Impacts From Using Knowledge:: A Longitudinal Study From A Nuclear Power Plant

International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 51-64, January-March 2008 1
Impacts from Using Knowledge:

A Longitudinal Study from a Nuclear
Power Plant
Murray E. Jennex, San Diego State University, USA
ABSTRACT
This is a longitudinal case study that explored the relationship between use of organizational memory
and knowledge, knowledge management, and knowledge worker productivity within the engineering
group at a nuclear power plant. Three data points were taken over 5 years. The group used a knowledge
management system (KMS) and it was found that the system improved effectiveness/productivity of the
organization. The organization had not identified measures for determining productivity improvements,
so the key results of the case study are models showing the impact of knowledge use on productivity.
Keywords: knowledge management; knowledge management systems; organizational memory;

organizational learning; productivity
INTRODUCTION This article looks at an engineering orga-

This article explores the impact of using nization over several years and presents
knowledge on the productivity in an results that answer this key research
engineering organization at a nuclear power question: does reuse of knowledge lead to
plant. Intuitively, knowledge management greater productivity, by showing that the
(KM) re- searchers believe in the proposition reuse of knowledge results in improved
that reusing knowledge will lead to improved individual and organizational
organizational performance; however, while productivity/performance. Additionally,
there is abundant anecdotal evidence to models are presented to show how the reuse
support this proposition, finding empirical of knowledge improves individual and
evidence to support this proposition is organizational performance.
difficult. Additionally, while the KM
research community is generating KM
BACKGROUND
success and effectiveness models, many of
Strassmann (1990) and Rubin (1994) propose
which include impacts on organizations and
that adding value to the organization or the
individuals, we are not doing a good job
organization’s customers improves the
generating models to explain how this impact
productivity of the organization. Rubin
improves organizational or individual
(1994) defines “added value” as being the
performance.
result of improved organizational
Copyright © 2008, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI
Global is prohibited.
2 International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 51-64, January-March 2008
performance. Kaplan and Norton’s
(1992) Balanced Business Scorecard knowledge can be applied universally;

measures the value of IS to the organization however, it does not argue against the
with one of the factors considered being the concept of organi-
ability of the organization to sustain learning
and improvement. Learning, and
organizational learning, is the process by
which experience is used to modify current
and future actions. Huysman, Fischer, and
Heng (1994), as well as Walsh and Ungson
(1991) believe organizational learning has
organizational memory (OM) as a
component. Stein and Zwass (1995) and
Walsh and Ungson (1991) define OM as the
means by which knowledge from the past is
brought to bear on present activities, thus
resulting in higher or lower levels of
organizational effectiveness. Improving
effectiveness can result in improved
organizational performance and adding value
to the organization. Organizational learning
uses OM as its knowledge base. Finally,
Alavi and Leidner (2001) and Jennex and
Olfman (2002) view organizational
knowledge and OM as synonymous labels.
Davenport and Prusak (1998) view
knowledge as an evolving mix of framed ex-
perience, values, contextual information, and
expert insight that provides a framework for
evaluating and incorporating new
experiences and information. They found that
in organizations, knowledge often becomes
embedded in artifacts such as documents,
video, audio, or repositories and in
organizational routines, processes, practices,
and norms. They also say that for knowledge
to have value it must include the human
additions of context, culture, experience, and
interpretation. Nonaka (1994) expands this
view by stating that knowledge is about
meaning in the sense that it is context-
specific. This implies that users of
knowledge must understand and have
experience with the context, or surrounding
conditions and influences, in which the
knowledge is generated and used for it to
have meaning to them. This also implies that
for a knowledge repository to be useful it
must store the context in which the
knowledge was generated. That knowledge is
context specific argues against the idea that
zational knowledge. Organizational knowledge

is considered to be an integral component of
what organizational members remember and
use, meaning that knowledge is actionable.
This longitudinal study focused on an engineer-
ing group in a single nuclear plant, as it was
recognized that this organization had a shared
context for understanding the knowledge that
was being captured and reused.
Jennex (2005) utilized an expert panel, the
editorial review board of the International
Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), to
generate a definition of KM as the practice of
selectively applying knowledge from previ-
ous experiences of decision-making to current
and future decision making activities with the
express purpose of improving the organization’s
effectiveness. Another key definition of KM in-
cludes Holsapple and Joshi (2004) who
consider KM as an entity’s systematic and
deliberate efforts to expand, cultivate, and
apply available knowledge in ways that add
value to the entity, in the sense of positive
results in accomplishing its objectives or
fulfilling its purpose. Finally, Alavi and
Leidner (2001) concluded that KM involves
distinct but interdependent processes of
knowledge creation, knowledge storage and
retrieval, knowledge transfer, and knowledge
application. Taken in context, these definitions
of KM focus on the key elements of KM: a
focus on using knowledge for decision making
and selective knowledge capture. This is
important as the selective focus on knowledge
capture separates KM from library science,
which at- tempts to organize all knowledge and
information, and the decision making focus
emphasizes that KM is an action discipline
focused on moving knowledge to where it can
be applied. Ultimately, KM may best be
described by the phrase “getting the right
knowledge to the right people at the right time”
and can be viewed as a knowledge cycle of
acquisition, storing, evaluating, dissemination,
and application.
KM is better understood when the concepts
of Organizational Memory (OM), and Organi-
zational Learning (OL) are incorporated. Jennex
and Olfman (2002) found that the three areas
are related and have an impact on
organizational
effectiveness. Organizational effectiveness is

knowledge retention and reuse to ultimately
how well the organization does those
improve organizational and individual
activities critical to making the organization
decision making. This is a Churchman (1979)
competitive. OL is the process the
view of KM that allows KMS to take
organization uses to learn how to do these
whatever form necessary to accomplish these
activities better. OL results when users utilize
goals. Alavi and Leidner (2001, p. 114)
knowledge. That OLmay not always have a
defined a KMS as “IT (Information
positive effect is examined by the monitoring
Technology)-based systems developed to
of organizational effectiveness. Effectiveness
support and enhance the organizational
can improve, get worse, or remain the same.
processes of knowledge creation,
How effectiveness changes influences the
storage/retrieval, transfer, and application.”
feedback provided to the organization using
They observed that not all KM initiatives will
the knowledge. KM and OM are the
implement an IT solution, but they support IT
processes used to identify and capture critical
as an enabler of KM. Maier (2002) expanded
knowledge. Knowledge workers and their
on the IT concept for the KMS by calling
organizations “do” KM; they identify key
it an ICT (information and communication
knowledge artifacts for retention and
technology) system that supported the func-
establish processes for capturing it. OM is
tions of knowledge creation, construction,
what IT support organizations “do”; they
identification, capturing, acquisition, selection,
provide the infrastructure and support for
valuation, organization, linking, structuring,
storing, searching, and retrieving knowledge
formalization, visualization, distribution, re-
artifacts. Figure 1 illustrates these
tention, maintenance, refinement, evolution,
relationships and the following sections
accessing, search, and application.
expand on these concepts.
An organization implements a KMS to
Jennex (2005) views a KM system,
improve its ability to capture, store, and reuse
KMS, as that system created to facilitate the
knowledge with the expectation that it will
capture, storage, retrieval, transfer, and
improve its learning and overall performance
reuse of knowledge. The perception of KM
through improved decision making.
and KMS is that they holistically combine
Ultimately, organizations implement a KMS
organizational and technical solutions to
to help the
achieve the goals of
Figure 1. The KM/OM/OL Model (Jennex & Olfman, 2002)

Impact to Organizational Effectiveness
Access and Use Memory to perform actions

that affect Organizational Performance
Management Org
Knowledge Users
Learning
Evaluate Events for Use of Applicable
Monitor Organizational Effectiveness Memory to perform actions that affect
and AdjustKnowledge Requirements Organizational Performance
as needed
Knowledge
Engineers System
Designers/IT
KM OM
Identify e for future use
and
Acquire
Knowledg
Drives Users to put Information and
Knowledge into their OMS
S
t
o
r
e
,
R
e
tr
i
e
v
e
,
a
n
d
S
e
a
r
c
h
M
e
m
o
r
y
B
a
s
e
organization learn and improve, with the system and several large electrical
expectation that organizational effectiveness/ generation plants and is
productivity will improve. This longitudinal
case looks at an organization that manages
and uses knowledge to determine if KM truly
does improve productivity.
METHODOLOGY
The case study covers 5 years with data col-
lected during three time periods. The first time
period was in 1996 with the second time
period being in 1998 and the third in 2001.
The first data collection period utilized a
survey and 40 interviews. The second data
collection period occurred after the
organization had completed a voluntary
retirement program resulting in a 25%
turnover in staff and utilized a survey and 10
interviews with new members to the
organization. The third data collection period
occurred while the organization was
undergo- ing reorganization and reduction in
force and utilized 22 interviews, 14 with
interviewees from the first period, 6 with
interviewees from the second period, and two
with key managers leading the
reorganization. All three data collection
periods also included document review and
direct observation for a period of several
weeks during the data collection period.
ORGANIZATIONAL
BACKGROUND
The subject engineering organization is part
of a large, United States based, investor-
owned utility. The utility is over 100 years
old, has a service area of over 50,000 square
miles, provides electricity to over 11
million people via
4.3 million residential and business accounts,
and had operating revenues of approximately
$8.7 billion in 2002. Utility net revenue has
fluctuated wildly the last few years, with a $2.1
billion loss in 2000, $2.4 billion in earnings
in 2001 (primarily due to one time benefits
from restructuring and other initiatives), and
decreasing to $1.2 billion in earnings in
2002. To service its customers, the utility
operates a transmission and distribution
organized into 3 main line divisions, Transmis-

sion and Distribution, Power Generation, and
Customer Service. Divisions such as Human
Resources, Security, and Information Technol-
ogy (IT) support the line divisions. The utility
has approximately 12,500 employees.
The Power Generation division is organized
into operating units dedicated to supporting
specific power generation sites. Each operating
unit has line organizations such as Operations,
Maintenance, Engineering, and Chemistry/
Health Physics. Power Generation operating
units are supported by dedicated units from the
corporate support divisions (Security, Human
Resources, IT). The engineering organization
used for this case study is part of the nuclear
operating unit of the Power Generation
division, and is located at the largest electrical
generation site operated by the utility.
ITsupport is provided to this operating unit by
Nuclear Information Systems (NIS), which
administratively is part of the corporate IT
division and which operation- ally reports to
both corporate IT and the nuclear unit of the
Power Generation division. NIS supported
engineering through its Engineering Support
Systems group. This group consisted of a
supervisor, two project manager/analysts, and
two developers. This group was tasked with
the maintenance of the 11 systems under NIS
control. New systems or enhancements to
existing systems were done at the instigation of
engineering. Engineering through a charge
back process paid costs associated with these
projects and developers were hired as needed
to support the work.
At the time of the study the engineering
organization consisted of approximately 460
engineers disbursed among several different
engineering groups reporting to the Station
Technical, Nuclear Design Organization, Nu-
clear Oversight, and Procurement management
structures. Industry restructuring was causing
large drops in revenues that were driving the
nuclear unit to reorganize engineering into a
single organization consisting of 330 engineers
under the management of the Nuclear Design
Organization.
An engineering organization was selected

for the case study as: BASIC KM FINDINGS
The organization is driven to capture and use
knowledge. Because it is a nuclear plant it
Engineers are knowledge workers and make
falls under the guidance of the United States
decisions as a part of their job function.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The
Engineers use knowledge to make decisions.
NRC man- dates that nuclear plants learn
Engineer productivity is improved by
from events so that they are not repeated.
increas-
Each nuclear site has an independent safety
ing the speed or quality of the decisions
engineering group tasked with reviewing
they make.
events from other sites for ap- plicability to
their site.Additionally, knowledge on event
This specific engineering organization
experience is promulgated to each site through
was selected because it was accessible. Also,
official NRC documents. However, the result
this organization resolves equipment and
of this regulatory influence is that an
opera- tional problems within a nuclear
inquiring and knowledge sharing culture is
facility. They utilize performance and
fostered throughout the nuclear industry.
maintenance histories, lessons learned, and
This site had an excellent knowledge sharing
previous problem resolutions to arrive at
culture and interviews and surveys found that
new solutions or courses of action. How well
engineers were almost as likely to capture
they do this is reflected in how well the facility
knowledge because they thought it a good
operates. The organization has approximately
idea as they were due to regulatory
100 engineers organized into groups that
requirements. Table 1 shows the drivers that
support specific facility systems or programs.
influence engineers to capture
Table 1. Knowledge driver ratings

Importance Frequency
Driver or Reason Something is Captured in the KMS n
(Std Dev) (Std Dev)
NRC requirement 19 1.05 (0.24) 3.26 (1.31)
You believe it is important to capture the knowledge 22 1.18 (0.41) 1.84 (1.30)
Procedure requirement 19 1.32 (0.47) 2.27 (1.03)
Near Miss Event 17 1.53 (0.64) 3.39 (0.96)
Management/Supervisor directive 20 1.55 (0.70) 2.29 (1.36)
Site Event 18 1.56 (0.62) 3.21 (1.22)
AR Assignment 20 1.60 (0.71) 2.19 (1.05)
Data/Trend Analysis 19 1.63 (0.49) 2.67 (0.90)
Lesson Learned 17 1.71 (0.59) 3.08 (0.76)
Other Regulatory requirement 14 1.71 (0.65) 2.93 (1.54)
Industry Event 20 1.75 (0.55) 3.44 (1.15)
Good Practice 19 1.79 (0.64) 2.67 (1.18)
INPO Recommendation 15 1.80 (0.56) 3.47 (1.25)
Group/Task Force recommendation 17 1.82 (0.35) 3.86 (1.03)
Coworker recommendation 18 1.83 (0.66) 2.56 (1.37)
n=# of respondents using the driver; Importance: 1=Very Important, 2=Important, 3=Not Very Important;
Frequency: 1=Daily, 2=Weekly, 3=Monthly, 4=more than monthly, less than yearly, 5=Yearly
knowledge. These drivers are shown ranked

2 documents the de facto KMS and shows
by their importance. Additionally, their
the type of repository, the system supporting
frequency of use is shown, as it shows that
the repository, and the types of knowledge
importance has little to do with how often the
found in the repository.
driver is used.
The above KMS components were found
The organization did not have a formal
to be overlapping systems with each
KM strategy or KMS when the case began,
containing elements from the others. This
although by the end of the case a formal KM
was especially true for most IT components
organization had been formed. However, the
because process automation and
organization did have KMS repositories and
reengineering led to the replace- ment of
components, although they were not
many documents and processes with IT
recognized as such. The organization’s
substitutes. A few changes in the KMS were
knowledge was found to reside in four major
noted over the course of the case. The most
locations: documents, databases, your
significant was a decrease in the importance
memory, and others’memories. Interviews
of e-mail. This was attributed to changing the
and surveys found several repositories
e-mail system from CCMail to Lotus Notes.
supporting these locations and it was
The change was performed without
determined that the de facto KMS was these
converting
components. Table
Table 2. KMS components

Repository System Contents
Documents: memos, correspondence, drawings, procedures, vendor
CDM info, Records: completed procedures, tests, surveillances, Mainte-
nance Orders, Reports
Document Drawings, Licensing Documents, Codes, Standards, NUREGS,
Based Regulatory Guides, Design Basis Documents, System Descriptions,
Engineer Library
EPRI Documents, Reports, Old Nonconformance Reports, Cor-
respondence, Vendor Info
Training Master Qualification Guides, Answer Keys, Event evaluations, Lesson
File Plans, Task Analyses, Various Training Materials
Equipment maintenance history, problem reports/resolutions,
MOSAIC
root cause and corrective actions, lessons learned.
Drawing Revision History, Base Engineering Info., Program His-
NCDB
tory and Info., Document History, Calculations
Computer Hypertext files of Licensing Documents, ISEG Evaluations, Re-
TOPIC
ports, Correspondence
NDMS Procedures, procedure history, and change basis documents
Internet Vendor/Utility/NRC Info.
Self Your Files E-mail archives, files, notebooks, in head memory, etc.
Coworker E-mail archives, files, notebooks, in head memory, etc.
Other Various external entity files, includes INPO and NPRDS, EPRI,
External various
NRC, Vendors, User’s Groups, Trade Groups
CDM: Corporate Document Management, NUREGS: Nuclear Regulations, EPRI: Electric Power
Research Institute, MOSAIC: Maintenance Order System, NCDB: Nuclear Consolidated Database,
TOPIC: Text Management System, ISEG: Independent Safety Engineering Group, NDMS: Nuclear
Document Manage- ment System, NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, INPO: Institute of Nuclear
Power Operation, NPRDS: Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System.
e-mail archives with the effect that

agreeing the KMS made them more
knowledge was lost. This experience taught
productive and effective. It was decided that
the organization not to rely on e-mail as a
what was important was that engineers use
repository. Another important change was
the system when appropriate. To show this
the reduction in the reli- ance on the “work
would be the case, an instrument from
done” sections of MOSAIC. Cost cutting
Thompson, Higgins, and Howell (1991) was
process changes resulted in these sections
adopted to measure engineer intent to use the
being stored in the Corporate Docu- ment
KMS. The instrument, called the Perceived
Management (CDM) system. This led to the
Benefit Model, was based on a study of
addition of CDM to the KMS, which was the
workers’ attitudes and behaviors with respect
only component added during the course of
to optional computer usage. This work was
the 5-year study.
based on Triandis’theory that the perception
An important observation on KMS use of future consequences predicts future
was that amount of use was not a good actions. The implication was that the
indicator of the impact of KMS use. Several utilization of a PC in an optional use
long term organizational member during environment would be influenced by the
interviews echoed the sentiment that it was individual’s feelings, habits, and expected
not how often engineers used the KMS but consequences of using PCs, and the social
rather that it was the one time that they norms and environment governing PC use.
absolutely had to find knowledge or found They developed an instrument that was
unexpected knowledge that proved the worth adapted to measure the relationships between
of the KMS. An example of this was the use social factors concerning KM use; perceived
of the KMS to capture lessons learned and KMS complexity; perceived KM job fit; and
best practices associated with refueling perceived long-term consequences of KM
activities. These activities occur on an use with respect to the utilization of KM. An
approximate 18-month cycle that was additional factor, fear of job loss, was
sufficient time to forget what had been added to determine if that fear affected an
learned during the last cycle or to have new engineer’s willingness to contribute to the
members with no experience taking over KM. Table 3 reflects measurements of the
these activities. engineers with respect to their perceptions
This made evaluating the impact of the affecting future use of the KMS and show
KMS on productivity difficult, as a common that the engineers will use the KMS when
measure of impact is to multiple impact by appropriate.
the numbers of time used. This measure
Finally, before it could be determined
would not have reflected the actual impact on
that the KMS had an impact on productivity,
productivity had it been the only way of
it had to be shown that the KMS was
assessing the KMS. This was especially true
effective in performing its KM functions of
because engineers, supervisors, and
capturing, storing, searching, and retrieving
managers were consistent in
knowledge.
Table 3. Perceptions affecting usage

Perceived Benefit Factor Score Result
Social factors 4.08 Organizational culture encourages use of the KMS
Complexity (inverse scored) 2.38 Not complex, supports use of the KMS
Job fit, near term consequences 4.56 Fit job well, supports use of the KMS
Job fit, long term consequences 3.36 Neutral
Fear of Job Loss 2.32 No support, no fear found

Note: Score is based on a 5-point scale where 5 is “strongly agree.”
This was done by using Stein and Zwass’

The last comment demonstrates that while
(1995) adaptation of Quinn and Rhorbaugh’s
the KMS was considered effective, it was
(1983) Competing Values Model to assess
found wanting in the areas of hardware
KMS effectiveness. Table 4 summarizes
performance and overall integration. Users
these findings. Data was collected via 20
who had a PC with less than a Pentium
interviews that were coded and analyzed
processor (during the case study) or a lower
using a 5-point Likert scale (1 is strongly
level Pentium (during the latter two stages)
agree). The scores lead to the conclusion that
found the systems slow and cumbersome.
the KMS was considered to be effective.
Lack of adequate RAM was a common issue
Further qualitative analysis of effective- (initially, 32 Mbytes were needed, expanding
ness utilized structured interviews that asked to 128 Mbytes for the final stage, and in each
for opinions and examples on the study over half the subjects had PCs with
effectiveness of the KMS. A consensus was half (or less) of the necessary RAM). Also,
found that the KMS made the subject users noted that there were many tools and
audience more effective. Nearly all agreed sources but no observed intentional cohesion
that most past decision information could be between them. It was noted that all the
retrieved within a couple of hours and usually systems are on Windows so that data could
within minutes. However, nearly all agreed be copied/cut and pasted, thus providing a
that the KMS could be better. Elements of basic level of integration. However, no
these interviews were used in the stages 2 master plan for developing or maintaining
and 3 and found the same results. Examples the KMS was developed during the period of
of comments include: the research and no evidence was found
suggesting this would ever be done. This
It (the KMS) helps us to keep from indicates that the KMS will continue to lack
reinventing the wheel. Every decision we cohesion and will not improve in
make is not a new decision. Our systems help effectiveness. The two observed changes in
us to do this. the KMS, noted above, actually reduced ef-
fectiveness by increasing access times. Also,
We have much more capability now than we reducing dependence on e-mail, while better
did. As a Shift Technical Advisor (STA) we for reliability, accuracy, and security,
can do so much more than we could ten years reduced individual effectiveness by removing
ago. There is almost too much data. an easy to use, readily accessible repository.
The information is there but the tools are

slow, systems crash, and the information and KEY KM FINDINGS
tools are unreliable. The key research question for this case was
whether engineer use of the KMS results in
Table 4. Results of effectiveness functions
Factor Score Result

Integration 2 Good time/spatial integration, support effective KMS
Boundary spanning done, outside information brought in, supports effec-
Adaptation 2
tive KMS
Goal Attainment 1 Goals/ performance tracked, support effective KMS
Pattern Maintenance 1.5 Procedures/revisions, individual skills tracked, supports effective KMS
Note: Score is based on a 5-point scale where 1 is “strongly agree.”
improved productivity. Two areas of produc-

to be related to decision support. Engineers
tivity were defined and examined. The first
performed evaluations and made recommen-
was individual engineer productivity, as it
dations to resolve plant issues, usually under
was assumed that for engineers to continue to
time or resource pressure. Sometimes the
use the KMS there must be a perceived
work involved making and implementing the
benefit. The second was organizational
decision. In all cases, the engineer was
productivity, as it was assumed that for
measured on the timeliness, correctness, and
organizations to continue to support a KMS
quality of the decision support as determined
there must be a benefit at the organizational
by the supporting documentation and the
level. This is consistent with the individual
satisfaction of the client. The case study
and organizational impact outcomes of
explored engineering productivity and
DeLone and McLean’s (1992) IS Success
determined a model for it. Interviews were
Model. The following paragraphs report the
used to outline what measures the managers
characterization of both forms of
used to evaluate their engineers and to
productivity.
identify what measures the engineers’
thought should be used. While no unique set
Engineer Productivity of measures was identified, several factors to-
The standard measure for productivity is the gether could be used for this measure: Figure
ratio of resources used to products generated. 2 illustrates the personal productivity model
This does not readily apply to most derived for the subject organization.
engineers. Instead, effectiveness was used as The engineer productivity model has
a measure of engineer productivity where several quantitative, qualitative, and
effectiveness is a function of quantity and competency measures that are directly
quality of engineering work accomplished. impacted by the use of the KMS. These
Engineering work in the context of the measures are:
nuclear power facility was found
Figure 3. Engineer productivity model

Investigation Interface
NGS Client Satisfactiion
Decision Quality
Client Satisfaction
Responsiveness Reassign
External Interface STEC External Interface
Rework
NOoKt
Tasks
Problems Knowledge
Assignments Worker Resolves Resolution
Problem Evaluation
Problems Documents
OK
Resolution
Quantitative Measures Quality Measure

Schedule Met/Time Well Written
# of Tasks Complete Priorities Met
Skill Competency
Use of Systems, OMIS Task Complexity Amount of Supervision Correctness
Quality Measures Thoroughness Accuracy
External Interface
Client Satisfaction
Timeliness in completing assignments performance relative to preset key

Number of assignments completed performance indicators. The second and
Identifying and completing high priority as-
signments
Completeness of solutions (all the bases are
covered)
Quality of solutions (well written with
complete documentation)
Solving problems the first time
Amount of work that has to be
repeated
Complexity of work that can be assigned to
a worker
Amount of backlog
Using this characterization of

productivity, it was found that use of the
KMS was considered a basic skill that each
engineer was expected to possess. Use of the
KMS was expected to improve the ability of
the engineer to find and retrieve key
information and knowledge that would aid
the engineer in meeting deadlines and
completing assigned work. As a result, it
was expected that the work would include all
available knowledge and be complete and
accurate. Managers and supervisors rated the
best engineers as those who used the KMS
most effectively as manifested by timeliness
and completeness of work and with sufficient
quality such that little to no rework was
required and the clients (i.e., those who had
the problem the engineer was resolving) were
satisfied with the recommendations or
decisions. Engineers who met these
expectations were rewarded with pay
increases, promotions, and more interest- ing
assignments, providing additional extrinsic
motivation for the engineer to use the KMS.
Organizational Productivity
Identifying productivity measures for the
organization was more difficult than identify-
ing them for the engineers. Three approaches
were used. The first looked at the performance
assessments done by external organizations.
These provide an effectiveness assessment of
productivity. The second looked at
performance relative to the goals in the
business plan. The third looked at
third approaches are more traditional in their

representation of productivity.
Approach #1
The first measure was based on the SALP, Sys-
tematic Assessment of Licensee Performance,
Reports issued by the NRC. Review of scores
issued since 1988 showed an increase from a
rating of 2 to a rating of 1 in 1996, the time of
the first stage of this research (see Table 5).
Observed strengths in 1996 included the depth
of component failure analysis; timely and
thorough support for operations and
maintenance activities; excellent diagnoses of
equipment failures and investigation and
resolution of emerging issues; operability
determinations were well written and reflected
conservative engineering judgment; and
engineering self-assessments and resultant
corrective actions were determined to be
superior.
This rating dropped to a 2 in 1997 (time of
the second stage) due to inconsistencies in
management oversight and the quality in provi-
sion of engineering support to a few activities.
However, it was noted that engineering had
strong performance in resolving issues and
determining corrective actions, self-assess-
ment, and outage support (NRC News, 1997).
The SALP program was suspended in 1998, as
it was perceived that local government,
insurance carriers, and others used ratings as
objective measures of performance and not as
self-assessment indicators. The SALP program
was replaced by periodic plant performance
reviews (NRC News, 1998). The plant perfor-
mance review is a comprehensive review of
plant processes with just the overall assessment
released to the public; particular findings are
given to the plant as guides for improvement,
but are not made public. The subject site was
given acceptable ratings for the remainder of
the study period.
The other part of the external evaluation
process is the site evaluation performed by the
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO).
An evaluation was conducted during the spring
of 1996, and resulted in a 1 rating. This rating
was maintained throughout the 5 years of the
Table 5. SALP ratings

nization and throughout the industry during
Year Engineering Overall
this study. Reporting and monitoring of these
Rating Rating factors significantly improved during the
1997 2 1.5 course of the study. Originally, information
on how the site was performing was
1996 1 1.5
distributed infrequently with little attention
1994 2 1.5
paid to it. During the last 2 years, as
1993 2 1.43 management became more aware of KM and
1991 2 1.57 the need for measuring their own ef-
1990 2 1.43 fectiveness, the process was changed.
1989 3 1.71 Currently, performance information is
1988 2 1.82 available on the site’s Intranet. Also, a
quarterly report is pro- duced that discusses
how the site is performing and pays particular
attention to lessons learned, what is working
well, what is not working well, and where
study. A history of these ratings is not there are problems.
included, as the organization did not grant Originally, this approach was not consid-
permission to publish it. ered valuable as a measure of effectiveness.
The external assessments identified However, it is now considered to be a very
several strengths directly related to engineer effective measure and has replaced the first
effectiveness. These include decision- SALP approach as the method of choice for
making, root cause analysis, problem assessing organizational effectiveness. Table
resolution, timeliness, and operability 5 lists the capacity factors for the units of the
assessment documentation. This indicates a site. The table also lists the cumulative
direct link between engineer productivity capacity factor, because refueling outages
and organization productivity. Also, because cause lower capacity factors in the year they
internal engineering effectiveness occur and the cumulative tends to show the
assessments were positive and organization overall impact of improvements in
effectiveness is rated highly, it can be performance. Table 6 shows generally
inferred that engineer effectiveness does improving performance for both units during
directly impact organizational effectiveness. the period of the study (1996-2002). The dip
in 1997 is due to special, first time cleaning
Approach #2 activities that caused refueling outages to be
The second measure was how well the extended, and is considered an anomaly in
organization’s performance matched the the generally improving trend. The dip for
expectations of its business plan. The first Unit 3 in 2001 is due to time needed to repair
stage (case study) found only a few goals the turbine following an accident during
related to the subject organization and few startup following completion of the refueling
performance indicators and goals that could outage. This accident was not due to
be used to determine productivity. Two activities performed by the subject-
indicators were linked to knowledge use: unit engineering group, and therefore was not
capacity and unplanned automatic scrams. considered a failure in KM.
Unit capacity and unplanned scrams are
influenced by how well the engineers
evaluate and correct problems. Both factors Approach #3
improved over time. These two factors, plus The third productivity measure used per-
unplanned outages and duration of outages, formance indicators selected by the subject
became the standard measure within the organization. These indicators are monitored
orga- monthly and graphs illustrating performance
are printed and posted. This method

provided less than useful results. It does
tie in well with
Table 6. Capacity factors, actual and cumulative (PRIS, 2003)
U2 Capacity U3 Capac-
Year U2 Cumulative% U3 Cumulative%
Factor % ity Factor%
1990 88.65 69.47 69.78 69.75
1991 61.55 68.48 91.89 72.91
1992 93.58 71.27 72.00 72.79
1993 81.67 72.31 75.34 73.08
1994 99.32 74.77 96.69 75.44
1995 69.3 74.31 79.29 75.79
1996 90.97 75.59 93.17 77.24
1997 71.01 75.27 72.33 76.86
1998 89.94 76.24 95.75 78.21
1999 87.95 76.98 88.96 78.93
2000 90.69 77.78 101.55 80.34
2001 101.27 79.09 60.03 79.15
2002 90.80 79.70 100.92 80.36
Note: A capacity factor greater than 100% is possible because capacity factor calculations are based on
the original reactor rating of 1070 MW. but the reactors are approved for operation at 1105 MW.
the organization’s goals as defined in the 3 turbine accident occurred after the data col-
second approach, but only addresses the lection period) as indicated in Table 5. It also
quantifiable measures of the engineer provided focus on what employees needed to
productivity model. Because KM primarily focus on and improve to ensure continued ac-
affects the qualitative and competency skills ceptable capacity factor performance.
of engineer productivity, this method does
not provide any insight into whether or not CHALLENGES FACING THE
KM improves productivity. However, as the
ORGANIZATION
organization progressed in its understanding
Deregulation cost the organization dearly due
of KM, this method was rolled into the
to the ensuing energy crisis that caused many
second approach and is now used to report
western utilities to suffer huge losses due to
quantifiable results, as well as to report on
the difference between the cost of power and
qualitative measures such as lessons learned.
what they were allowed to charge for it. This
Combining of the second and third
utility was forced to reduce staff and cut
approaches, first observed during the third
significant budget. The result of this was that
stage, has provided an acceptable measure
the subject organization developed an even
of organizational effectiveness. This approach
finer apprecia- tion for the impact of the KM
consists of a digital dashboard of key
on productivity, as well as the limitations of
performance indicators along with a
their KMS. The main challenge will be in
summary of issues needing improvement
improving the KMS while creating formal
and lessons learned that is available to all
measures of KMS success and impacts on
employees on the site Intranet. This measure
productivity and effectiveness. The
indicated satisfactory performance during the
organization has made a start in this direction
data collection period with respect to
by appointing a responsible manager for KM
quantifiable measures, such as capacity
and
factor (the unit
by beginning to develop a formal KM Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach

strategy. This will be a challenge given the (revised and updated). New York: Dell Publishing.
demand for resources from everyday
operations.
CONCLUSION AND
LESSONS LEARNED
Many organizations have reported difficulty
in measuring the impact of KM on
organizational productivity/effectiveness.
This longitudinal case shows that an
organization can find these measures if they
look deep into the organization and comes
to the ultimate conclusion that reuse of
knowledge improves individual and
organizational productivity/performance. The
following reflect the lessons learned from
this longitudinal case:
Measures reflecting the impact of knowledge

use can be found both for individuals
and the organization, but will be
organization specific. This research did
not find measures that could be
considered general and that could be
used in all organizations and it may be
that this type of generic measure may
not exist for KM.
Formal management of KM is needed to
guide the development of KM and the
KMS. Without this oversight the KMS
tends to not be as integrated or usable as
it could be. Additionally, the KMS may
lack the capacity or processing power
needed to transfer and use knowledge.
A KM strategy is needed to guide
management in identifying and
measuring the impacts of KM on the
organization.
Amount of use is not a good measure for KM
or KMS success of effectiveness.
However, intent to use is a good
measure.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review:
Knowl- edge management and knowledge
management systems: Conceptual foundations and
research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). (1998, Oc- tober 2). NRC Administrative Letter
Working knowledge. Boston: Harvard 98-07, Interim Suspension of the Systematic
Business School Press. Assessment of Licensee Performance(SALP)
Program. United States Nuclear Regulatory
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Commission.
Information systems success: The quest for
the dependent variable. Information Systems Nuclear Regulatory Commission News (NRC News).
Research, 3, 60-95. (1997,April 8). RIV-99-18, NRC Finds Performance
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003).
The De- Lone and McLean model of
information systems success: A ten-year
update. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K.
(2004).Aformal knowledge management
ontology: Conduct, activities, resources, and
influences. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology,
55(7), 593-612.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational

learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organiza- tion Science, 2(1), 88-
115.
Huysman, M. H., Fischer, S. J., & Heng, M.

S. H. (1994). An organizational learning
perspective on information systems
planning. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, (3)3, 165-177.
Jennex, M. E. (2005). What is KM?

International Journal of Knowledge
Management, 1(4), i-iv.
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2002).
Organizational memory/knowledge effects
on productivity, A longitudinal study. In
Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii
International Conference on System
Sciences, HICSS35, IEEE Computer
Society.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The

balanced scorecard, the measures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review,
70(1), 47-54.
Maier, R. (2002). Knowledge management
systems: Information and communication
technologies for knowledge management.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of
organizational knowledge creation.
Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC.
“Acceptable” at San Onofre in Latest Review.

Rubin, H. A. (1994). In search of the business
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
value of information technology. Application
Nuclear Regulatory Commission News (NRC Development Trends, 1(12), 23-27.
News). (1999, August 1). RIV-4497, NRC Rates
Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing
San Onofre Nuclear Plant “Good” and
organizational memory with information systems.
“Superior” in SALP Report. United States
Information Systems Research, 6(2), 85-117.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Strassmann, P. A. (1990). The business value of
Power Reactor Information System (PRIS).
computers. New Canaan, CT: The Information
(2003). Power Reactor Details International
Economics Press.
Atomic Energy Agency database. Retrieved
August 12, 2007, from Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J.
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/ M. (1991, March). Personal computing: Toward
a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly,
Quinn, R. E., & Rhorbaugh, J. (1983).Aspatial
125-143.
model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a
competing values approach to organizational Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organiza-
analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377. tional memory. Academy of Management Review,
16(1), 57-91.
Murray E. Jennex is an associate professor at San Diego State University, editor in chief of the Interna-
tional Journal of Knowledge Management, editor in chief of IGI Publishing’s Knowledge Management
book series, and president of the Foundation for Knowledge Management (LLC). Dr. Jennex specializes
in knowledge management, system analysis and design, IS security, e-commerce, and organizational
effectiveness. Dr. Jennex serves as the Knowledge Management Systems Track co-chair at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. He is the author of over 100 journal articles, book
chapters, and conference proceedings on knowledge management, end user computing, international
information systems, organizational memory systems, ecommerce, security, and software outsourcing.
He holds a B.A. in chemistry and physics from William Jewell College, an MBA and an MS in software
engineering from National University, an MS in telecommunications management and a PhD in
information systems from the Claremont Graduate University. Dr. Jennex is also a registered
professional mechanical engineer in the state of California and a Certified Information Systems Security
Professional (CISSP).

Impacts From Using Knowledge:: A Longitudinal Study From A Nuclear Power Plant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Impacts From Using Knowledge:: A Longitudinal Study From A Nuclear Power Plant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impacts From Using Knowledge:: A Longitudinal Study From A Nuclear Power Plant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 51-64, January-March 2008 1

Impacts from Using Knowledge:

Keywords: knowledge management; knowledge management systems; organizational memory;

INTRODUCTION This article looks at an engineering orga-

performance. Kaplan and Norton’s

(1992) Balanced Business Scorecard knowledge can be applied universally;

zational knowledge. Organizational knowledge

effectiveness. Organizational effectiveness is

Figure 1. The KM/OM/OL Model (Jennex & Olfman, 2002)

Access and Use Memory to perform actions

organized into 3 main line divisions, Transmis-

An engineering organization was selected

Table 1. Knowledge driver ratings

knowledge. These drivers are shown ranked

Table 2. KMS components

Power Operation, NPRDS: Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System.

e-mail archives with the effect that

Table 3. Perceptions affecting usage

Fear of Job Loss 2.32 No support, no fear found

This was done by using Stein and Zwass’

The information is there but the tools are

Table 4. Results of effectiveness functions

Factor Score Result

Note: Score is based on a 5-point scale where 1 is “strongly agree.”

improved productivity. Two areas of produc-

Figure 3. Engineer productivity model

Quantitative Measures Quality Measure

Quality Measures Thoroughness Accuracy

Timeliness in completing assignments performance relative to preset key

Using this characterization of

third approaches are more traditional in their

Table 5. SALP ratings

are printed and posted. This method

Table 6. Capacity factors, actual and cumulative (PRIS, 2003)

by beginning to develop a formal KM Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach

Measures reflecting the impact of knowledge

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational

Huysman, M. H., Fischer, S. J., & Heng, M.

Jennex, M. E. (2005). What is KM?

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC.

“Acceptable” at San Onofre in Latest Review.

You might also like