Study of ADB's

Knowledge Taxonomy

Preliminary Results

Manila Arnaldo Pellini

14 December 2010 a.pellini@odi.org.uk
The views expressed in this presentation are the views of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank
(ADB), or its Board of Governors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and
accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.
Overview
• Introduction to ODI
• Introduction to the study
• Results from the literature
review
• Results from the interviews
• Preliminary suggestions
• Next steps of the study
 Overseas Development Institute
• Development Think Tank
• 140 staff
• Research/Advice/Public debate

For more information see: www.odi.org.uk

Overseas Development Institute
 The taxonomy study
To explore, recommend, and draw implications from a
classification of knowledge products and services of
ADB.

• Define the scope, purpose, and types of content

formats of a taxonomy.
• Identify concepts within the proposed taxonomy.
• Develop a draft taxonomy organized around major
domains
 The taxonomy study

• Literature review on taxonomy

• Semi-structured interviews with key
informants in ADB's headquarters (14)
• Semi-structured interviews with RMs (5/10)
• Semi-structured interviews with external
organizations (6)
• Online questionnaire (?)
 Results from literature review

Internet boom increased relevance

of taxonomy

Organize information
Create more collaboration and sharing
Develop a common language
Sense making and synthesis of knowledge
Opportunities from Web 2.0 / cloud tagging
 Results from literature review

Taxonomy myths

A taxonomy is only a hierarchy list

There is only one right taxonomy for an
organisation
A corporate taxonomy should only be
derived from document repositories
Taxonomies should be funded and managed
by IT
 Results from literature review

Taxonomy risks

Make it too simple

Premature adoption
Taxonomies can reinforce a silo mentality
Taxonomies can be too rigid
Role and responsibilities are not clearly
identified (institutional and individual).
 Results from the interviews

Learning issues

Knowledge is kept by individuals and in

personal networks
Much time is spent on searching for
documents
CoPs try to bring a horizontal perspective
External demand from governments about
learning from ADB work/research/analysis
 Results from the interviews
Taxonomy: supply factors

E-Star has limitations -> changes in 2011

ADB's corporate search engine is insufficient
Resident missions have difficulties in
accessing the system
Intranet system and internet system
There are a number of taxonomies in place
Transfer from internal to external taxonomies
is difficult
 Results from the interviews
Taxonomy: demand factors

The complexity of business process constrains

opportunities for the generation and sharing of
knowledge products
ADB is perceived as a paper-based organisation
in which it is difficult to code and classify
(organizational culture)
Incentives for generation and sharing of
knowledge products are limited
KM coordinators struggle to find time for KM work
 Results from the interviews
What do others do

UNDP => SharePoint and Teamworks =

corporate high level taxonomy + web2.0
OECD=> Effort on taxonomy with strong
mandate from senior management
SIDA=> SharePoint, compulsory tagging /
culture / decentralisation
ODI=> SharePoint and tagging / culture /
remote access
 Preliminary suggestions

Taxonomy work is part of a KM project

1. Receive Mandate from ADB's Management for a KM

project

2. Suggest a project governance structure

 Preliminary suggestions
Project Board
Users / Chair / Suppliers
Assurance
Support

Project Manager

KM
KM
Taxonomy framework
coordinators

IT Communications
 Preliminary suggestions
Taxonomy task definition

• Identify taxonomy team and task manager

• Initial scoping/review
• Finalise taxonomy task definition: deliverables/
risks/dependencies/timeline budget.
• Manage stages/deliverables/risks
• Pilot/test/document
• Close task and conduct after-action review
 Preliminary suggestions
Taxonomy task definition: principles

• Engage key stakeholders

• Define purpose of the taxonomy(ies)
• Harmonise internal and external taxonomies into a
general taxonomy
• Define what is a final internal document for ADB
• IT and taxonomy development must go in parallel
 Preliminary suggestions
Taxonomy task definition: principles (continue)

• Grant the freedom to generate and dispose of

local taxonomies (web 2.0/cloud)
• Governance structure and roles for maintenance
of taxonomy
• Communicate progress internally
• Link with roles and functions of KM and IT
coordinators
 Preliminary suggestions
Identify stages and tasks for the taxonomy
development as key decision making points

Harmonisation

Test folksonomies (e.g., CoPs)

Policy on ADB documents

IT development (OIST)

Internal communication
 Next steps of the study

• Complete interviews of Resident Mission staff

• Incorporate feedback on preliminary analyses
and suggestions
• Report by 30.1.2011
• Validation through online questionnaire or
quick survey of perceptions, focusing on the
KM coordinators?
• Is it necessary to actually define a taxonomy?
 Questions

• Is a KM project feasible?
• Is this the way change happens in ADB?
• Are there resources?
• How would one engage key stakeholders?
• How would one seek and receive the
necessary mandate from ADB's Management?
Thank you

ODI – www.odi.org.uk
RAPID - www.odi.org.uk/rapid
Contact: a.pellini@odi.org.uk