The STEEP Knowledge Management Framework

On the 26th of May I will be the guest lecturer on a management course at the Australian National University . I'm supposed to be talking about risk management and networks. Now part of the required reading for the students, which I thought I'd better read, was an article by Mickey Butts, Rebecca Wayland, and Lawrence Wilkinson called "Navigating the new realities of risk". The article was published by the Global Business Network and is very interesting in its own right. But the thing that really caught by attention was the STEEP framework, because I could immediately see it has utility as a knowledge management framework.

Now we're all familiar with the people, process and technology mantra, however I've always thought it lacked something. STEEP is an acronym for social, technological, economical, environmental, and political, which as a knowledge management framework I quite like. I think as a diagram it would look something like the picture below, noting it's a bit raw and unsophisticated.

The STEEP Knowledge Management Framework 

Now it seems to me the STEEP framework captures all the considerations for a knowledge management system. Also the RAAKERS™ framework , which I blogged about yesterday, fits the model reasonably well. For example the first thing that will kill a knowledge management initiative is the political component. If there isn't the organisational will and leadership to make it happen it will fail. The responsibility, accountability and authority components of RAAKERS™ reside in this dimension. The knowledge and experience elements reside in the social component; and the resources and systems elements easily fit into the technological, economical and environmental components.

Now it's probably all a bit too simple, but I suggest it is no worse than the quadrant models with which we are plagued! I need to think about it a bit more before deciding on its true worth and or developing it further. In the meantime feel free to criticise - your contributions matter.

Regards Graham

Oh and for those of you who prefer to keep knowledge management as a black art I could probably rework the diagram into a pentagram! Smile



categories:

Re: The STEEP Knowledge Management Framework

Submitted by Stephen Bounds on Tue, 22/04/2008 - 08:28.

I have to say, I don't really see how STEEP is more appropriate for KM as compared to any generic change initiative.

By itself, STEEP lacks a number of important features of any KM program. As one example, it has no longitudinal component that specifies how a program will lead to knowledge being managed better over time.

Re: The STEEP Knowledge Management Framework

Submitted by Graham Durant-Law on Tue, 22/04/2008 - 11:40.

No argument from me Stephen.  All I'm saying is it's better than the people, process, technology mantra.

Try and find publically available knowledge management models that are transferable from one organisation to another.  I suggest you will struggle.  With the exception of Tiwana's model those that I have found are very high level like this framework.

Perhaps you have an approach you would care to share?  I know I would be interested in looking at something with a "longitudinal component that specifies how a program will lead to knowledge being managed better over time".  If you can provide a link or some papers I'm more than happy to publish them to this site with appropriate attribution.  My only caveat would be I won't breach copyright.

Thanks for the comment. I look forward to your response.

Regards Graham

 

Re: The STEEP Knowledge Management Framework

Submitted by Stephen Bounds on Tue, 22/04/2008 - 23:53.

Hmm. I wish I did.

One of the key challenges with KM is that it's very hard to find a framework that's reproducible across a wide range of organisations.

That's more or less inevitable given that any solution must be tailored to the organisation. Some organisations may want to monetize inventions and IP; others need to share "best of breed" solutions to prevent catastrophic failure; still others just want better team and project operations.

Finding a single framework to cover all of these outcomes is not easy!

However, to give you an example of a framework that embeds KM activities, look at page two of this article about Joe Firestone and Mark McElroy's New Knowledge Management. Obviousy this has a very different focus from STEEP, but it includes learning and continuous improvement as a path to better KM.

Re: The STEEP Knowledge Management Framework

Submitted by Graham Durant-Law on Wed, 23/04/2008 - 08:59.

Thanks for your reply Stephen. I agree that one of the key challenges is that it's very hard to find a framework that's reproducible across a wide range of organisations. The seminal question is why?

I think a lot of the problem is that we cannot define in a consistent way that is widely agreed just exactly what knowledge management is. We don't have an agreed knowledge model, and we don't have an agreed knowledge management model - the difference is subtle but important. Furthermore we are no closer to getting either.

A few days ago I identified that the most popular page on this site is the Knowledge models page. The most common search phrase that gets you to Knowledge Matters™ is "knowledge model", and the most common search phrase on the site itself is "knowledge management model". This is interesting because people are obviously looking for a model or models - perhaps they are seeking the silver bullet?

I agree that each situation is unique. I do think however it should be possible to come up with a reasonably complete framework.

I have read all of the Firestone and McElroy publications. I think they are well grounded, but the framework is difficult to operationalise. On the other hand Tiwana's (2002) book ‘The knowledge management toolkit: orchestrating IT, strategy, and knowledge platforms' provides something that I think could be operationalised in most circumstances. Tiwana provides a 10-step road map to implement a knowledge management initiative, with each step being explained in detail. Unfortunately I can find no evidence that this model has been applied in any company or the public-sector.

Frid's (2002) ‘A pragmatic guide to building a knowledge management program', and Frid's (2003) ‘A common KM framework for the Government of Canada: Frid framework for enterprise knowledge management' also provides a fairly comprehensive five-step framework, which is well explained. Each step has five management indices, which together provide a structured method to measure the knowledge management initiative. Frid's framework has clear learning and continuous improvement components. However, once again I have been unable to locate any evidence that this model has been applied in any company, or even the Canadian public-sector.

So STEEP has clear and obvious limitations, as do the quadrant models. That said I still think it is marginally better than the people, process, technology mantra.  The devil is always in the detail.

Regards Graham

Re: The STEEP Knowledge Management Framework

Submitted by Albert Simard on Tue, 22/04/2008 - 00:35.

I'm not comfortable with this framework.  I see facilities, etc. as a minor element and not equal to the other five.  From a government perspective, the economic component is also not as important as the others.  I think that "political" is also not the best name at this level.  I prefer governance as one of element of the organizational infrastructure (also includes people, technology, processes, all working to increase the value of content and/or services.

I've developed a framework (knowledge agenda) of 4 hierarchical concentric rings: knowledge assets, knowledge flow, knowledge organization, and knowledge environment that comprises 17 steps from inventory through global networking.

 

Al Simard

Re: The STEEP Knowledge Management Framework

Submitted by Graham Durant-Law on Tue, 22/04/2008 - 02:25.

Dear Albert,

Thank you for your comments - I appreciate them.

Life in government departments in Canada must be good if the economic component is not as important as the others! In Australia the current economic climate in government departments is one of mandated savings of between 5% and 12% of budget every year for the next 10 years - see my blog-post "Do Even More With Less " of a couple of weeks ago. My experience developing and managing the TARDIS Knowledge Management System (which is much more than an information system) inside the Australian Department of Defence for the past four years suggests the economic factor is significant. We were constrained, and remain so, by a very tight budget, which among other things mandated no new software or coding, no more than four people at any one time working full time on the initiative, and so on.  I suggest the economic component is a major consideration with at least equal footing, regardless of whether or not the initiative is a government, philanthropic, or private commercial venture. 

I agree the environment element is probably less important. Often you have to work with what facilities you have, and hence have some constraints already in place.

I wouldn't die on my sword over the name political. Governance works for me, although I think as a term it is more constraining.

I am interested in your framework, as I am sure my other readers would be. Is it possible to provide some detail? A link to some papers or presentations would be much appreciated. Alternatively if you provide me with something I will post it to this website.

Again thanks for your comment.

Regards Graham