Planning and Execution of Knowledge Management Assist Missions for Nuclear Organizations - document as published

Jump to: navigation, search

As published.png


The nuclear industry is knowledge based, similar to other highly technical industries, and relies heavily on skilled employees and their know-how. Recent trends such as workforce ageing, declining student enrolment numbers, and the risk of losing accumulated knowledge and experience, have drawn attention to the need for better management of nuclear knowledge. These problems are exacerbated by the deregulation of energy markets around the world. The nuclear industry is now required to significantly reduce its costs in order to compete with generators with different technology life cycle profiles. In many countries, government funding has been dramatically reduced or has disappeared altogether, while the profit margins of generators have been severely squeezed. The result has been lower electricity prices but also the loss of expertise as a result of downsizing to reduce salary costs, a loss of research facilities to reduce operating costs and a decline in support to universities to reduce overheads. The above factors have led to a reduction in technical innovation and a potential loss of technical competences, drawing the attention of all concerned parties to the need for effective strategies and policies for Knowledge Management (KM).

These issues have been recognized as being of key importance for the IAEA, and the General Conference of the IAEA has adopted resolutions on Nuclear Knowledge that request the IAEA to develop corresponding activities. The first resolution, adopted in 2002 was reiterated in 2004 and in 2006. Current activities in KM aim to further increase the level of attention and awareness given to activities for preserving and enhancing nuclear knowledge; to assist Member States to ensure the preservation of nuclear experience and competence needed for the effective and safe use of nuclear energy; to promote the networking of institutions for nuclear education and training; to evaluate the relevance of current programs and activities regarding nuclear knowledge, and to identify approaches aimed at how best to address the problems. The IAEA is implementing a special subprogram on Nuclear Knowledge Management with a focus on the development of guidance for KM, on networking nuclear education and training and on the preservation of nuclear knowledge.

In the IAEA context, knowledge management is defined as:

‘’An integrated, systematic approach to identifying, acquiring, transforming, developing, disseminating, using, sharing, and preserving knowledge, relevant to achieving specified objectives. Knowledge management helps an organization to gain insight and understanding from its own experience. Specific activities in knowledge management help the organization to better acquire, store and utilize knowledge.’’

Knowledge management consists of three fundamental components: people, processes and technology. Knowledge management focuses on people and organizational culture to stimulate and nurture the sharing and use of knowledge; on processes or methods to find, create, capture and share knowledge; and on technology to store and make knowledge accessible which will allow people to work together without being located together. People are the most important component. Managing knowledge depends upon people’s willingness to share and reuse knowledge.

In 2005, the IAEA introduced the concept of KM missions. The missions were established to:

• Facilitate the transfer of pragmatic KM methodologies and tools. • Assist Member States considering implementation of nuclear power programmes to integrate KM in their management system from the very beginning. • Provide specific consultancy services to address emergent problems and long term issues related to KM and associated issues. • Assist organizations formulate detailed requirements and action plans related to KM. • Help organizations identify, by self-assessment, their own KM maturity levels against a set of pre-defined criteria (See Appendix I for This document is written to provide a common framework for KM missions and to provide general guidance for all mission participants.


This document has been prepared to provide a basic structure and common reference for KM missions. As such, it is addressed, principally, to the team members of KM missions and also to the Counterpart requesting a mission. Although not mandatory, the guidelines provided in this document should be used as the basis for all future KM missions.

Objectives of a KM mission

The objectives of a KM mission are to:

• Provide assistance, education and consultancy to Counterparts who want to benefit from the application of good practice KM strategies and techniques.

• Recognise good practice areas where KM is already providing benefits.

• Make recommendations on how KM shortcomings identified in the mission could be rectified or further activities implemented that would derive real business value for the Counterpart.

A KM mission will therefore consider existing good practices and will recommend possible improvement options based on the collective experiences of the mission team members.

Missions are designed to assist the Counterpart in establishing or improving its KM programme. They are not intended to evaluate performance where deficiencies are identified and held open for corrective action.

All information received and retained by team members will be subject to strict control by the Agency and will not be released to others without the written consent of the Counterpart.

Administrative requirements

In principle a KM mission could be requested by any organization of a Member State regardless of the maturity of existing KM provisions.

A KM mission will only be initiated when the IAEA receives a formal request from a Member State at an appropriate government level. All KM missions will require the approval of the Department of Nuclear Energy or Department of Technical Cooperation.

Scope and duration

The scope of a KM mission will be agreed with the Counterpart and IAEA Team Leader well in advance of the anticipated start date. The KM mission can, in theory, be based upon any of the KM strands discussed in IAEA documentation or via the IAEA Nuclear KM web site ( Relevant documents include:

• IAEA-TECDOC-1399 - Ageing Workforce: Transfer of Knowledge To The Next Generation [1]

• IAEA-TECDOC-1510 - Knowledge Management for Nuclear Industry Operating Organizations [2]

• STI/PUB/1248 - Risk Management of Knowledge Loss in Nuclear Industry Organizations [3]

• STI/PUB/1266 - Managing Nuclear Knowledge IAEA Proceedings [4]

• STI/PUB/1235 - Managing Nuclear Knowledge: Strategies and Human Resource Development [5]

Counterparts are advised to be aware of the above prior to agreeing the mission details with the Team Leader. A comprehensive list of definitions related to KM can be found in the Annex of this document.

The duration of the mission will typically range from 2–5 working days depending on the nature and complexity of the scope. Longer missions may be possible if multiple locations/sites are to be visited or if broader national KM issues are to be discussed requiring extensive travel.

Technical officer

On receipt of a request for a KM mission, the Director of the Nuclear Energy Department will designate an IAEA staff member with appropriate experience member as the technical officer who will be responsible for:

• Initiating the approval process.

• Coordinating the preparatory work and making the necessary arrangements to conduct a KM mission.

• Establishing liaison with the appropriate Counterparts of the host country who will be the primary point of contact with the team during the mission.

• Nominating a Team Leader for the mission.

• Selecting the members of the team, in consultation with the Team Leader.

• Arranging for a preparatory discussion or meeting with the host country to plan the mission.

• Ensuring the follow-up action plan is fully implemented after the mission is completed.

Team leader

The Team Leader will normally be an IAEA staff member and should be approved by the DDG-NE. The Team Leader will be responsible for:

• Liasing with the Counterpart before the KM mission to agree mission objectives and agenda.

• Selection of mission team members and issuing terms of reference, job description and briefing notes. This is done in conjunction with the IAEA Department of Technical Cooperation which is responsible for the mission contractual arrangements.

• Coordination of the preparation of all presentations and other input material. Of particular importance here is confirmation that the proposed presentations from the Experts reflect the needs of the Counterpart, are consistent and have minimal overlap.

• Coordination of the KM team, including pre-mission team briefing where necessary and assignment of specific duties.

• Representation of the team in the preparatory, entry and exit meetings.

• Management of the mission, including ensuring that objectives are met, liasing with government officials during the KM mission, resolving issues requiring decisions and preparing for the exit meeting.

• Co-ordination of the End of Mission Report and follow-up of any actions needed to support the Counterpart.

• Addressing feedback from the end of mission critique and incorporating any lessons learned prior to the next mission.

• On-going communication with the Counterpart as necessary to maintain good working relationships and to advise of other related KM IAEA initiatives.

Team composition

The size of the team will depend on the scope of the mission which is discussed in Section 5. It could vary, e.g., from two to six members. It is important to have strong membership on the team experienced in the application of KM within the nuclear industry. Such national experts should come from different organizations and countries, if possible, to represent a range of views and experiences. The IAEA members will typically be chosen from the INIS & Nuclear KM Section.

In appointing a KM expert, the following guidelines apply:

• Experts need to be registered with the IAEA by completion of a Personal History Form (PHF). This form is completed by the Expert and is used to establish relevant qualifications and experience.

• The PHF is used by the Team Leader to determine suitability for a mission. The Expert’s experience should align with the mission scope and objectives.

• The KM expert must accept the IAEA’s specific terms and conditions prior to appointment for a mission.

• Each expert is likely to have, in addition to a particular area of KM expertise, knowledge of national and organizational approaches within his/her home country.

• Knowledge of the host country's language and culture should also be considered.

The final choice of team members will reside with the Technical Officer and the Team Leader. Team members will be selected so as to ensure that a variety of national approaches to KM and implementation is represented.

Role of the counterpart

The Counterpart is the main contact in the organization that requires assistance. In general the Counterpart is responsible for the following activities:

• Initial contact with the IAEA to arrange the KM mission. Informal preliminary discussions should be held with representatives within the INIS & KM Section describing current issues and problems. The request for a formal visit must be made through DDG-NE or DDG-TC.

• Specifying options for the date, time and place of proposed mission meetings and presentations.

• Gathering together and sending to the IAEA background material related to the nuclear organization requesting the assistance. This should include details of general issues and those issues that the Counterpart believes may be solved using KM methodologies or systems. A description of what KM methodologies or systems are currently deployed should also be provided.

• Prior to the mission, establishing current KM maturity in the organization. This is a self- assessment made against the IAEA criteria given in Appendix I. Although this is not mandatory exercise, the IAEA believe that such an assessment will provide valuable insights into current good practice and possible development areas. All information provided will be kept confidential and not passed to others without the consent of the Counterpart.

• Co-ordinating travel and accommodation arrangements for all mission team members and assisting others who may be attending meetings and presentations. Security, health & safety and welfare aspects are very important here.

• Ensuring equipment and meeting rooms are available to support presentations and meetings.

• Liasing with key stakeholders within the organisation to ensure attendance at meetings and presentations as appropriate.

• To complete the mission evaluation proforma (critique) used to establish the applicability and value of presentations and meetings during the visit.

• On-going communication with the IAEA on completion of the mission to provide feedback on the value of the mission and to maintain good working relationships for the future.

Role of the expert

The Expert is selected according to the guidance given in Section 8. The Expert is responsible for the following activities:

• Initial contact with the IAEA to offer services prior to engagement on a mission. This will involve submitting a CV and, at later date, a PHF form.

• Assisting the IAEA Team Leader with the planning of the mission and preparation of the mission agenda.

• Prior to the mission ensuring that any necessary presentation slides and other background material is prepared and ready for use.

• Ensuring that the appropriate security, health & safety pre-checks are carried out. See Section 12.

• Planning personal travel arrangements to and from the host country including obtaining the necessary visas. Within the host country itself, internal travel and accommodation arrangements will generally be the responsibility of the Counterpart.

• During the mission the Expert will give presentations in accordance with the mission agenda and, if required, facilitate workshops and other activities as necessary. See Section 13.

• At the end of the mission the Expert will provide input information for the End of Mission Report. See section 14.

• On-going communication with the IAEA after the mission, as necessary, to maintain good working relationships and to provide availability information for possible future missions.


KM missions are normally planned at least three months in advance of the start date. The Team Leader, Counterpart and Expert are all involved in the planning phase and undertake the activities as outlined in Sections 7, 9 and 10. In summary, preparation involves:

  1. Generation of mission objectives, format and agenda. The mission agenda describes the activities to be carried out together with timescales, locations and the people involved.
  2. Selection of team members and other resources as necessary.
  3. Establishing travel and accommodation details.
  4. Developing presentation slides and other materials for use during the mission. This is the most important part of the mission preparation work for the Expert which may require several hours of research. The objectives and content of each presentation should match

the mission objectives. As general guidance, each presentation should have a duration of between 30 to 50 minutes. This will allow adequate time for questions, overruns and set- up between presentations. The exact structure/content of each presentation is left to the discretion of each speaker but some general pre-requisites need to be considered. For example:

• Is the scope and context of the presentation directly applicable to the issues faced by the Counterpart’s organization?

• If KM techniques or methodologies are described, are the source references adequately defined?

• Where case studies are used, is the context and type of end-user organization clearly defined? Are the timescales/costs for the case study project described?

• Are recommendations/conclusions provided?

• Are IAEA logos provided on all presentations?

• Are the presentation slides available for all to copy without Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) or copyright restrictions?

(v) Making arrangements with the host organization being visited to ensure the provision of necessary support facilities such as meeting rooms, computer equipment and interpreters.

(vi) Taking due account of security, health and safety factors relevant in the host country. See Section 12.

Security, health and safety

Security, health and safety matters are of great importance to the IAEA and as a result care is taken to ensure the safety of all participants during travel to and residence in the host country.

IAEA experts and consultants are required to complete the on-line safety course “Basic Security in the Field (BSITF): Safety, Health and Welfare” and the “Advanced Security in the Field (ASITF)” training course as a follow up to the BSITF, prior to engagement on the first mission. Successful completion of both the BSITF and the ASITF training courses is mandatory for all consultants and experts employed under a SSA before they travel on mission for the a duty station that is in Security Phase I or above.

A separate website has been established to allow consultants/experts to easily access and complete the BSITF and the ASITF courses from any location by logging into,, by using Microsoft Internet Explorer. This will enable the vast majority of consultants/experts to complete the course and print their certificates prior to their travel.

Individuals who do not have access to the Internet should obtain a copy of the CD-ROM version of the courses, by contacting the office of the IAEA. Individual user id codes and passwords will be provided by the IAEA for access.

On completion of the on-line course a final test must be passed and a certificate will be generated automatically. A printed copy must be issued to the IAEA administrative contact and retained by the Expert. This is valid for three years.

Refresher training using the same user id details as above is recommended at regular intervals but is currently not compulsory.

Medical/hospital insurance is the responsibility of the Expert and should be valid for the country to be visited.

The mission

To meet the objectives listed in Section 3, the mission team will be well prepared and fully aware of the KM issues of importance to the Counterpart. The format of the mission will have been agreed in advance (see Section 11) and will normally comprise a mix of presentations, questions and open discussions. In some circumstances a “workshop” environment may be more appropriate. In such cases it may be necessary to prepare practical exercises, organize breakout sessions, conduct panel discussion and similar activities to facilitate effective learning for Counterpart participants.

Pre-Mission Brief

On arrival, and prior to the commencement of the main session, the Team Leader will hold a pre-meeting to confirm the agenda details and the order/timing of presentations and other activities. This pre-meeting also helps team members get to know each other and understand any gaps or overlaps within the prepared material.

This is also a good time to consider the final deliverable of the mission, i.e. the End of Mission Report (See Section 14 and Appendix II). The Team Leader may decide to allocate specific areas of production to Experts and other members of the mission at this time. This will ensure that all input information is available on request to the author so that the document can be produced in a timely manner.

Main Session - Introduction

The Team Leader will, in most cases, chair the meeting. The main session will always start with introductions from the mission team, the Counterpart and his representatives. The Team Leader will be responsible for ensuring that the agenda is followed and that the planned timings are maintained. A “mission critique” (See Appendix III) can be handed out at this point to gain feedback from the presentations and other activities planned for the main session.

The Counterpart should, in most cases, start the proceedings with an outline of the organization/plant and the particular issues that are pertinent to the mission. This may include some issues which are not directly related to KM.

Main session - Presentations

Expert presentations should run to the timings agreed in the agenda and allow time for questions either during or immediately following delivery. Where interpreters are used for presentations, the mission team members should allow reasonable time for translation and vary the content and length of the delivery to suit.

During the course of the presentations and subsequent discussions, individual team members are advised to keep notes on the areas assigned to them, including summaries of their contributions, good practices observed and recommendations for improvement. These notes

will form the basis of presentations and summaries at the exit meeting and also input for the End of Mission Report (See Section 14).

Main Session - Exit meeting/conclusions

For missions planned over several days, the Team Leader may convene a separate meeting, involving mission team members, to receive input and help formulate conclusions and recommendations for the final day.

On the final day some time will be set aside with the Counterpart and his representatives for an exit meeting to discuss observations, conclusions and recommendations. The Team Leader will facilitate this discussion and will request each Expert to give a summary of his observations and recommendations (see 6 below). As part of this summary, the mission team members will also outline good practices observed during the visit. The Team Leader will collect completed forms related to the mission critique if applicable. The Team Leader will formally end the mission, thank all contributors and outline the next stages for the distribution of the End of Mission Report.

Mission Visits

Most KM missions will involve a visit or tour of the facilities. Although not always focussed on KM, certain aspects of the tour may be relevant to related issues such as people management, culture, business processes and the use of technology etc. Mission members should be aware of these aspects as the information and insights gained can often be relevant to the mission recommendations.

Basis for Expert Recommendations

Each Expert will have particular knowledge and expertise relating to KM aspects and will use this knowledge to formulate views and ideas as part of the recommendations process. The main cognitive model used will be that of a “gap analysis” between observed practices and good practice assimilated over many years of experience. However, the Expert must take into account the political, social, economic and technical trend information that the host provides. They should recognise that good practice solutions are not necessarily transferable between organizations.

Documents and Confidentiality

All documents related to the mission, including advance reference material, the presentations of findings, and the report of the mission, including drafts, will be treated in the appropriate manner according to the IAEA's procedures governing the security of information.

End of mission report

The objectives of a KM mission are given in Section 3. The End of Mission Report should clearly address all of these objectives and document the team's findings and recommendations, including an action plan for follow-up if this is requested.

On completion of the mission the Team Leader will co-ordinate the draft End of Mission Report. The report will utilise contributions from each team member and summarise the team's main findings and conclusions, including all good practices and recommendations. The outline structure of the report is shown in Appendix II together with details of the suggested content. The Team Leader will then pass the draft report to the team for final comment before submitting it to the Counterpart within one month of the completion of the mission.

The IAEA will restrict initial distribution to the authorities concerned, the contributors to the report and relevant IAEA staff. Any further distribution will be at the discretion of the Counterpart.

Follow up

At completion of the End of Mission Report, the Team Leader will confirm that all recipients have received a copy of the document and the Counterpart is satisfied with the content and recommendations. It is important that the Team Leader receives prompt feedback from the Counterpart on the benefits of the mission and acknowledgement that the mission has achieved the pre-defined objectives.

Further communication between the Team Leader and Counterpart is recommended to help foster a long term working relationship that will be valuable to all parties. Of particular interest to the IAEA is the ongoing feedback related to mission recommendations (i.e. confirmation of value added or problems of implementation).

Appendix I - Knowledge management assessment tool

The self-assessment methodology described here is intended to provide participants, including senior management, with a tool to help identify strengths and development areas in the organization’s overall KM strategy.

Individual criteria have been identified that are considered as key elements towards an effective approach to KM. These criteria have been grouped into seven organizational or functional categories, to facilitate the self-assessment, via:

  1. Policy/Strategy
  2. Human Resource (HR) Planning and HR Processes
  3. Training and Human Performance Improvement
  4. Methods, Procedures & Documentation Processes for Improving KM
  5. Technical (IT) Solutions
  6. Approaches to Capture/Use Tacit Knowledge
  7. KM culture/Workforce Culture Supporting KM

Metrics for the overall self-assessment and for each individual category have been developed as shown below:

KM Self-Assessment Metrics Scoring
Rating Extent Currently Extent Should Be
0 Not utilized at all Not utilized at all
1 To a little extent To a little extent
2 To some extent To some extent
3 To a great extent To a great extent
4 To a very great extent To a very great extent

A self assessment questionnaire has been developed based on the above seven categories. A Microsoft Excel based tool is also available that is used to facilitate the self assessment process. The tool uses radar/spider diagrams for each of the seven functional categories and at an executive summary level to give management a graphical depiction of current KM strengths and future development areas. An example of the output is given below:

Example output

Self-assessment can be used independently by a nuclear operating organization for an internal review, as a prerequisite for a KM assist mission or during a KM assist mission. These criteria are not so much intended to provide a “report card” as they are to assist managers in identifying strengths to build upon and areas for improvement to be addressed in the knowledge management area.


This topic covers the following aspects:

  • Written policies/strategies
  • Communication strategy
  • Identification of KM responsibilities

For background information see References [1–7].

Assessment Criteria/Questions
Extent currently utilized Extent should be utilized
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
1 Does the organization have a written policy for
implementing its strategy in KM area?
2 Is a KM policy integrated into the management
3 Is the KM policy communicated to all staff in the
4 Are those responsible for managing the formulation
and implementation of the organization KM strategy clearly identified?
5 Does the organization’s strategic focus support
continuous learning to improve individual and organizational performance?
6 Is the organization’s KM policy aligned with
continued emphasis on a strong safety culture?

An example of the output (in form of a radar/spider diagram) for the category 1 is given below

Example output

Human resource (HR) planning & HR processes

This topic covers the following aspects:

  • Workforce planning
  • Succession planning
  • Risk assessment for critical knowledge loss
  • Employee development plans for KM

For background information see References [3, 4, 6, 8–12]

Assessment Criteria/Questions
Extent currently utilized Extent should be utilized
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
1 Does the organization have a written policy for
implementing its strategy in KM area?
2 Is a KM policy integrated into the management
3 Is the KM policy communicated to all staff in the
4 Are those responsible for managing the formulation
and implementation of the organization KM strategy clearly identified?
5 Does the organization’s strategic focus support
continuous learning to improve individual and organizational performance?
6 Is the organization’s KM policy aligned with
continued emphasis on a strong safety culture?


Assessment Criteria/Questions
Extent currently utilized Extent should be utilized
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
1 Does the organization implement a comprehensive
methodology to ensure that HR needs both current and future are met (work force planning)?
2 Is there an effective succession planning
programme in place?
3 Are risk assessments carried out to identify
potential loss of critical knowledge and skills?
4 Are exit interviews carried out to capture critical
knowledge and experience when people leave the organization?
5 Does a programme exist to develop new leadership
/technical talent in a timely manner?
6 Does the organization utilise job profiles or
equivalent to assess and monitor its skills/competency needs?

An example of the output for the category 2 is given below:

Example output

Training and human performance improvement

This topic covers the following aspects:

  • Coaching and mentoring
  • SAT
  • Simulator use
  • CBT (e-learning)
  • Refresher training
  • Human Performance Improvement

For background information see References [4, 6, 9, 10, 13–19]


Assessment Criteria/Questions
Extent currently utilized Extent should be utilized
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
1 Does the organization incorporate formal
Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) principles into its training programmes?
2 Does the formal SAT programme address capture
and dissemination of knowledge?
3 Does the training programme utilise appropriate
tools such as simulators, Computer Based Training (CBT), multi-media simulations, etc. to capture/transfer critical knowledge?
4 Is competence evaluated on a regular basis?                      
5 Is regular refresher training carried out to maintain
and enhance competence?
6 Does the organization have a formal human
performance improvement programme to maintain and enhance competence?
7 Are coaching and mentoring approaches used to
support knowledge sharing?

An example of the output for the category 3 is given below:

Example output

Methods, procedures & documentation processes for improving KM

This topic covers the following aspects:

  • Learning from Operating Experience
  • Work control methods
  • Error prevention
  • Document control/Configuration
  • Corrective action programme
  • Benchmarking

For background information see References [3, 4, 18–27]


Assessment Criteria/Questions
Extent currently utilized Extent should be utilized
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
1 Are KM methods incorporated into
procedures and processes rather than being separate add-on tasks?
2 Does the organization have a
comprehensive methodology that addresses learning from experience?
3 Are self assessments regularly used to
enhance organizational knowledge?
4 Is external benchmarking regularly used
to enhance organizational knowledge by adopting good industry practices?
5 Is the feedback (internal and external)
from operational experience (lessons learned) used by the organization for corrective action planning to achieve improvements?
6 Is the composition of work teams (such as
individual expertise/experience) considered in order to enhance knowledge transfer?
7 Are all work activities documented in
such a way that knowledge can be effectively retrieved, shared and utilized?
8 Are procedures, drawings, lesson plans
and related documentation updated promptly in a systematic way to address technical and organizational changes?

An example of the output for the category 4 is given below:

Example output

This topic covers the following aspects:

  • Knowledge data bases
  • Content/document management systems
  • Search engines
  • Portals/Intranet
  • Wikis/blogs
  • Skill/competency databases
  • Expert yellow pages
  • Enterprise Resource Planning (EPR)
  • Other IT supporting systems

For background information see References [3–5, 21, 28, 29]


Assessment Criteria/Questions
Extent currently utilized Extent should be utilized
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
1 Are IT and KM strategies aligned?                      
2 Is the organization utilising an integrated approach
in managing its information?
3 Does the organization utilise appropriate IT support
systems and tools such as:
  • Content/document management
  • Concept mapping
  • Knowledge databases
  • Simulation tools
  • Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
  • Portals/Intranets
  • Knowledge search engines
  • Expert yellow pages
  • Expert systems
  • Wiki’s/blogs

An example of the output for the category 5 is given below:

Example output

Approaches to capture/use tacit knowledge

This topic covers the following aspects:

• Taxonomy development • Process for critical knowledge ID • Processes for knowledge elicitation/harvesting • Concept mapping • COPs • Coaching & mentoring

For background information see References [1, 4, 5, 8].


Assessment Criteria/Questions
Extent currently utilized Extent should be utilized Comments
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4  
1 Does the organization utilise methods to identify
people who have critical knowledge?
2 Does the organization adopt effective techniques to
capture critical knowledge such as:
  • Elicitation interviews
  • Video capture
  • On the Job Training (OJT) dialogue
  • Mentoring/coaching
  • Communities of Practice (COP)
  • Explicit capture (narrative documentation)
  • Card sorting (manual concept map)
  • Concept mapping
  • Process mapping
  • Story telling
  • Others
3 Is information and data retained and presented in
an effective way to facilitate search and retrieval?
4 Does the organization have processes for the
effective transfer and utilisation of captured knowledge?

An example of the output for the category 6 is given below:

Example output

KM culture/workforce culture supporting KM

This topic covers the following aspects:

  • No blame environment
  • Sharing knowledge
  • Leadership/commitment

For background information see References [1, 3, 4, 19].


Assessment Criteria/Questions
Extent currently utilized Extent should be utilized
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
1 Does the culture of the organization promote the
sharing and transfer of knowledge, particularly tacit knowledge, amongst personnel?
2 Does the organization have an open, no blame
approach to reporting incidents/events and sharing from lessons learned?
3 Is sharing of knowledge in the
organization recognised and rewarded?
4 Do managers lead by example performing
practical, visible leadership supporting the knowledge management strategy?
5 Do managers encourage trust, cooperation and
collaboration between individuals and teams?

An example of the output for the category 7 is given below:

Example output

Appendix II - End of mission report contents

The following content is required for each of End of Mission Report. The report will have six main sections as detailed below with Appendices as required for detailed information captured during the mission.

Examples of previous mission reports are available from the IAEA on request but are subject to confidentiality restrictions.

  1. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION - This section contains project information related to the mission and comprises:
    • project number
    • project title
    • task title
    • list of participating experts
    • dates of the assignment
    • Counterpart information, i.e. names and location
    • duty station location
    • IAEA programme reference – i.e. Sub Programme C.3. Nuclear Knowledge Management
  2. TERMS OF REFERENCE - This section describes the objectives of the mission, the mission scope and duties. Three separate sub-sections apply:
    • objectives of mission – This is a paragraph describing the mission objectives as agreed with the Counterpart prior to commencement.
    • mission scope – This details the KM areas addressed during the mission.
    • mission duties – This is a paragraph describing the form of the mission, i.e. how the mission was conducted (e.g. preparation & delivery of presentations, meetings with senior management etc.)
  3. BACKGROUND -This section provides background to the visit in the context of knowledge management and the issues the nuclear industry is facing worldwide. If there are specific issues within the host country, organization or plant then these should also be specified here. Typically three or four paragraphs are provided here.
  4. WORK PROGRAMME - This section outlines the programme of work undertaken during the visit with details of dates, times, locations and responsibilities. It can consist of the agreed agenda as prepared prior to the visit with any modifications as appropriate.
  5. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE IAEA - This section contains recommendations to the IAEA that are received from the Counterpart, Experts or other parties involved with the mission. The recommendations to the IAEA may consist of:
    • Strategic IAEA initiatives that should be undertaken to support generic KM issues
    • Suggestions for further IAEA work at the Counterpart’s location.
    • Suggestions involving government action or coordinated activity in the Counterpart’s country.
    • Other recommendations that are relevant to KM that can be executed directly or facilitated by the IAEA.
  6. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNTERPART - This section contains the combined recommendations from the IAEA team. The recommendations are varied in nature and should be grouped in order according to the locations or organizations visited. The recommendations should aim to identify good practice areas as well as areas that need to be developed. Typical recommendations will cover one or more of the following issues:
    • Observations of good practice.
    • Strategic recommendations that may involve central government, multiple organizations or political factors.
    • General recommendations, applicable to the Counterpart’s organization, that relate to KM improvement.
    • Specific recommendations that could be applied to the Counterpart’s organization that relate to KM improvement. This would typically be at the technology, process or HR level and may involve good practice techniques used in similar organizations.

Wherever possible, the IAEA team will endeavour to provide pragmatic advice that can be translated into an action plan by the Counterpart at the end of the mission.


Appendices are included as required and may contain information such as presentation summaries, lists of participants, self assessment output, contact details, and other information that is requested or provides value to the Counterpart

Appendix III - KM assist mission critique


  • [1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Managing Nuclear Knowledge: Strategies and Human Resource Development. Summary of an international conference, 7–10 September 2004, Saclay, France, IAEA Proceedings Series; STI/PUB/1235, ISBN 92-0-110005-1; IAEA, Vienna (2006).
  • [2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Management System for Facilities and Activities, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GS-R-3, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
  • [3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Application of the Management System for Facilities and Activities, Safety Standards Series No. GS-G-3.1, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
  • [4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Knowledge Management for Nuclear Industry Operating Organizations, IAEA-TECDOC-1510, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
  • [5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Managing Nuclear Knowledge IAEA Proceedings, STI/PUB/1266, ISSN: 0074-1884, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
  • [6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The nuclear power industry’s ageing workforce: transfer of knowledge to the next generation, IAEA-TECDOC-1399, IAEA, Vienna (2004).
  • [7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Power Plant Organization and Staffing for Improved performance: Lessons learned, IAEA- TECDOC-1052, IAEA, Vienna (1998).
  • [8] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Risk Management of Knowledge Loss in Nuclear Industry Organizations, STI/PUB/1248, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
  • [9] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Power Plant Personnel Training and its Evaluation A Guidebook, IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 380, IAEA, Vienna (1996).
  • [10] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Experience in the use of systematic approach to training (SAT) for nuclear power plant personnel, IAEA-TECDOC-1057, IAEA, Vienna (1998).
  • [11] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Managing human resources in the nuclear power industry: Lessons learned, IAEA-TECDOC-1364, IAEA, Vienna (2003).
  • [12] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Selection, Development and Assessment of NPP Managers, IAEA-TECDOC-1024, IAEA, Vienna (1998).
  • [13] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Recruitment, Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants Safety Guide, Safety Standards Series No. NS-G-2.8, IAEA, Vienna (2002).
  • [14] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Competency Assessments for Nuclear Industry Personnel, STI/PUB/1236, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
  • [15] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Development of Instructors for Nuclear Power Plant Personnel Training, IAEA-TECDOC-1392, IAEA, Vienna (2004).
  • [16] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Assuring the Competence of Nuclear Power Plant Contractor Personnel, IAEA-TECDOC-1232, IAEA, Vienna (2001).
  • [17] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Use of Control Room Simulators for Training of NPP Personnel, IAEA-TECDOC-1411, IAEA, Vienna (2004).
  • [18] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Systematic Approach to Human Performance Improvement in Nuclear Power Plants: Training Solutions, IAEA-TECDOC-1204, IAEA, Vienna (2001).
  • [19] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Human Performance Improvement in Organizations: Potential Applications in the Nuclear Industry, IAEA-TECDOC-1479, IAEA, Vienna (2005).
  • [20] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Good Practices with Respect to the Development and Use of Nuclear Power Plant Procedures, IAEA-TECDOC-1058, IAEA, Vienna (1998).
  • [21] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Information Technology Impact on Nuclear Power Plant Documentation, IAEA-TECDOC-1284, IAEA, Vienna (2002).
  • [22] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Management of Continual Improvement for Facilities and Activities: A Structured Approach, IAEA-TECDOC-1491, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
  • [23] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, OSART Guidelines - 2005 Edition, IAEA Services Series No. 12, IAEA, Vienna (2005).
  • [24] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Self-Assessment of Safety Culture in Nuclear Installations Highlights and Good Practices, IAEA-TECDOC-1321, IAEA, Vienna (2002).
  • [25] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Self-assessment of operational safety for nuclear power plants, IAEA-TECDOC-1125, IAEA, Vienna (1999).
  • [26] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Effective Corrective Actions to Enhance Operational Safety of Nuclear Installations, IAEA-TECDOC-1458, IAEA, Vienna (2005).
  • [27] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Configuration Management in Nuclear Power Plants, IAEA-TECDOC-1335, IAEA, Vienna (2003).
  • [28] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Development of Knowledge Portals for Nuclear Power Plants, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series, No. NG-T-6.2, IAEA, Vienna (2008).
  • [29] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Managing Change in Nuclear Utilities, IAEA-TECDOC-1226, IAEA, Vienna (2001).