|
|
| (24 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Untidy1}} | + | <!-- |
| | + | {{Einstein}} |
| | + | |
| | + | {{Tidy1}} |
| | | | |
| | {{Clustering stage}}, | | {{Clustering stage}}, |
| | | | |
| − | {{Content}} | + | {{Priority}}, |
| | + | |
| | + | {{Content}}, |
| | + | |
| | + | {{Pages}} |
| | + | --> |
| | | | |
| | ==Definition== | | ==Definition== |
| − | {{PAGENAME}} is {{ {{PAGENAME}} }}
| + | {{ {{PAGENAME}} }} |
| − | '''Source:''' [[]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Summary==
| + | |
| − | One paragraph.
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ==Description== | | ==Description== |
| − | Methodology of knowledge loss risk management provides managers understanding the level of risks in nuclear organizations, helps to develop sustainable strategies and plans aiming to mitigate risks to ensure business continuity and effective operations.
| + | The methodology of knowledge loss risk management provides managers with an understanding of the level of risks in nuclear organizations, helps to develop sustainable strategies and plans aiming to mitigate risks to ensure business continuity and effective operations. |
| | | | |
| | ===Organizational knowledge loss risk management=== | | ===Organizational knowledge loss risk management=== |
| − | ====Roles and responsibilities for knowledge loss risk management====
| + | The necessity to maintain organizational competency for NPPs has been widely recognized by Member States given the nature of the business (high hazard low risk) and the 100 years or more life cycle. They recognize the importance in continuing the safe and efficient operation of existing [[Nuclear power plant operating organization|NPPs]], continued support for research and development and educational institutions, as well as the need to support the expansion of nuclear power. |
| − | The necessity to maintain organizational competency for NPPs has been widely recognized by Member States given the nature of the business (high hazard low risk) and the 100 years or more life cycle. They recognize the importance in continuing the safe and efficient operation of existing NPPs, continued support for research and development and educational institutions, as well as the need to support the expansion of nuclear power. | + | |
| − | Experience accumulated in Member States demonstrates that transformations of nuclear organizations during it life cycle may turn to the potential loss of knowledge and skill in the nuclear industry. The common challenge is how to maintain and enhance institutional knowledge. | + | Experience accumulated in Member States demonstrates that transformations of nuclear organizations during it life cycle may turn to the potential [[Knowledge loss|loss of knowledge]] and skill in the nuclear industry. The common challenge is how to [[Maintenance|maintain]] and enhance institutional knowledge. |
| | To mitigate risks managers of the nuclear organizations KLRM should be provided with two level analyses on a regular basis: | | To mitigate risks managers of the nuclear organizations KLRM should be provided with two level analyses on a regular basis: |
| | # Upper level analysis — competences loss risk assessment (up-to-bottom); | | # Upper level analysis — competences loss risk assessment (up-to-bottom); |
| Line 24: |
Line 28: |
| | | | |
| | These two approaches support each other and help to determine risks of organizational competences and individual knowledge loss within nuclear organization. Results of the assessments are reflected in actions aimed to mitigate the risks. | | These two approaches support each other and help to determine risks of organizational competences and individual knowledge loss within nuclear organization. Results of the assessments are reflected in actions aimed to mitigate the risks. |
| − | As a practical recommendation from NPPs which already have built successful KLRM, is importance from the early beginning to define main stakeholders of the process and to establish a KM team. KM team can be formal independent group with defined roles and responsibilities, or group formed on community of practice approach with assigned functions. Some NPP found important to established KM Board (staring committee) for resolving cross-cutting KM issues.
| |
| − | Main KM participants and stakeholders also are:
| |
| | | | |
| − | # Internal participants:
| + | As a practical recommendation from NPPs which already have built successful KLRM, is importance from the early beginning to define main stakeholders of the process and to establish a KM team. |
| − | #* Structural units (HR, QA, IT units, production departments);
| + | |
| − | #* Officials and employees;
| + | |
| − | # External participants:
| + | |
| − | #* External organizations, counteragents, contractors;
| + | |
| − | #* External experts, consultants;
| + | |
| − | # Main stakeholders:
| + | |
| − | #* Managers of NPPs;
| + | |
| − | #* KM Board ();
| + | |
| − | #* Departments supervisors;
| + | |
| − | #* Line managers
| + | |
| − | #* KM Process owner/responsible body
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[File:1248_tab01.png|500px|thumbnail|right|TABLE 1. ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF KM TEAM]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | KM team should function in open and collaborative environment with departments and units. The mission of the KM team is to support managers of the departments with KLRM methodology, analyse achieved results, chose applicable tools and apply them for successful knowledge retention and transferring. It is highly important to show benefits from KLRM and to get support with top-level managers.
| + | |
| − | Main functions of the KM team are:
| + | |
| − | * Coordinate KLRM activities;
| + | |
| − | * Plan activities;
| + | |
| − | * Perform activities;
| + | |
| − | * Control activities;
| + | |
| − | * Support departments.
| + | |
| − | ''KM coordinator'' determines needs of the KM team and allocates resources for the KM programme, provides implementation of the programme, evaluate and continuously improve KM system of the nuclear organization. Together with top-level management determine strategy. KM coordinator reports to the top-management regarding competence gaps, competence risks and future competence needs. KM coordinator administrates the knowledge management tools and relevant internal policy procedures, organizes the KM meetings, supports training, creates and evaluates KPIs and annual reports to the Board, coordinates the IT support and internal communication
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ''Knowledge Manager'' provides analysis of the most crucial knowledge domain, competence risks, and launch KLRM activities in the departments of first priority. Knowledge Manager controls KM processes and motivation plans, identifies the needs of knowledge preservation and recommends relevant tools. Cooperates with Knowledge sponsors and Lead experts. Collects data for reporting and takes responsibility for the KM budget.
| + | |
| − | ''Chief information officer (CIO)'' responsible for IT support and solutions (knowledge mapping, knowledge databases, document management systems…)
| + | |
| − | ''Knowledge administrator'' is responsible for meeting arrangements, KM documents administration, KM database structure and content and supporting communication.
| + | |
| − | ''Knowledge sponsor'' one of the important components is to assigned role of knowledge sponsor to department supervisor in order to form solid collaboration between KM team and departments. Knowledge sponsor is responsible for regular assessment and integrity of KLRM in management system.
| + | |
| − | ''Lead expert'' Identifies an expert in their area, determine the level of risk of loss of the knowledge. Prioritizes necessary actions and tasks relating to experts availability and formal processing of experience reports (or other forms of knowledge transfer and preservation.)
| + | |
| − | ''Knowledge officer (KO)'', chief knowledge officer (CKO) and chief information officer (CIO), together support departments with knowledge mapping activities. Define gaps and proposed solution for mitigating risks. This role can be replaced by Knowledge manager.
| + | |
| − | Examples of the organizational structure are shown in annex (CEZ Case Study).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Organizational competency loss risk assessment===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The current section will consider the impact of knowledge loss on the organization and the resulting impact on organizational competency, in other words, the ability to function safely and efficiently.
| + | |
| − | Section 4 provides methodology and tools to address specific knowledge loss associated with individual experts nearing retirement or employees transferring, receiving promotions or leaving the organization (or industry) for other reasons.
| + | |
| − | Competence loss risk assessment (CLRA) can be easily implemented for the organizations with well-defined process and HR structure. This approach shows management links between business goals of the organization, processes, sub-processes, competences needs and available human resources.
| + | |
| − | Competence loss risk assessment shown in Figure 5 is a five step process:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[File:1248_tab03.png|500px|thumbnail|right|FIG. 5. Competence loss risk assessment.]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Step 1 — Competences mapping;
| + | |
| − | Step 2 — Competences matrix development;
| + | |
| − | Step 3 — Competence loss risk assessment;
| + | |
| − | Step 4 — Actions implementation.
| + | |
| − | Step 5 – Results evaluation
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Step 1 — Competences mapping====
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | This step focusing on collecting initial information is needed for the following competency loos risk assessment.
| + | |
| − | The phase includes determination of key elements:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | # Business goals of the organization;
| + | |
| − | # Processes (sub-processes) supporting business goals;
| + | |
| − | # Competences needed for successful running processes;
| + | |
| − | # Available HR.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Nuclear organizations managers create competency mapping shown in Figure 8 on the basis of identification of organization structure, organizational processes, sub-processes and required competences for them. Competence map defines connections between business goals of the nuclear organization and individual knowledge of employee through processes, sub-process, competences and available workforce positions. While creating competence mapping it is useful to take into account any information helping to identify organizational competences (organizational functions, guidance, responsibilities, workforce positions, job descriptions, etc.).
| + | |
| − | On this stage mapping approach will help managers to understand the most important and even critical competences of nuclear organization without deep analysis implementation.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Step 2 — Competences matrix development====
| + | |
| − | On this step nuclear organizations managers create competency matrix in compliance with available HR (staff).
| + | |
| − | The matrix shows demand on competences on the rate of one person covers one competence.
| + | |
| − | Though the practices usually are different, at the same time employee can possess several competences, which are overlapping. This gives nuclear organizations reserve of competences what is very important for successful performance. Managers should take into account all available staff and determine their competences, define which are overlapping. Such approach will provide reflection of current situation, helps to identify competences gaps in specific areas and answered what kind of HR staffing needed for covering them, taking into account new demands. Providing the correction actions on the early stage is proactive response to future risks.
| + | |
| − | It is important to underline that employees can possess knowledge, skills and experience which cover several organizational competences.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Step 3 — Risk assessment====
| + | |
| − | Nuclear organizations managers provide assessment of future competency gaps due to changes in organizational structure, personnel rotation, ageing and retirement.
| + | |
| − | Analysis result is the same matrix but focusing on future impacts on organizational competences. At the same time managers can define key experts in the different fields, which are close to retirement or leaving organization and can propose experts for corrective actions on tacit knowledge identification, transfer and preservation or in another words put expert to a low-level analysis called KLRM which is described in chapter 4.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Step 4 — Action====
| + | |
| − | Based on the assessment results, managers should develop a strategic plan addressing organizational competence (knowledge) loss and perform corrective actions
| + | |
| − | Corrective actions mainly can be focused on:
| + | |
| − | # Determination of prioritized list of competences at risk;
| + | |
| − | # Critical positions detection;
| + | |
| − | # Detection of key expert at risk (employees and their critical knowledge and competences);
| + | |
| − | # Development of substitution plan (reserve) for key employees which are going to leave organization;
| + | |
| − | # Pairs mentor-successor forming and development of individual plans for knowledge transfer;
| + | |
| − | # Start of knowledge risk assessment for the critical knowledge identification in accordance with Section 4.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Step 5 — Process efficiency evaluation====
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The process evaluation highlights the areas of inefficiency. Decomposition of KLRM complex procedures into its component parts helps to highlight the weak areas and identifies the opportunities for improvement. .The efficiency evaluation should be focused on:
| + | |
| − | # Plan for periodical review (periodically/annually);
| + | |
| − | # KPIs/metrics set up, e.g.:
| + | |
| − | #* number of experience reports
| + | |
| − | #* quality of experience reports (scale 1-5)
| + | |
| − | #* number of interviews (debriefings)
| + | |
| − | #* ratio of experts at risk and experts evaluated (interviewed)
| + | |
| − | #* number of on-the-job trainings / succession plans
| + | |
| − | #* number of experts at risk (high risk of loss)
| + | |
| − | #* number of knowledge at risk (high risk of loss)
| + | |
| − | #* number of knowledge transfers into the training materials / technical documentation
| + | |
| − | #* number of KM portal / database visits
| + | |
| − | #*The crieteria for corrective action can be, for example less than 70% of the plan fulfilment
| + | |
| − | # Process self-assessment revision (periodically / annually);
| + | |
| − | # Periodic updating of KLRM internal policy documents and relevant procedures;
| + | |
| − | # Periodic updating of KLRM templates, forms and questionnaires’;
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Source:''' [[Practical Approaches to Risk Management of Knowledge Loss in Nuclear Organizations]]
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ==References== | | ==References== |
| − | [1] | + | [1] [http://iaea-nkm.cloudapp.net/wiki/index.php/Practical_Approaches_to_Risk_Management_of_Knowledge_Loss_in_Nuclear_Organizations_-_document_as_draft Practical Approaches to Risk Management of Knowledge Loss in Nuclear Organizations - Draft] |
| | | | |
| | ==Related articles== | | ==Related articles== |
| Line 138: |
Line 39: |
| | [[Knowledge loss risk assessment]] | | [[Knowledge loss risk assessment]] |
| | | | |
| − | [[Category:Business processes]]
| + | |
| − | [[Category:KM systems]] | + | [[Category:Knowledge retention]] |
The endeavour to understand the factors leading to knowledge loss in an organization and take appropriate countermeasures
The methodology of knowledge loss risk management provides managers with an understanding of the level of risks in nuclear organizations, helps to develop sustainable strategies and plans aiming to mitigate risks to ensure business continuity and effective operations.
The necessity to maintain organizational competency for NPPs has been widely recognized by Member States given the nature of the business (high hazard low risk) and the 100 years or more life cycle. They recognize the importance in continuing the safe and efficient operation of existing NPPs, continued support for research and development and educational institutions, as well as the need to support the expansion of nuclear power.
Experience accumulated in Member States demonstrates that transformations of nuclear organizations during it life cycle may turn to the potential loss of knowledge and skill in the nuclear industry. The common challenge is how to maintain and enhance institutional knowledge.
To mitigate risks managers of the nuclear organizations KLRM should be provided with two level analyses on a regular basis:
These two approaches support each other and help to determine risks of organizational competences and individual knowledge loss within nuclear organization. Results of the assessments are reflected in actions aimed to mitigate the risks.
As a practical recommendation from NPPs which already have built successful KLRM, is importance from the early beginning to define main stakeholders of the process and to establish a KM team.
