The United States Department of the Navy $($USDN$)$ was established during the American War of Independence $(1775)$ and is the largest navy in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next $13$ largest navies combined.

The USDN is a five$-$time North American MAKE finalist and three$-$time North American MAKE winner $(2002,2003,2010).$ The Americas Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises $($MAKE$)$ study is part of Teleos$$s MAKE research programme. The Americas MAKE study was established in $2002$ to recognize organizations $($founded and headquartered in North, Central, and South America$)$ for their ability to create shareholder value $($or$,$ in the case of public and non$-$profit organizations, to increase stakeholder value$)$ by transforming new as well as existing enterprise knowledge into superior products, services, and solutions $($see www$.$knowledgebusiness.com$/$knowledgebusiness$/$templates$/$TextAndLinksList$.$aspx?siteId$=1$&menuItemId$=133$; www$.$navy.mil$/$navydata$/$nav$\_$legacy.asp?id$=146).$

The USDN$$s award$-$winning knowledge management is recognition of its knowledge$-$driven organizational culture. The case examines how it has developed this culture based on designing an effective set of performance metrics.

The USDN$$s knowledge management journey began in $2002$ when then president, George W$.$ Bush, included knowledge management in his presidential management agenda by stating: $$the Administration will adopt information technology systems to capture some of the knowledge and skills of retiring employees. KM systems are just one part of an effective strategy $...$ relevant to the organization$$s mission$($Ross and Schulte, $2005$: $158).$

The USDN felt that $$shared understanding provides a decisive edge in war fighting$($Ross and Schulte, $2005$: $159).$ It aimed to build a knowledge$-$centric organization that $$connects people to the right information at the right time for decision and action; and learns, collaborates, and innovates continuously$(2005$: $159).$ In designing a knowledge management system to achieve these goals, the US Department of the Navy developed five dimensions: technology, process, content, culture, and learning.

The USDN implemented this knowledge management system by focusing on a set of performance metrics. It began with two guiding benefits: $(1)$ improved performance via increased effectiveness, productivity, quality, and innovation; and $(2)$ increased financial value of the organization by managing human capital or knowledge as an asset $($Ross and Schulte, $2005$: $162).$ This created a sense of meaning and purpose about knowledge management for the organization. It tried to address the $$What$$s in it for me$?$ driver at the individual level by arguing that knowledge management could help people make more efficient and agile decisions. The USDN applies three specific constructs to measure performance from a knowledge management perspective: outcomes, outputs, and system metrics $(2005$: $162).$ Outcome metrics measure overall organizational characteristics, including increased productivity and revenue; examples include time, money, or personnel saved $($i$.$e$.$ less staff required to do the same quality and quantity of work$)$ as a result of a KM initiative $(2005$: $162).$ Output metrics measure project traits, including the effectiveness of lessons learned; examples include usefulness

surveys on whether initiatives have helped, and usage anecdotes $(2005$: $162).$ System metrics measure the effectiveness, usefulness, functionality, and responsiveness of KM initiatives; examples include number of downloads, dwell time per page or section, frequency of use, and percentage of total employees using the tool $(2005$: $162).$

The advantage of this approach is that it has clear measures which are linked to the organization$$s knowledge management goals and strategy. If the principle of $$what is measured gets done$$ is accepted, and employees are adequately recognized and rewarded for complying with these KM initiatives, then it is possible to see how the USDN could build a knowledge$-$centric culture with this approach. The disadvantage is that it seems to have a heavy emphasis on tools and technologies. It also has a focus on knowledge sharing through best practice directories, lessons learned databases, and expert registers. Therefore, it highlights the emphasis on the product view of knowledge management at the USDN. However, performance metrics for communities of practice $($CoPs$)$ show how the people side of knowledge management may be addressed with this approach. CoPs could be measured in terms of system measures like number of members, frequency of interaction, and number of contributions. Output measures for CoPs could be number of junior colleagues mentored by senior colleagues and number of problems solved. Outcome measures for CoPs could be captured organizational memory $($knowledge asset change$)$ and attrition rate of CoP members versus non$-$members $($employee retention$).$

In their pilot study of a US Navy directorate, Ross an