework for implementation.

5.2.3.2.1 Grade

Figure 5.4 shows differences for the business enablers as well as for the overall

readiness between the grades. The results indicate that the C-band respondents score

significantly higher than the D-band respondents for all enablers. They also score

significantly higher than the E-band respondents in terms of ‘Performance

Measurement’ and ‘Information Management and Technology’. These differences

influence the result of overall readiness.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


54

Figure 5.4: Categorised Box-and-Whisker Plot Showing Differences between

Grades of Respondents

D BandC Band

E band2.95

3.00

3.05

3.10

3.15

3.20

3.25

3.30

3.35

3.40Pe

ople

and

Pro

cess

Man

agem

ent

D BandC Band

E band2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

Org

anis

atio

nal C

ultu

re a

nd S

truct

ure

D BandC Band

E band2.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.8

Perf

orm

ance

Mea

sure

men

t

D BandC Band

E band3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

Org

anis

atio

nal S

trate

gy a

ndPl

anni

ng

D BandC Band

E band2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

Info

rmat

ion

Man

agem

ent a

ndTe

chno

logy

D BandC Band

E band3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Ove

rall

Rea

dine

ss

5.2.3.2.2 Length of Organizational Service

There are no significant differences from an overall readiness perspective between

respondents of varying lengths of organizational service. Indications are that

respondents who have less than 3 years service and those that have greater than 15

years service believe the organisation is more ready than the other two groups – but

this result is not significant (see Figure 5.5).

On comparison of the business enablers, the only significant result is for

‘Organisational Culture and Structure’. Respondents who have greater than 15 years

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


55

service score significantly higher than those who have spent between 4 to 10 years at

Debswana.


Respondents of Varying Length of Organisational Service

4/1011/15

> 15< 3

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Peop

le a

nd P

roce

ss M

anag

emen

t

4/1011/15

> 15< 3

2.852.902.953.003.053.103.153.203.253.303.353.40

Org

anis

atio

nal C

ultu

re a

ndSt

ruct

ure

4/1011/15

> 15< 3

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

Perf

orm

ance

Mea

sure

men

t

4/1011/15

> 15< 3

3.30

3.35

3.40

3.45

3.50

3.55

3.60

3.65

3.70

3.75

Org

anis

atio

nal S

trate

gy a

ndPl

anni

ng

4/1011/15

> 15< 3

3.103.153.203.253.303.353.403.453.503.553.60

Info

rmat

ion

Man

agem

ent a

ndTe

chno

logy

4/1011/15

> 15< 3

3.10

3.15

3.20

3.25

3.30

3.35

3.40

3.45

3.50

3.55

Ove

rall

Rea

dine

ss

5.2.3.2.3 Length in Current Position

There are no significant differences between respondents of varying lengths in their

current positions for each of the business enablers, as well as for overall readiness

(see Figure 5.6). The following two trends emerge:

• employees who have spent more than 15 years in the current roles score higher

than all other employees; and

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


56

• employees who have spent between 11 and 15 years in their current roles

score the lowest.

Neither of these are significant results.


Respondents of Varying Length in Current Position

< 34/10

> 1511/15

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Peop

le a

nd P

roce

ss M

anag

emen

t

< 34/10

> 1511/15

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Org

anis

atio

nal C

ultu

re a

ndSt

ruct

ure

< 34/10

> 1511/15

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

Perf

orm

ance

Mea

sure

men

t

< 34/10

> 1511/15

3.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.0

Org

anis

atio

nal S

trate

gy a

ndPl

anni

ng

< 34/10

> 1511/15

2.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.7

Info

rmat

ion

Man

agem

ent a

ndTe

chno

logy

< 34/10

> 1511/15

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

Ove

rall

Rea

dine

ss

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


57

6. KEY FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION

This section summarizes the findings of both the exploratory and primary research,

and answers the following research question:

Is Debswana ready for successful implementation of a KM strategy?

6.1 Exploratory Research Findings

Exploratory research findings were based on interpretation of semi-structured

interviews with Debswana EXCO. A summary of transcriptions is presented in

Appendix 4.

Finding 1: Benchmarking

The company EXCO is not aware of what competitors outside the De Beers group of

companies are doing with respect to the development of knowledge.

de Jager (1999) highlights the importance of benchmarking. She suggests that a

knowledge centre can use benchmarking to measure and compare their processes with

those in other knowledge centres. The knowledge centre's performance can be

increased by adopting the best practices of the knowledge centre's benchmarking

partners. She adds that the benefits of benchmarking to the knowledge worker are

that management can be shown the value of the knowledge management function in

numerical terms. It shows that the knowledge worker is proactive and devoted to total

quality.

Further, benchmarking can help to set realistic, quantifiable goals based on superior

knowledge service practices. The results from the study can be used to prevent a

budget cut or knowledge service outsourcing. Benchmarking can help to increase the

knowledge service's performance and improve its work processes. Benchmarking can

result in a reduction of costs, improved customer service and increased system

efficiencies. These improvements can help the knowledge service to attract new

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


58

customers while retaining old ones and can enhance the reputation of the knowledge

worker (de Jager, 1999: 368). Hence, the researchers recommend that benchmarking

be incorporated in the development of an implementation framework.

Finding 2: Debswana’s knowledge assets

The EXCO believes that Debswana’s knowledge assets include:

• Intellectual capital, specifically people. The emphasis is on people’s

knowledge and experiences.

• Information stored both in hard copies and electronic media.

This view is supported by Demarest (1997), who shares the understanding that

knowledge can be either explicit or implicit. The former is tangible, being clearly

stated and consisting of details which can be recorded and stored. Implicit or tacit

knowledge is often unstated, based on individual experience and, therefore, difficult

to record and store. Mapping the existing knowledge assets, and developing an

understanding of their strengths and weaknesses should be done by Debswana as part

of the KM implementation plan.

Finding 3: Responsibility for knowledge capture

Everyone should be responsible for capturing knowledge through an established

process or system. However, there should be an appointed driver from EXCO to

oversee the process.

The importance of a leader is a universal theme. In a case-study on BP’s KM team

(Gorelick and April, 2000), participants confirmed the importance of a leader’s role

but were most emphatic when they described personal characteristics. “Charismatic”

was the most frequently used term. “Powerful”, “a presence” and “strong” were other

adjectives associated with the leader. The combination of the leader’s position,

appointment by EXCO, and personality will be key factors in the team’s success,

particularly at start-up.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


59

Finding 4: Knowledge requirements plan

Debswana does not have a knowledge requirements plan for the next 3-5 years.

However, the company has started looking at implementing a KM strategy and as part

of that process, a knowledge requirement plan will be drawn up.

The researchers have previously highlighted the importance of determining the

knowledge needed as part of the knowledge value chain (see Figure 3.2 on page 8).

This will be the cornerstone for articulating deliverables from a KM strategy, and

must be an initial consideration in developing a KM implementation framework.

Soliman and Spooner (2000) also emphasise the role of knowledge mapping in the

identification of strategic and knowledge gaps.

Finding 5: Benefits of KM

The EXCO members believe that KM implementation will result in productivity

improvements through:

• Reduction in mistakes;

• No “reinvention of the wheel”;

• Access to best practices within the company and from outside; and

• Focus on value-adding work.

These are of a similar nature to the benefits described by McAdam and Reid (2000).

Demarest (1997) narrowly describes KM benefits as ultimately the production of

commercial value for the customer. However, the argument by McAdam and Reid

(2000) is that business improvement methods, in general, must widen their objectives

to embrace the mutually supporting objectives of increased business and employee

benefits. They link innovation to business benefits. Employee benefits can include

the conferment of status, e.g., the expert status of knowledge workers. Also, there is a

resultant increased autonomy and the intrinsic benefit of increased learning.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


60

Ahmed, Lim and Zairi (1999: 311) list further benefits of KM as a strategy:

• reduces the loss of intellectual capital from employees who leave;

• reduces the cost of development of a new product/service;

• increases the productivity of workers by making knowledge accessible to all

employees; and

• therefore increases employee satisfaction.

Debswana should therefore formulate a business case that is inclusive of such

benefits. This would enable the company to successfully ‘sell’ the KM initiative to

the workforce.

Finding 6: Barriers to KM implementation

The EXCO members see key barriers as:

• Silo-type organisational structures;

• Poor employee buy-in due to:

o Fear of loss of knowledge, and therefore power;

o Increased workload;

o “Change fatigue”;

o Lack of incentives: “What’s in it for me”;

o KM being seen as an initiative that would potentially lead to job losses;

o Inadequate understanding of where KM adds value; and

• Time constraints.

EXCO members recognize the importance of organisatonal culture and performance

management as key to KM implementation (as discussed in Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3

respectively). Further to these two enablers, lack of time has been repeatedly

identified as a major barrier to institutionalization of the KM team techniques

(Gorelick and April, 2000).

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


61

Finding 7: Knowledge capture process

EXCO members believe that current knowledge capture happens in unstructured

ways. They see knowledge capture happening through:

• Reports;

• Project work;

• Ideas and suggestion schemes;

• Electronic knowledge assets; and

• Written policies and procedures.

The researchers perceive these processes as a good basis for knowledge capture.

However, a proposed implementation framework should include a system that

formalises each of the above as best practices to the varying types of work.

Finding 8: Knowledge sharing systems

EXCO members believe that knowledge sharing happens through:

• Intranets;

• E-mail;

• “Green Areas”;

• Cross-functional information sharing sessions;

• Training sessions;

• Presentations; and

• Mentoring.

However, they see these ways as being ineffective for optimal knowledge sharing.

Adams and Freeman (2000: 43) suggest that if KM is to be implemented, it can only

be done so successfully if a community of practice (CoP) is in place. A CoP is a well

documented knowledge sharing system, where knowledge is self-generating and

perpetuating, and transfer is an intrinsic aspect of its functioning. Basically, CoP’s

are groups that form to share what they know, and to learn from one another regarding

some aspects of their work (Nickols, 2000). Debswana’s initiative should thus

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


62

consider cultivation of CoP’s.

Finding 9: Culture for acquisition and sharing of knowledge

In general, the EXCO members believe that the culture is not yet conducive for

motivating employees to acquire and share knowledge. The key concern raised is that

the culture promotes individualism, and is seen to be encouraging the “knowledge is

power” concept. They however, point to evidence that the culture is changing for the

better, and cite the following as examples.

• Ideas and suggestion schemes; and

• Acceptance of risk-taking and experimentation, and tolerance of failure.

Davenport and Prusack (1998) have highlighted similar concerns about knowledge

sharing as individuals and groups. They suggest that individuals may not understand

each other, may feel threatened by new developments, and may be unwilling to

tolerate the mistakes or ambiguity that will surely occur during the process of

knowledge transfer. In addition, groups of people may judge themselves to be the

main owners of certain types of knowledge, and also judge that their status will be

lowered if such knowledge is shared. Hence, successful knowledge acquisition and

sharing will need a change to the organizational culture at Debswana. An

implementation framework must address this accordingly.

Finding 10: Role of Organisational Culture in KM implementation

EXCO members believe that organisational culture plays a vital role in enabling

successful implementation of KM. They all emphasise the role of management in

creating a culture that is supportive to KM, and suggest that the culture should:

• support risk-taking and experimentation;

• support learning and sharing; and

• encourage transparency through open communication.

The role of organisational culture as an enabler in KM implementation has been

described briefly in Section 3.5.2. Further to this, McDermott and O’Dell (2001: 84)

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


63

have found that overcoming ‘‘cultural barriers’’ to sharing knowledge has more to do

with how you design and implement the knowledge management effort than with

changing your culture. From their experience, they have derived five summary

lessons about aligning knowledge sharing with the organisation culture:

1. To create a knowledge sharing culture, make a visible connection between

sharing knowledge and practical business goals, problems or results.

2. While benchmarking is essential, it is far more important to match the overall

style of your organization than to directly copy the practices developed by

other organizations. To make sharing knowledge a natural step, think through

how effective change happens in your organization. Make the visible artefacts

of knowledge sharing – the events, language, Web sites – match the style of

the organization, even if you intend to lead it into new behaviour and

approach.

3. Link sharing knowledge to widely held core values. Do not expect people to

share their ideas and insights simply because it is the right thing to do. Appeal

to something deeper. By linking with core values of the organization, you

make sharing knowledge consistent with peers’ expectations and managers’

considerations. Align your language, systems and approach with those values.

The values, you link to, do not need to obviously support sharing knowledge,

but people do need to genuinely believe in them. They cannot simply be the

"espoused values" in the company’s mission statement.

4. Human networks are one of the key vehicles for sharing knowledge. To build

a sharing culture, enhance the networks that already exist. Enable them with

tools, resources and legitimization.

5. Recruit the support of people in your organization who already share ideas and

insights. Ask influential people and managers to encourage and even pressure

people to share their knowledge. Build sharing knowledge into routine

performance appraisal. Other people’s behaviour, like alignment with

business results and core values, is a powerful determinant of one’s own

behaviour.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


64

The researchers hence suggest that an implementation framework is developed to

match Debswana’s distinctive values, style and culture. Specifically, management of

change as part of the implementation should be dictated by the circumstances unique

to Debswana.

Finding 11: Role of IT in successful implementation

Technology is viewed as an enabler that facilitates capturing, storage and sharing of

information or knowledge. EXCO members give examples of the Internet, Intranets,

e-mail and bulletin boards as typical technologies for use in KM.

Gorelick and April (2000), in a case study on BP’s knowledge management team

confirm the importance of IT as an enabler. However, respondents stated that even

though they could not have functioned as a virtual project team without collaborative

technology, they were aware that the technology without other structuring variables

(e.g., roles, norms, leadership, reward and recognition, education and development)

and sense-making variables (e.g., values, language, scripts, and schema) would not

have produced organizational learning.

Lee and Hong (2002) make the point that although technology changes rapidly and

tracking new inventions is not simple, organizations need to monitor the trend of new

technologies in order to recognize new applications that may provide competitive

advantage. They also stress that IT will play a key role in implementing KM, and that

especially the Intranet and Web technology will be the central infrastructure of

knowledge-based organizations.

Drawing from these insights, and given the level of awareness that the EXCO team

has, Debswana should leverage KM value from existing IT. The company also needs

to continually scan the technology landscape for new developments in IT that could

enhance KM value. Hence, it is essential that the role of IT as an enabler should be

clearly articulated in the implementation plan.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


65

Finding 12: KM assessment

EXCO members believe that measuring KM contribution to the financial performance

of the company may not be so obvious, especially in the short-term. However, they

view the use of the balanced scorecard approach as an effective way of tracking KM

implementation.

This view is supported by literature on performance management in Section 3.5.3, as

well as by Ahmed, Lim and Zairi (1999), and Arora (2002). Ahmed, Lim and Zairi

(1999) support the view that traditional measures need to be supplemented with non-

financial measures to give a much fuller picture and a more relevant management

progress tracking system. Ahmed, Lim and Zairi (1999) have developed a knowledge

measurement matrix. It combines a COST model (Customer, Organisation, Supplier,

Technology) and four steps for KM (capture, share, measuring and learning). The

matrix helps in obtaining a deeper understanding of how KM affects the organization

as a whole, and it also prompts practitioners to look at all the various aspects of

implementing KM. It forces the practitioner to consider all factors, “soft” as well as

“hard” factors and it also forces managers to link KM to the overall organization's

policy and strategy.

More recently, Arora (2002) has suggested that the balanced scorecard (BSC) helps

the company to align its management processes, and focuses the entire organisation to

implementing KM. He writes that the BSC provides a framework for managing the

implementation of KM, while also allowing dynamic changes in the knowledge

strategy in view of changes in the organisational strategy, competitiveness and

innovation.

Debswana is in a position to use the BSC for KM since they have already

implemented it company-wide. The challenge is to define the appropriate measures

and baselines for tracking KM implementation. de Waal and Fourman (2000: 49)

write that in different organisations, the leading indicators (e.g., innovation, people, or

learning measures) are different, but the idea of a balanced scorecard is to combine

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


66

lagging indicators (e.g., financial measures) and leading indicators to give an

understanding of where the organisation is and where it is going. Different

organisations also choose different perspectives, but the principle is the same, a

‘balanced’ set of measures that allow an organisation to measure the cause and effect

chain by which customer and shareholder value is created. This clearly should be

given attention when developing the implementation framework.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


67

6.2 Primary Research Findings

Finding 13: Organisational readiness

The mean values for overall readiness, as well as for all the business enablers, are

significantly greater than three. Hence, we accept the null hypothesis that Debswana

is ready for implementation of a KM strategy. There are, however, concerns indicated

by responses to individual questions relating to ‘People and Process Management’

and ‘Organisational Culture and Structure’ (see Table 5.2). The following emergent

themes summarise significant differences less than 3.0:

• Encouragement of risk-taking and experimentation;

• Motivation to share knowledge and experiences;

• Sharing experiences is an established practice;

• Encouragement to acknowledge and share failures; and

• Organisational flexibility.

There is a correlation between the above themes and Finding 9, where EXCO

members were concerned about the organizational culture. Despite their belief that

acceptance of risk-taking and experimentation, and tolerance of failure, are

increasing, the overall opinion is that it has not increased to an acceptable level.

Further, EXCO considers lack of incentives and silo-type organisational structures as

barriers to implementation (Finding 6). Hence, another concern is that the overall

scores for motivation to share knowledge and experiences, as well as organizational

flexibility, are significantly lower than 3.0.

The most important theme emerging from the overall factor analysis (F1 in Table 5.5)

emphasises the importance of knowledge sharing. Despite Debswana being ready

overall, and acknowledging the importance of a sharing culture, there is cause for

concern in that sharing experiences is currently not an established practice. Any

proposed implementation plan must seek to address this, by for example cultivating

communities of practice.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


68

Finding 14: Operational-level readiness

All mean values for each business enabler at the three operations are greater than 3.0

(see Table 5.3), confirming that all operations are ready. Jwaneng is significantly

more ready than OLD Mines in terms of ‘Information Management and Technology’.

This result is driven by the view that more information sharing between departments

and operations happens at Jwaneng. Further, the Intranet appears to be used more

extensively for sharing knowledge and experiences at Jwaneng than at OLD Mines.

Hence, an ‘Information Management and Technology’ usage audit across sites may be

useful in understanding the key differences that affect this result.

Finding 15: Business enabler analysis

Table 6.1 summarises the most important themes associated with each business

enabler.

Table 6.1: Important Themes Associated with Business Enablers

Business Enabler Important Themes

People and Process

Management

Management commitment to employee development;

Encouragement of experimentation and of risk-taking;

Motivation of employees.

Organisational

Culture and Structure

Sharing of knowledge and experiences; Learning; Organisational

flexibility.

Performance

Measurement

Organisational value of KM must be built into individual

performance management system.

Organisational

Strategy and

Planning

KM implementation to focus on employee participation and best

practices; Resource allocation by senior management should be

dictated by knowledge needs assessment.

Information

Management and

Technology

IT infrastructure and systems as an enabler to connect to

information requirements; IT allowing ease of access to

information and best practices.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


69

Some of these themes are similar to the findings of exploratory research, while some

may be used to augment exploratory research findings when developing a framework

for KM implementation. Examples include:

Finding 3 concludes that everyone should be responsible for knowledge

capture through an established process. An important theme emerging from

analysis of the ‘Performance Measurement’ enabler takes this point further to

recommend that the value of KM be built into the individual performance

management system.

Finding 4 concludes that Debswana does not currently have a knowledge

requirements plan, and highlights the importance of one as a prerequisite for a

KM implementation framework. A theme emerging from analysis of the

‘Organisational Strategy and Planning’ enabler suggests that senior

management should use the knowledge requirements plan to allocate

resources.

Finding 6 lists employee-incentives amongst others, as potential barriers to

KM implementation. An important theme emerging from analysis of the

‘People and Process Management’ enabler supports the view that employee

motivation will be critical in developing a framework for KM implementation.

Finding 9 concludes that the culture may not yet be conducive for motivating

employees to acquire and share knowledge, and that acceptance of risk-taking

and experimentation may improve this. Another important theme from

‘People and Process Management’ confirms that risk-taking and

experimentation should be encouraged.

Finding 16: Differences between the grades

The C-band respondents are of a significantly greater opinion that the organisation is

ready to implement a KM strategy when compared to both the D-band respondents

and E-band respondents. A summary of the emergent themes and individual

questions that have significant bearing on each business enabler is shown in Figure

6.1.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


70

The researchers consider this finding a paradox in that the strategy developers and

managers (E- and D- band respondents respectively) are less ready than the

employees they manage (C-band respondents). It also suggests that there may be

some informal sharing of knowledge and experiences at the C-band level that is not

obvious to management and EXCO. This is, however, verification that the

organisation as a whole is ready, and could result in an easier implementation.

Figure 6.1: Significant Differences between Grades for Individual Questions

and Business Enablers

Finding 17: Differences between the length of organisational service

There are no significant differences between employees of varying lengths of

organizational service with respect to overall readiness. There is a significant

difference for ‘Organisational Culture and Structure’. Respondents who have greater

than 15 years service score significantly more favourably than those who have spent

between 4 to 10 years at Desbwana. A summary of the emergent themes and

individual questions that have significant bearing on ‘Organisational Culture and

Debswana(grouped per grade)



PerformanceMeasurement

Organisational StrategyAnd Planning

Information Management And Technology

C > D

Motivation to acquire & share

knowledge(Q1.2&Q1.3)

Creativity in problem Solving

(Q1.7&Q1.8)

C > D

Sharing of knowledege(Q2.3,Q 2.7,Q 2.8,Q2.12,Q2.15,Q2.19,

&Q2.20)

Learning byreflection and

feedback(Q2.9,Q2.10,

Q2.11&Q2.13)

Organisationstructure

(Q2.18&Q2.22)

C > D, C > E

Assessment of the valueof knowledge

(Q3.1)

Sharing as part of

performancemanagement

(Q3.2)

KM has a directcontribution to

performance(Q3.5)

C > D

Knowledge needs analysis

(Q4.4)

C > D, C > E

Established ways to share

(Q5.4&Q5.5)

Current IT systemsare adequate

(Q5.6)

InformationSharing

(Q5.7)

Out IT systems promote

communication(Q5.10)

Debswana(grouped per grade)






C > D

Motivation to acquire & share

knowledge(Q1.2&Q1.3)

Creativity in problem Solving

(Q1.7&Q1.8)

C > D

Sharing of knowledege(Q2.3,Q 2.7,Q 2.8,Q2.12,Q2.15,Q2.19,

&Q2.20)

Learning byreflection and

feedback(Q2.9,Q2.10,

Q2.11&Q2.13)


(Q2.18&Q2.22)

C > D, C > E

Assessment of the valueof knowledge

(Q3.1)

Sharing as part of

performancemanagement

(Q3.2)

KM has a directcontribution to

performance(Q3.5)

C > D

Knowledge needs analysis

(Q4.4)

C > D, C > E

Established ways to share

(Q5.4&Q5.5)

Current IT systemsare adequate

(Q5.6)

InformationSharing

(Q5.7)

Out IT systems promote

communication(Q5.10)

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


71

Structure’ is shown in Figure 6.2.

The researchers interpret this as the longer employees remain in the organisation, the

more favourable employees view the culture and structure. They postulate that those

respondents who are relatively new in the organisation (< 3 years service) are

currently content about the culture and structure (similar to being in a ‘honey-moon’

phase). Further to this, Finding 16 also suggests that the C-band respondents, of

whom many are relatively new in the organisation, currently share their knowledge

and experiences more than D-band and E-band respondents. However, after this

period of service, the perception of the organisational culture and structure changes

for the worse. This could be linked to the view that ‘knowledge is power’ (Finding

6), and that after employees have made positive impressions in the early years of

service, they thereafter resist knowledge sharing. This suggests that these respondents

will require greater incentives for sharing, or a change in behaviour.

Figure 6.2: Significant Differences between Lengths of Organisational

Service for Individual Questions and Business Enablers

Debswana(grouped per organisational service)






(> 15) > (4-10)

Learning from feedback

(Q2.10&Q2.11)

Sharing knowledge between departments

(Q2.14)


(Q2.16&Q2.18)

Consideringall ideas(Q2.17)

Looking for removalof barriers to

knowledge sharing(Q2.22)

Debswana(grouped per organisational service)






(> 15) > (4-10)

Learning from feedback

(Q2.10&Q2.11)

Sharing knowledge between departments

(Q2.14)


(Q2.16&Q2.18)

Consideringall ideas(Q2.17)

Looking for removalof barriers to

knowledge sharing(Q2.22)

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


72

7. KM IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK FOR DEBSWANA

The following question arises from the conclusion that Debswana is ready for

successfully implementing a KM strategy:

What is the most effective way for Debswana to successfully implement a KM

strategy?

To answer this question, the researchers have developed a conceptual framework for

implementing a KM strategy in the organisation. The framework is informed by:

• a wide body of academic research;

• findings from the KM readiness assessment; and

• the researchers’ experience.

KPMG Consulting (2000) suggests that building a knowledge system is like

undertaking a journey. A map is needed to plan out a path and the possible alternative

routes along the way. An understanding of what tools are available and resources

required is also essential. KPMG Consulting (2000) also suggests that a perfect

knowledge system can only be developed in stages. The organisation needs a vision

of where it wishes to go and a plan for how to get there. They, however, emphasise

that an organisation should plan strategically, but implement tactically.

KPMG Consulting (2000) proposes the following considerations when devising an

implementation framework for an organization.

1. A focus on key content

What do you need by way of information and knowledge, from where should it be

sourced, how should it be organised, how should it be managed and what form should

it be in?

In essence, the organisation must determine what information or knowledge it needs

to support its core business processes and implement business strategy. This should

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


73

be done as part of the development of the knowledge requirements plan (refer to

Finding 4 and Section 7.2).

2. Supporting and encouraging the people

What behaviours and skills does the KM system require of users and what benefits

will it provide?

People and their responses are critical to the success of a knowledge system. In order

to develop behaviours that promote collaboration and knowledge sharing, appropriate

incentives are essential. Refer to Finding 17 and Section 7.6 for more discussion on

these.

3. Knowledge and business processes

How will the required knowledge be compiled, stored, indexed, retrieved and

maintained?

Processes link technology, people and applications. Even with appropriate IT

infrastructure and collaborative technology in place, a knowledge system will not

work if the organisation has failed to link the components together with the necessary

processes. It is important that knowledge processes integrate tightly with business

processes, and with technology processes, so that they become part of normal working

practices. This can be done effectively through the use of the balanced scorecard

discussed under Finding 12 and Section 7.8.

4. Technology options

Can the current technology deliver what the organisation requires in a user-friendly

way? Can the existing technology be exploited further – are there quick wins that can

be achieved? What additional technology is needed, and how should it be integrated?

Many organisations already have the necessary technology in place, but are failing to

use it optimally. Knowledge initiatives can help them start to get real benefit out of

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


74

their existing technology investment. Knowledge technology does not necessarily

have to be technically exciting or demanding, although it can be: advanced

technologies and applications such as expert systems, intelligent agents, case-based

reasoning and document summarises are highly applicable to knowledge management

needs. On the other hand, a great deal can also be achieved with more familiar

technologies such as databases, data warehouses, and document management. It is

the purposes to which technologies are put, and the commercial benefits that flow

from them, that should really be exciting as opposed to the technologies themselves.

KPMG Consulting (2000) stress that it is critical for all of these aspects to be in place,

and working together, for a knowledge system to be successful. Having the right

technology alone does not guarantee that an organisation has addressed the full

requirement. If all the aspects are not in place, then it will fail to establish an

effective knowledge system. Each of these components represents a major

undertaking in its own right. No organisation can achieve a perfect knowledge system

overnight, hence the suggestion that knowledge management is a journey.

5. Keeping the momentum

According to KPMG consulting (2000), two of the biggest issues in implementing a

KM strategy are getting the programme started and keeping it going. These are

strongly related to the issues of strategic alignment and business case. Organisations

should therefore:

• ensure board level sponsorship;

• develop a business case, spelling out how the programme supports the

business strategy and what it is expected to deliver, and when;

• plan a mixture of short-term and longer term returns; and

• publicise successes and learn quickly from errors.

Cheah (2000) of Knowledge Management Services (NCS) describes a KM

implementation framework that compares in many ways to that proposed by KPMG

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


75

Consulting. In what NCS describes as “The Knowledge Journey”, Cheah (2000)

outlines six elements (Table 7.1) that are central to the framework:

Table 7.1: Elements of the NCS Knowledge Journey

Element Sub-element

Knowledge identification KM visioning

KM executive education

KM strategic planning

Knowledge analysis KM readiness

Knowledge design KM design and mapping

Knowledge planning Knowledge implementation planning

Knowledge implementation KM solutioning

KM implementation

KM infrastructure and outsourcing

Knowledge review KM Audit

KM milestone review

KM system maintenance

Combining the KPMG Consulting and NCS KM systems development approaches

with findings from the KM readiness assessment and the researchers’ experiences, the

following conceptual implementation framework (Figure 7.1) is proposed for

Debswana.

7.1 Proposed Conceptual Implementation Framework

This framework assumes that Debswana has an explicit organisational strategy. It

recognises the point that KM strategy should be aligned to this strategy, and that

planning should precede any form of implementation. The six pillars of the

framework represent the business enablers. A “review or audit” pillar is included in

the framework. The overall purpose of auditing is to be able to justify the return on

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


76

investment in knowledge assets and to minimise the risk of not having aligned

business enablers for achieving business objectives (Chong, Wilhelmij and Schmidt,

2000). Change management supports all the pillars, and represents the foundation on

which successful implementation is developed. Models have also been developed for

each of the business enablers in the framework (Figures 7.1 to 7.9).

Figure 7.1: Conceptual Implementation Framework

Organisational Strategy

KM Strategy & Planning

KM Strategy Implementation

Stru

ctur

e

Lea

ders

hip

&

Mgt

. Com

mitm

ent

Cul

ture

Peop

le a

nd P

roce

ssM

anag

emen

t

Info

rmat

ion

Mgt

. A

nd T

echn

olog

y

Perf

orm

ance

Man

agem

ent

Rev

iew

/Aud

itsChange Management

7.2 Strategy and Planning Model

KPMG Consulting (2000) suggests that organisations should understand the benefits

they can obtain from their knowledge programme at the outset, rather than embarking

on a programme for its own sake. Understanding the benefits associated with the

programme helps set priorities for implementation planning. Hence, Debswana needs

to clearly articulate its knowledge management vision to provide direction and a sense

of purpose for the workforce. The researcher’s propose the model in Figure 7.2 as a

basis for planning KM implementation in the company.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


77

Figure 7.2: Strategy and Planning Model

Stra

tegy

and

Pl

anni

ng

Define KM

Vision

DevelopKnowledge

Plan

Define KM Objectives

Business Case

(Rationale)

ReadinessAssessment

K-Needs Analysisor K-Mapping

K-Assets Mapping

Internal & External Benchmarking

Capabilities Audit

Know-how &Know-what

Leadership &Passion

Process

BusinessProcesses

TechnologyPeople

Col

lab o

rativ

eT

echn

olog

yIn

form

atio

n &

K

-sys

tem

s

Gro

upW

a re

In the context of this model, Debswana needs to make a business case for

implementing KM. In doing so, it should be aware that it is not always easy to link

KM value directly to the financial bottom-line results. Hasanali, Hubert, Lopez,

O’Dell, Odem, and Raybourn (2000) report that in every successful large-scale KM

initiative that they studied, champions initially made a calculated leap of faith based

on a compelling business rationale or vision, and not purely on a return on investment

(ROI) calculation. They clarify the point that this does not mean that measures and

ROI are not important, but that alone they are not enough to cause KM to be

institutionalised as a way of working. This view is supported by the researchers’

findings on Debswana, indicating that the company’s top management is aware that

immediate financial benefits of KM may not be realised.

The model also highlights the need for a KM readiness assessment to be conducted.

Such an assessment helps management to understand the strengths and weaknesses of

the business enablers. The findings and conclusions contained in this dissertation

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


78

provide Debswana with a good assessment of the current situation, and should be

considered during the KM strategy planning process. Perhaps the most important

element of the planning process is the development of a knowledge requirements plan

for the company. Finding 4 underscores this importance. The model suggests that

Debswana include the following activities as part of the process of developing this

plan:

• Knowledge needs analysis or mapping (refer to Finding 4).

• Knowledge assets mapping (refer to Finding 2).

• Internal and external benchmarking (refer to Finding 1). It is important for

Debswana to carry out internal benchmarking first, to understand what the

company is good at with respect to KM processes of capture, storage, access

or retrieval and use. For instance, the OLD Mines may have some highly

effective and productive sharing forums. In the internal benchmarking

exercise, the characteristics and success factors of these forums will be

documented as best practice and shared with the rest of the organisation.

External benchmarking should be seen as an important aspect of planning as it

assists management in understanding threats and opportunities that can

significantly impact on business performance.

• Capabilities audit: this is an exercise where the company assesses its strengths

and weaknesses in the areas of people, process and technology. In the context

of people, Debswana needs to have a good understanding of the expertise of

its knowledge workers and where there are located in the organisation. One

way of accomplishing this task is to create an electronic directory or Yellow

Pages. This system helps to connect people and facilitates knowledge transfer

between individuals with expertise and those who seek their knowledge.

Gorelick and Crawford (2001) advise that this is a simple first step in sharing

individual expertise across an organisation. Another way of identifying and

connecting expertise in an organisation is through a knowledge asset.

Gorelick (2002) lists some of the typical components of such an asset.

Further, the company should identify those people with a passion for KM,

learning and people management. The process used in identifying such people

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


79

is suggested under Section 7.3. These are the individuals who play a leading

role in creating a conducive environment for unlocking tacit knowledge. With

regards to process, Debswana needs to take stock of its people management

processes: employee development, rewards and recognition, decision-making

and participation mechanisms. Mechanisms for employee development are

discussed under Section 7.6, and those for decision-making and participation

under Sections 7.5 and 7.6. On the technology side, it is essential that the

company understands what data, information and knowledge management

systems it has. These would include the IT infrastructure, databases, Intranets,

discussion and bulletin boards, etc.

The researchers believe that, once the current capabilities are fully understood,

Debswana would then be in a position to articulate a comprehensive knowledge

requirements plan. On the basis of this plan, the following questions can then be

asked:

What knowledge is required?

Where will the knowledge be sourced and how?

Who will source what knowledge?

The answers to these questions should then be addressed through a clear definition of

short- and long-term objectives. At this stage, the company would be ready to

proceed to the next model of the implementation framework, which addresses the

“structure” business enabler.

7.3 Implementation Structure Model

Soliman and Spooner (2000) suggest that when planning implementation of a

knowledge management programme, the organisation needs to consider whether to

create a leadership role to develop and drive the process, for instance, a chief

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


80

knowledge officer. Many firms have devolved responsibility to an existing, or new,

position. Some firms use a cross-functional team to develop knowledge management,

while in others the CEO or HR Director has taken the leading role. In the context of

Debswana, the researchers propose a “hybrid” structure shown in Figure 7.3. In this

structure, the executive sponsor has access to the Board of Directors, and is

responsible for appointing a co-ordinator for Debswana. The co-ordinator is a

member of EXCO and has adequate authority to push the KM agenda in the company.

There should be two knowledge champions located at each of the company’s main

operations, Jwaneng and the OLD Mines.

Figure 7.3: Implementation Structure

The champion and co-ordinator must be selected carefully, with involvement of the

HR department. Lloyd, in Soliman and Spooner (2000), suggests that the following

characteristics should be considered in the selection process:

• interpersonal and communication skills;

• business acumen;

Impl

emen

tatio

n St

ruct

ure

DebswanaSteering

Committee

KMCo-

ordinator:Debswana

KMChampion:OLD Mines

KMChampion:

JwanengMine

DebswanaExecutiveSponsor

InformationSystems

Rep.

HumanResources

Rep.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


81

• passionate visionary leadership;

• strategic thinking skills;

• championship of change with the ability to withstand ambiguity and

uncertainty; and

• collaborative skills - this is a rare skill and is the ability to pull together

people from different parts of the organisation to work as one team.

Some “guiding coalition” in the form of a Steering Committee is viewed as an

essential intervention. All champions, the co-ordinator and executive sponsor must be

members of this Committee. Strong HR and IT presence in the Committee is also

proposed. The role of the Committee is to ensure that:

• KM efforts in Debswana are co-ordinated and supported for objectives to

be achieved.

• KM remains visible at all levels of the organisation.

• The KM implementation process is audited regularly, and that objectives

and targets are revised accordingly.

7.4 Leadership and Management Commitment Model

The role of leadership and management in fostering an environment that is conducive

to employee participation, sharing, risk-taking, learning and unlearning cannot be

over-emphasised. In this context, unlearning refers to a process where employees “let

go” of non-value adding knowledge and practices to create space for new ones.

Horwitz, Chan and Quazi (2001) suggest that top management support is necessary to

get employee-commitment to the organisation. They argue that workers favour

growth opportunities, a challenging work environment preferably with flexible work

practices, promotion opportunities and a place that is both informal and fun to work

in. Commitment from the Debswana leadership and management teams must be

unwavering, and should be seen by employees as genuine. Clear direction and

support for the KM implementation process, and the drivers behind it are key success

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


82

factors.

The provision of adequate resources to achieve short- and long-term objectives is

essential. Finding 16 indicates less favourable responses to the five KM business

enablers by D-band managers compared to C-band employees. In this context, to get

D-band employees to support KM initiatives may take more persuasion, hence the

importance of direction, support, and role modelling from the company executive

leadership. Additionally, a good and robust business case for doing KM must be

articulated. The key drivers, actions and outcomes for the leadership and

management commitment enabler are shown Figure 7.4

Figure 7.4: Leadership and Management Commitment

7.5 Organisational Culture Model

Schwandt (1995) makes a point that learning is focused on the system’s ability to

adapt to its environment, not just through a performance orientation, but rather

Lea

ders

hip

& M

anag

emen

t Com

mitm

ent

Direction

Support

Role Model

KM alignment to company strategy

Make KM visiblePeople, process & technology

practices

Champions

Pilot projects

Development of sharing forums

Training & development

Incentivisation

Resources: capital & time

“Walk-the-Talk”

Respect for people

Relationship building

Willingness to:

•participate in KM initiatives

•experiment & take risks

•share, learn & unlearn

•lead & drive KM

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


83

through a creative capacity that influences the cultural values of the collective.

Fostering a culture that enables conversation and dialogue, risk-taking, inquiry and

reflection, sharing and tolerance for mistakes is therefore essential for influencing the

collective to adopt new ways of “doing things”. Finding 9 demonstrates Debswana’s

current state with respect to these culture attributes. Consequently, the organisation’s

capacity to learn, unlearn and perform is enhanced. The company leadership and

management should, as part of implementation, focus on developing an environment

that allows communities of practice and innovation forums to develop. A team-

oriented approach to problem-solving must be actively encouraged across functions.

Finding 6 highlights silo-type organisational structure as a potential barrier to KM

implementation. Currently, problem-solving teams exist within functions or silos,

with insignificant interaction between functional teams. A deliberate focus on cross-

functional teams would therefore promote integration and effective sharing of

knowledge. The researchers believe that innovation forums and communities of

practice, coupled with cross functional team-based problem-solving, will provide the

organisation with mechanisms for employee participation and decision-making. The

researchers propose that the principles of “peer assist or learning before”, “learning

during or after-action review” and “learning after or retrospect” be incorporated in

Debswana’s culture of learning (see Appendix 11). Team-based projects and problem

solving sessions, CoP activities, and innovation forums should adopt this learning

principles, which were developed by BP Amoco’s knowledge management team

(KMT) in 1998 (Storck and Gorelick, 2000). Finding 10 demonstrates the critical

role that culture will play in enabling successful implementation of KM in Debswana,

and should thus receive the most attention.

Figure 7.5 captures the key elements discussed above, and is the proposed model for

developing the KM enabler of organisational culture.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


84

Figure 7.5: Organisational Culture Model

7.6 People and Process Management

Horwitz, Chan and Quazi (2001) cite the following motivation strategies as central to

developing employee commitment to an organisation:

• regular communication with management and leadership;

• conducive environment – includes recognition (cash rewards and

celebration of successes), collaboration and teamwork, freedom to plan

work, challenging work, flexibility practices, and fun place to work in;

• compensation – includes recognition of success, personalised pay, cash

rewards, incentives, ownership plans and competitive pay; and

• opportunity – funding for conferences, further studies and attractive career

plans.

Org

anis

atio

nal C

ultu

re

Conversation & Dialogue

Inquiry & Reflection

Sharing

Innovation Forums

Team Projects

Cross-functionalProblem Solving Teams

Communities of Practice

Tolerance forMistakes

Risk Taking

Learning

Performance

Peer

Ass

ist

Lear

n ing

D

urin

g

L ear

ning

Afte

r

PRINCIPLES

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


85

In this context, the researchers believe that Debswana’s ability to successfully

implement and sustain a KM strategy is dependent on the employees’ level of

motivation, willingness and ability to meaningfully participate in knowledge creation,

capture, storage, dissemination and use. The company needs to audit its current

motivation strategies, with a view to enhancing their impact on employees.

Developing employees, and involving them in decision-making processes, as well as

rewarding and recognising them for learning and sharing new insights are central to

motivating employees. Figure 7.6 is the proposed model for developing Debswana’s

implementation framework for the “People and Process Management.” enabler.

Figure 7.6: People and Process Management

The model suggests that both monetary (e.g., bonus schemes, competitive pay

packages, and share options) and non-monetary rewards (e.g., freedom to work

independently, opportunities for further education, and challenging work

assignments), should be considered in developing a rewards and recognition system

that would effectively support a KM programme. However, the rewards must be

designed such that they enhance team performance. Horwitz (2002) suggests that the

Peop

le a

nd P

roce

ss M

anag

emen

t

Rewards & Recognition

Employee Development

Coaching & MentoringChallenging Work

AssignmentsOn-The-Job Training

Job Rotations

Employee Involvement

Monetary

Non-Monetary

Individual

Team

ManagementCommitment

Consultation

Information sharing

Consensus seeking

Employees who are:

•Motivated

•Able and willing to participate in KM

•Champions of KM

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


86

design of performance and reward systems for teams should involve the team

members. He reiterates the point that the design and implementation of these systems

are more likely to succeed where key stakeholders participate in this process, have

relevant information, and are involved in a problem-solving, solution-generating

group, rather than adversarial bargaining. Debswana has largely been focusing on

individual performance and rewards. Hence, the move towards team-based pay

would be a challenge. Horwitz (2002) proposes the following critical success factors

to be considered in creating team-based pay:

• determining performance measurement and evaluation criteria for both

individual team members and the team itself;

• target or goal setting;

• how a decision on rewards/bonus is to be made;

• how individual under-performance, poor conduct and capacity will be

dealt with by the team;

• who will decide on which team members get a bonus and who might not;

and

• whether the bonus should be equally or unequally shared, based on

variable member performance.

The model further highlights the need for management to commit to involving

employees more in decision-making. This may be done through more regular

information sharing sessions at various levels of the organisation, as well through

forums discussed in Section 7.5. Management at C, D and E-bands should adopt a

more direct and deliberate approach to consultation, and must see it as a powerful

mechanism for developing a sense of belonging for all employees. This is an enabler

for participation, and an essential motivational factor. In the context of employee

development, the model suggests that mentoring and coaching should be considered

as a ‘tool’ for transferring knowledge and skills from the more to the less experienced

workers. Conway (1998) makes a distinction between mentoring and coaching. He

suggests that mentoring in organisations is a private relationship between two

individuals based on a mutual desire for development towards an organisational goal.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


87

The relationship is a non-reporting one and infringes none of the organisational

structures in place. It is additional to other forms of assistance, not a replacement.

Coaching is however, more directive and focussed on the job. It is a process often

carried out by line managers. Conway points out that the ultimate objective of both

mentoring and coaching is to facilitate the growth of the individual to meet both

personal and organisational objectives. In particular he lists the following advantages

of mentoring relationships:

• powerful relationships lead to the development of creative insights for both the

mentor and protégé;

• assists in the transition from middle to senior management;

• enhances individual and organisational learning;

• can enhance communication within increasingly diverse workforces;

• assists in identifying potential more effectively;

• helps in the speedy absorption of new entrants; and

• can be a stabilising factor in times of corporate change.

Besides mentoring and coaching, and amongst other initiatives, management must

provide employees with challenging work assignments, on-the-job training and afford

them with opportunities to change jobs frequently. These are essential motivation

elements that would enable participation in KM and ensure it sustenance in the future.

7.7 Information Management and Technology Model

Finding 11 highlights the clear understanding in Debswana that information

technology is an enabler. Figure 7.7 is the proposed information management and

technology (IM&T) model for use in developing an implementation plan. This model

highlights the KM processes, and links them to a series of questions that should be

asked as part of the IM&T planning exercise. The researchers believe that when

IM&T is used as an enabler for collaboration and communication, the outcomes

would be learning and performance. New insights learnt and knowledge developed as

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


88

a result of applying “the learning” must be fed back or captured into the storage

system. Consequently, the Debswana KM steering committee must continually seek

for best IM&T solutions that enhance the knowledge creation and sharing loop.

Figure 7.7: Information Management and Technology

7.8 Performance Management Model

Finding 12 highlights the importance of developing a comprehensive performance

management system as part of an implementation framework. Theoretical concepts

are discussed under this finding as well. Debswana uses the balanced scorecard (BSC)

in all its operations. An example of a Debswana scorecard is shown in Appendix 12.

The researchers propose that Debswana should adopt the BSC as a system of

assessing the value added to the business by KM (see Figure 7.8). The challenge for

the company is to decide on key KM measures and associated baselines for the four

scorecard perspectives: people, internal processes, business partners & community,

Info

rmat

ion

Man

agem

ent a

nd T

echn

olog

y[K

-Sol

utio

ns, T

ools

& In

fras

truc

ture

Tec

hnol

ogy] Capturing

Retrieval/Access

Storage

Dissemination

What information or knowledge and why?

Hardware and software needs?Process of capturing and

responsibility?

Hardware and software needs?

Centralised or decentralised?

Hardware and software needs?

Who needs access and why?

How is it organised (indexing)?

Hardware and software needs?Who needs what information or

knowledge?How is it shared?

Learning

Performance

Collaboration

Communication

Feedback

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


89

and financial. Optimum value of KM to the stakeholders (shareholders, employees,

business partners and community) can be realised if a system of continual evaluation

and feedback is in place. The researchers take note of the use of plan-do-review

(PDR) sessions as part of the BSC system, and believe that these offer Debswana an

excellent opportunity for continuous review of KM performance. The PDR sessions

should then be used as opportunities for knowledge sharing and learning.

Figure 7.8: Performance Management Model

7.9 Change Management Model

Implementing a KM strategy in Debswana will bring fundamental change to the way

information and knowledge are managed, and to the way people communicate,

collaborate and interact to share ideas, insights and perspectives. Such change may

bring fear, anxiety and uncertainty to employees. In order to avoid these types of

problems, Debswana needs an effective change management plan. Figure 7.9 is a

proposed change management model, which forms part of the conceptual

ObjectivesBusiness Partners

& Community

Inte

rnal

Pro

cess

es

People

Fina

ncia

lKM VALUE•Shareholders•Business Partners•Community•Employees

Targets

MonitoringEvaluation

Feed

back

Feed

back

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


90

implementation framework.

Kotter (1995) suggests eight steps for managing a change or a transformation process:

1. Establish a sense of urgency.

2. Establish a powerful guiding coalition: this is a group of people with enough

power to lead the change effort. This step has been taken into account in

Section 7.3.

3. Creating a vision to help direct the change effort is necessary. The vision

should be backed up by implementation strategies. Section 7.2 takes account

of this point.

4. Communicating the vision and strategies using every possible means including

teaching of new behaviours by the guiding coalition. The theme of this step is

included in Sections 7.4 and 7.9.

5. Empowering others to act on the vision by getting rid of obstacles to change,

changing systems or structures that seriously undermine the vision, and

encouraging risk-taking and non-traditional ideas, activities, and actions.

Sections 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 encapsulate the requirements discussed under this

step.

6. Planning for and creating short-term wins is essential. Without short term

wins or visible performance improvement, too many people give up or

actively join the ranks of those who resist the change. Recognising and

rewarding employees involved in this improvement is also important. These

attributes are captured in Sections 7.4, 7.6 and 7.9 of the implementation

framework.

7. Consolidating gains and producing more change is important at this stage.

Using increased visibility of the change initiative, review systems, structures

and policies such as recruitment and selection, training and development, to

support further change. Section 7.8 captures this requirement.

8. Institutionalising new behaviours is the final stage of a change process.

Change sticks when it becomes “the way we do things around here”, when it

seeps into the bloodstream of the corporate body. This concept is included in

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


91

Sections 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6.

Figure 7.9: Change Management Model

Kotter’s insights have been extensively applied to the design of the conceptual

implementation framework for Debswana. Figure 7.9 underscores leadership

commitment, a good selling proposition for change, training, piloting and effective

communication as some of the critical success factors required for KM

implementation in the company. The following is a summary of the model:

• Leadership and management teams must fully support the KM initiative

through provision of clear direction, human and financial resources. Time and

space must also be created for knowledge workers to experiment and take

risks, and share their knowledge with others.

• A plan to sell KM to all levels of the organisation should be articulated. The

plan serves as a marketing tool for the initiative, and must accordingly create a

Cha

nge

Man

agem

ent

Leadership Commitment

Awareness Training

Piloting [Easy to Implement-High Impact on KM

Objectives]

Selling Proposition

Communication

Resources SupportDirection

Publicise Success Stories

KM Objectives

Benefits to Debswana & Employees

Executives KM Champions

Management Workforce

Trainers Suppliers/Customers

Quick-Wins

Low-Hanging Fruit

Road shows

“Green Areas”

Briefing Systems Newsletters

Intranet

KM Update Forums

Prioritisation: Long vs. Short Term

Employee Buy-In

KM “Not a Fad!”

Ownership of theKM Process

“Back2Basics”

Breaking the KMfad!!

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


92

sense of urgency in the organisation. The researchers propose that the plan

should sell KM in the form of stories that reflect the culture and diversity of

the organisation. Further, to break the thinking that KM may be yet “another

passing fad”, the KM steering committee and knowledge champions should

adopt a slogan that demystifies it. An example of a slogan is outlined below:

KM: Back-to-Basics

Let us improve on yesterday, and learn what we don’t know,

so that we stop repeating previous mistakes and reinventing the wheel.

• Awareness training is essential for successful implementation. Training must

initially take place at the executive level of the organisation prior to rolling it

down. Key suppliers and customers must also be made aware of the KM

initiative, particularly the role that they will play in it and potential benefits to

them.

• Piloting of KM initiatives is critical, and must be seen as a mechanism for

developing a convincing case for a company-wide rollout. A pull strategy

should be adopted at this stage, that is, piloting should be targeted at those

parts of the business with visible problems and where managers are keen to

apply KM methodologies. The idea is to capitalise on “low-hanging fruit” to

gain quick-wins that the steering committee and champions can use to sell the

KM initiative to the wider group.

• Communication remains the foundation for implementing the strategy, and all

existing channels must be used. New communication channels should be

explored and implemented to facilitate buy-in and ownership of the KM

process.

In conclusion, an audit or review process is necessary to ensure that the KM initiative

is adding and not destroying value. Debswana may adopt the health check model

proposed by Chong, Wilhelmij and Schmidt (2000: 376) and discussed under Section

3.5 of this report, for auditing the KM initiative.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


93

8. CONCLUSION

Implementation of a KM strategy requires a readiness assessment to help management

understand the strengths and weaknesses of the business enablers. The researchers

have developed a model with the following five business enablers to assess

organisational readiness for implementation of a KM strategy:

1. People and Process Management,

2. Organisational Culture and Structure,

3. Performance Measurement,

4. Organisational Strategy and Planning, and

5. Information Management and Technology.

The findings of this research show that Debswana as an organisation is ready for

implementation of a KM strategy. Results from the primary research survey however

indicate that there are specific themes in ‘People and Process Management’ and

‘Organisational Culture and Structure’ that need attention when developing an

implementation framework.

In terms of people and process management, results show that the levels of risk-taking

and experimentation, as well as motivation to acquire and share knowledge are not

optimal. EXCO members have also confirmed this during earlier exploratory research

interviews.

The major concern in terms of organisational culture and structure is that sharing

lessons from experiences and failures is not yet an established practice. This has also

been confirmed by EXCO members, who believe that the culture is not yet conducive

for motivating employees to acquire and share knowledge. Primary research has also

revealed that organisational rigidity is an issue. The EXCO considers lack of

knowledge sharing incentives and silo-type organisational structures as barriers to

implementation.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


94

The findings also show that each of the three operations is ready for KM

implementation. Jwaneng is significantly more ready than OLD Mines in terms of

‘Information Management and Technology’. This result is driven by the view that

more information sharing between departments and operations happens at Jwaneng.

In addition, the Intranet appears to be used more extensively for sharing knowledge

and experiences at Jwaneng than at OLD Mines.

In terms of differences between the employees, C-band employees are of a

significantly greater opinion that the organisation is ready to implement a KM

strategy when compared to both the D-band respondents and E-band respondents.

Further to this, employees who have greater than 15 years service believe that the

current organisational culture and structure is more conducive to implementation than

employees who have spent between 4 to 10 years at Desbwana.

The objective for Debswana is to develop a KM system that would ensure effective

creation, sharing and use of knowledge. The proposed framework articulates a broad

road-map that guides its endeavours to become a knowledge-driven company. The

temptation in implementing such a system may be to place high emphasis on

technology solutions to drive the process. While this has advantages, there is danger

of being drawn into a ‘technology-trap’. Debswana must steer away from this

potential detraction. It must focus on harnessing the power of human interaction to

deliver a sustainable KM capability that will make it a truly global benchmark mining

company.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


95

9. REFERENCES

Adams, E.C. and Freeman, C. (2000), “Communities of practice: bridging technology

and knowledge assessment”, Journal of Knowledge Management; Volume 4,

Number 1, pp. 38 - 44.

Ahmed, P.K., Lim, K.K. and Zairi, M. (1999), “Measurement practice for knowledge

management”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Employee Counselling Today,

Volume 11, Number 8, pp. 304-311.

Arora, R. (2002), “Implementing KM – a balanced score card approach”, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 240 - 249.

Bender, S. and Fish, A. (2000), “The transfer of knowledge and the retention of

expertise: the continuing need for global assignments”, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Volume 4, Number 2, pp. 125 - 137.

Besag, F. (1989), “Striving after the wind: the Metaphysics and Epistemology of

Educational Research”, American Behavioural Scientist, Volume 30, pp. 15-22.

Bhatt, G.D. (2001), “Knowledge management in organisations: examining the

interaction between technologies, techniques, and people”, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 68-75.

Boisot, M. (1987), Information and Organisations: The Manager as Anthropologist,

Fontana/Collins, London.

Brooking, A. (1997), “The management of intellectual capital”, Journal of Long

Range Planning, Volume 30, Number 3, pp. 364-365.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


96

Bukowitz, W. and Williams, R. (1999), The Knowledge Management Fieldbook,

London: Prentice Hall.

Chase, R.L. (1997), “Knowledge Management Benchmarks”, Journal of Knowledge


Cheah, E. (2000), Knowledge innovation in public service: knowledge discovery … let

the journey begin, Knowledge Management Services – National Computer Systems

(NCS) Pte Ltd., URL: http://www.ncs.com.sg/ (accessed on the 16 August 2002).

Chong, C.W., Wilhelmij, P. and Schmidt, R.A. (2000), “Where does knowledge

management add value?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume 1, Number 4,

pp. 366-380.

Civi, E. (2000), “Knowledge management as a competitive asset: a review”,

Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Volume 18, Number 4, pp.166-174.

Conway, C. (1998), Strategies for mentoring: a blueprint for successful

organisational development, Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Davenport, T., De Long, D. and Beers, M. (1998), “Successful Knowledge

Management Projects - Eight key factors that can help a company create, share and

use knowledge effectively”, Sloan Management Review, Volume 39, Issue 2,

pp. 43-57.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusack, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organisations

Manage What They Know, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

de Gooijer, J. (2000), “Designing a knowledge management performance

framework”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 4, Number 4, pp. 303-310.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


97

de Jager, M. (1999), “The KMAT: benchmarking knowledge management”, Library


de Waal, A. and Fourman, M. (2000), Managing in the New Economy: Performance

Management Habits to Renew Organisations for the New Millenium, United

Kingdom: Arthur Andersen and Show Business Software Limited.

De Jarnett, L (1996), “Knowledge the latest thing”, Information Strategy, The

Executives Journal, Volume 12, pp. 3-5.

Demarest, M. (1997), “Understanding Knowledge Management”, Journal of Long

Range Planning, Volume 30, Number 3, pp. 374-384.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991), Management Research – An

Introduction, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Garvin, D. A. (2000), Learning in action: a guide to putting a learning organisation

to work, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Gerich, C (2001), Coaching: Bringing Out the Best in Your Employees; Case Western

Reserve University – Supervisory Briefing Session (CWRU SBS), URL:

http://www.cwru.edu/finadmin/humres/eddev/coaching.pdf (Accessed on the 04

August 2002).

Ghauri, P., Grohnaug, K. and Krisitianslund, I. (1995), Research Methods In Business

Studies – A Practical Guide, Prentice Hall Europe: London: Pearson Education Ltd.

Gaolathe, B. (2002), Minister of Finance and Development Planning, Republic of

Botswana, Budget speech delivered to the National Assembly on the 11th February

2002, Gaborone: Printed by the Government Printer, URL: www.gov.bw (Accessed

on the 25 November 2002).

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


98

Gorelick, C. (2002), “How to Create a Knowledge Asset”, in KM Course Notes, MBA

Programme, Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town.

Gorelick, C. and April, K. (2000), Toward an Understanding of Organisational

Learning and Knowledge Management: A Case Study of Structuration and

Sensemaking in British Petroleum’s Knowledge Management Team, (paper in

review).

Gorelick, C. and Crawford, C. (2001), “Share the Knowledge and Share the Wealth –

Really!”, Solutions for Information and Management Services, New York.

Greengard, S. (1998), “Will your culture support KM?”, Workforce, Volume 77,

Number 10, pp. 93-94.

Gupta, B, Iyer, L.S. and Aronson, J.E. (2000), “Knowledge management: practices

and challenges”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Volume 100, Number 1,

pp. 17-21.

Hasanali, F., Hubert, C., Lopez, K., O’Dell, C., Odem, P. and Raybourn, C. (2000),

Successfully implementing knowledge management; APQC International

Benchmarking Clearinghouse, Consortium Learning Forum: Best practice report,

American Productivity and Quality Center, URL:

www.apqc.org/pubs/summaries/CMSUCCESSIKM (Accessed on the 27 August

2002).

Hedlund, G. and Nonaka, I. (1993), “Models of Knowledge Management in the West

and Japan”, in Lorange, B., Chakravarthy, B., Roos, J. and Van de Ven, H. (Eds),

Reflection: Turning experience into Learning, London: Kogan Page, pp. 139-163.

Horwitz, F.M., Chan, T.H. and Quazi, H.A. (2001), “Finders Keepers: what works

best? Attracting, motivating and retaining knowledge workers”, in Managing

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


99

Organisations and Human Resources Supplementary Reading Book 2, MBA 2002

Programme, Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town.

Horwitz, F.M. (2002), “Employee rewards and benefits”, in Managing Organisations

and Human Resources Supplementary Reading Book 1, MBA Programme, Graduate

School of Business, University of Cape Town.

Huberman, M. and Miles, M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, London: Sage

Publications.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic

management system”, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 75-85.

Kotter, J. P. (1995), “Leading Change: Why transformation efforts change?”, Harvard

Business Review, March-April issue, pp. 59-67.

KPMG Consulting (2000), The knowledge journey: a business guide to knowledge

systems, URL: www.kpmgconsulting.co.uk/research (Accessed on the 27 August

2002).

Lee, S.M. and Hong, S. (2002), “An enterprise-wide knowledge management system

infrastructure”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Volume 102, Number 1,

pp. 17-25.

Levett, G.P. and Guenov, M.D. (2000), “A methodology for knowledge management

implementation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 4, Number 3,

pp. 258-269.

Lynch, R. (2000), Corporate Strategy, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited,

Second Edition, pp. 478-488.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


100

Marquardt, M. J. (1996), Building the learning organisation: a systems approach to

quantum improvement and global success, London: McGraw-Hill.

McAdam, R. and McCreedy, S. (1999), “A critical review of knowledge management

models”, The Learning Organisation, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 91-100.

McAdam, R. and Reid, R. (2000), “A comparison of public and private sector

perceptions and use of knowledge management”, Journal of European Industrial

Training, Volume 3, Number 6, pp. 317-329.

McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001), “Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing

knowledge”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 76-85.

Mind, S. (1993), Mentoring Made Easy: A guide to developing and implementing

successful mentoring programs, in Equity and Resolution Unit, Office of the Public

Service Commissioner, Queensland, URL: http://www.opsme.qld.gov.au/ee/pubs,

(Accessed on the 03 September 2002).

Mouton, J. and Marais, H.C. (1991), Basic Concepts in the Methodology of the Social

Sciences, Pretoria: HSRC.

Neef, D. (1999), “Making the case for knowledge management: the bigger picture”,

Management Decision, Volume 37, Number 1, pp. 72-78.

Nickols, F. (2000), Communities of Practice: Roles and Responsibilities, Distance

Consulting, URL: http://home.att.net/~discon/KM/CoPRoles.pdf, (Accessed on the 13

September 2002).

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The knowledge creating company – How

Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


101

Parsons, T. (1951), The Social System, Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”,

Harvard Business Review, Volume 68, Number 3, pp. 79-91.

Quintas, P., Lefere, P. and Jones, G. (1997), “Knowledge management: a strategic

agenda”, Journal of Long Range Planning, Volume 30, Number 3, pp. 385-391.

Rowley, J. (1999), “What is knowledge management?”, Journal of Library

Management, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp. 416-420.

Schwandt, D. R. (1995), “Learning as an organization: A journey into chaos”, in S.

Chawla & J. Renesch (Eds.), Learning organizations: Developing cultures for

tomorrow's workplace, Portland: Productivity Press.

Skyrme, D.J. (1999), Knowledge Networking: Creating the Collaborative Enterprise,

Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Soliman, F. and Spooner, K. (2000), “Strategies for implementing knowledge

management: the role of human resources management”, Journal of Knowledge


Storck, J. and Gorelick, C. (2000), Leveraging expertise at BP Amoco (E): Building

an Organisational Capability, (IBM Corporation, MBA Programme case study,

Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town).

uit Beijerse, R.P. (1999), “Questions in knowledge management: defining and

conceptualising a phenomenon”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 3,

Number 2, pp. 94-109.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


102

Van Beveren, J. (2002), “A model of knowledge acquisitions that refocuses

knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 6, Number 1,

pp. 18-22.

Internet references

http://www.debswana.com (Accessed on the 03 November 2002).

http://www.zigonperf.com/resources/pmnews/knowledge_metrics.html (Accessed on

the 26 November 2002).

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


103

APPENDIX 1: EXPLORATORY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The interviews are aimed to provide answers to the following questions:

• Strategic knowledge questions:

o Do you know what your competitors are doing with respect to the

development of knowledge? If yes/no, please elaborate with evidence?

o Describe what knowledge assets Debswana has? Any examples?

o Do you know what the core competencies of the organisation are in

terms of knowledge assets?

o Who should have prime responsibility for capturing knowledge?

o Does Debswana management have a long-term vision about the

knowledge that is need in the future (medium- to long-term)?

• Benefits of KM:

o How will the business benefit by KM implementation?

• Barriers and risks to KM:

o What are the barriers to implementation of KM strategies?

o What is the business implication of limited KM?

• Key elements of successful KM implementation:

o Definition of a successful project?

o What do you think are the success factors for KM implementation?

o Does the organisation have a culture that motivates the acquisition,

sharing and evaluation of knowledge between workers? If yes/no,

please elaborate with evidence?

o What role does organisational culture play in enabling successful

implementation of KM?

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


104

o What is the role of technology in enabling successful implementation

of KM?

o Give examples of typical technologies required for KM to be

successful?

o Based on your above view of the requirements, does Debswana have

the capital to successfully implement KM?

o What do you believe is an appropriate measure to assess KM

implementation?

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


105

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF EXCO MEMBERS INTERVIEWED

Exploratory interviews held in Debswana Diamond Company with members of the

executive committees (EXCO) of the three operations: Jwaneng Mine, OLD Mines

and Head Office. The following people were interviewed.

Name Designation Operation

Mr. Mike Wittet

Mr. Chris Rowan

Mr. Paul Gahagan

Mr. Ian Wilbore

Deputy Managing Director

Consulting Metallurgist

Group Human Resources Manager

Consulting Engineer

Head Office

Head Office

Head Office

Head Office

Mr. Len Makwinja

Mr. Spencer Kaisara

Mr. Gordon Jackson

Mr. Haile Mphusu

Mr. Albert Milton

Mr. Polite Khutjwe

Dr. David Wang

Mr. Rodgers Thusi

Mr. Wlfred Mpai

Mr. Morse Mosienyane

Mr. Bernard Ditlhabi

General Manager

Orapa Mine manager

Support Services Manager

Damtshaa Mine Manager

Letlhakane Mine Manager (Acting)

Chief Geologist (Acting)

Chief Medical Officer

Metallurgical Services Manager

Financial Manager

Engineering Manager

Human Resources Manager

OLD Mines

OLD Mines

OLD Mines

OLD Mines

OLD Mines

OLD Mines

OLD Mines

OLD Mines

OLD Mines

OLD Mines

OLD Mines

Mr. Steve Gould

Mr. Seb Sebetlela

Mr. Jeremy Taylor

Mr. Johan Rademan

Mr. Leon Bosman

Mr. Owen Isaacs

Mr. Mike Apsey

General Manager

Assistant General Manager

Mining Manager

Treatment Manager

Financial Manager

Security Manager

Engineering Manager

Jwaneng Mine

Jwaneng Mine

Jwaneng Mine

Jwaneng Mine

Jwaneng Mine

Jwaneng Mine

Jwaneng Mine

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


106

APPENDIX 3: DESCRIPTIVE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

An Assessment of the Readiness of Debswana Diamond Company for Implementing Knowledge Management

What is Knowledge?

Knowledge originates in the head of an individual and builds on information that is transformed and enriched by personal experience, beliefs, and values with decision and action-relevant meaning. It is information interpreted by the individual and applied to the purpose for which it is needed. The knowledge formed by an individual will differ from another person receiving the same information. Knowledge is the mental state of ideas, facts, concepts, data and techniques, recorded in an individual’s memory (Bender and Fish, 2000: 126).

What is Knowledge Management (KM)?

• It is the process by which the organisation generates wealth from its intellectual or knowledge-based assets (Bukowitz & Williams, 1999).

• It is the explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge and its associated processes of creation, storage, retrieval, transfer, and application, in pursuit of organisational objectives (Skyrme, 1999).

What is Coaching (Gerich, 2001:3)?

• A directive process in which a manager trains and orients an employee as a newly hired team member,

• An ongoing process designed to help the employee gain greater competence and overcome barriers to improving performance, and

• A process in which supervisors and employees identify, develop and reach performance goals together.

What is Mentoring? It is a relationship, not just a procedure or activity, where one person professionally assists the career development of another, outside the normal manager/subordinate relationship (Mind, 1993: p 26).

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


107

Purpose of the Questionnaire: To obtain the opinions of staff throughout Debswana Diamond Company

regarding its knowledge management processes (creating, acquiring, storage and retrieval, sharing, as well as use of knowledge).

Confidentiality: Please note that the information obtained from respondents is solely for research

purposes and will at all times be treated as confidential. INSTRUCTIONS:

• There are no correct or incorrect answers. Decide to what degree each of the following statements describes your operation.

• Select one of the following: STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEUTRAL, DISAGREE, STRONGLY DISAGREE for each statement by making a tick in the appropriate box.

Example:

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT READINESS

FRAMEWORK

Stro

ngly

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

1. Groups and individuals routinely share information about their expertise

X

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


108

Please tick the appropriate box At which Operation do you work?

HEAD OFFICE

JWANENG

OLD MINES

What is your Job Grade?

C BAND

D BAND

E BAND

How long have you worked in your Branch/Department?

< 3 years

4 – 10 years

11 –15 years

>15 years

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


109

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT READINESS FRAMEWORK

Stro

ngly

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

1. People and Process Management

1.1 Training on a new technology system (e.g., AS 400, UNIQUE, etc.) focuses on how it can be used to improve the quality of work.

1.2 The organisation has incentives that motivate employees to acquire knowledge.

1.3 The organisation has incentives that motivate employees to share knowledge.

1.4 Risk-taking is encouraged in the organisation.

1.5 Experimentation is encouraged in the organisation.

1.6 Employee promotion is linked to the acquisition and sharing of knowledge.

1.7 We are encouraged to use creative ideas to solve problems.

1.8 We choose not to structure some of our meetings because it helps us think more creatively about problem solving.

1.9 Challenging work assignments are important in motivating employees.

1.10 Participation in key decisions is important in motivating employees.

1.11 Management is committed to developing employees.

1.12 Employees believe that non-financial company benefits (e.g., flexible work hours, being able to work from home) are the most important motivator.

1.13 The organisation rewards employees based more on team-performance rather than individual performance.

1.14 Motivating employees to share their knowledge and experiences is a barrier to implementing a knowledge management strategy.

2. Organisational Culture and Structure

2.1 Trust is dependent on the level of knowledge sharing that exists within the organisation.

2.2 Employees are restricted by management in making decisions in their daily work.

2.3 Individuals routinely, and formally, share information about their knowledge and experiences.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


110

2.4 The organisation recognises that an individual’s knowledge is valuable.

2.5 The organisation recognises and celebrates individuals for their valuable knowledge.

2.6 People apply what they learn outside the organisation to their work.

2.7 Teams are encouraged to share their knowledge and experiences to find better ways of working together.

2.8 Sharing lessons learnt from work experiences is an established practice in our organisation.

2.9 When people finish projects, they take the time to meet with their team and analyse what went wrong and what could have been done better.

2.10 Our learning process includes gathering feedback from customers.

2.11 Our learning process includes gathering feedback from suppliers.

2.12 People are encouraged by the organisation to acknowledge and share their failures.

2.13 We treat disagreement as an opportunity to learn from one another.

2.14 Employees from different departments (e.g., mining and treatment) are encouraged to share knowledge and experiences.

2.15 Employees from different mines/operations (e.g., Jwaneng and Orapa) are encouraged to share knowledge and experiences.

2.16 The hierarchy in our organisation is a barrier to the flow of ideas and information.

2.17 We thoroughly consider all ideas, no matter where they come from.

2.18 Our organisation can be described as flexible rather than rigid.

2.19 The sharing of knowledge and experiences is facilitated through mentoring and coaching.

2.20 The management style within the organisation stimulates the capturing, creation and sharing of knowledge and experiences.

2.21 Learning occurs frequently through informal discussions.

2.22 Our organisation looks for ways to remove barriers to knowledge sharing.

3. Performance Measurement

3.1 The assessment of the value of knowledge is part of our performance management system.

3.2 Knowledge-sharing behaviour is built into the performance management system.

3.3 Employees work-plans and targets are directly linked to measurable outputs, e.g., customer complaints, cost-reduction.

3.4 The generation of new ideas is an appropriate measure for assessing the success of a knowledge management strategy.

3.5 Employees believe that management of knowledge has a direct

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


111

contribution to the organisations financial performance. 4. Organisational Strategy and Planning

4.1 Employees have an understanding of the organisational strategy.

4.2 There is a clear relationship between our everyday jobs and the organisational strategy.

4.3 The creation, acquiring, and sharing of knowledge is central to implementing our organisational strategy.

4.4 At least once annually, we sit down as an organisation and decide what information, knowledge and work practices are relevant going forward, and which needs to be discarded or reformulated.

4.5 Senior management assesses what knowledge needs to be created when it allocates resources.

4.6 Best practices and best-of –class focus are important to our business, as it reduce mistakes, assists in problem solving, and drives down costs.

4.7 The implementation of a knowledge management strategy will result in better employee participation.

5. Information Management and Technology

5.1 Sharing of knowledge and experiences is possible without Information Technology (IT).

5.2 It is easy to retrieve information that has been previously stored in an electronic (e.g., database) or physical (e.g., filing cabinet) form.

5.3 The organisation has created electronic (e.g. Intranet) or paper-based tools which direct employees to available resources.

5.4 There are established ways for employees to document and share experiences and learning related to work processes and practices.

5.5 These established ways are well embedded into organisational work routines, and are used frequently by all employees.

5.6 The current IT infrastructure and systems are adequate for our organisational knowledge and information needs.

5.7 Information is a resource that is shared between all departments and operations in our organisation.

5.8 The Intranet is being used extensively by all employees for sharing knowledge and experiences.

5.9 Our IT systems connect us to information sources that we need to do our work.

5.10 Our IT systems promote communication between people.

5.11 Information technology is very important in helping employees become aware of the necessary best practices.

5.12 Employees often seek for new insights and knowledge using the Internet.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


112

If you have any queries please contact: Balisi Bonyongo & Nischal K. Sancho MBA Full-time students UCT Graduate School of Business Tel: (084) 359 3180 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


113

APPENDIX 4: SUMMARY OF EXPLORATORY RESEARCH

Examples of comments made Key finding

Question: Do you know what your competitors are doing with respect to the development of knowledge? If yes/no, please elaborate with

evidence?

• I personally don’t know

• If I am to call De Beers and Namdeb our competitors, then I know what they are doing. However, outside the

De Beers group of companies, I really don’t know.

• To be quite honest about it, no. I see my department as a service provider, and I have not read much about what

service providers elsewhere are doing with respect to the development of knowledge.

• No, at the moment I am very ignorant about what other people are doing about knowledge management.

• Although we consider De Beers as a partner in diamond mining, in some way I can classify them as a

competitor since they run their own unique operations in South Africa and elsewhere in the world. In this

context, I would say that I know what they are doing with respect to the development of knowledge. However,

I have little knowledge about what other diamond and non-diamond operations are doing.

• I am not fully informed of what our competitors are doing at the moment.

The company EXCO is not

aware of what competitors

outside the De Beers group

of companies are doing

with respect to the

development of knowledge.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


114

Question: Describe what knowledge assets Debswana has? Any examples?

• Our employees’ knowledge, especially on the technology that we use in our diamond extraction and sorting

processes.

• Intellectual capital – our people!

• I think it is the people and the knowledge that they have. I am referring here to both academic knowledge and

experience.

• Debswana’s knowledge assets are I guess two-fold. One is the knowledge that resides in individuals who have

been around the group for a long time and have picked up the way we do things, and the other, I guess a more

nebulous thing is the organisational memory of things that have been done, both good and bad.

• I think it will be its technology, that is, e-mail, intranet, ERP system due for commissioning shortly.

• People, especially their knowledge of the ore reserve, mining, diamond extraction and sorting techniques.

• We have a lot of archived information and knowledge within the company. It may not be easily accessible and

retrievable, but it is a knowledge assest.

• I suppose it is the knowledge that is stored in files as hardcopies, and electronically in our computer systems.

Probably the most valuable knowledge asset is what is on people’s minds.

• We have two types of knowledge assets. There is the ‘hard’ knowledge asset, that is recorded and retained in

either electronic or paper form, and also our employees who hold the knowledge in their heads. I can’t give you

an exact breakdown of these assets, but I reckon these assets can be split equally.

The EXCO believes that

Debswana’s knowledge

assets include:

• Intellectual capital,

specifically people. The

emphasis is in people’s

knowledge and

experiences.

• Information stored both

in hardcopies and

electronic media

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


115

It is the people and all the experience that they have gained over all the years they have worked for us – it is all our

plant designs, process flow sheets and mine plans.

Question: Who should have prime responsibility for capturing knowledge?

• Everyone in the organisation should have that responsibility. However, there should be a driver if the

organisation wants to systematically capture and use that knowledge.

• I guess we all should. Everyone in the business has a responsibility for ensuring that knowledge is captured and

that it stays within the business – even a person who gets sent on perhaps what is viewed as fairly routine

training courses. The issue is that the company invests time and money in that person to develop that

knowledge and understanding, and when that person comes back, it is important for that person to share what

he has learnt so that when he leaves, that knowledge remains locked inside the business.

• That is a difficult question because knowledge resides everywhere. Everyone has knowledge to impart on

others and everyone needs knowledge. So I would guess that if there is a person who should be driving KM in

the organisation, it must be the most senior person in that organisation.

• In our circumstance, I would say that the responsibility should lie with a technical department. Input from other

departments would then be directed to the driver of KM residing in that particular department. The driver

should be a senior manager from the EXCO so that KM is given the support and visibility it requires in order to

be successfully implemented.

In general, EXCO believes

that everyone should be

responsible for capturing

knowledge through an

established process or

system. However, there

should be an appointed

driver from EXCO to

oversee the process.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


116

• I believe that it is everyone’s responsibility to share what he or she knows. It is top management’s

responsibility to drive the process of knowledge capturing. This requires that an EXCO member be made

responsible for implementation of a KM strategy.

• I don’t want to say that the IT department should do that, but I believe that they must provide us with systems

that allows to capture and share knowledge and experiences. I would suggest that there should be one driver

from EXCO, who acts as a champion. His or her role should be to drive the EXCO members to ensure that the

knowledge capturing processes are in place and working effectively.

• I think we would not like to think of an individual as having prime responsibility for capturing knowledge, but

rather a process set up to collect information, knowledge and experiences, which is managed and driven by a

champion.

• One can easily say the human resources (HR) department, but another answer would be all of us. Ideally there

should be an established system or process that would allow people to continuously capture new knowledge

and experiences. However, there should be a structure in place to manage the process. My view would be that

all managers and supervisors in the company should manage this process, and an overseer from EXCO should

be appointed.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


117

Question: Has the company drawn up its knowledge requirement plan for the next 3-5 years?

• No, we have never discussed that.

• I think so, I don’t know!

• No, I don’t think we have done that from a company perspective. There are disciplines like Metallurgy where

they have started with such a process.

• Certainly from a corporate perspective there is no coherent plan. We have just started this process by

appointing a champion who is working closely with our DeBeers counterparts to develop a plan.

• No, I am not aware of any KM initiatives except a recent road show by people from DeBeers who came in to

introduce the concept to us, and DeBeers’ plan.

• I don’t think so, but KM is something that we have just started thinking about. However, I can say that we have

intuitively had such plans, but not formalised them through a systematic process.

There is no plan in place.

However, the company has

started looking at

implementing a KM

strategy and as part of that

process, a knowledge

requirement plan will be

drawn up.

Question: How will the business benefit by KM implementation?

• Implementation of KM would ensure that what people know is, as far as is possible captured into the

“organisational memory” for use even long after the person is no longer employed by the company.

• When we start focussing on KM systematically, I think we will begin to learn from other people, within

Debswana, from DeBeers and last but not least from others outside the diamond mining business. I think in this

way we will eliminate some of the mistakes we frequently make and avoid “reinventing the wheel”.

The EXCO members

believe that KM

implementation will result

in productivity

improvements through:

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


118

• We will be in a position to access best practices in a systematic manner.

• We will be able to leverage the “corporate memory” and be able to do things better by learning from mistakes.

The organisation has repeated similar mistakes in its different operations many times before, a sign that we are

not learning. KM should assist us in resolving this problem.

• KM will make us question the way we do things, and hopefully take us “back to basics.” If this happens, we

will begin to assess what is adding value and what is not. Rather than spending 80% of our time doing work

that adds 20% value to our business, we will use the knowledge that we have to reverse this trend. I believe that

by doing this, employees in general would start thinking more strategically about the work that they do and the

value that it adds.

• Cutting down on mistakes, leveraging best practices and maximising what our employees know will certainly

result in improved productivity, and ultimately this should show a positive improvement on our bottom line.

• Reduction in mistakes

• No “reinvention of the

wheel.”

• Access to best practices

with the company and

from outside.

• Focus on value-adding

work.

Question: What are the barriers to implementation of KM strategies?

• Employees may not buy-into the process because they don’t see how KM will benefit them.

• Because knowledge is seen as power, some employees may not want to share it for fear of losing competitive

advantage when it comes to promotions, and rewards and recognition.

• Employees fearful that KM may be one of the initiatives that may lead to job losses.

• Fear by employees that KM will increase workload, and hence make their jobs more difficult.

The EXCO members see

key barriers as:

• Silo-type organisational

structures

• Poor employee buy-in

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


119

• Managers may not give KM full support because they don’t see where it will add value.

• Our organisational culture encourages people to work in silos, and this makes information sharing difficult

though not impossible. I believe that previous and some current heads of department have created a situation

where departments compete destructively, to prove that they are better than others.

• A lot of people have always claimed to know more than us. These people may become fearful of opening up

and exposing themselves to scrutiny in a knowledge-sharing environment. This feeling of vulnerability may

become a hindrance to KM implementation.

• I think the “entitlement mentality” would be a significant barrier. A lot of people in this company would not do

anything without being promised a reward or incentive.

• I think that there are people who come into this organisation to maximise their stay. These people would want

to share as little knowledge as possible to maximise that staying power, almost like making themselves

“indispensable”. I see this as a potential barrier to KM implementation.

• Time constraints will become a significant factor for many people. People are already tied up in the balanced

scorecard process, and it may become very difficult to implement KM at this stage using the same resources.

• Over the last 12 months we have seen a proliferation of HR initiatives; balanced scorecard, performance

management and leadership supply, all requiring top priority implementation. I am not sure if people are ready

to receive KM with “open arms” at this point.

due to:

• Fear of loss of

knowledge, and

therefore power.

• Increased workload

• “Change fatigue”

• Lack of incentives:

“What’s in it for

me”

• KM being seen as

an initiative that

would potentially

lead to job losses

• Inadequate

understanding of

where KM adds

value

• Time constraints

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


120

Question: How is knowledge captured in the organisation?

• I believe we do it through writing of reports and archiving these in isolated libraries across the company. I must

say though that this inadequate because in general people don’t know about the existence of such reports and

further, they are not easy to access. The KM strategy currently being developed should assist in clarifying for

us the best way of doing this.

• There is no structured way of capturing knowledge currently. Reports are usually written up for work done in

the company, but these disappear in the system and their value is never realised.

• We do a lot of projects in this company, and the people that are involved always know more about the

achievements and failures of these initiatives. However, very little if any of that knowledge is captured

systematically for future use. I have been with the company for about 10 years now, and I don’t remember an

occasion where we had to change a decision for a project based on findings or results from post-completion

audits of previous projects.

• We have an ideas and suggestions scheme. Through this scheme, we capture employees’ knowledge, ideas and

experiences. Although this is one good way of capturing knowledge, it is a small, limited area within a wide

field of KM.

• The metallurgy discipline runs an electronic knowledge asset called the “knowledge-exchange” system. This

system was developed to capture and share knowledge within the De Beers group of companies. People who

are experts in various subject matters are posted on the “exchange” and can be contacted by all metallurgists.

EXCO members believe

that knowledge capturing

happens in an unstructured

way. They see knowledge

capture happening through:

• Reports

• Project work

• Ideas and suggestions

scheme

• Electronic knowledge

assets

• Written policies and

procedures

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


121

Topics of interest are also posted for sharing and further development through dialogue and conversation.

• We try and capture knowledge in written policies and procedures.

Question: How is knowledge shared in the organisation?

• We distribute reports to the relevant people as part of sharing. We also do presentations, train people and

communicate with employees regularly on various issues. There are forums across the organisation such Green

Areas, cross-functional technical and management sessions. Through these sessions information, experiences

and knowledge are shared.

• We share knowledge through our intranets and e-mail. I need to point out though that these are not effectively

used at the moment.

• Because we don’t capture it properly, we also don’t share it very well. We send out a lot of information to

people through e-mail, in most cases “over-loading” them with confusing and unnecessary detail.

• The company also trains its employees extensively. Through such training information and knowledge are

exchanged.

• Knowledge is shared through mentoring. We have a formal mentoring system for new graduates coming into

the organisation. I think mentoring should be extended to the managers in the organisation. This would enable

valuable transfer of knowledge from more experienced senior managers to future leaders of the organisation.


that knowledge sharing

happens through:

• Intranets

• E-mail

• “Green Areas”

• Cross-functional

information sharing

sessions

• Training sessions

• Presentations

• Mentoring

However, they see these

deficiencies in the way

knowledge is shared

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


122

through these systems.

Question: Does the organisation have a culture that motivates employees to acquire and share knowledge? Please elaborate?

• Yes, to some degree. We have an ideas and suggestions scheme that is supported by good incentives aimed at

promoting sharing of knowledge.

• To acquire knowledge, yes but to share, I am afraid no. I have in Botswana for over 5 years now, and what I see

is that everyone gets trained and developed fully, but they then hang-on to that knowledge instead of sharing it

with others. I guess it is that old cliché of knowledge being seen as power.

• To some extent yes. I think as an organisation we have probably been less afraid of experimentation than other

organisations, may because we are financially secure enough to do that without “wheels falling off.” So there is

some tolerance of risk and failure, which allows our employees to feel, protected enough to experiment.

• I don’t think we have at the moment, an organisational culture that is at the level required to fully support KM,

as I think it should be. We have in the past had a performance culture that promoted competitiveness amongst

individuals, and was not fostering a spirit of sharing and team-focussed action. We recently introduced

competency-based performance, which is advocating for the development of individuals to high levels of

competency. This in my view again reinforces what we did in the past. It emphasises the knowledge capturing

and not the sharing aspect.

• I must be very honest, I don’t think so yet. I think there are signs that we are doing something about the culture.

In general the EXCO

members believe that the

culture is not yet conducive

for motivating employees

to acquire and share

knowledge. The key

concern raised is that the

culture promotes

individualism and is seen to

be encouraging the

“knowledge is power”

concept. They however,

point to evidence that the

culture is changing for the

better, and cite the

following as examples.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


123

The land is cultivated, it has been prepared, but the seeds must still grow. We are setting out schemes that will

encourage high performance, innovation and reward people appropriately.

• Ideas and suggestions

scheme

• Acceptance of risk

taking and

experimentation, and

tolerance of failure.

Question: What role does organisational culture play in enabling successful implementation of KM?

• I think it is important that the culture has to be right. Organisational culture should of a nature that make people

comfortable enough to want to share knowledge. The culture that we have at the moment does not make it

difficult for that to happen.

• I believe that culture probably plays the biggest role in successful implementation of KM. Culture determines

the effectiveness of our employees in their daily jobs and interactions. It is important to have in place an

effective communication system, transparency, a succession planning system that is perceived to be fair by all

staff and leadership that is seen to provide the work force with effective direction.

• Culture enables learning to happen. If employees are not allowed to question and challenge the status quo, then

learning will be affected. Additionally, if employees want to apply their knowledge, but are fearful of

experimenting and taking risks, then the culture is not enabling successful implementation of KM. To a large


that organisational culture

plays a vital role in

enabling successful

implementation of KM.

They all emphasise the role

of management in creating

a culture that is supportive

to KM. According to them,

the culture should:

• Support risk taking and

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


124

degree I think we allow for experimentation and risk-taking to happen. I am not sure that many senior managers

open themselves up to subordinates for their views and assumptions to be challenged. I see this as a potential

culture problem, which could threaten successful implementation of KM.

• Culture plays a vital role, and my view is that for KM to be successful, senior managers must own it and drive

it with the rest of the employees. Ultimately, it is leadership that determines culture and the role that it will play

in facilitating KM implementation.

• Culture will be vital because people must be made aware of what the advantages of KM are before they can

buy-in. If we don'’ make a conscious attempt to change the culture to support KM, chances of successful

implementation will reduce. Leadership is therefore essential in this context.

• Culture change starts with your management. If management is not positive about KM, nothing will happen.

They must “live” and “preach” KM if successful implementation is to be realised.

NB: Virtually all of the EXCO members, awarded current culture a rating of 5 on a scale of 1-10 when asked the

following question:

On a scale of 1-10, where would you rate the current organisational culture’s ability to support successful

implementation of a KM strategy?

experimentation.

• Support learning

• Support sharing

• Encourage transparency

through open

communication

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


125

Question: What is the role of information technology in enabling successful implementation of KM?

• I see the role of technology as an enabler which, allows for knowledge to be captured, manipulated and

retrieved easily and quickly.

• Information technology should be seen as a driver for implementing KM. Our ability to effectively capture and

share knowledge is dependent on our technological capability. I believe that we have the infrastructure in place,

but need to have an integrated technology platform that will enable us and our partners in De Beers and

Namdeb to share knowledge.

• We are a technology-driven company, and have a diverse range of technologies from our mining and treatment

operations to information technology. Just what type of technology KM is going to need, I am not very sure.

However, my view is that KM may require a rationalisation of our existing internet, intranet and other web-

based technologies to come up with an appropriate platform for capturing our employees’ knowledge, ideas and

experiences, whilst allowing for easy retrieval and use by everyone in the organisation.

Technology is viewed as an

enabler that facilitates

capturing, storage and

sharing of information or

knowledge. The EXCO

members give examples of

the internet, intranets, e-

mail and bulletin boards as

typical technologies for use

in KM.

Question: Give examples of typical information technologies required for KM to be successful?

Examples include communication technologies such as internet, intranet, e-mail and bulletin boards.

See comments above.

Question: What do you believe is an appropriate measure to assess KM implementation?

• This is a difficult question. I would say that it is not easy to measure the contribution of KM to the financial EXCO members believe

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


126

bottom line in the short term. The best measures may not be output based, but those based on process activities.

These would typically include such measures as “number of hits on the web site”, “number of ideas and

suggestions submitted”, “number of ideas implemented”, etc.

• The balanced scorecard approach should be used to measure implementation success. There may be difficulty

in measuring financial performance, but it should be easy to measure knowledge capturing and sharing

activities from people and internal process perspectives of the scorecard. People measures may look at training

and development issues, mentoring, ideas and suggestions tendered, and team based project successes. Internal

process measures may look at efficiency and productivity improvements. The “number of successful business

partnerships” developed through knowledge exchanges could be one measure on the “business partners and

community” perspective.

that measuring KM

contribution to the financial

performance of the

company may not be so

obvious especially in the

short term. However, they

view the use of the

balanced scorecard

approach as an effective

way of tracking KM

implementation

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


127

APPENDIX 5: PATTERSON GRADING SYSTEM AT DEBSWANA

Patterson

Band

Description

E-Upper

E-Lower

Executive management: Formulate corporate and operational strategies

(long term planning). Provide direction and support in implementation of

business plans.

D-Upper

D-Lower

Implement business plans, and are involved in short- to medium-term

planning.

In general D-Lower level employees are responsible for implementing

operational plans.

C-Upper

C-Lower

This level of employees is responsible for providing supervisory support to

shop floor employees who “do the work”, and includes Plant, Maintenance,

Pit, Purchasing, and Projects supervisors.

In general employees at this level “do the work”. They generally have

Ordinary Level (O-level) education, and have job-specific training. These

are skilled workers and include artisans, plant and machine operators, IT

assistants, etc.

B-Upper

B-Lower

Employees in this level “do most of the field-type work”. They generally

have education, which is lower than O-level, and belong to the semi-skilled

category of employees. These include field and machine operators, clerks,

line manager secretaries, drivers, etc.

The B-Lower level is a mix of semi-skilled and unskilled employees. In

general they do all fieldwork. They include maintenance helpers, first-line

plant operators, etc.

A-Upper

A-Lower

Employees at this level are in general have low level or no education, and

are unskilled. These include cleaners, gardeners, etc.

Note: “Upper” implies a higher level of responsibility than “Lower” in each band, and commands higher salary.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


128

APPENDIX 6: BASIC DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

The following table is a summary of the basic descriptive statistics for individual

questions, as well as each business enabler and the overall readiness variable.

Valid N Mean Median Min Max Var. Std.

Dev. Standard

Error Skewness

Q1.1 184 3.6413 4 1 5 1.0291 1.0144 0.0748 -0.9147 Q1.2 184 3.2446 4 1 5 0.9726 0.9862 0.0727 -0.3702 Q1.3 184 2.9239 3 1 5 0.9887 0.9943 0.0733 0.0527 Q1.4 184 2.3696 2 1 5 0.8463 0.9199 0.0678 0.2626 Q1.5 184 2.7446 3 1 5 0.9016 0.9495 0.0700 0.1065 Q1.6 184 2.5815 2 1 5 1.0097 1.0048 0.0741 0.3292 Q1.7 184 3.6250 4 1 5 0.7384 0.8593 0.0633 -0.9689 Q1.8 184 2.6413 2 1 5 0.9745 0.9871 0.0728 0.2549 Q1.9 184 4.3424 4 2 5 0.4013 0.6334 0.0467 -0.8218 Q1.10 184 4.4402 4 2 5 0.3461 0.5883 0.0434 -0.8234 Q1.11 184 3.6467 4 1 5 0.8090 0.8994 0.0663 -0.6074 Q1.12 184 2.8533 3 1 5 1.1423 1.0688 0.0788 0.3512 Q1.13 184 2.8152 3 1 5 1.1788 1.0857 0.0800 0.0636 Q1.14 184 2.5924 2 1 5 1.2701 1.1270 0.0831 0.3693 Q2.1 184 3.9239 4 1 5 0.5734 0.7572 0.0558 -0.8647 Q2.2 184 2.8859 3 1 5 1.2164 1.1029 0.0813 0.2532 Q2.3 184 3.1522 3 1 5 0.9057 0.9517 0.0702 -0.1174 Q2.4 184 3.5598 4 1 5 0.8707 0.9331 0.0688 -0.8082 Q2.5 184 3.1576 3 1 5 0.8985 0.9479 0.0699 -0.3209 Q2.6 184 3.5924 4 1 5 0.5488 0.7408 0.0546 -1.1378 Q2.7 184 3.5707 4 1 5 0.7600 0.8718 0.0643 -0.7445 Q2.8 184 2.8043 3 1 5 1.0216 1.0108 0.0745 0.2414 Q2.9 184 2.7391 3 1 5 1.1775 1.0851 0.0800 0.0688 Q2.10 184 3.4565 4 1 5 0.7741 0.8798 0.0649 -0.5963 Q2.11 184 3.2065 3 1 5 0.8642 0.9296 0.0685 -0.4236 Q2.12 184 2.5707 2 1 4 0.9130 0.9555 0.0704 0.1949 Q2.13 184 2.7065 3 1 5 1.0500 1.0247 0.0755 0.1532 Q2.14 184 3.0272 3 1 5 0.9774 0.9886 0.0729 0.0481 Q2.15 184 3.0326 3 1 5 1.0153 1.0076 0.0743 -0.1630 Q2.16 184 3.2065 3 1 5 1.1593 1.0767 0.0794 -0.0224 Q2.17 184 2.9674 3 1 5 1.0153 1.0076 0.0743 -0.0962 Q2.18 184 2.6359 2 1 5 1.2055 1.0979 0.0809 0.1622 Q2.19 184 3.1793 3 1 5 0.9677 0.9837 0.0725 -0.5417

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


129

Q2.20 184 2.8641 3 1 5 1.0689 1.0339 0.0762 0.0659 Q2.21 184 3.6630 4 1 5 0.6181 0.7862 0.0580 -1.0985 Q2.22 184 3.1413 3 1 5 0.8324 0.9124 0.0673 -0.2407 Q3.1 184 2.9837 3 1 5 1.1309 1.0634 0.0784 -0.2980 Q3.2 184 2.8533 3 1 5 1.0221 1.0110 0.0745 -0.0218 Q3.3 184 3.7337 4 1 5 0.6227 0.7891 0.0582 -1.3097 Q3.4 184 3.6902 4 1 5 0.6959 0.8342 0.0615 -0.7346 Q3.5 184 3.5489 4 1 5 0.8938 0.9454 0.0697 -0.5150 Q4.1 184 3.1196 3 1 5 0.8709 0.9332 0.0688 -0.2004 Q4.2 184 3.3804 4 1 5 0.8927 0.9448 0.0697 -0.5147 Q4.3 184 3.8152 4 1 5 0.7088 0.8419 0.0621 -0.6936 Q4.4 184 2.8043 3 1 5 1.1528 1.0737 0.0792 0.0500 Q4.5 184 3.0924 3 1 5 0.9696 0.9847 0.0726 -0.2912 Q4.6 184 4.0978 4 1 5 0.6133 0.7832 0.0577 -0.9329 Q4.7 184 4.1848 4 1 5 0.5668 0.7528 0.0555 -1.0184 Q5.1 184 2.8098 3 1 5 1.5429 1.2421 0.0916 -0.0306 Q5.2 184 3.7283 4 1 5 1.0842 1.0413 0.0768 -1.0793 Q5.3 184 3.8696 4 1 5 0.5840 0.7642 0.0563 -1.0370 Q5.4 184 3.0598 3 1 5 1.1603 1.0772 0.0794 -0.2790 Q5.5 184 2.6304 3 1 5 0.9556 0.9775 0.0721 0.2316 Q5.6 184 2.9620 3 1 5 1.0969 1.0473 0.0772 -0.0966 Q5.7 184 3.2391 4 1 5 1.0791 1.0388 0.0766 -0.3755 Q5.8 184 2.6196 2 1 5 1.0895 1.0438 0.0769 0.2899 Q5.9 184 3.5652 4 1 5 0.8700 0.9328 0.0688 -0.9476 Q5.10 184 3.7935 4 1 5 0.6456 0.8035 0.0592 -0.8857 Q5.11 184 4.0924 4 1 5 0.5324 0.7297 0.0538 -0.8270 Q5.12 184 3.6739 4 1 5 0.8220 0.9067 0.0668 -0.7298

People and Process Management 184 3.1759 3 2 4 0.1728 0.4157 0.0306 0.0157

Organisational Culture and Structure 184 3.1383 3 2 4 0.2175 0.4663 0.0344 -0.1120

Performance Measurement 184 3.3620 3 2 5 0.3703 0.6086 0.0449 -0.4077

Organisational Strategy and Planning 184 3.4992 4 2 5 0.2761 0.5255 0.0387 -0.1750

Information Management and Technology 184 3.3370 3 1 4 0.2828 0.5318 0.0392 -0.5030

Overall Readiness 184 3.3025 3 2 4 0.1646 0.4057 0.0299 -0.1889

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


130

APPENDIX 7: RESULTS OF t-TESTS

The following table is a summary of the t-test. This involved testing the means of

individual questions, as well as for each business enabler and the overall readiness

variable against reference constant of 3.0.

Mean Std.Dev. N Std.Err. t-value df p Q1.1 3.64 1.01 184 0.0748 8.58 183 0.0000 Q1.2 3.24 0.99 184 0.0727 3.36 183 0.0009 Q1.3 2.92 0.99 184 0.0733 -1.04 183 0.3007 Q1.4 2.37 0.92 184 0.0678 -9.30 183 0.0000 Q1.5 2.74 0.95 184 0.0700 -3.65 183 0.0003 Q1.6 2.58 1.00 184 0.0741 -5.65 183 0.0000 Q1.7 3.62 0.86 184 0.0633 9.87 183 0.0000 Q1.8 2.64 0.99 184 0.0728 -4.93 183 0.0000 Q1.9 4.34 0.63 184 0.0467 28.75 183 0.0000 Q1.10 4.44 0.59 184 0.0434 33.21 183 0.0000 Q1.11 3.65 0.90 184 0.0663 9.75 183 0.0000 Q1.12 2.85 1.07 184 0.0788 -1.86 183 0.0642 Q1.13 2.82 1.09 184 0.0800 -2.31 183 0.0221 Q1.14 2.59 1.13 184 0.0831 -4.91 183 0.0000 Q2.1 3.92 0.76 184 0.0558 16.55 183 0.0000 Q2.2 2.89 1.10 184 0.0813 -1.40 183 0.1621 Q2.3 3.15 0.95 184 0.0702 2.17 183 0.0314 Q2.4 3.56 0.93 184 0.0688 8.14 183 0.0000 Q2.5 3.16 0.95 184 0.0699 2.26 183 0.0253 Q2.6 3.59 0.74 184 0.0546 10.85 183 0.0000 Q2.7 3.57 0.87 184 0.0643 8.88 183 0.0000 Q2.8 2.80 1.01 184 0.0745 -2.63 183 0.0094 Q2.9 2.74 1.09 184 0.0800 -3.26 183 0.0013 Q2.10 3.46 0.88 184 0.0649 7.04 183 0.0000 Q2.11 3.21 0.93 184 0.0685 3.01 183 0.0029 Q2.12 2.57 0.96 184 0.0704 -6.10 183 0.0000 Q2.13 2.71 1.02 184 0.0755 -3.88 183 0.0001 Q2.14 3.03 0.99 184 0.0729 0.37 183 0.7097 Q2.15 3.03 1.01 184 0.0743 0.44 183 0.6612 Q2.16 3.21 1.08 184 0.0794 2.60 183 0.0100 Q2.17 2.97 1.01 184 0.0743 -0.44 183 0.6612 Q2.18 2.64 1.10 184 0.0809 -4.50 183 0.0000

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


131

Q2.19 3.18 0.98 184 0.0725 2.47 183 0.0143 Q2.20 2.86 1.03 184 0.0762 -1.78 183 0.0763 Q2.21 3.66 0.79 184 0.0580 11.44 183 0.0000 Q2.22 3.14 0.91 184 0.0673 2.10 183 0.0370 Q3.1 2.98 1.06 184 0.0784 -0.21 183 0.8355 Q3.2 2.85 1.01 184 0.0745 -1.97 183 0.0505 Q3.3 3.73 0.79 184 0.0582 12.61 183 0.0000 Q3.4 3.69 0.83 184 0.0615 11.22 183 0.0000 Q3.5 3.55 0.95 184 0.0697 7.88 183 0.0000 Q4.1 3.12 0.93 184 0.0688 1.74 183 0.0839 Q4.2 3.38 0.94 184 0.0697 5.46 183 0.0000 Q4.3 3.82 0.84 184 0.0621 13.13 183 0.0000 Q4.4 2.80 1.07 184 0.0792 -2.47 183 0.0144 Q4.5 3.09 0.98 184 0.0726 1.27 183 0.2047 Q4.6 4.10 0.78 184 0.0577 19.01 183 0.0000 Q4.7 4.18 0.75 184 0.0555 21.35 183 0.0000 Q5.1 2.81 1.24 184 0.0916 -2.08 183 0.0392 Q5.2 3.73 1.04 184 0.0768 9.49 183 0.0000 Q5.3 3.87 0.76 184 0.0563 15.44 183 0.0000 Q5.4 3.06 1.08 184 0.0794 0.75 183 0.4525 Q5.5 2.63 0.98 184 0.0721 -5.13 183 0.0000 Q5.6 2.96 1.05 184 0.0772 -0.49 183 0.6228 Q5.7 3.24 1.04 184 0.0766 3.12 183 0.0021 Q5.8 2.62 1.04 184 0.0769 -4.94 183 0.0000 Q5.9 3.57 0.93 184 0.0688 8.22 183 0.0000 Q5.10 3.79 0.80 184 0.0592 13.40 183 0.0000 Q5.11 4.09 0.73 184 0.0538 20.31 183 0.0000 Q5.12 3.67 0.91 184 0.0668 10.08 183 0.0000

People and Process Management 3.18 0.42 184 0.0306 5.74 183 0.0000

Organisational Culture and Structure 3.14 0.47 184 0.0344 4.02 183 0.0001

Performance Measurement 3.36 0.61 184 0.0449 8.07 183 0.0000

Organisational Strategy and Planning 3.50 0.53 184 0.0387 12.89 183 0.0000

Information Management and Technology 3.34 0.53 184 0.0392 8.59 183 0.0000

Overall Readiness 3.30 0.41 184 0.0299 10.11 183 0.0000

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


132

APPENDIX 8: CATEGORISED BOX-AND-WHISKER PLOTS FOR

INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS FOR EACH BUSINESS ENABLER

Mean ±SE

±1.96*SE Q1.1Q1.3

Q1.5Q1.7

Q1.9Q1.11

Q1.132.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

Mean ±SE

±1.96*SE Q2.1Q2.3

Q2.5Q2.7

Q2.9Q2.11

Q2.13Q2.15

Q2.17Q2.19

Q2.212.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


133

Mean ±SE

±1.96*SE Q3.1 Q3.2 Q3.3 Q3.4 Q3.5

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

Mean ±SE

±1.96*SE Q4.1 Q4.2 Q4.3 Q4.4 Q4.5 Q4.6 Q4.7

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


134

Mean ±SE

±1.96*SE Q5.1Q5.2

Q5.3Q5.4

Q5.5Q5.6

Q5.7Q5.8

Q5.9Q5.10

Q5.11Q5.12

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


135

APPENDIX 9: FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


136

A9.1: Overall Factor Analysis

Table A9.1.1: Factor Loadings (Varimax normalized) Extraction: Principal components; (Marked loadings are > .700000)

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor4

Factor5

Factor6

Factor7

Factor8

Factor9

Factor 10

Factor11

Factor12

Factor13

Factor14

Factor15

Factor16

Factor17

Q1.1 0.0869 0.1531 0.1702 0.1544 0.0583 -0.1604 0.0894 -0.0781 0.0215 -0.0173 0.2731 0.0605 0.5604 0.0433 0.1153 -0.1404 0.1896 Q1.2 0.1532 -0.0035 -0.0485 0.2170 -0.1221 0.0738 0.0425 0.0505 0.0522 0.1859 0.4725 0.0848 0.1864 0.4272 0.0373 0.3569 0.1111 Q1.3 0.4676 0.0697 0.1487 0.3040 0.0464 -0.0833 0.0312 -0.0509 0.1092 -0.0831 0.5408 -0.0299 -0.0051 0.1712 0.0487 0.1269 0.0380 Q1.4 0.1843 -0.1005 0.0211 0.0058 0.1705 -0.1428 0.0773 -0.1144 0.0179 0.7268 0.0708 0.0847 0.0194 0.0567 0.1436 -0.1201 0.0698 Q1.5 0.2556 0.1750 0.0850 0.0676 -0.0405 -0.1796 0.0952 -0.0434 -0.0625 0.7200 0.1813 -0.0285 0.0050 0.0958 0.0903 0.1671 0.0822 Q1.6 0.3492 0.0583 0.0462 0.1123 0.1559 0.0764 0.0913 0.0088 -0.1276 0.2798 0.5330 0.1453 0.1638 0.1045 0.1217 -0.1259 -0.0639Q1.7 0.5267 -0.1515 0.1170 0.0678 0.0976 0.0259 0.2192 0.0526 0.0904 0.1692 0.1880 0.1008 0.3006 -0.2553 0.2228 -0.0214 0.1461 Q1.8 0.1270 -0.0569 0.0691 0.1265 0.1578 -0.0063 0.1361 0.0183 0.0628 0.0882 0.0333 0.1447 0.0976 0.8075 0.0336 -0.0207 0.0459 Q1.9 0.0316 0.1381 0.1080 -0.0302 0.0203 0.7596 0.1709 0.0705 -0.1033 -0.0723 -0.0453 -0.0490 -0.0673 0.0466 0.0673 -0.1336 0.0142 Q1.10 -0.0139 0.1777 0.0237 -0.0277 0.0937 0.7797 -0.0511 -0.0229 0.1248 -0.1800 0.0859 -0.0403 0.1184 -0.0162 -0.0603 0.0709 0.0150 Q1.11 0.0609 -0.1637 -0.0203 0.0311 -0.0446 0.2549 0.1423 0.2567 -0.0035 0.4723 0.2853 0.1042 0.0565 -0.0118 0.3800 0.0838 -0.1707Q1.12 0.0884 -0.0904 -0.0396 0.1383 0.7592 0.1993 0.0589 -0.1999 0.0183 -0.0157 0.0510 -0.0553 -0.0222 0.0596 -0.0543 -0.0411 -0.0712Q1.13 0.1705 -0.1989 -0.1529 -0.0342 0.1967 -0.0675 0.5986 0.0083 0.1082 0.0108 -0.1067 0.1574 0.0625 0.0271 0.1150 0.2552 0.0107 Q1.14 -0.0903 -0.1310 -0.0644 -0.0481 0.0194 -0.0301 0.0365 0.0971 -0.8339 0.0429 -0.0640 0.0320 -0.0403 -0.0470 0.0219 -0.0181 -0.0423Q2.1 -0.1711 -0.0599 -0.1344 0.0096 0.1722 0.4689 0.0524 -0.1170 0.0797 0.0588 0.2088 0.0796 0.2528 -0.0211 -0.2356 0.0665 0.2621 Q2.2 -0.1604 -0.2686 -0.2338 0.1090 0.1075 0.0932 0.0181 -0.1428 -0.0983 0.0027 -0.3561 0.0629 0.2781 -0.1180 -0.4678 0.1290 -0.1294

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


137

Q2.3 0.6504 0.0370 0.1382 0.0294 0.0236 0.0188 0.0427 -0.1255 0.0697 -0.1729 0.1485 0.0515 0.2093 0.2023 0.0686 0.1645 0.0674 Q2.4 0.2066 -0.1466 0.0174 0.1077 -0.0134 0.1824 0.0640 0.0652 0.1983 0.2748 0.4552 0.1380 0.2342 -0.2222 0.3831 -0.2091 0.1221 Q2.5 0.1844 0.0091 0.0935 0.0076 0.0596 0.0657 -0.0354 -0.0226 0.1255 0.1434 0.6884 0.2715 0.1989 -0.0390 0.1724 -0.0263 -0.0005Q2.6 -0.0158 0.0460 0.1299 0.0772 0.1466 -0.0272 -0.0312 -0.7319 0.1294 0.1921 0.0092 -0.0357 0.0439 0.0592 0.1892 -0.0231 0.0008 Q2.7 0.7186 0.0321 0.1685 0.1276 0.0244 0.0625 0.1009 0.0360 0.0899 0.1672 0.0645 0.0616 0.0762 -0.0698 0.1939 -0.0855 0.0245 Q2.8 0.6795 0.1105 0.1570 0.1062 0.0226 0.0305 0.0710 -0.1039 0.0351 0.1418 0.2081 0.2983 0.1198 0.0406 0.0681 -0.0350 0.0231 Q2.9 0.3738 0.1968 0.1863 0.4918 -0.0233 0.0767 0.1887 -0.0357 -0.1514 -0.0186 0.4118 0.1657 0.0219 -0.0058 0.0434 0.0026 -0.0737Q2.10 0.0063 -0.1194 0.0130 0.7845 -0.0465 -0.0508 0.1075 -0.0159 0.0288 -0.0210 0.0783 0.0866 0.2861 0.0944 0.1412 -0.0815 0.2075 Q2.11 0.2192 0.1057 0.0192 0.7631 -0.1093 -0.0564 0.0226 -0.1107 0.0250 -0.0303 0.0118 0.1627 0.1621 0.0850 0.1415 0.0297 0.1808 Q2.12 0.4598 0.1224 0.1974 0.3362 -0.0314 -0.2243 0.0063 0.1134 -0.1077 0.1131 0.1059 0.1779 0.0061 0.2032 0.2223 0.0894 0.1590 Q2.13 0.2781 0.0505 0.1342 0.3051 -0.0726 -0.0942 0.1420 0.0104 -0.0756 -0.0310 0.2339 0.3392 0.0626 0.0315 0.3427 0.1413 0.2131 Q2.14 0.6534 0.0581 -0.0901 0.0831 0.0070 -0.0313 0.1003 0.1950 0.0836 0.1605 0.0596 0.0478 0.0368 0.0994 0.2138 -0.0465 0.1535 Q2.15 0.5956 -0.1025 0.1659 0.1097 0.0811 -0.0790 0.0648 0.3944 -0.1288 0.1980 0.0803 0.1095 0.0321 0.0659 0.1649 -0.0456 0.1729 Q2.16 -0.2198 -0.0000 -0.0374 -0.1358 -0.0023 0.0479 0.0224 0.0561 0.0386 -0.1606 -0.0892 0.0210 -0.0699 -0.0445 -0.7077 0.0181 0.0387 Q2.17 0.2464 0.0641 0.0608 0.0541 -0.0342 0.0057 0.2101 -0.1506 -0.0072 0.0232 0.0100 0.1510 0.1096 0.0430 0.7024 -0.0646 0.1213 Q2.18 0.2596 0.1723 0.1137 0.1772 0.0649 -0.1117 0.1664 0.0944 -0.0335 0.0809 0.2755 0.2241 -0.0644 -0.0894 0.5716 0.1922 0.0592 Q2.19 0.2377 0.0885 0.2260 0.2116 0.0127 -0.0420 -0.0264 0.4965 0.0906 0.1945 0.0414 0.0788 0.0806 0.2319 0.2783 -0.0336 0.0131 Q2.20 0.5180 0.1976 0.1318 0.2422 0.0356 0.0262 0.0879 0.0500 -0.1532 0.1850 0.3541 0.1774 0.0080 0.0655 0.3368 0.0852 0.0558 Q2.21 0.2353 -0.0906 0.0440 0.0840 -0.1176 0.1893 -0.2402 -0.0273 -0.0182 0.1046 0.0280 0.2037 -0.1253 0.1196 0.0121 -0.1689 0.5779 Q2.22 0.5047 -0.1161 0.0688 0.1793 -0.0070 0.0844 -0.0435 0.0275 0.0310 0.2150 0.1091 0.1862 -0.0262 -0.1117 0.4036 0.3848 0.1013 Q3.1 0.1828 0.0009 0.0447 0.1879 0.0204 -0.0663 0.0991 0.1063 0.0608 0.0050 0.1626 0.7996 0.0222 -0.0054 0.1336 -0.0848 0.0477 Q3.2 0.2414 0.1046 0.1142 0.1265 0.0777 0.0226 0.0359 -0.0360 -0.1268 0.0623 0.1215 0.7482 0.0804 0.1856 0.0987 0.0938 0.0843 Q3.3 0.1712 0.2766 -0.0185 0.1403 0.1757 0.1872 0.1734 0.0832 -0.1935 0.1319 0.0550 0.0391 0.1520 -0.1242 0.2613 -0.3505 0.2548

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


138

Q3.4 0.2071 0.1608 -0.1919 0.0189 0.4408 0.1688 -0.0474 0.0593 0.0834 0.0362 -0.0025 0.0148 0.4839 0.1537 0.0604 0.0612 0.1332 Q3.5 0.2288 0.0880 0.1644 0.1507 0.3004 0.1014 0.1275 0.1582 -0.0300 -0.0155 0.1121 0.0987 0.5985 -0.0561 0.0827 0.2090 -0.0669Q4.1 0.0643 0.1576 0.1681 0.1291 -0.1195 0.1304 0.7414 -0.0130 -0.0765 0.1286 0.0883 0.0060 0.1190 0.0668 0.0724 -0.0292 0.0574 Q4.2 0.2219 0.2012 0.1376 0.1469 -0.1436 0.1028 0.6262 0.0636 -0.0396 0.0976 0.1287 0.1095 0.0647 0.1157 0.1326 -0.2275 0.0140 Q4.3 0.1844 0.2992 0.0762 0.0971 -0.1084 0.1957 0.1400 -0.0884 0.0341 0.0786 0.0641 -0.0161 0.5666 0.1855 -0.0348 -0.0683 -0.0064Q4.4 0.2263 0.0363 0.1315 0.6624 0.1874 0.0260 0.0283 0.1209 0.0817 0.1315 0.1279 0.0958 -0.0937 0.0133 0.0492 0.0126 -0.0701Q4.5 0.1544 -0.0372 0.1416 0.3316 0.2929 0.0178 0.0901 0.1171 0.0210 0.1317 0.4285 0.0903 -0.0133 -0.0482 0.2075 0.1763 0.2635 Q4.6 0.0519 0.6578 -0.1279 0.1313 0.1083 0.0647 0.1616 -0.0597 0.0943 -0.0392 0.0133 0.1219 0.1394 -0.0888 0.0486 -0.0922 0.1522 Q4.7 0.0236 0.8115 -0.0068 -0.0402 0.0105 0.2018 -0.0159 0.0300 0.0758 0.0063 0.0381 0.0004 0.1208 0.0501 0.0751 0.0290 0.0085 Q5.1 0.0638 -0.1788 -0.0166 0.1663 -0.6194 0.0610 0.1600 -0.0315 0.0681 -0.1228 -0.0591 -0.1336 -0.1686 -0.0520 0.0145 0.0139 -0.0590Q5.2 0.0517 0.3527 0.2799 0.1216 -0.0207 0.0288 0.1683 0.0349 0.1551 -0.0770 0.1044 0.0474 0.1274 -0.0469 0.0738 0.0421 0.5048 Q5.3 0.0408 0.1210 0.2371 0.1661 -0.0069 0.0646 0.1692 0.0407 0.0829 0.0119 0.0066 0.0619 0.1705 0.1287 0.2321 0.1058 0.5790 Q5.4 0.1348 0.1465 0.4455 0.3267 -0.0419 -0.0530 0.0637 0.2104 0.3019 0.2190 0.0333 0.3719 0.0809 0.0804 -0.0584 0.3207 0.0365 Q5.5 0.0114 0.0657 0.3404 0.3971 0.0588 0.0279 0.2267 0.0968 0.3658 0.1531 0.1625 0.4057 -0.0503 0.0975 -0.0825 0.1347 0.0779 Q5.6 0.0695 -0.1093 0.6626 -0.0627 0.0306 0.0020 0.1411 -0.1758 -0.0483 -0.1814 0.1423 0.0214 -0.1578 0.0341 0.1191 0.1958 0.1411 Q5.7 0.3436 0.1062 0.5553 0.1964 0.0069 -0.0131 0.1326 -0.0713 0.2168 0.0687 0.0523 0.0654 -0.0099 0.1021 0.1990 -0.2014 0.0252 Q5.8 0.2109 0.0978 0.4594 0.2004 0.0936 -0.0939 0.2330 0.1845 0.0839 0.0183 0.2482 0.0135 -0.1153 0.0320 -0.2130 -0.1448 0.1852 Q5.9 0.0939 -0.0891 0.7781 0.0550 -0.1457 0.0926 -0.0559 0.0056 0.0782 0.0821 0.0064 0.1070 0.1421 -0.0126 0.1149 -0.0109 0.0121 Q5.10 0.1223 -0.0165 0.6518 0.0662 0.0420 0.0840 -0.0266 0.0569 -0.1018 0.1011 0.0308 0.0596 0.2472 0.0125 0.0275 -0.0238 0.3224 Q5.11 0.1830 0.3947 0.0933 -0.0950 0.0314 0.4356 -0.0397 -0.0849 -0.0763 0.2380 -0.1097 0.0636 0.0816 -0.1689 -0.0646 0.1983 0.4077 Q5.12 0.2978 0.1208 0.3856 0.1303 0.2336 -0.1547 0.0427 0.0089 -0.0497 0.0459 0.0311 -0.0962 0.0016 -0.0760 -0.0983 -0.0383 0.5334

Expl.Var 5.1391 2.3309 3.2965 3.3043 1.8317 2.2440 2.0584 1.4891 1.4214 2.2205 2.8816 2.3404 2.1779 1.4754 3.1512 1.2466 2.2123 Prp.Totl 0.0857 0.0388 0.0549 0.0551 0.0305 0.0374 0.0343 0.0248 0.0237 0.0370 0.0480 0.0390 0.0363 0.0246 0.0525 0.0208 0.0369

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


139

Table A9.1.2: Eigenvalues Extraction: Principal components

Eigenvalues (Debswana results)Extraction: Principal components

ValueEigenvalue % Total

varianceCumulativeEigenvalue

Cumulative%

1234567891011121314151617

13.9415 23.2359 13.94152 23.235863.4313 5.7188 17.37277 28.954622.8928 4.8214 20.26562 33.776032.3458 3.9096 22.61137 37.685621.9938 3.3230 24.60519 41.008661.7788 2.9647 26.38401 43.973341.5985 2.6642 27.98256 46.637591.5858 2.6430 29.56836 49.280611.5314 2.5524 31.09979 51.832991.5023 2.5038 32.60208 54.336801.3436 2.2393 33.94564 56.576061.3000 2.1667 35.24568 58.742811.2166 2.0277 36.46231 60.770511.1796 1.9661 37.64196 62.736591.1099 1.8498 38.75182 64.586361.0574 1.7623 39.80918 66.348631.0123 1.6871 40.82143 68.03572

Figure A9.1.1: Scree Plot of Eigenvalues

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Number of Eigenvalues

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Val

ue

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


140

A9.2: Factor Analysis for each Business Enabler

Table A9.2.1: Loadings (Varimax normalized) for People and Process Management

Factor Loadings (Varimax normalized)Extraction: Principal components(Marked loadings are > .700000)

VariableFactor

1Factor

2Factor

3Factor

4Q1.1Q1.2Q1.3Q1.4Q1.5Q1.6Q1.7Q1.8Q1.9Q1.10Q1.11Q1.12Q1.13Q1.14Expl.VarPrp.Totl

0.1508 -0.0231 0.5530 -0.00930.3676 0.0425 0.6661 -0.02320.2320 0.0110 0.7200 0.03950.6640 -0.2455 -0.0148 0.23020.6708 -0.2615 0.1913 0.05850.5961 0.1089 0.3834 0.21340.5167 0.0768 0.3178 0.21800.0766 -0.1298 0.4154 0.44100.0768 0.8321 -0.0985 0.0346

-0.1165 0.8386 0.1254 0.02710.7581 0.2049 0.0457 -0.0971

-0.0176 0.2451 0.0229 0.77270.1984 -0.0870 -0.0202 0.59610.2957 -0.0352 -0.5393 -0.07722.4519 1.6722 2.0447 1.31590.1751 0.1194 0.1461 0.0940

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


141

Table A9.2.2: Loadings (Varimax normalized) for Organisational Culture and Structure

Factor Loadings (Varimax normalized) (Debswana results)Extraction: Principal components(Marked loadings are > .700000)

VariableFactor

1Factor

2Factor

3Factor

4Factor

5Q2.1Q2.2Q2.3Q2.4Q2.5Q2.6Q2.7Q2.8Q2.9Q2.10Q2.11Q2.12Q2.13Q2.14Q2.15Q2.16Q2.17Q2.18Q2.19Q2.20Q2.21Q2.22Expl.VarPrp.Totl

-0.0681 0.0681 -0.3667 0.6868 -0.1094-0.1674 0.1158 -0.6795 -0.0014 -0.13410.7324 0.1072 0.0438 0.0163 -0.24120.2092 0.1323 0.4383 0.6534 0.04330.2728 0.0765 0.3348 0.7028 0.00040.0791 0.0871 0.1185 0.0696 -0.81260.7340 0.0991 0.2535 0.0825 0.00260.7453 0.1690 0.2083 0.1558 -0.12070.4220 0.5076 0.1801 0.2034 -0.01290.0333 0.8626 0.0326 0.1196 -0.00960.2051 0.8488 0.1046 0.0037 -0.08260.4812 0.4871 0.3225 -0.0866 0.22760.2906 0.5528 0.3977 0.1413 0.10080.6540 0.1015 0.2496 0.0623 0.18880.6511 0.1300 0.2268 0.0385 0.4063

-0.1476 -0.1704 -0.6996 0.0143 0.11950.2201 0.2167 0.6581 0.0558 -0.21320.2733 0.2565 0.6916 0.1836 0.06760.3431 0.2445 0.3141 0.0276 0.36820.6031 0.2853 0.4472 0.1649 0.04290.2955 0.1912 -0.0543 0.1972 0.20890.4841 0.2293 0.4099 0.1781 0.03454.1251 2.7633 3.3148 1.6528 1.28120.1875 0.1256 0.1507 0.0751 0.0582

Table A9.2.3: Loadings (Varimax normalized) for Performance Measurement

Factor Loadings

VariableFactor

1Factor

2Q3.1Q3.2Q3.3Q3.4Q3.5Expl.VarPrp.Totl

0.9169 0.07860.8896 0.19320.1658 0.5909

-0.0103 0.83210.1675 0.74891.6877 1.64600.3375 0.3292

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


142

Table A9.2.4: Loadings (Varimax normalized) for Organisational Strategy and Planning

Factor Loadings (Varimax normalized)Extraction: Principal components(Marked loadings are > .700000)

VariableFactor

1Factor

2Factor

3Q4.1Q4.2Q4.3Q4.4Q4.5Q4.6Q4.7Expl.VarPrp.Totl

0.1064 0.1046 0.89820.1531 0.1242 0.87050.5559 0.1428 0.29670.0452 0.8498 0.09240.0400 0.8400 0.12250.8071 0.0683 0.10880.8594 -0.0723 -0.00291.7374 1.4844 1.68790.2482 0.2121 0.2411

Table A9.2.5: Loadings (Varimax normalized) for Information Management and Technology

Factor Loadings (Varimax normalized) Extraction: Principal components(Marked loadings are > .700000)

VariableFactor

1Factor

2Factor

3Factor

4Q5.1Q5.2Q5.3Q5.4Q5.5Q5.6Q5.7Q5.8Q5.9Q5.10Q5.11Q5.12

0.1413 -0.0457 -0.0067 -0.84290.2269 0.7032 0.2227 -0.01060.2009 0.7116 0.2665 -0.06770.2287 0.1973 0.8240 0.00880.1518 0.1095 0.8915 0.04550.7398 0.0338 0.0939 -0.18980.6112 0.0862 0.3959 0.05670.4882 0.0298 0.3588 0.42800.7262 0.1161 0.1908 -0.06100.6440 0.3787 0.0684 0.1403

-0.0191 0.7493 -0.0660 0.20200.5158 0.3431 0.0283 0.4556

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


143

APPENDIX 10: GROUPING VARIABLE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES

(ANOVA) FOR INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS

Marked differences are significant at p < .05000

A10.1: Significant Differences between Operations

LSD Test; Variable: Q1.13

Operation{1}

M=2.9388{2}

M=2.7763{3}

M=1.9000Jwaneng {1}OLD Mines {2}Head Office {3}

0.320111 0.0037680.320111 0.0155060.003768 0.015506


Operation{1}

M=3.4796{2}

M=3.7500{3}


0.016772 0.9332400.016772 0.3118860.933240 0.311886


Operation{1}

M=3.3673{2}

M=2.9737{3}


0.008503 0.1476100.008503 0.8212460.147610 0.821246


Operation{1}

M=3.2653{2}

M=2.9868{3}


0.049914 0.0666710.049914 0.3567810.066671 0.356781


Operation{1}

M=3.4286{2}

M=3.0921{3}


0.031575 0.0065080.031575 0.0849090.006508 0.084909

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


144


Operation{1}

M=2.8469{2}

M=2.3421{3}


0.001431 0.3069160.001431 0.6459390.306916 0.645939

LSD Test; Variable: IM&T

Operation{1}

M=3.4209{2}

M=3.2555{3}


0.041195 0.1015500.041195 0.4911810.101550 0.491181

A10.2: Significant Differences between Grades


Grade{1}

M=3.5682{2}

M=3.8649{3}

M=3.1818D Band {1}C Band {2}E band {3}

0.060519 0.1053520.060519 0.0052670.105352 0.005267


Grade{1}

M=3.0568{2}

M=3.4189{3}


0.019607 0.1313070.019607 0.9669340.131307 0.966934


Grade{1}

M=2.7500{2}

M=3.2027{3}


0.003587 0.7690310.003587 0.0286890.769031 0.028689

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


145


Grade{1}

M=2.2614{2}

M=2.3784{3}


0.416568 0.0196170.416568 0.0763680.019617 0.076368


Grade{1}

M=3.4659{2}

M=3.7568{3}


0.031366 0.0838170.031366 0.7663740.083817 0.766374


Grade{1}

M=2.3977{2}

M=2.9730{3}


0.000180 0.6532290.000180 0.0425110.653229 0.042511


Grade{1}

M=3.6136{2}

M=3.5541{3}


0.671305 0.0254640.671305 0.0137670.025464 0.013767


Grade{1}

M=2.8068{2}

M=3.0135{3}


0.218883 0.2271520.218883 0.0479950.227152 0.047995


Grade{1}

M=3.0000{2}

M=3.3919{3}


0.008652 0.8388010.008652 0.0559160.838801 0.055916

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


146


Grade{1}

M=3.3636{2}

M=3.7838{3}


0.002084 0.1193280.002084 0.6231040.119328 0.623104


Grade{1}

M=2.5455{2}

M=3.0135{3}


0.002943 0.0126590.002943 0.6079330.012659 0.607933


Grade{1}

M=2.5341{2}

M=3.0676{3}


0.001615 0.7524590.001615 0.0178960.752459 0.017896


Grade{1}

M=3.2614{2}

M=3.7568{3}


0.000287 0.8664170.000287 0.0110310.866417 0.011031


Grade{1}

M=3.0000{2}

M=3.5135{3}


0.000384 1.0000000.000384 0.0198181.000000 0.019818


Grade{1}

M=2.3182{2}

M=2.9054{3}


0.000076 0.5344200.000076 0.0448380.534420 0.044838

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


147


Grade{1}

M=2.5568{2}

M=2.9459{3}


0.015638 0.8138740.015638 0.0709530.813874 0.070953


Grade{1}

M=2.8182{2}

M=3.2568{3}


0.005573 0.1797310.005573 0.6175270.179731 0.617527


Grade{1}

M=2.4205{2}

M=2.8919{3}


0.006301 0.4033590.006301 0.3318210.403359 0.331821


Grade{1}

M=2.9659{2}

M=3.4595{3}


0.001345 0.5858830.001345 0.1159450.585883 0.115945


Grade{1}

M=2.6477{2}

M=3.1486{3}


0.001981 0.6049010.001981 0.1277720.604901 0.127772


Grade{1}

M=2.9432{2}

M=3.3243{3}


0.007739 0.0812200.007739 0.9775390.081220 0.977539

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


148


Grade{1}

M=2.7614{2}

M=3.3378{3}


0.000482 0.7458660.000482 0.0093350.745866 0.009335


Grade{1}

M=2.6136{2}

M=3.2297{3}


0.000080 0.7678290.000080 0.0040350.767829 0.004035


Grade{1}

M=3.3182{2}

M=3.9189{3}


0.000036 0.6720940.000036 0.0018120.672094 0.001812


Grade{1}

M=2.5114{2}

M=3.1486{3}


0.000137 0.2161020.000137 0.1910550.216102 0.191055


Grade{1}

M=2.7841{2}

M=3.4459{3}


0.000074 0.7474260.000074 0.0215900.747426 0.021590

LSD Test; Variable: Q5.5 (DebswaMarked differences are significant

Grade{1}

M=2.4205{2}

M=2.9324{3}


0.000788 0.8805760.000788 0.0398510.880576 0.039851

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


149


Grade{1}

M=2.8977{2}

M=3.2297{3}


0.039236 0.0174660.039236 0.0002820.017466 0.000282


Grade{1}

M=3.0227{2}

M=3.6351{3}


0.000122 0.2902430.000122 0.0004230.290243 0.000423


Grade{1}

M=2.3864{2}

M=2.9189{3}


0.001109 0.5131880.001109 0.1328590.513188 0.132859


Grade{1}

M=3.6591{2}

M=4.0135{3}


0.004797 0.7166550.004797 0.0282470.716655 0.028247


Grade{1}

M=3.5341{2}

M=3.8919{3}


0.011972 0.8730220.011972 0.0725820.873022 0.072582

LSD Test; Variable: P&PM

Grade{1}

M=3.0933{2}

M=3.2780{3}


0.004680 0.4798190.004680 0.2455150.479819 0.245515

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


150

LSD Test; Variable: OC&S

Grade{1}

M=2.9933{2}

M=3.3170{3}


0.000007 0.2403550.000007 0.0659180.240355 0.065918

LSD Test; Variable: PM

Grade{1}

M=3.2182{2}

M=3.5973{3}


0.000052 0.5993080.000052 0.0015720.599308 0.001572

LSD Test; Variable: OS&P

Grade{1}

M=3.4123{2}

M=3.6120{3}


0.015862 0.6565080.015862 0.2540120.656508 0.254012

LSD Test; Variable: IM&T

Grade{1}

M=3.2320{2}

M=3.5248{3}


0.000362 0.3804790.000362 0.0014990.380479 0.001499

LSD Test; Variable: Overall Read

Grade{1}

M=3.1898{2}

M=3.4658{3}


0.000010 0.8807130.000010 0.0055800.880713 0.005580

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


151

A10.3: Significant Differences between Respondents of Varying Lengths of Organisational Service


Org service{1}

M=3.5932{2}

M=3.3846{3}

M=3.8679{4}

M=3.58704/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.381430 0.152415 0.9748820.381430 0.047163 0.4152880.152415 0.047163 0.1691470.974882 0.415288 0.169147


Org service{1}

M=2.7458{2}

M=2.8077{3}

M=2.9245{4}

M=3.21744/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.789766 0.339013 0.0159290.789766 0.621034 0.0918620.339013 0.621034 0.1419590.015929 0.091862 0.141959


Org service{1}

M=2.6949{2}

M=2.4231{3}

M=2.7547{4}

M=2.97834/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.221712 0.737618 0.1278640.221712 0.143106 0.0172920.737618 0.143106 0.2403770.127864 0.017292 0.240377


Org service{1}

M=2.4576{2}

M=2.7692{3}

M=2.7170{4}

M=3.10874/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.215847 0.200169 0.0022060.215847 0.838002 0.1959070.200169 0.838002 0.0698330.002206 0.195907 0.069833


Org service{1}

M=3.2203{2}

M=3.5000{3}

M=3.6415{4}

M=3.52174/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.173871 0.011371 0.0799510.173871 0.497900 0.9190140.011371 0.497900 0.4954730.079951 0.919014 0.495473

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


152


Org service{1}

M=3.0169{2}

M=3.1154{3}

M=3.3962{4}

M=3.28264/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.651366 0.031381 0.1455130.651366 0.205880 0.4616580.031381 0.205880 0.5424490.145513 0.461658 0.542449


Org service{1}

M=2.8305{2}

M=3.0385{3}

M=3.3208{4}

M=2.93484/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.366813 0.008693 0.5878520.366813 0.228846 0.6657090.008693 0.228846 0.0513520.587852 0.665709 0.051352


Org service{1}

M=3.4237{2}

M=3.3077{3}

M=3.0000{4}

M=3.10874/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.645829 0.037946 0.1364820.645829 0.231689 0.4498010.037946 0.231689 0.6150730.136482 0.449801 0.615073


Org service{1}

M=2.7627{2}

M=2.7692{3}

M=3.2264{4}

M=3.04354/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.977844 0.014817 0.1534610.977844 0.056759 0.2631610.014817 0.056759 0.3631700.153461 0.263161 0.363170


Org service{1}

M=2.4068{2}

M=2.3077{3}

M=2.8113{4}

M=2.91304/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.696893 0.049096 0.0180920.696893 0.052790 0.0233780.049096 0.052790 0.6404480.018092 0.023378 0.640448

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


153


Org service{1}

M=2.6271{2}

M=2.8462{3}

M=2.9623{4}

M=3.06524/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.366201 0.086415 0.0314390.366201 0.637419 0.3858820.086415 0.637419 0.6195180.031439 0.385882 0.619518


Org service{1}

M=2.9153{2}

M=3.0000{3}

M=3.3208{4}

M=3.30434/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.689681 0.018349 0.0292610.689681 0.138460 0.1699290.018349 0.138460 0.9280330.029261 0.169929 0.928033


Org service{1}

M=2.6949{2}

M=3.0000{3}

M=3.1887{4}

M=3.10874/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.219411 0.014025 0.0469660.219411 0.454651 0.6740780.014025 0.454651 0.7063060.046966 0.674078 0.706306


Org service{1}

M=2.5593{2}

M=3.0769{3}

M=2.8868{4}

M=3.06524/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.028508 0.084007 0.0105980.028508 0.426283 0.9618440.084007 0.426283 0.3751310.010598 0.961844 0.375131


Org service{1}

M=2.5763{2}

M=2.8462{3}

M=2.8679{4}

M=3.00004/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.285126 0.151321 0.0454580.285126 0.932339 0.5584000.151321 0.932339 0.5407400.045458 0.558400 0.540740

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


154


Org service{1}

M=2.6610{2}

M=3.3462{3}

M=2.8302{4}

M=2.67394/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.019107 0.468627 0.9575770.019107 0.081684 0.0272540.468627 0.081684 0.5294410.957577 0.027254 0.529441


Org service{1}

M=3.8305{2}

M=3.5385{3}

M=3.9623{4}

M=3.69574/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.121454 0.383743 0.3909890.121454 0.027672 0.4227390.383743 0.027672 0.0987810.390989 0.422739 0.098781


Org service{1}

M=3.6780{2}

M=3.3462{3}

M=3.6226{4}

M=3.91304/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.117884 0.744916 0.1844810.117884 0.199691 0.0108160.744916 0.199691 0.1099460.184481 0.010816 0.109946

LSD Test; Variable: OC&S

Org service{1}

M=3.0393{2}

M=3.0699{3}

M=3.2376{4}

M=3.18974/10 {1}11/15 {2}> 15 {3}< 3 {4}

0.778567 0.024600 0.0997260.778567 0.131586 0.2922300.024600 0.131586 0.6081240.099726 0.292230 0.608124

A10.4: Significant Differences between Respondents of Varying Lengths in Current Position


Current Pos{1}

M=2.2442{2}

M=2.4179{3}

M=2.7619{4}

M=2.3000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.244532 0.020950 0.8550440.244532 0.133725 0.7037210.020950 0.133725 0.1896450.855044 0.703721 0.189645

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


155


Current Pos{1}

M=2.7558{2}

M=2.8507{3}

M=2.6190{4}

M=2.2000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.538589 0.553098 0.0802130.538589 0.328492 0.0438180.553098 0.328492 0.2502460.080213 0.043818 0.250246


Current Pos{1}

M=3.6163{2}

M=3.6866{3}

M=3.7143{4}

M=3.1000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.615009 0.638715 0.0727670.615009 0.897141 0.0447660.638715 0.897141 0.0634660.072767 0.044766 0.063466


Current Pos{1}

M=2.6977{2}

M=2.8806{3}

M=3.2381{4}

M=2.5000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.299485 0.041030 0.5840820.299485 0.186836 0.2994300.041030 0.186836 0.0766470.584082 0.299430 0.076647


Current Pos{1}

M=3.4419{2}

M=3.3134{3}

M=4.0000{4}

M=3.4000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.362278 0.008584 0.8847180.362278 0.001726 0.7676270.008584 0.001726 0.0720020.884718 0.767627 0.072002


Current Pos{1}

M=3.1744{2}

M=3.1194{3}

M=3.7143{4}

M=3.0000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.713493 0.016696 0.5703160.713493 0.010356 0.7016940.016696 0.010356 0.0443450.570316 0.701694 0.044345

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


156


Current Pos{1}

M=2.5233{2}

M=2.6119{3}

M=2.8571{4}

M=2.1000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.567898 0.150981 0.1845700.567898 0.303997 0.1141050.150981 0.303997 0.0397010.184570 0.114105 0.039701


Current Pos{1}

M=2.9186{2}

M=3.0597{3}

M=3.4286{4}

M=2.9000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.379983 0.034572 0.9549280.379983 0.135584 0.6326490.034572 0.135584 0.1637420.954928 0.632649 0.163742


Current Pos{1}

M=3.1279{2}

M=3.0299{3}

M=3.3810{4}

M=2.6000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.539986 0.290215 0.1086630.539986 0.153735 0.1973930.290215 0.153735 0.0395020.108663 0.197393 0.039502


Current Pos{1}

M=2.8023{2}

M=2.6418{3}

M=3.2857{4}

M=3.0000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.426754 0.110085 0.6329590.426754 0.038770 0.3940430.110085 0.038770 0.5484150.632959 0.394043 0.548415


Current Pos{1}

M=2.7558{2}

M=3.1493{3}

M=3.1429{4}

M=3.1000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.021100 0.127217 0.3221990.021100 0.980364 0.8888150.127217 0.980364 0.9145230.322199 0.888815 0.914523

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


157


Current Pos{1}

M=3.4535{2}

M=3.8060{3}

M=3.4286{4}

M=3.2000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.019868 0.911580 0.4109260.019868 0.102897 0.0537270.911580 0.102897 0.5189380.410926 0.053727 0.518938


Current Pos{1}

M=3.6628{2}

M=3.9254{3}

M=4.0476{4}

M=3.5000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.043717 0.047799 0.5399010.043717 0.538598 0.1155080.047799 0.538598 0.0740910.539901 0.115508 0.074091


Current Pos{1}

M=3.6744{2}

M=3.7463{3}

M=3.7619{4}

M=3.0000< 3 {1}4/10 {2}> 15 {3}11/15 {4}

0.624287 0.689678 0.0259140.624287 0.944614 0.0152640.689678 0.944614 0.0286110.025914 0.015264 0.028611

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


158

APPENDIX 11: BP AMOCO: LEARNING BEFORE, LEARNING DURING AND LEARNING-AFTER

Source: BP Amoco Knowledge Management Metrics - A Learning Process

(URL: http://www.zigonperf.com/resources/pmnews/knowledge_metrics.html)

1. “Learning Before or Peer Assist” Process

This process of learning happens before a KM initiative commences. It assumes that

the initiative is being driven by a real business need. The process involves the

following questions:

• Who has done this before and how did they do it?

• Who knows about this or who is currently working on something similar?

• In other words, how do we not re-invent the wheel and duplicate effort? How

do we learn from those who have done it before?

The ‘Peer Assist’, enables identification of ‘what the company knows about’ previous

projects of this type. By identifying best practices, it is possible to begin to quantify

the expected savings in terms of time, money or quality that can be expected. In

essence, the peer review combined with identification of the anticipated value of the

knowledge investment is a necessary first step in valuing and justifying KM. It is also

worthwhile to quantify the time and money saved by conducting the ‘Peer Assist’ in

terms of effort not duplicated, wheels not re-invented, mistakes not repeated.

2. “Learning During or After-Action-Review” Process

The after-action review (adapted from a US Army practice) is for learning while

doing, by taking just 15 minutes to ask four stock-taking questions:

• What was supposed to happen?

• What actually happened?

• Why is there a difference?

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


159

• What can we learn and do from this?

3. “Learning After or Retrospect” Process

At the end of the project or KM initiative, a Retrospect should be conducted to

examine ‘what went well’, ‘what could have gone better’, and what are the ‘lessons

for the future.’ This is an examination of the contribution actually made by each

aspect of the KM project, and identification of the lessons learned and new best

practices. These should be captured and incorporated into the next learning cycle so

that there is a steady evolution in best practice.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


160

APPENDIX 12: DEBSWANA BALANCED SCORECARD

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T

U

C

T


161

F1 Optimise revenue per ton treated - Revenue per ton treated Jwaneng JR BC1 Nurture internal business relationships - Satisfaction index RT

F2 Optimise revenue per ton treated - Revenue per ton treated Orapa RT BC2 Nurture external business relationships - Temperature check JR

F3 Optimise revenue per ton treated - Revenue per ton treated Letlhakane RT

F4 Optimise revenue per ton treated - Revenue per ton treated Damtshaa RT

F5 Optimise cost per ton treated - Pula per ton treated Jwaneng JR

F6 Optimise cost per ton treated - Pula per ton treated Orapa RT

F7 Optimise cost per ton treated - Pula per ton treated Letlhakane RT

F8 Optimise cost per ton treated - Pula per ton treated Damtshaa RT

IP1 Actively implement the DVM process across De Beers and partners - 360 degree feedback ACR P1 Attract and retain - % Metallurgical staff turnover RT

IP2 Leverage intellectual capital through knowledge management - % completion of knowledge management plan CF P2 Attract and retain - Age of unfilled positions JR

IP3 Corporate governance - Compliance index RG P3 Provide challenging career path opportunities & manage succession planning - PDPs in place vs required ACR

IP4 Ensure continuous improvement - Number of best practices deployed in Operations RG P4 Ensure performance management & reward & recognition - %

appraisals conducted ACR

IP5 Innovation - Number of BP on DBCHQ website originating from Debswana RG P5 Ensure performance management & reward & recognition -

Number of special recognitions ACR

Metallurgy To build and develop best practice metallurgical competencies to optimise NPV

Dashboard

Financial Business Partners & Community

Internal Processes People

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


162

Note:

The coloured boxes represent performance indicators. Green refers to targets that

have been achieved, red refers to targets that have not been achieved, and blue refers

to an inactive measure, e.g., Damtshaa Mine is not in operation. The letters in each

box represent the initial of the responsible person.

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

vchOperation vchJobGrade vchSelect vchLength_of_service intQ1_1 intQ1_2 intQ1_3Jwaneng D Band 4-10 < 3 4 2 2Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 4 3 3Jwaneng E band 11-15 < 3 4 5 2OLD Mines D Band 11-15 < 3 4 5 2Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 1 2 2Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 3 2 3Head Office E band > 15 < 3 3 2 2OLD Mines E band > 15 < 3 1 3 4OLD Mines E band < 3 < 3 3 4 4Jwaneng C Band 11-15 < 3 3 4 3OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 4 4 3OLD Mines D Band 4-10 4-10 4 2 2OLD Mines D Band 4-10 4-10 3 2 2OLD Mines D Band 4-10 < 3 4 5 3OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 4 3 1OLD Mines D Band 4-10 4-10 4 3 2OLD Mines D Band > 15 < 3 4 3 2OLD Mines C Band 4-10 4-10 2 1 3OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 4 1 1OLD Mines C Band 4-10 4-10 3 3 3OLD Mines C Band > 15 < 3 4 5 4OLD Mines D Band > 15 > 15 5 3 5OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 1 1 1OLD Mines D Band > 15 > 15 3 2 2OLD Mines C Band < 3 < 3 3 2 3OLD Mines C Band 11-15 < 3 4 4 2OLD Mines C Band 4-10 4-10 4 2 2OLD Mines D Band 11-15 4-10 3 2 1Jwaneng C Band > 15 11-15 4 4 3OLD Mines D Band > 15 < 3 2 1 1OLD Mines D Band 4-10 4-10 4 3 3OLD Mines E band > 15 < 3 4 4 4Jwaneng D Band > 15 4-10 5 4 4Jwaneng C Band > 15 > 15 5 2 2OLD Mines C Band 4-10 4-10 4 3 3OLD Mines C Band < 3 < 3 4 4 4OLD Mines C Band < 3 < 3 4 5 4OLD Mines C Band > 15 > 15 4 4 2OLD Mines D Band 4-10 < 3 4 3 4OLD Mines D Band 4-10 < 3 3 2 2Jwaneng D Band 11-15 11-15 4 2 2OLD Mines C Band < 3 < 3 5 2 2OLD Mines C Band 4-10 4-10 5 3 4OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 3 4 4OLD Mines D Band 4-10 < 3 2 4 4Jwaneng D Band > 15 < 3 4 4 3Jwaneng E band < 3 < 3 3 4 4Jwaneng D Band < 3 < 3 4 4 4OLD Mines C Band > 15 4-10 4 4 4Jwaneng E band 11-15 4-10 3 2 2Jwaneng C Band < 3 < 3 4 4 3Jwaneng C Band 11-15 < 3 4 4 4Jwaneng C Band 11-15 11-15 4 4 4Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 5 4 4Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 4 4 2

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

Jwaneng C Band < 3 < 3 5 4 5OLD Mines C Band 11-15 4-10 2 4 4OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 4 3 3Jwaneng D Band > 15 > 15 4 4 3Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 4 4 5OLD Mines D Band 4-10 4-10 4 2 2Jwaneng C Band > 15 4-10 4 4 2Jwaneng E band < 3 < 3 3 4 3Jwaneng D Band 11-15 4-10 4 4 4OLD Mines D Band 11-15 < 3 3 2 2OLD Mines C Band > 15 4-10 5 4 4OLD Mines E band > 15 4-10 2 4 2OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 5 4 4OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 4 3 2Head Office D Band < 3 < 3 4 4 4OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 2 3 3Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 4 4 2Head Office E band > 15 < 3 4 3 3Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 4 3 2Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 3 2 2Head Office D Band > 15 11-15 4 1 2Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 4 2 2OLD Mines C Band 4-10 4-10 3 4 2Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 2 2 2Jwaneng C Band > 15 4-10 5 4 4Jwaneng D Band > 15 < 3 3 3 3Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 4 4 2Jwaneng D Band < 3 < 3 2 2 1OLD Mines C Band < 3 < 3 4 4 4OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 4 4 3OLD Mines C Band > 15 > 15 4 2 2OLD Mines C Band > 15 > 15 4 2 2Jwaneng D Band < 3 < 3 3 2 2Jwaneng C Band 11-15 11-15 4 3 2Jwaneng C Band < 3 < 3 4 4 4Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 5 5 4Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 4 4 3Jwaneng C Band 4-10 < 3 4 3 4Jwaneng C Band 11-15 4-10 4 4 4Jwaneng C Band 11-15 4-10 2 3 3Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 4 2 2Jwaneng C Band > 15 > 15 4 4 3Jwaneng C Band 11-15 4-10 4 2 2Jwaneng C Band < 3 < 3 4 4 4Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 4 3 4Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 4 4 2Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 5 4 2Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 4 4 4OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 4 3 4OLD Mines C Band > 15 < 3 4 4 4Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 3 2 2Jwaneng C Band > 15 > 15 4 4 4Jwaneng C Band 11-15 11-15 4 2 3Jwaneng C Band < 3 < 3 4 3 4Jwaneng C Band < 3 < 3 4 4 4Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 5 4 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 2 4 4Jwaneng C Band > 15 > 15 5 2 4Jwaneng C Band 4-10 < 3 4 2 2Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 5 3 3Jwaneng D Band > 15 > 15 4 4 4Jwaneng C Band < 3 < 3 2 4 4Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 2 4 3OLD Mines E band 11-15 4-10 4 4 4Head Office E band > 15 4-10 3 2 2Jwaneng D Band 4-10 < 3 2 2 2Head Office E band 4-10 4-10 1 2 2Head Office D Band 11-15 < 3 4 2 2Jwaneng E band 11-15 < 3 2 3 3OLD Mines D Band 11-15 < 3 4 4 3Jwaneng E band > 15 4-10 2 2 2OLD Mines E band > 15 < 3 5 4 2Jwaneng D Band > 15 4-10 4 5 4Jwaneng D Band < 3 < 3 4 3 4Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 3 2 3Jwaneng D Band > 15 > 15 5 4 3Jwaneng C Band 11-15 11-15 2 2 2OLD Mines D Band 4-10 < 3 3 3 2Jwaneng D Band < 3 < 3 2 2 2Jwaneng D Band < 3 < 3 2 3 2Head Office D Band < 3 < 3 4 4 4OLD Mines E band > 15 < 3 4 3 3Jwaneng C Band > 15 4-10 4 4 1Jwaneng D Band > 15 > 15 1 4 2OLD Mines D Band 4-10 < 3 5 4 2OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 1 2 2Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 5 2 2Head Office C Band < 3 < 3 3 4 2OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 4 5 4OLD Mines D Band 11-15 11-15 2 4 4Jwaneng D Band < 3 < 3 1 3 3Jwaneng C Band > 15 > 15 3 4 3OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 5 3 4Jwaneng C Band > 15 4-10 5 2 2Jwaneng C Band > 15 > 15 2 4 4Head Office E band > 15 < 3 5 4 2OLD Mines D Band 4-10 < 3 4 3 1Jwaneng E band 11-15 < 3 2 4 2Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 4 4 2OLD Mines D Band > 15 > 15 5 4 4Jwaneng C Band < 3 < 3 4 3 3OLD Mines D Band 4-10 < 3 3 2 4OLD Mines D Band 11-15 11-15 4 4 4OLD Mines C Band < 3 < 3 5 2 5OLD Mines D Band 4-10 < 3 3 2 4Jwaneng D Band 4-10 < 3 3 3 3OLD Mines E band > 15 < 3 4 4 2OLD Mines D Band > 15 > 15 4 2 2

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

OLD Mines C Band 4-10 4-10 5 4 4OLD Mines C Band > 15 < 3 4 4 3OLD Mines D Band > 15 > 15 4 4 4OLD Mines D Band > 15 4-10 4 3 3OLD Mines D Band < 3 < 3 4 4 3Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 4 4 3Jwaneng C Band 11-15 11-15 4 4 3Jwaneng C Band > 15 4-10 4 2 2Jwaneng C Band > 15 > 15 5 5 5Jwaneng D Band 4-10 4-10 4 2 2Jwaneng D Band < 3 < 3 5 4 4Jwaneng C Band < 3 < 3 5 3 4Jwaneng D Band < 3 < 3 4 4 2Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 4 4 4OLD Mines D Band > 15 > 15 4 4 4Jwaneng E band > 15 < 3 4 4 2Jwaneng C Band 4-10 4-10 1 3 2Jwaneng D Band > 15 4-10 4 2 2Jwaneng C Band < 3 < 3 4 4 4OLD Mines E band 4-10 4-10 4 4 3Jwaneng C Band > 15 > 15 4 4 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

intQ1_4 intQ1_5 intQ1_6 intQ1_7 intQ1_8 intQ1_9 intQ1_10 intQ1_11 intQ1_121 1 2 3 1 5 5 2 44 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 41 2 2 4 1 5 5 4 24 4 4 4 2 5 5 5 52 2 4 4 2 4 5 2 52 3 2 3 2 5 4 3 22 3 2 4 2 4 4 4 24 4 3 4 2 5 4 5 14 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 42 2 2 2 4 5 5 3 22 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 42 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 41 2 1 3 2 5 5 3 43 3 3 4 3 5 5 5 21 2 1 2 4 5 5 1 42 4 3 2 1 5 5 4 32 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 12 2 2 4 2 5 5 2 51 1 1 4 2 5 5 2 52 3 2 4 2 4 4 4 31 3 4 4 3 5 4 4 32 2 5 5 2 5 5 2 51 2 2 2 1 5 5 3 43 3 1 2 1 5 5 4 12 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 31 1 1 2 5 5 5 1 22 1 1 2 2 5 5 2 23 3 1 4 4 4 2 4 12 3 2 3 2 3 4 2 51 2 1 4 1 4 4 4 22 3 3 5 1 4 4 3 23 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 22 2 4 4 2 5 5 4 22 2 2 3 2 4 5 3 34 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 42 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 21 4 3 5 2 4 5 4 22 2 2 3 4 4 5 4 32 3 2 4 2 4 4 3 12 2 2 3 2 5 5 3 42 2 3 2 2 5 5 3 22 3 2 3 2 4 5 3 23 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 32 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 22 2 4 4 2 5 5 4 43 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 22 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 33 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 33 3 3 4 2 4 4 4 23 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 23 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 31 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 33 2 4 4 4 5 5 4 21 2 2 4 5 5 5 3 53 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 3

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

2 3 2 4 3 5 5 2 22 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 42 4 2 3 2 5 5 4 22 4 3 4 3 5 4 4 33 2 2 2 3 4 5 4 21 2 1 2 4 4 5 2 33 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 32 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 21 2 3 4 1 4 4 3 12 2 2 3 2 4 5 3 22 2 2 4 2 4 5 4 23 4 1 4 2 4 4 4 13 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 23 3 2 2 2 5 4 3 24 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 31 2 2 3 2 5 5 2 23 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 42 3 2 3 2 5 5 4 22 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 33 2 2 4 2 4 5 4 33 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 24 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 22 2 4 4 3 5 5 5 42 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 21 2 2 2 4 5 5 3 33 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 21 3 2 4 1 4 4 4 21 2 2 4 3 4 4 4 22 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 32 2 2 4 3 4 4 5 34 1 1 4 2 5 3 5 54 1 1 4 2 5 5 5 52 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 23 2 3 4 4 5 5 4 42 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 23 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 43 5 4 5 2 5 5 3 31 3 3 5 4 5 4 4 33 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 32 3 2 4 4 4 4 3 42 2 2 4 2 4 4 3 13 3 4 4 2 5 4 4 42 2 2 4 1 4 5 2 23 4 2 4 2 4 4 3 32 2 2 4 3 5 5 2 43 4 2 5 5 4 5 4 52 4 2 4 3 4 5 4 23 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 45 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 42 2 2 4 3 4 4 2 22 2 1 4 3 4 4 3 44 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 23 2 2 3 3 4 4 2 33 2 4 4 2 5 5 5 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 42 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

1 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 32 2 4 5 4 5 4 4 12 1 2 4 2 4 5 3 23 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 32 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 43 4 2 4 2 4 5 4 32 4 3 4 3 5 5 4 34 5 3 5 2 5 5 5 41 2 2 3 2 4 4 3 22 3 3 4 1 3 4 4 33 2 2 4 3 5 4 3 42 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 33 3 3 4 3 5 5 4 31 1 2 4 2 4 4 4 32 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 23 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 23 3 2 4 4 5 5 4 33 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 43 4 2 4 2 5 5 3 23 2 3 4 1 5 5 4 31 1 2 2 3 5 5 4 22 2 2 3 2 4 4 4 22 2 3 3 2 4 5 4 52 2 2 2 1 5 5 4 23 3 4 4 2 5 5 4 34 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 42 4 2 1 4 4 4 2 41 1 2 2 3 4 5 4 21 2 1 4 2 5 5 5 23 4 1 2 2 5 4 2 34 3 3 4 1 5 5 5 23 3 3 4 4 5 5 4 33 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 22 2 2 2 2 5 5 3 52 2 2 3 2 4 5 3 13 3 2 4 2 4 4 3 31 1 2 4 2 5 5 4 31 2 1 5 1 4 5 2 22 3 1 2 4 4 5 4 14 4 2 4 2 5 5 5 41 2 1 2 3 5 5 4 22 4 2 4 2 5 4 4 22 2 2 4 2 4 4 3 24 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 31 3 3 4 3 5 5 5 31 1 1 3 1 5 5 3 33 4 3 5 3 5 5 4 53 3 5 5 3 4 5 4 51 1 1 3 1 5 5 3 34 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 33 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 23 4 4 5 3 5 5 4 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

3 4 4 4 2 4 4 5 32 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 32 3 4 4 3 4 5 4 22 2 3 4 2 4 4 4 22 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 51 2 3 4 3 5 5 4 34 4 2 2 4 2 4 4 24 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 24 2 2 3 3 5 4 4 23 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 32 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 32 4 2 4 2 4 4 5 42 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 32 2 2 5 2 5 5 5 32 2 3 1 4 4 4 4 13 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 13 3 3 4 2 4 4 4 24 4 2 4 3 3 4 3 22 2 2 4 2 4 5 4 3

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

3 4 4 2 3 4 4 3 42 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 42 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 42 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 42 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 42 3 4 4 2 2 2 3 34 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 44 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 41 2 4 2 4 3 4 4 42 1 5 2 4 4 4 4 32 1 4 1 5 4 4 3 42 2 3 4 3 2 3 4 45 3 3 1 4 4 3 4 44 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 22 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 44 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 32 2 4 2 2 3 3 4 42 1 4 3 2 3 3 3 34 2 3 2 3 4 3 4 44 2 4 3 2 4 3 4 42 2 2 3 2 2 3 4 42 4 4 2 2 4 3 2 34 5 5 5 1 4 4 4 21 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 42 3 5 1 4 4 3 4 44 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 44 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 24 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 43 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 43 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 44 4 5 5 2 4 2 4 44 4 5 5 2 4 2 4 42 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 21 1 5 3 2 5 4 3 32 2 4 2 3 4 4 4 44 2 5 4 5 5 4 3 43 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 53 2 4 2 4 4 4 3 52 2 4 2 4 3 2 3 44 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 32 2 4 2 3 3 3 3 44 2 4 3 3 4 5 3 43 1 4 2 4 4 4 4 44 4 3 4 4 1 1 3 43 2 2 2 5 2 2 4 44 1 5 5 4 4 3 5 55 1 5 4 4 4 4 4 25 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 44 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 43 3 5 5 4 3 4 4 34 2 4 2 4 4 3 4 44 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 44 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 44 4 3 1 3 5 4 4 54 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 43 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

3 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 42 5 4 2 4 4 3 2 42 5 5 3 2 3 3 2 42 1 3 2 3 4 2 5 44 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 42 3 5 2 4 4 4 4 44 3 4 2 4 4 2 4 44 1 5 1 4 5 5 5 51 4 4 5 3 3 2 4 31 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 21 4 3 2 2 3 2 3 43 2 4 4 2 2 2 3 23 1 4 2 3 4 3 4 42 2 4 1 2 4 3 2 22 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 22 3 5 2 4 5 4 3 42 2 4 2 3 4 4 3 44 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 43 2 4 2 4 4 4 3 44 2 5 4 2 4 4 4 44 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 44 2 2 3 4 4 3 4 32 2 4 4 3 2 2 4 32 1 5 4 2 4 2 3 22 1 5 3 4 4 4 4 42 2 4 2 2 4 2 4 42 2 4 4 1 2 3 4 24 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 22 1 5 2 2 4 1 4 23 3 4 2 2 3 2 4 22 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 41 5 4 4 2 4 4 4 32 1 2 1 4 4 4 4 42 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 44 3 5 3 2 2 2 2 33 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 43 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 45 1 4 5 2 5 2 1 52 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 43 1 4 2 3 5 4 4 34 4 4 4 5 2 2 2 24 4 4 4 2 4 3 2 22 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 34 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 41 1 4 4 2 4 4 4 22 3 4 2 3 5 4 4 51 1 5 2 5 5 5 5 51 1 4 4 2 4 4 4 21 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 42 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 43 1 4 4 4 5 3 4 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

3 3 2 2 4 5 4 4 44 2 4 2 3 4 3 4 43 2 4 2 3 4 4 3 43 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 42 4 3 2 4 4 2 4 45 2 4 4 2 3 4 3 22 2 3 1 4 4 4 1 52 2 4 3 2 3 3 4 42 2 4 2 4 5 5 2 54 3 3 2 2 4 4 4 33 2 4 2 5 5 4 4 42 4 3 2 3 1 1 4 22 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 2 4 2 3 4 4 3 42 4 4 2 4 5 2 4 44 4 3 4 2 2 2 4 24 2 4 4 2 4 3 4 42 2 3 2 4 4 4 3 43 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 45 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 2

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

3 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 42 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 42 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 22 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 24 2 4 4 2 2 4 2 42 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 44 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 33 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 43 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 42 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 44 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 43 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 44 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 22 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 44 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 22 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 32 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 33 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 22 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 32 2 4 2 2 3 2 3 44 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 34 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 42 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 52 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 32 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 53 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 42 3 4 4 2 4 3 3 22 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 44 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 22 2 4 3 1 3 3 3 11 1 4 2 1 1 3 4 31 1 4 2 1 1 4 4 21 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 42 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 33 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 34 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 35 4 3 4 2 2 5 5 32 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 23 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 33 2 4 2 2 5 2 4 43 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 34 4 2 2 1 2 4 4 44 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 44 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 33 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 22 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 43 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 44 4 4 3 3 4 3 2 44 1 4 3 2 2 2 2 54 2 3 4 4 4 2 3 34 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 23 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 45 5 2 2 3 4 4 3 14 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 33 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 3

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

4 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 33 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 23 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 42 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 23 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 44 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 42 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 44 3 2 2 2 2 4 3 22 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 52 3 3 2 2 2 2 4 44 1 2 2 2 2 4 4 22 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 44 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 32 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 42 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 4 3 3 2 2 4 4 23 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 32 4 3 2 3 2 4 4 33 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 22 3 5 5 2 4 2 2 42 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 22 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 52 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 41 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 43 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 33 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 22 2 4 4 2 1 3 3 52 2 2 4 2 2 3 2 42 1 5 4 2 4 1 2 22 1 4 2 2 2 2 2 42 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 32 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 32 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 11 2 3 4 2 2 4 2 32 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 53 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 44 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 42 2 4 4 4 1 3 4 22 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 44 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 21 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 52 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 32 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 34 2 4 4 4 4 5 4 23 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 22 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 54 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 45 5 5 5 3 5 2 2 12 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 54 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 22 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 44 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 24 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 23 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 23 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 23 4 4 4 2 3 2 4 22 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 33 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 35 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 43 2 4 4 2 4 3 2 24 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 22 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 22 3 4 2 3 2 2 3 34 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 23 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 24 2 4 4 2 3 2 4 21 1 3 1 4 1 2 2 44 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 24 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 54 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 42 2 4 4 1 3 3 1 2

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

4 2 4 3 4 3 4 4 42 2 4 5 4 3 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 53 4 4 3 5 4 2 2 32 2 4 2 4 4 2 2 42 1 4 2 4 2 2 2 33 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 43 2 2 2 4 3 4 2 42 1 4 4 3 3 2 4 42 2 3 2 4 4 2 3 35 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 43 3 3 2 4 4 2 3 34 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 2 2 2 3 2 3 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 32 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 43 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 33 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 44 2 2 2 4 3 4 2 42 2 3 1 4 2 4 3 43 3 2 4 4 2 2 3 53 3 4 2 3 2 4 4 42 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 41 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 53 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 44 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 42 2 4 2 3 3 2 2 24 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 44 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 43 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 32 1 4 1 4 5 1 1 42 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 43 4 4 2 4 2 4 3 43 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 42 4 4 4 3 5 4 5 54 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 43 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 33 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 44 3 4 3 5 2 3 2 43 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 2 4 2 4 2 22 1 3 3 4 4 2 4 34 3 4 4 4 3 1 2 44 2 2 3 5 4 4 3 42 2 3 3 4 3 4 4 44 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 43 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 34 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 44 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 42 2 4 2 4 2 2 4 45 5 4 4 3 4 4 5 54 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 33 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

2 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 34 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 52 1 3 2 5 3 3 3 43 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 42 2 3 2 4 4 4 3 32 4 4 3 4 4 2 2 43 2 4 2 4 3 1 2 44 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 41 1 2 1 4 2 1 1 12 1 3 3 4 2 2 2 53 2 3 3 5 3 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 44 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 42 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 42 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 22 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 53 3 3 2 4 3 4 4 33 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 34 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 44 2 4 2 4 3 4 4 42 2 2 2 5 3 2 2 42 2 4 2 4 2 3 2 43 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 32 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 43 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 44 2 4 3 4 3 3 2 41 2 4 2 4 2 2 4 44 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 22 1 2 2 4 4 1 2 43 3 2 2 4 2 2 1 45 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 53 2 4 2 4 3 3 2 44 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 44 4 1 4 4 3 2 2 41 1 1 1 4 4 2 2 22 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 44 2 4 2 4 3 4 2 54 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 33 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 42 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 34 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 32 2 3 2 4 3 2 2 34 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 41 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 14 1 2 4 4 4 2 4 54 4 1 5 4 5 4 5 51 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 14 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 1 2 2 4 2 2 2 44 3 5 4 4 4 2 2 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 43 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 44 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 44 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 41 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 43 2 2 3 4 4 4 3 22 4 4 5 5 2 4 4 44 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 32 3 3 3 2 4 2 2 34 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 44 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 1 4 2 4 2 2 2 34 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 42 2 4 4 4 3 5 2 42 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 34 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

3 4 2 4 4 3 3 4 42 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 52 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 54 3 2 3 5 4 3 4 53 4 2 4 4 3 2 4 54 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 44 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 44 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 54 5 2 2 5 1 2 5 55 5 1 2 4 1 3 4 53 2 4 3 3 2 2 4 44 4 5 5 5 3 4 4 54 2 3 4 4 1 2 4 54 4 2 2 4 2 4 4 33 2 3 4 3 2 3 2 44 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 43 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 44 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 52 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 23 4 2 3 2 2 2 4 44 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 44 5 4 4 4 3 4 5 53 3 4 4 3 2 3 4 45 5 4 5 4 4 2 5 53 4 3 3 4 2 4 3 44 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 44 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 34 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 45 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 43 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 35 5 2 1 2 4 4 1 13 1 3 4 2 2 1 4 34 4 4 4 3 2 2 5 54 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 54 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 43 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 34 4 3 3 4 5 3 5 54 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 45 4 3 3 3 4 3 5 42 2 2 2 5 4 3 5 53 3 2 3 4 3 2 4 45 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 55 5 3 4 5 1 2 5 44 4 4 4 4 2 5 5 54 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 44 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 44 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 43 3 2 3 2 2 2 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 43 5 4 4 3 3 3 4 54 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 44 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

3 4 2 2 4 3 3 4 44 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 52 4 3 3 4 1 2 4 52 2 4 4 5 2 2 5 53 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 34 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 44 3 4 4 2 1 3 3 45 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 54 3 2 2 3 2 2 4 43 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 45 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 33 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 44 3 3 4 4 2 2 5 54 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 42 2 4 2 4 2 2 4 44 3 4 5 4 5 3 4 54 5 4 4 5 3 4 5 44 4 4 4 3 2 4 5 54 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 2 2 5 42 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 43 2 3 2 4 2 3 4 44 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 44 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 54 4 3 3 5 4 4 5 44 4 2 2 4 3 3 5 54 4 1 1 4 3 3 4 53 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 43 3 4 4 5 1 4 5 54 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 45 5 4 4 5 1 1 5 54 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 54 4 2 2 4 2 5 5 54 2 1 2 5 4 4 5 52 1 2 2 2 1 2 5 43 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 44 3 3 4 4 5 4 4 45 5 2 4 5 5 3 5 53 3 4 4 2 4 2 4 45 4 3 3 3 4 3 5 55 5 4 3 5 1 2 4 42 3 3 4 4 2 3 2 42 2 3 4 3 2 2 3 24 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 53 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 34 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 35 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 53 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 34 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 44 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 44 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 5

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

4 4 2 4 4 4 5 5 44 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 44 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 44 5 2 4 4 4 4 4 45 5 2 4 5 1 1 4 43 3 4 4 4 3 2 3 34 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 34 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 54 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 44 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 43 4 2 2 2 3 2 5 53 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 54 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 44 4 4 3 4 2 2 5 53 3 3 2 3 2 2 4 32 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 44 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 44 4 2 1 5 4 2 2 44 4 4 2 4 5 5 4 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T


C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

4 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 54 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 41 5 4 4 2 3 3 2 44 4 5 4 2 4 3 1 41 4 4 2 2 4 4 3 42 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 34 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 44 3 3 2 2 4 2 2 41 5 5 5 2 4 4 2 43 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 34 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 42 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 22 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 24 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 44 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 44 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 41 5 4 2 2 3 3 2 44 4 4 2 2 4 3 2 44 4 3 4 2 4 3 4 42 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 42 5 4 4 4 2 3 2 42 4 4 4 2 3 3 2 22 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 3 2 2 3 2 44 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 44 3 4 2 1 3 2 2 42 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 41 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 43 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 31 1 4 1 1 3 4 3 34 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 31 5 4 4 4 3 4 5 43 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 42 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 31 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 54 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 44 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 34 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 41 5 4 2 2 2 2 3 43 4 5 4 3 3 3 2 34 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 42 4 4 4 2 3 4 2 41 5 5 4 2 4 4 4 51 5 4 1 2 2 3 2 21 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 52 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 42 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 43 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 24 4 3 3 3 4 4 1 52 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 43 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

2 3 2 4 2 3 4 2 44 4 4 4 2 4 5 4 52 5 5 4 3 4 5 4 32 4 4 2 2 5 5 3 52 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 44 4 5 3 2 5 4 2 51 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 42 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 33 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 42 4 5 2 2 4 2 1 44 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 22 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 22 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 42 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 21 5 4 2 2 2 4 2 42 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 51 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 23 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 42 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 35 1 2 2 2 4 4 2 44 2 3 3 2 2 4 2 42 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 44 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 32 5 4 4 3 2 4 3 41 4 4 4 2 1 5 2 31 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 44 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 34 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 44 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 4 2 2 3 4 1 41 2 4 3 3 2 3 2 44 4 4 2 2 4 5 4 41 1 4 2 2 1 2 1 14 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 22 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 31 5 5 3 3 2 3 4 44 4 4 3 3 2 5 2 43 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 41 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 24 4 4 1 1 4 1 1 22 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 44 2 2 2 3 4 3 2 42 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 41 4 5 3 3 3 4 4 43 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 54 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 41 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 43 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 52 4 4 5 4 2 4 4 42 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 35 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 4

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 42 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 44 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 22 4 4 3 2 3 4 2 42 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 41 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 15 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 43 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 42 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 42 4 2 1 1 4 4 2 14 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 43 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 34 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 24 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 42 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 34 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 45 5 1 5 5 4 5 2 44 4 4 3 4 3 1 4 44 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

intQ5_10 intQ5_11 intQ5_12 P&PM OC&S PM OS&P IM&T OVERALL4 5 4 2.86 2.59 3.20 3.00 2.50 2.835 4 5 3.50 3.27 3.40 3.57 3.83 3.524 5 4 2.86 2.91 3.60 3.86 3.42 3.334 5 3 4.14 3.32 4.00 3.71 3.42 3.724 4 4 2.86 2.41 3.40 3.29 2.67 2.924 3 4 2.64 2.77 2.40 3.71 3.58 3.024 4 4 2.86 3.14 3.80 2.86 3.08 3.154 4 4 3.21 3.50 3.00 3.86 3.33 3.384 4 4 3.79 3.59 3.60 3.71 3.50 3.643 5 3 2.93 2.73 3.40 3.57 3.58 3.244 5 4 3.57 3.64 3.80 3.86 4.17 3.812 4 2 2.71 2.64 3.40 3.00 2.50 2.854 4 4 2.64 2.50 3.00 3.57 3.08 2.963 4 2 3.79 3.91 3.60 3.86 2.67 3.563 4 4 2.79 2.18 2.20 3.00 3.50 2.734 4 3 3.21 2.86 3.20 4.00 3.00 3.264 2 2 2.79 3.00 2.20 2.71 3.17 2.774 4 5 2.93 2.86 3.60 3.86 3.58 3.374 5 4 2.64 3.00 4.00 3.86 2.58 3.223 4 4 3.00 3.18 2.80 3.00 3.42 3.084 4 3 3.43 3.55 3.80 3.14 3.33 3.455 5 4 3.86 4.23 3.40 4.57 4.08 4.034 5 4 2.36 2.05 2.00 2.43 2.50 2.274 4 4 2.64 2.05 2.00 2.29 3.33 2.463 4 4 2.93 2.95 3.00 3.29 2.83 3.004 5 4 2.50 2.59 2.80 3.00 3.25 2.833 4 2 2.36 2.59 3.00 3.71 2.75 2.884 3 1 2.71 3.18 3.60 2.86 3.33 3.144 3 2 2.93 2.68 3.40 2.57 2.58 2.832 5 4 2.43 2.55 3.40 2.71 2.67 2.752 4 5 2.93 3.27 3.20 2.71 2.83 2.992 4 4 3.50 3.95 3.80 4.29 3.25 3.765 5 4 3.29 3.68 3.60 3.57 4.17 3.664 4 3 2.79 2.82 3.00 2.86 3.25 2.944 4 4 3.57 3.50 3.00 3.86 3.75 3.544 4 4 3.43 3.50 4.40 4.14 3.67 3.834 5 5 3.36 3.91 4.20 4.57 4.17 4.044 5 4 3.21 3.23 4.00 3.43 3.58 3.494 4 3 2.93 2.95 2.80 3.43 3.42 3.114 5 2 2.64 2.41 2.80 2.43 2.25 2.512 5 4 2.79 2.91 2.80 3.57 3.08 3.034 4 4 2.86 3.00 3.60 2.71 2.83 3.004 5 4 3.50 3.59 3.20 4.14 3.42 3.574 4 2 3.00 2.68 3.60 3.14 2.92 3.074 5 4 3.43 3.18 4.00 4.00 3.42 3.614 5 4 3.36 3.41 3.60 3.43 3.50 3.462 4 4 3.00 3.05 2.80 3.14 3.00 3.003 4 4 3.57 2.91 3.60 3.57 2.92 3.315 5 5 3.36 3.55 3.60 3.71 4.25 3.694 4 4 3.00 3.09 2.60 3.00 3.08 2.954 4 4 3.50 3.64 4.00 3.71 3.67 3.704 3 4 3.29 3.00 2.40 3.14 3.42 3.054 4 4 3.71 3.41 3.20 3.71 3.67 3.545 5 5 3.50 3.00 3.80 4.29 4.33 3.784 4 4 3.14 2.91 3.00 2.71 3.08 2.97

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

5 4 5 3.50 3.55 3.80 3.43 4.33 3.724 4 4 3.00 3.36 3.60 3.71 4.08 3.554 4 4 3.21 3.59 3.60 4.00 3.33 3.555 5 4 3.36 3.41 2.60 4.00 3.75 3.424 4 4 3.14 3.32 3.00 3.71 3.33 3.304 5 3 2.64 2.59 2.80 3.43 3.08 2.915 5 4 3.43 3.50 4.20 3.71 4.00 3.774 4 4 3.21 3.27 3.60 3.86 4.00 3.594 5 3 2.71 3.23 3.40 3.71 3.50 3.313 4 3 2.50 2.95 3.40 3.14 3.00 3.004 4 4 3.07 3.86 4.40 2.86 3.67 3.573 5 2 2.79 2.95 2.60 3.14 2.33 2.764 4 4 4.00 3.59 4.00 4.43 4.00 4.003 4 4 3.07 2.41 3.40 3.29 2.75 2.983 4 4 3.71 3.77 4.00 3.00 2.75 3.452 4 3 2.71 2.55 3.20 3.00 2.83 2.864 4 4 3.50 3.27 3.80 3.71 3.50 3.564 4 3 2.93 2.91 2.80 3.43 3.67 3.154 5 4 3.14 3.00 3.40 4.00 3.25 3.364 4 3 3.00 2.95 3.00 2.43 3.33 2.944 4 4 2.43 2.50 3.60 2.71 3.67 2.985 5 5 3.43 2.77 3.60 3.86 4.08 3.554 5 2 3.71 3.14 4.20 4.14 3.42 3.724 4 4 2.50 2.91 2.80 3.43 3.17 2.964 4 4 3.21 3.36 4.40 4.14 3.83 3.794 4 4 3.21 3.45 3.40 3.29 3.33 3.344 4 5 3.07 3.23 3.60 3.71 3.75 3.474 4 4 2.79 2.73 2.60 2.57 3.08 2.755 4 4 3.43 3.59 4.00 3.86 3.67 3.713 4 3 3.29 3.05 3.80 3.29 3.00 3.283 3 3 3.29 2.91 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.044 5 5 3.43 2.86 3.20 2.14 2.92 2.913 3 4 2.21 2.41 2.00 2.71 2.67 2.404 3 3 3.21 3.05 3.80 3.57 3.67 3.465 5 5 3.21 3.64 4.00 3.86 4.17 3.774 4 5 4.29 4.09 4.00 4.00 3.92 4.065 5 5 3.71 3.82 4.60 3.71 4.00 3.974 4 5 3.43 3.64 4.00 3.86 3.75 3.734 3 4 3.21 3.00 3.60 3.29 3.50 3.323 3 4 3.14 3.45 4.00 4.00 3.42 3.604 5 4 2.57 3.23 3.60 4.43 3.17 3.404 4 4 3.57 3.77 4.20 3.57 3.50 3.724 4 4 2.57 3.32 2.40 3.71 4.00 3.204 4 4 3.50 2.91 3.00 3.14 3.42 3.195 5 5 3.21 3.41 3.20 4.29 4.08 3.642 5 3 3.71 3.36 4.20 3.43 2.67 3.475 5 3 3.36 3.18 4.00 4.14 4.08 3.754 4 4 3.71 3.86 4.00 3.71 3.83 3.834 4 4 3.79 3.50 3.40 3.57 3.75 3.605 4 4 3.07 3.41 4.00 3.71 3.17 3.474 4 4 2.86 3.36 3.20 2.71 3.75 3.184 4 4 3.43 3.82 4.00 4.00 3.92 3.834 3 4 3.00 3.00 3.60 3.43 3.08 3.225 4 2 3.79 3.59 4.40 3.71 3.50 3.804 4 4 3.86 3.68 3.60 3.86 3.75 3.754 4 5 3.50 3.36 3.40 3.43 3.75 3.49

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

4 4 3 3.64 3.18 3.40 3.14 3.08 3.295 4 5 3.50 3.86 4.60 4.43 4.17 4.114 5 4 2.86 2.82 3.20 3.14 4.00 3.205 4 5 3.21 2.59 2.40 3.86 3.83 3.184 4 4 3.21 3.36 3.40 3.86 3.50 3.475 5 5 3.29 3.55 3.20 3.29 4.08 3.485 5 4 3.50 2.91 2.80 3.00 4.00 3.244 5 5 3.93 3.41 4.20 4.57 3.58 3.943 4 3 2.50 2.68 2.00 2.71 2.58 2.504 3 3 2.64 2.77 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.784 3 4 2.86 2.77 2.80 2.71 3.08 2.852 4 4 2.57 2.55 3.20 3.57 3.25 3.032 5 2 3.21 3.41 3.40 3.57 2.75 3.274 3 4 2.86 2.45 3.60 2.86 3.08 2.974 4 2 2.57 2.18 2.00 3.14 2.50 2.485 5 3 3.57 3.23 3.60 4.29 3.25 3.595 4 5 3.57 3.23 4.00 4.14 4.33 3.854 4 5 3.64 3.23 3.00 3.86 3.75 3.504 4 4 3.07 3.73 3.60 3.57 3.75 3.544 4 4 3.43 3.41 4.00 3.57 3.33 3.553 3 2 2.64 2.68 2.80 3.43 2.83 2.884 4 2 2.79 2.82 2.80 3.14 3.00 2.914 4 4 2.86 3.00 3.40 3.29 3.50 3.212 3 3 2.50 2.73 3.20 3.29 2.75 2.894 4 4 3.43 3.50 4.00 4.00 3.58 3.703 5 4 3.43 3.32 3.40 3.43 3.17 3.354 4 4 2.86 2.77 3.60 3.00 3.25 3.103 4 2 2.64 2.55 3.20 3.00 3.33 2.944 5 4 2.93 2.64 2.60 4.00 3.92 3.224 4 4 2.64 2.55 2.60 3.43 3.00 2.844 5 2 3.36 2.41 3.60 3.57 2.92 3.174 4 4 3.50 3.23 3.40 3.57 3.00 3.344 5 5 3.21 3.45 3.20 3.57 3.92 3.472 5 1 3.14 2.95 2.80 3.71 1.92 2.912 4 3 2.71 2.45 1.80 2.57 2.67 2.444 4 4 3.14 2.86 3.20 3.86 3.58 3.334 4 4 3.21 3.55 3.40 4.00 3.50 3.535 4 4 2.71 3.14 4.20 4.14 3.67 3.574 4 3 2.86 3.27 2.60 3.43 3.67 3.173 5 4 3.57 3.14 3.40 3.71 2.67 3.302 5 2 2.93 2.23 3.00 3.29 2.58 2.804 4 3 3.21 2.68 2.40 3.14 2.92 2.873 2 3 2.93 2.82 2.20 2.71 2.83 2.704 4 4 3.86 3.77 4.00 3.86 3.67 3.833 4 3 3.57 3.77 3.20 4.57 3.42 3.713 3 3 2.43 2.36 1.80 2.57 3.17 2.474 4 3 3.86 3.55 3.60 3.43 3.42 3.575 5 5 3.64 4.00 4.80 4.43 4.25 4.223 3 3 2.43 2.36 1.80 2.43 3.17 2.444 4 4 3.71 3.68 4.00 3.86 3.75 3.804 4 2 3.00 2.77 2.80 3.43 2.58 2.924 4 4 3.50 3.82 3.20 4.00 3.75 3.65

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

4 4 4 3.71 3.55 4.00 4.00 3.67 3.794 4 4 3.50 3.59 3.80 4.00 3.50 3.684 3 3 3.64 3.32 3.60 3.43 2.83 3.364 4 4 3.29 3.36 3.40 3.57 3.33 3.394 4 4 3.14 3.36 4.20 3.71 3.00 3.481 1 1 3.79 2.09 3.20 3.00 1.08 2.634 3 3 3.21 3.64 3.40 3.29 3.83 3.474 4 3 2.86 2.91 3.40 3.57 3.08 3.165 5 5 4.00 4.14 4.00 4.71 4.25 4.224 4 4 3.14 3.09 4.00 3.57 3.33 3.434 4 4 3.71 3.91 4.00 3.86 4.08 3.912 2 5 2.86 2.55 2.80 3.00 2.50 2.743 3 2 3.29 2.64 2.60 3.71 3.58 3.163 3 3 3.71 3.91 4.00 4.00 2.50 3.624 3 3 3.64 3.32 3.60 3.43 2.83 3.364 5 4 3.36 3.41 4.00 3.57 3.42 3.554 2 4 2.79 2.45 2.60 2.71 2.33 2.582 4 2 3.14 3.32 3.20 3.57 3.17 3.283 4 3 3.21 3.36 3.60 4.43 3.83 3.694 4 4 3.21 3.23 3.00 2.86 3.58 3.183 3 3 3.43 2.82 3.20 4.00 2.42 3.17

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

Overall DataintQ1_1 intQ1_2 intQ1_3 intQ1_4

Median 4 4 3 2Mean 3.641304 3.244565 2.923913 2.369565

Sectional BreakdownP&P Mngt OC & S PM OS & P

Median 3 3 4 4Mean 3.175854 3.13834 3.361957 3.499224

Overall Data

Median MeanintQ1_1 4 3.641304intQ1_2 4 3.244565intQ1_3 3 2.923913intQ1_4 2 2.369565intQ1_5 3 2.744565intQ1_6 2 2.581522intQ1_7 4 3.625intQ1_8 2 2.641304intQ1_9 4 4.342391intQ1_10 4 4.440217intQ1_11 4 3.646739intQ1_12 3 2.853261intQ1_13 3 2.815217intQ1_14 2 2.592391intQ2_1 4 3.923913intQ2_2 3 2.88587intQ2_3 3 3.152174intQ2_4 4 3.559783intQ2_5 3 3.157609intQ2_6 4 3.592391intQ2_7 4 3.570652intQ2_8 3 2.804348intQ2_9 3 2.73913intQ2_10 4 3.456522intQ2_11 3 3.206522intQ2_12 2 2.570652intQ2_13 3 2.706522intQ2_14 3 3.027174intQ2_15 3 3.032609intQ2_16 3 3.206522intQ2_17 3 2.967391intQ2_18 2 2.63587intQ2_19 3 3.179348intQ2_20 3 2.86413intQ2_21 4 3.663043intQ2_22 3 3.141304intQ3_1 3 2.983696

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

intQ3_2 3 2.853261intQ3_3 4 3.733696intQ3_4 4 3.690217intQ3_5 4 3.548913intQ4_1 3 3.119565intQ4_2 4 3.380435intQ4_3 4 3.815217intQ4_4 3 2.804348intQ4_5 3 3.092391intQ4_6 4 4.097826intQ4_7 4 4.184783intQ5_1 3 2.809783intQ5_2 4 3.728261intQ5_3 4 3.869565intQ5_4 3 3.059783intQ5_5 3 2.630435intQ5_6 3 2.961957intQ5_7 4 3.23913intQ5_8 2 2.619565intQ5_9 4 3.565217intQ5_10 4 3.793478intQ5_11 4 4.092391intQ5_12 4 3.673913

C

O

P

Y

R

IG

H

T U

C

T

intQ1_5 intQ1_6 intQ1_7 intQ1_8 intQ1_9 intQ1_10 intQ1_11 intQ1_12 intQ1_133 2 4 2 4 4 4 3 3

2.744565 2.581522 3.625 2.641304 4.342391 4.440217 3.646739 2.853261 2.815217

IM & T4

3.336957

Sectional Breakdown

Median MeanP&P Mngt 3 3.175854OC & S 3 3.13834PM 4 3.361957OS & P 4 3.499224IM & T 4 3.336957