The Canadian Review of Policing Research (2005)

ISSN: 1710 6915

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT FOR THE EDMONTON POLICE SERVICE: CAPTURING, SHARING, SUSTAINING

Lee Weissling, Curtis Clarke, Kirby Wright

The three authors are associated with Athabasca University. Dr. Weissling is a project manager and education specialist, Dr. Clarke is a criminal justice specialist, and Professor Kirby Wright is a knowledge management specialist. They may be reached at leew@athabascau.ca or curtisc@athabasca.ca.

Introduction

This study assesses current knowledge sharing practices among front-line supervisors (sergeants and staff sergeants) within the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) and identifies future knowledge management needs.

Knowledge Management, the capturing and sharing of knowledge, is central to the effective use of the data and information held in different EPS units and by individual EPS members. For the purpose of this study, data are identifiable, objective facts, while information contextualizes data, providing a concise, understandable form. Taken together they form knowledge.

The assessment process will lay the foundations for creating a strategy for capturing and sharing knowledge in order to achieve organization-wide objectives:

• Implementation of intelligence-led policing
• Revitalization of community-based policing
• Ethical policing.

Methods

As requested by EPS, the knowledge management assessment is directed solely at supervisory personnel and, as such, is based entirely on communication with the approximately 160 officers at this rank. The entire cohort was queried individually and in subgroups (although not all 160 provided feedback), to ascertain knowledge management practices and needs. This was accomplished by three methods:

• Online Survey: An online survey was administered to all EPS supervisors. It consisted of 27 questions that elicited quantifiable responses indicating the perceptions, needs, and attitudes towards knowledge management within EPS. A total of 83 out of a possible 160 respondents completed the survey; a high rate of return.
• Focus Groups: Facilitated discussion of knowledge management components were conducted with two groups of supervisors at two different divisions. All in attendance provided insightful comments.
• Ride-Along and individual interviews: Twelve individual interview sessions (in some cases, more than one interviewees participated in a session), either as ride-alongs or discussion at police stations, were conducted during different shifts in all four EPS divisions in order to gather information on the supervisors’ perceptions and opinions of knowledge management.

Key elements of discussion for the focus groups and ride along and individual interviews included:

• Information flow: downward, upward, or lateral flow within a division, and lateral between divisions
• What knowledge sharing is occurring and works
• What type of knowledge is shared
• How it is shared
• Barriers and challenges to knowledge sharing
• How knowledge sharing can be enhanced
• Whether knowledge is being captured from people who will soon retire
• How budget cuts impact on knowledge management

Interviews were informal to facilitate free-flow conversation and, in some cases, were conducted on the road. Not every discussion necessarily covered all of the above key elements.

Survey results

A total of 83 out of 160 (52 per cent sergeants and staff sergeants completed the survey. Given the multiple responsibilities and time constraints faced by this group of officers, this was an excellent response rate and indicates a strong interest in the subject.

Summary of results

1. Commitment to knowledge sharing: 61 per cent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed there is a commitment to knowledge sharing
2. Articulation between strategy and knowledge creation and sharing: 52 per cent of the participants agreed that there was an articulation of the values. However, 74 per cent of the respondents were clustered around the mid-range options, indicating that there is a wide range of opinions on this item.
3. Understanding of how knowledge creation and sharing contributes to operational success: 63 per cent of respondents agreed that they felt that there was an understanding of the linkages between organizational success and knowledge sharing.
4. Front line supervisors valued sharing with other supervisors: 77 per cent of participants agreed with this statement.
5. Investment in knowledge creation and sharing: 53 per cent of participants agreed that there was an investment in knowledge creation or sharing; 44 per cent of the respondents were either neutral or disagreed, indicating a notably wide range of opinions on this item.
6. Trust and support: 75 per cent of respondents agreed that there was trust and support within the organization.
7. Absence of barriers to sharing: 66 per cent of respondents disagreed with this statement. The concerns about barriers to sharing were one of the strongest negative responses in the survey.
8. Sharing is encouraged: 56 per cent of respondents agreed that sharing was encouraged within the organization; however, 45 per cent were either neutral or in disagreement with the statement.
9. Using others’ knowledge: 69 per cent of respondents agreed that the use of the knowledge of others was encouraged.
10. Time: 52 per cent of respondents agreed there was inadequate time for knowledge sharing. When combined with neutral responses, the overall number was 69 per cent. Time appears to be one of the major concerns related to knowledge sharing activities.

Four questions focused on knowledge sharing within EPS specifically related to reduction of crime, improving quality of life or diminishing the fear of crime, operational and management activities, and the support of ethical policing. Two types of information sharing were assessed, including individual access to explicit knowledge (in the form of documents, reports and codified information) and tacit knowledge (the informal, primarily verbal insights, experience, and ideas that are shared among members).

11. Activities related to reduction of crime:
1. 55 per cent of respondents agreed that they had access to explicit records and documents.
2. 61 per cent agreed that there was active sharing of tacit insights and knowledge.
12. Activities related to quality of life and diminishing fear of crime:
1. 45 per cent of respondents agreed there was adequate sharing of explicit information; 55 per cent of respondents were either neutral or in disagreement.
2. 52 per cent of respondents agreed there was adequate sharing of tacit knowledge.
3. In both questions the answers clustered in the middle: in question (a) 80 per cent were clustered very close to the mid range or neutral statement; in question (b) 86 per cent of the respondents were clustered close to the mid range or neutral statement.
13. Activities related to operational/management issues:
1. 57 per cent of participants agreed there was adequate sharing of explicit information, documents and reports.
2. 60 per cent of participants agreed that there was adequate sharing of tacit information in this area.
3. In both questions another 28 per cent were neutral. The number of people disagreeing with each statement was very low (14 per cent).
14. Support of ethical policing - in this question there were three sub-questions:
1. The first dealt with the access to explicit information and records: 47 per cent agreed with this statement while 54 per cent were either neutral or disagreed with this statement; 78 per cent of respondents were clustered around the mid-point or neutral response.
2. The second question dealt with ability to share tacit information: 57 per cent of respondents agreed with a positive response, with an additional 29 per cent answering in the neutral.
3. The level of communication about ethical policing: 62 per cent of respondents selected either a neutral or negative response to this question; 73 per cent of responses were tightly clustered around the mid point or neutral response.

The final overall topic question (number 15) covered several general-knowledge issues.

15. General knowledge issues:
1. Mechanisms to capture important information and knowledge: 80 per cent of respondents were tightly clustered around the mid range or neutral response; 72 per cent of responses were in the neutral and agree grouping.
2. Opportunity for interaction within the division: 52 per cent of responses agreed with this statement but 67 per cent of responses were clustered around the mid-point or neutral groupings.
3. Desirability of interaction within the division: 97 per cent of respondents agreed or very strongly agreed with this statement.
4. Opportunity for interaction with other divisions: 68 per cent of respondents disagreed with this statement.
5. Desirability for interaction with other divisions: 90 per cent of respondents agreed or very strongly agreed for this type of interaction.
6. Ability to identify staff with expertise: 73 per cent of respondents were either neutral or disagreed with this statement; 61 per cent of respondents were clustered around the mid point or neutral responses.
7. Know and share best practices: 74 per cent of responses were tightly clustered around the neutral or mid point responses for this question.
8. Support for the creation of communities of practice: 69 per cent of responses were clustered around the mid point or neutral statement for this question.

Comments

The purpose of the information-sharing survey was to identify potential areas of concern and to raise additional questions for further consideration and inquiry. As such, several observations can be generalized from the survey results. The complexity of organizations such as the EPS necessitates a caution, however, in that definitive conclusions cannot be drawn solely from the survey conducted for this research. For example, a number of questions elicited responses tightly clustered around the neutral or mid-point. In these cases, participants may have been ambivalent or uninterested in the particular question, the question may have been unclear, or respondents may have had a wide range of opinions or experiences related to the question.

General comments based on survey results can be classified as showing positive indicators of effective use of knowledge and leadership related to sharing knowledge, or negative indicators, which demonstrate areas of concern or those needing improvement.

1. Positive Indicators: Areas of leadership and strengths

• A willingness to participate by busy front-line supervisors.
• Support of the commitment to knowledge sharing. While some responses indicate areas that need attention, the overall support and commitment to knowledge-sharing bodes well for EPS.
• An excellent understanding of how knowledge-sharing contributes to the effectiveness and performance of EPS. As all organizations become more knowledge-intensive, it is essential that managers understand the value and role of knowledge within an organization.
• A high value placed on the importance of sharing with other supervisors.
• High levels of existing trust and support within the organization. Research consistently indicates that trust is a key enabler in any knowledge creation and sharing activities. The EPS is well positioned to further enhance knowledge creation and sharing activities as a result of the strong climate of trust in the organization.
• A willingness to use other’s knowledge.
• Supervisors have access to both explicit (55 per cent) and tacit (61 per cent) information and knowledge related to the reduction of crime. Of interest is the importance placed on sharing of tacit knowledge. While police work depends on effective documentation, the ability to share insights, experiences and ideas as part of conversations, stories and discussions is an important and effective activity with EPS.
• Similarly, the sharing of operational and management concerns is evident using explicit (57 per cent) and tacit (60 per cent) means.
• Information flows within division boundaries was highly desirable and was occurring (although perhaps not to the fullest extent possible).

2. Negative Indicators: Areas for potential concern and consideration

• A potential lack of clarity within the organization in articulating the links between strategy and knowledge creation. As noted above, managers understand the importance of knowledge-sharing and are committed to engaging in knowledge creation and sharing activities. However, the organization may have to make the linkage between strategy, actions and knowledge creation and sharing more explicit. A wide range of opinions about the level of organizational investment in knowledge-creation and sharing is related to the comments about the need to articulate strategy. The divergence of responses suggests that this issue may require more attention.
• Concerns about barriers to sharing were highlighted in the responses but the word “barriers” can have different meaning in different contexts. The issue of barriers to knowledge-creation should be examined further.
• Time presents a challenge to knowledge-creation and sharing and, indeed, this response was anticipated. Supervisors are very busy, staff shortages are a growing concern and the level of work responsibilities continues to rise. At the same time, effective information and knowledge-creation and sharing activities may contribute to greater efficiency and effectiveness. While time presents obvious challenges, it is one area that should be carefully considered as a key variable related to the organization’s capacity to create and use knowledge effectively.
• While participants are able to share information and knowledge on issues related to reduction of crime, operations and management, the scores were lower for two other priorities: quality of life and diminishing the fear of crime, as well as support of ethical policy. In both of these areas, many participants responded with slightly negative or neutral scores. More emphasis and communication may be required for these two important areas.
• Information sharing across divisions is limited and is considered an area of potential importance.
• Difficulty identifying staff with expertise is evident. Informal networks and contacts (for example, being aware of colleagues’ past EPS experience because you know or have worked with them) have limitations. Awareness of expertise is limited to the strength of an individual supervisor’s network and may be localized.

Observations of knowledge capturing and sharing at EPS

1. Conceptual Elements

In general, informal knowledge such as observations on patrol, personal accounts, or debriefing over coffee, is adequately captured, shared, and sustained within specific divisions or community stations. Overall, formal knowledge such as legal clarifications, directives from command staff, and so on, is shared with supervisors in divisions in a timely manner (an exception being “outpost” stations in South Division, especially when e-mail is not working). Most knowledge necessary for achieving departmental objectives (for example that used on the street to reduce crime) seems to be captured and shared on an ad hoc basis rather than through formal procedures. It is not apparent that any informal knowledge is captured and stored for the long-term retention of information.

2. Operational and tactical elements

Formal activities such as parades and SIRs are viewed as important and effective ways of knowledge-sharing (assuming what is shared is retained and noticed by officers at a higher level). New technology to assist with knowledge-sharing is generally well-received; especially if it can be immediately shown that it will save time and provide more timely information. A unanimous view is that paper work and the amount of information generated each day is enormous. Anything to assist with operational efficiency is welcome, as long as it truly helps and is communicated in a way that fosters buy-in.

3. Strategic Elements

While effective knowledge sharing exists within divisions and stations, vast gaps exist among divisions. While individual supervisors foster a communicative environment and either mentor or set up mentoring for their officers, there is no standard process to encourage communication throughout and among divisions. There may be visions and strategies existing within command staff at Headquarters, but much of this information does not get transmitted down through the ranks by a process or in a way that is interpreted to create buy-in from supervisors. There are no clear answers on how to fill the knowledge gaps. From talking with sergeants/staff sergeants, however, there is reason to believe that if a model and strategy could be created that fostered knowledge management, supervisors would welcome it and maintain it. An effective model or system for knowledge management could come in the form of more formalized procedures, specific training and education, or use of technology or, likely, as a combination of all of these.

References

Collision, C. and Parcell, G. (2001). Learning to fly: Practical lessons from one of the world's leading knowledge companies. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.

Dixon , N. (2000). Common knowledge: how companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Drucker, P. (1993). Post capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.

Garvin, D. (2000) Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hansen, M. and von Oetinger, B. (2001). “Introducing T-shaped managers: Knowledge managements next generation”.Harvard Business Review, March, p.107-116.