Measuring knowledge management maturity in U.S. Army headquarters

Abstract

This study demonstrates the application of the Knowledge Management Maturity Model (KM3), developed by the U.S. Army Knowledge Management Proponency Office and modelled after the American Productivity and Quality Center's (APQC) maturity model. The KM3 model measures the maturity within the organization of knowledge management components to visualize and achieve mission performance. This study proposes the measures that serve as the determinants of optimal mission performance for military organizations. The research question is are these measures appropriate, measurable, and sustainable over time? Eleven U.S. Army Headquarters organizations were examined to assess each organization's KM Maturity level. Using the KM3 as a self‐assessment tool, each organization assessed their knowledge management maturity using data from purposeful sampling through qualitative focus groups. Having articulated our findings, we conclude that the results of this study provide some support that the KM3 Model is both appropriate and measurable but further study is required to determine whether it is sustainable.

Transactive memory systems mediation role in the relationship between motivation and internal knowledge transfers in a military environment

“…Key differences exist concerning the results desired by each type of organization. Van Laar et al (2020) explain that the army focuses on achieving operational advantage, whereas the business community seeks to create business value for the organization. For the army, the efficiency obtained within the organization leads to organizational learning and fulfillment of the mission as end state.…”

“…Companies' goal is to increase their commercial value through participation in the market, value for shareholders and profits. Differences from the business world's processes and procedures drove the US Army to develop its own maturity model, with areas, methodology and its own metrics (Van Laar et al, 2020). We must also take into account that the military worker has a different worker profile based on a sense of responsibility, honor, loyalty, commitment to colleagues, unity, nation, etc.…”

Collective stupidity: influences on decision-making in knowledge-based companies

“…Individual consequences: Collective stupidity or the "mindless" method traps people's thought patterns and causes individual and organizational inconsistencies and weakens flexibility (Butler, 2016;Ashforth and Fried, 1988). Decreased consciousness (Hardy et al, 2010), lack of curiosity and closed mind (Paulsen, 2017), lack of knowledge management creation, reduced organizational learning and reduced ideation ( Van et al, 2020), lack of Influences on decisionmaking motivation in fostering creativity (Schuler, 2008) and lack of free-thinking, creativity and problem-solving approach (Matzler et al, 2016) are among collective stupidity consequences, which are consistent with the results of recent research and are grouped in the category of individual consequences. Functional stupidity means lack of flexibility, failure to use cognitive capacities and avoidance of defined reasoning caused by managerial stupidity.…”

“…In addition, it can result in a lack of a sense of shared destiny among the members of the organization, inattention to the development of individuals, disinterest in the culture of communication, non-acceptance of mistakes, passive participation of employees in decisionmaking processes and collective activities, decrease in members' awareness of the organization, lack of commitment to results in the group and members' failure to assist the organization in discovering mental models and reconstructing their vision of reality (Hardy et al, 2010). Providing a suitable environment, smart organizations prepare the necessary conditions for the creation of organizational knowledge and learning management and promote the ability to come up with ideas, creativity and innovation ( Van et al, 2020). Moreover, providing the necessary measures to develop the intelligence of organizations with less energy and resources, they accelerate and facilitate the realization of goals with intelligent measures, while collective stupidity with instrumental orientations and lack of learning will prevent it (Alvesson and Willmott, 2012).…”

“…Providing a suitable environment, smart organizations prepare the necessary conditions for the creation of organizational knowledge and learning management and promote the ability to come up with ideas, creativity and innovation (Van et al. , 2020).…”