Knowledge Audit of Revisions Behavioral Health Systems - Case Study Example

Student Name] [Student Number] COIS20077 Assignment 2 Due Date: ReVisions behavioral health systems The Knowledge Audit Report Executive Summary This knowledge audit report cover a case study of the staff at Revisions Behavioral Health Systems, a publicly run behavioral care and services facility. The audit was commissioned by the CEO as a basis on which the organisation can establish a knowledge management program. The report therefore centers on a knowledge audit of the employees to establish how they source, use and share the knowledge necessary to the performance of their duties. As the audit establishes, employees at revisions need knowledge of professional practice norms, legal statutes governing their work and patient support resources. Most of this essential knowledge resides with the senior management, department heads and supervisors owing to superior experience and training. Yet the junior staffs rarely consult these knowledge reservoirs due ignorance and poor communication channels. In most cases, they function as islands of information, sourcing most of the information from without their workplace. The report also establishes that there are many knowledge gaps in Revisions such as poor record systems, poor inter-department collaboration and knowledge sharing as well as limited peer knowledge sharing. Employees at revisions continually reinvent the wheel since they are islands of knowledge with minimal sharing. The report has thus recommended the establishment of a knowledge management system that helps seal these gaps, adoption of proper communication strategies, continued employee training, inter-department collaboration and installation of modern information storage and retrieval systems as part of the knowledge management program. Contents Executive Summary 1 This knowledge audit report cover a case study of the staff at Revisions Behavioral Health Systems, a publicly run behavioral care and services facility. The audit was commissioned by the CEO as a basis on which the organisation can establish a knowledge management program. The report therefore centers on a knowledge audit of the employees to establish how they source, use and share the knowledge necessary to the performance of their duties. 1 As the audit establishes, employees at revisions need knowledge of professional practice norms, legal statutes governing their work and patient support resources. Most of this essential knowledge resides with the senior management, department heads and supervisors owing to superior experience and training. Yet the junior staffs rarely consult these knowledge reservoirs due ignorance and poor communication channels. In most cases, they function as islands of information, sourcing most of the information from without their workplace. 1 The report also establishes that there are many knowledge gaps in Revisions such as poor record systems, poor inter-department collaboration and knowledge sharing as well as limited peer knowledge sharing. Employees at revisions continually reinvent the wheel since they are islands of knowledge with minimal sharing. The report has thus recommended the establishment of a knowledge management system that helps seal these gaps, adoption of proper communication strategies, continued employee training, inter-department collaboration and installation of modern information storage and retrieval systems as part of the knowledge management program. 2 Contents 3 Introduction 4 Background to the knowledge audit 4 Current Knowledge Position of the Revisions 5 Knowledge audit Tools 11 Recommendations 13 Conclusions 15 This knowledge audit report has covered a case study of the staff at Revisions Behavioral Health Systems, a publicly run behavioral care and services facility. The employees have been reviewed to need knowledge of professional practice norms, legal statutes governing their work and patient support resources. Most of the essential knowledge resides with the senior management, department heads and supervisors owing to superior experience and training. Yet the staff do not consult these knowledge reservoirs due ignorance and poor communication channels. 15 References 16 Revisions behavioral health systems Introduction This is a knowledge audit report for Revisions, a small behaviour care organization Catonsville, Maryland area and employing about 200 people. The report covers the knowledge audit of the staff in providing clinical services for all ages of the admitted patients on a day to day business, residential support for seniors, social skill development for psychiatric patients and job placement services and training for adults. What is constituted in this report is the survey findings after 15 questionnaires were distributed to the employees of Revisions. Background to the knowledge audit The knowledge has been written by the newly hired Knowledge Manager for the CEO of Revisions with the objective of establishing whether the current employee base of the organization has the information required to facilitate high quality services and training to the patients and cases received on a daily basis. The report is aimed at establishing whether the employees are adequately equipped for the provision of services and training in the core areas of the specialty. The CEO therefore intends to use this report as the basis of implementing a knowledge system in the company that facilitates the acquisition and management of the requisite knowledge among these employees. Current Knowledge Position of the Revisions a) Purpose of the Organization Revisions is a publicly funded institution that provides clinical services to people of all ages, children, adults and even seniors (RBHS 2010). The facility also provides residential services for seniors with specialized support needs, social skill support for persons with psychiatric disability as well as adult training and job placement services (RBHS 2010). b) The Knowledge Environment Being a behavioral care provider, Revisions must continually act in accordance with current policies of behavioral science and regulatory statutes as stipulated by the government of the day. They also depend on government grants and funding for their overheads as well as donations from private individuals (RBHS 2010). These external influences affect how the staff at Revisions (mostly social workers) employ their knowledge and which knowledge they choose to employ in providing their services and training (Watson 2002). c) The Organisational Structure Revisions’ organisation structure is vertical with little horizontal channels of communication. The top most tier of the organisation has directors followed by the senior management in which the CEO is the ahead. Thereafter, the organisation structure is segmented into specialist departments catering for various specialties as enumerated above, with department heads in each section. From department heads, seniority then trickles down to supervisors in charge of the various social service and health workers. The audit identified the biggest knowledge centers as the senior experts employed by the facility and then the various department knowledge collection points most of which were inaccessible by majority of junior staff. Very few staff members were aware of the knowledge possessed by their peers yet they spend a lot of energy and time looking for the same knowledge (reinventing the wheel (Watson 2002)). There is a culture at Revisions that prevents the exchange of knowledge between staff members, where each staff members has to source for knowledge on their own, mostly from without the institution. d) Knowledge Workers Revisions offers clinical services to children, adults and even seniors and the first group of workers that are constantly in need of knowledge are the clinical staff including doctors and nurses. Secondly, the facility employs social service personnel to facilitate residential services for seniors, especially those with specialized support needs. These social service workers are also in constant need of information on the various support needs that most seniors need especially those in palliative care stages. The facility also employs psychologists and psychiatric support nurses to train persons with psychiatric disability on how to improve their social skills. This is yet another group of Revision workers in need of specialized knowledge. Finally, Revisions has a training and job placement services department also requiring specialist skills in such areas as behavioral therapy, job retention, identification of skills and talents, identification of temperaments and matching to job positions etc. e) Knowledge Leaders At Revisions, knowledge leaders are mostly experts in the various fields, supervisors and the senior management. These are the people who come into contact with many patient cases on a daily basis from the various departments of the facility and therefore accumulate the most experience (Liebowitz 1999). They are also the people who have access to trade and news publications acquired by the organisation as well as to many case records accumulated in various record departments (Liebowitz 1999). These gives then access to knowledge that the staff needs not only to make decisions on various aspects of their practice but also as the basis of their performance of duties and responsibilities (Bobrow and Whalen 2002). f) Technology Revisions has not adopted a systemized central database where the knowledge required by its entire staff in their operations is accessed. Most of this information is stored by individual departments and sections, thus unavailable to majority of the staff. Not only has modern technology not been adopted in database set up and management (for easy storage and retrieval), but modern channels of communication have also been ignored, with emails being regarded as unofficial means of communication in the organisation. Of key importance is that very few of the staff are conversant and or proficient in computer use thus making it impossible to computerize most of the knowledge each needs or has to a formal database (Cox, 2007). The organisation has actually given a blind eye to the internet and all its potential benefits as part of the employee resources in communication and information access. Consequently therefore, Revisions’ knowledge management system is poor and more or less non-existent. Most of the knowledge available among employees is not accessed by peers while other knowledge portals such as case records are completely unused by those who would need such knowledge. g) Knowledge Resources and Knowledge-Sharing Practices There are several knowledge resources at Revisions, most of which are untapped, unutilized or at least underutilized by the staff. The organisation has most of the knowledge held by a few people in the organisation such as the experts in each department, case managers, directors and senior supervisors. The tacit knowledge available to these few individuals is unavailable to most of the staff, since very few know where to find it or who to ask. Consequently, most of the employees turn outside the organisation for knowledge such as from internet sources and libraries (Brown and Gray 1995). h) Knowledge Needs The staff have an expansive list of knowledge needs. For instance they require knowledge on regulatory statutes that govern their practice, they need health information on treatment and care provision for their patients and also resources for the clients who needs specialized support (Peaslee 2010). The staff needs continuous appreciation of local laws, professional standards and practice regulations. The staff also needs training development in their area of expertise so that they can master the new areas of knowledge available since they joined the organisation such as new clinical practices emergent from contemporary research in such areas as psychiatry (Peaslee 2010). As noted above, some of the staff need training or at least further training in computer use. i) Five Questions with a Topic to Justifications and Analyses The following are the five questions asked to the members of staff at Revisions and for which the case study made critical analysis. 1. Which type of knowledge is most valuable to you in your job description? 2. How much knowledge do you acquire from other departments and which is relevant to your daily work? 3. How often and to what extent do you use past experiences and records to make decisions or learn about current cases that you meet in the execution of your duties? 4. How does technology, and especially information technology, aid you in the acquisition and sharing of knowledge at your workplace? 5. Who do you think possesses the most knowledge that you might or usually need in the execution of your duties? j) Knowledge Gaps A review of Revision knowledge management indicates that there are several knowledge gaps among their employees. First, there is poor communication between departments such that there is minimal sharing of knowledge that might otherwise help the employees in the execution of their duties. A social worker helping a senior citizen with special support needs will require medical records of that patient to make the most informed decisions and provide the best services. Yet if the clinical services department does not avail such records, the social worker is left in a position where she lacks essential knowledge that is already within the organisation. Most junior staff know that their supervisors and section heads posses great knowledge, most of which they need and lack in the execution of their duties and yet, they never ask for the same or they do not know who to go to for particular knowledge. Thirdly, employees have limited access to knowledge sources apart from the senior managers and supervisors. Such sources in this case include records kept by various departments. Another gap min knowledge at Revisions is that posed by minimal adoption of technology at the workplace for both information storage and retrieval and for communication. The only means of communication available is an old, inefficient phone system. There is also limited sharing of knowledge among peers, with each person preferring to search for their own knowledge and thus reinventing the wheel at the expense of time and effort that might otherwise be productively used elsewhere (Newell, Robertson, Scarbrough and Swan 2002). Knowledge audit Tools The knowledge audit exploited three distinct knowledge audit tools namely the flow charts, the input-output models and the walkthroughs. The flow charts used in this case involved following the process through which knowledge flowed at Revision from the moment it was acquired. If for instance a new law is discovered in the field of psychiatric care, the same will be received at some point at Revisions and then passed from one section, one individual, or one department to another. At Revision such news is mostly received first by the senior management who pass it on sporadically to the supervisors and section heads. There is a noted breakdown in the flow of that knowledge at Revisions, with some sources of the same coming from below and passing to a few people before dying down as well. After a month, a few people in various departments know the information but most do not since the flow of information is chaotic and discontinuous. Input-output models used at Revisions were aimed at identifying knowledge sensitive areas in which supplied knowledge was observed for use in the execution of duties. A new manual was printed by the department involved in training social skills to patients with psychiatric disabilities requiring a procedural practice of the employees in each and every new case (Newell, Robertson, Scarbrough and Swan 2002). Inspecting how the same was followed in actual practice helped illuminate that the supply of knowledge does not always translate to an equal output of the same. Finally in walkthroughs, the audit traced the entry of a patient admitted in each of the departments at Revisions and followed the whole process from admission to follow up. This was done for several times to establish the consistency of how concerned employees sourced for, utilized and shared knowledge in dealing with the patients admitted on a daily basis. Evidently, employees followed differing strategies in sourcing, sharing and utilizing knowledge for almost every patient admitted which varied across departments as well as across the employees in one department (Czarniawska 2003). Recommendations Based on the findings of the knowledge audit, it is recommended that Revisions management initiate and manage employee improved communication between departments so as to facilitate maximal sharing of knowledge that might help the employees in the execution of their duties (Newell, Robertson, Scarbrough and Swan 2002). Regular formal channels of communication would help share the available knowledge and avoid reinvention of the wheel by the employee every new day (Alvesson 2004). Experts and the senior supervisors of the organisation should interact more frequently and productively with junior staff to facilitate a sharing of their knowledge with those who need it to function in their duties (Robertson 2004; Donoghue, Harris and Weitzman 2009). The organisation should also install a shared database on all records and information used by each department so that it is easily accessible by all employees within and without the department (Robertson 2004; Donoghue, Harris and Weitzman 2009). Increased training in the areas of employee specialization and in information technology use is also recommended as a way of improving access to essential knowledge by all employees (Robertson 2004). To facilitate all these, the organisation should consider installing a knowledge management program that continually implements knowledge improvement among employees and facilitates for easy sharing of that knowledge. Such a system would help promote sharing of knowledge among peers instead of each person searching for their own knowledge and thus reinventing the wheel at the expense of time and effort (Wing 1993; Hislop 2005). The knowledge management program can be initiated as part of quality control since as reviewed by the study, access to knowledge at Revisions directly influence the quality of services that the employees deliver to their patients. Conclusions This knowledge audit report has covered a case study of the staff at Revisions Behavioral Health Systems, a publicly run behavioral care and services facility. The employees have been reviewed to need knowledge of professional practice norms, legal statutes governing their work and patient support resources. Most of the essential knowledge resides with the senior management, department heads and supervisors owing to superior experience and training. Yet the staff do not consult these knowledge reservoirs due ignorance and poor communication channels. The report has established that there are many knowledge gaps in Revisions such as poor record systems, poor inter-department collaboration and knowledge sharing as well as limited peer knowledge sharing. Employees at Revisions continually reinvent the wheel since they are islands of knowledge with minimal sharing. The report has thus recommended the establishment of a knowledge management system that helps seal these gaps. Establishment of proper communication strategies, continued training, inter-department collaboration and easy information storage and retrieval has thus been recommended. References Alvesson, M 2004, Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bobrow, D and Whalen, J 2002, Community knowledge sharing in practice: the Eureka story, Reflections, Vol. 4 (2), pp. 47–59. Brown, J and Gray, E 1995, The people are the company: how to build your company around your people, Fast Company, Accessed at 29 May 2010 from Cox, A 2007, Reproducing knowledge: Xerox and the story of knowledge management, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 5 (3), pp. 3–12, Accessed at 29 May 2010 from Czarniawska, B 2003, Forbidden knowledge, Management Learning, Vol. 34 (3), pp. 353–365. Donoghue, L, Harris, J and Weitzman B 2009, Knowledge management strategies that create value, Accessed at 29 May 2010 from Hislop, D 2005, Knowledge Management in Organizations: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Liebowitz, J, ed, 1999, The Knowledge Management Handbook, CRC Press, Florida. Newell S, Robertson M, Scarbrough H and Swan J (2002) Managing Knowledge Work. Palgrave, London. Peaslee, F 2010, Revisions Health, Accessed at 29 May 2010 from RBHS, 2010, Revisions Behavioral Health Systems, Accessed at 28 April 2010 from Robertson, J 2004, Developing a knowledge management strategy, Accessed at 29 May 2010 from Watson, T 2002, Organising and Managing Work, Prentice Hall, Harlow. Wing, K 1993, Knowledge management Methods, Scheme Press, Arlington, TX. Read More