A vast amount of rapidly changing information can lie between any performance goal and those who are working to reach it. Efforts to reach such goals are made through the actual work processes; the “fundamental links between organizational and individual performance” (Massey, Montoya-Weiss, and O’Driscoll, 2002, p. 38).
Instructional performance interventions are intended to provide people with the knowledge and information they need to do their jobs. Non-instructional interventions such as job aids and electronic performance support systems (EPSSs) can be effective for delivering information in the workplace. These methods are generally focused on providing pre-determined supports to well-defined work processes or tasks…the explicit “How To” do something. The pieces of information that are delivered by these methods are most often determined by those at the top of the organizational hierarchy. Often, this overlooks the way work is actually performed. Such databases of information can be “useless without knowledge and processes to put the data or information in context” (Tabuena, 2001, p. 22). Knowledge management is a term that can be used to describe the process of gathering information, transforming it by applying it to the context in which it will be used, and disseminating it as knowledge. Many who refer to knowledge management systems are actually describing something that is more like an EPSS. What is the difference between the two?
Elsenheimer (2000) describes a logical progression from electronic performance support systems to knowledge management systems. He distinguishes information (i.e., what people need to know to do their jobs) from knowledge, “the ‘when, how and why’” (¶ 3) to use that information. While EPSSs help make information more accessible to those who need it, from a performance-centered perspective, knowledge management systems should attempt to “help information and knowledge flow to the right people at the right time so they can act more efficiently and effectively” (Tabuena, 2001, p. 21).
Beyond making a distinction between information and knowledge, distinguishing between different types of knowledge is also important to an understanding of the difference between knowledge management and other types of performance support systems. Tabuena (2001) compares explicit and tacit knowledge to the concepts of process and practice. Just like work processes, explicit knowledge is objective, organized, and can be codified into policies. The linear nature of explicit knowledge assumes a predictable, routine environment. For example, the policy and procedure manuals that are so prevalent as performance supports in organizations focus mainly on this type of knowledge. However, observation of the actual work performed by workers reveals that most of the complex tasks they perform are anything but routine or predictable. Given this characteristic of the nature of work, it is important to recognize the role of another form of knowledge; tacit knowledge. Like real work practices, tacit knowledge illustrates how work is really done. It relies on the context in which it is used, often expressed by improvisation and application of personal insight to prescribed processes. Unlike the explicit knowledge contained within policies, tacit knowledge is “subjective, experiential, and hard to formalize” (Tabuena, 2001, p. 22).
If support of explicit work processes, the link between organizational goals and individual performance, is the focus of most performance support systems, the capture and utilization of the implicit, internalized knowledge within individual performers through knowledge management moves this focus to a higher level. Elsenheimer (2000) discusses this shift in focus by promoting the addition of this tacit knowledge to “corporate memory” (Looking ahead to KM section, ¶ 1). From this perspective, knowledge management builds on EPSS resources by creating an environment that promotes sharing of experiences, collaboration, and innovation. Ultimately, this improved corporate memory is made accessible to employees at all levels of the organization. Appropriate use of this knowledge improves performance, drives decision-making, and reduces cost (Burns, 2003).
Elsenheimer (2000) applies performance-centered design methodology in his approach to capturing tacit knowledge in an organization. As initial steps, he suggests observing actual work processes and systems and talking with the people who actually perform the work in order to find out what knowledge is in fact applied to get the work done successfully.
Burns (2003) describes the creation and moderation of communities of practice as a means to generate new knowledge within learning organizations. Communities of practice can be defined as “groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise” (Wenger & Snyder, 2000, p. 139). Such groups have existed for centuries, developed from common social and business interests. Today such communities exist within businesses and other organizations, most commonly maintaining informal connections and communication to share knowledge and learn from other members of the community.
The primary product of the interactions among community members is knowledge (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). The knowledge generated by such groups is often in the form of practical but innovative solutions to problems that they have encountered in the unpredictable, real-world work environment. Because of the informal organization of these communities, this wisdom is shared only within the group, unknown or inaccessible to others within the organization. As discussed previously, knowledge management seeks to capture and disseminate this tacit knowledge.
Burns (2003) warns that knowledge management systems should not use technology to reduce the knowledge generated through collaboration to documents in a database. Technology can be best used as a tool to provide opportunities for online interactions and access to innovations created through group interactions. While technology can be an important support to collaboration in such groups, some may argue that electronic communication should not replace the face-to-face, social relationships that are inherent to true collaborative communities (Winer, Rushby, & Vazquez-Abad, 1999).
Zopler (1999) provides confirmation that the objectives of performance support and knowledge management are the same: “to provide the useful knowledge to employees in order to effect business improvement” (Overview section, ¶ 1). In an attempt to clarify the relationship between performance support and knowledge management, Zopler presents the Blended Knowledge Delivery (BKD) Model. Within this model, electronic performance support (EPS) and knowledge management (KM) are combined with two additional forms of knowledge delivery, human performance support (HPS) and internalized knowledge (IK). According to Zopler, knowledge delivered via EPS is very task-specific and has already been organized or distilled into a readily usable form whereas KM attempts to provide performers with tools to access, organize and structure knowledge from various sources making up a knowledge pool. Additionally, HPS represents the formal, structured knowledge that is gained through human interactions, while IK is the tacit knowledge already retained by individuals. These additional knowledge delivery mechanisms relate closely to the widely accepted premise of the importance of people-to-people interaction to the generation of tacit knowledge within knowledge management systems.
Different combinations of these knowledge delivery mechanisms can be applied to support employee performance. The most appropriate combination of knowledge delivery depends upon the level of complexity of the task an employee must perform relative to the amount and type of knowledge the employee needs to perform it (Zopler, 1999). Low complexity tasks rely most heavily on EPS that has predetermined the correct course of action for completing the task. Moderately complex tasks rely more on KM than on EPS. In this area, work is made more efficient when employees use a knowledge pool to complete similar but unique tasks, relying only minimally on EPS support. Because it is difficult to determine the most appropriate course of action for highly complex tasks ahead of time, EPS is not indicated at all for such tasks. KM is only beneficial to a limited degree. Instead, emphasis is placed on supporting the “IK of the individual faced with the task coupled with the IK of individuals available to assist” (Zopler, 1999, The BKD Model section, Zone 3 explanation).
Information can be embedded in systems but “knowledge is embedded in people”
(Malhotra, 1999).
Malhotra’s view of knowledge is especially pertinent when distinguishing between the delivery of information and the development of a Knowledge Management System.
HPT professionals who share a common view on the difference between information and knowledge suggest the following characteristics of effective Knowledge Management Systems:
Partners HealthCare System
Health care professionals are bombarded with far more important clinical information than they are able to retain in memory. Coupled with this, the alarming rate of potentially life threatening medical errors is inconsistent with the mission of healing organizations. Partners HealthCare System, Boston, Massachusetts, has applied performance-centered designto a clinical decision support system aimed at resolving some of these issues. In this system, specialized knowledge to support decision-making is embedded into a computerized physician order entry system “to make knowledge so readily accessible that it can’t be avoided” (Davenport & Glaser, 2002, p. 108).
When a physician uses the computer system to enter a medication order, the integrated system automatically references the patient’s medical record for drug allergies and alerts the physician. Queries can be made providing more information about the patient’s medical history. Additional information regarding drug interactions, efficacy and expense of ordered medications, as well as alternative drugs is also provided to assist the physician in making care decisions. The system provides physicians with recommendations based on the information, however doctors retain the ability to override these recommendations if they choose. Beyond medication ordering, this system also provides additional information and alerts related to clinical decision-making, referrals, and event detection (Davenport & Glaser, 2002).
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
In 1999, businesses in New Jersey were faced with the problems of managing new Air Emissions Quality regulations and using a new software tool, RADIUS, for completing and submitting required emissions reports. Sterling Resources, Inc., a worked with the DEP to develop the RADIUS Coach. This is an excellent example of the combination of electronic performance support and knowledge management systems. "The elements of support need to extend far beyond information required to operate the RADIUS software; they must include managing environmental knowledge, promulgating data analysis best practices, educating users on aspects of regulatory policy, and connecting users with experts and expert resources available on the subject matter" (Zopler, 2000, Purpose section, ¶ 3).
RADIUS Coach applies the principles of performance-centered design to
Developers of RADIUS Coach believe that it improved the rollout of the RADIUS software by decreasing the costs of initial training and on-going support, as well as increasing end-user productivity and satisfaction with the new system (Zopler, 2000, Results section, ¶ 2).
Review a complete description of this intervention, including screen shots at: