Beyond the Checklist: The Truth About KM Maturity Models

Is it worthwhile to do a KM Maturity Assessment?

A client recently asked which maturity model would be best to follow when assessing an organization’s KM functionality. It’s an excellent question. Answering it is made all the more complex because of the debate around how useful a maturity model really is.

If you’re not familiar with what a maturity model is, think of it as a rating system for how capable an organization is for fulfilling some sort of function. In the business world, common frameworks include the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for software development, the Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM) for process improvement, or the Agile ISO Maturity Model (AIMM).

In the knowledge management world, two of the better-known maturity models are the APQC’s Levels of Knowledge Management Maturity (LKMM) and the KMI’s Knowledge Management Maturity Model (KMMM). 

Both are the same in that they assess organizational KM capabilities from level 1 (initial/ad hoc) to Level 5 (embedded/optimized). The two approaches have different labels for levels two through four, but the concepts are all fairly similar.

LKMM is highly detailed and focused on enterprise-wide initiatives; it’s great for a highly-structured, benchmark focused approach. KMMM, on the other hand, is more process-centered and feeds into a step-by-step approach for improving KM.

I’m partial to the KMMM model because I got my certification through KMI. It’s also lighter; there are 60 or so questions. LKMM is a mutli-sheet spreadsheet of multiple measures per tab – more than 100 all told.

In the KM world, there’s a fairly robust discourse around the pros and cons of maturity models. While they can be useful tools that provide great insights and clear metrics, it’s easy for them to become overly rigid and cause organizations to overlook less measurable things like culture.

That’s why I look at the maturity model assessment as one of many tools in the box. In my experience, KM isn’t often a “tree model”  – it doesn’t grow in neat stages, like a tree adding rings. Instead, it’s more like a forest fire. It starts in small pockets and then (with the right conditions) it spreads throughout the org.

You need to understand the condition of your KM ecosystem, and a maturity model is one way to diagnose what’s needed; it’s not the whole treatment plan though. It’s a snapshot that’s useful in creating a shared understanding. It’s something that should be adapted to organizational reality and focused on enabling behaviors and culture, not just documenting processes and resources.

My approach with clients is to do a short survey of stakeholders and leadership using a KMMM-bassed questionnaire, and follow that with more in-depth conversations around KM with as many stakeholders as possible. I’ve found that approach gives a clear snapshot of the current state, but also lays the groundwork for the type of cultural change required for real KM transformation.

Interested in learning more about how to approach your own maturity assessment? Get in touch!