Before we measure something we must ask whether we understand what it is we are tryingto measure

When evaluated on a lesser scale, the statement could be used to mean that individuals are at times unsure of what they are measuring. In principle, measurement is critical component when it comes to verifying, evaluating or reviewing the outcome and performance of a given system, process or activity. In information technology, measurement can for instance be used as a tool for evaluating feedback, hence an essential ingredient for sustenance and growth (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1999). Today, measurement forms an essential component in organizational management (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1999), with successful managers using measurable tools in maintaining competitive edge (Turner & Minonne, 2010). An IT company, say, Microsoft can employ various measurements to evaluate progress, sales level as well as the level of financial success. Contextually, this wholistic view of knowledge management in an institutional setting gives rise to the need for institutions to employ various techniques in collecting the information and setting measures to ensure effective safeguarding of information and other forms of internal data from unauthorized access and use.

At a larger breadth, the scope of knowledge management is often viewed to include techniques used in managing the flow and use of information such as holders of specific institutional information to how sensitive information is handled, stored and used within an institutional setting. Communities of practice/interest Among the recent developments in various groups and communities of interest is the development of professional bodies to which various IT professionals belong. Such bodies include professional coders, software developers, IT technical personnel bodies or groups of common interest. In hardware and networking for instance, Microsoft’s professional courses and those affiliated to Cisco and other professional groups are essential in ensuring integrity of their members. Measuring performance in such groups is often less restrictive, more relaxed and often, less involving.

Common items of evaluation include such aspects as attendance, personal commitment and other informal factors that the members may mutually agree on. The challenge of performance measurement The evolution of technology, changes in institutional performance metrics and the non-satiation nature of human needs have over time led to the change in how institutions measure performance. In perhaps what Bititci, Garengo and Nudurupati (2011) projected over eight years ago, recent developments in technology have expanded the scope, gaps and the views on how we measure and manage performance today. In the expanded view, Bititci and her colleagues proposed the use of a holistic approach that recognizes the level of integration required in managing the arising challenges concurrently. In an IT firm dealing with software, it is for example easy to quantify the sales in terms of the number of new purchases, number of lost sales, profits made per sale and the like.

All these aspects are however, superficial, as they do not necessarily reflect how well the organization is performing. In reality, such measurements can only be effective if used in conjunction with other informational considerations such as labor charges per unit of time, the amount of time taken in developing a given software application, the level of government taxation and the expected level of profitability anticipated per unit sale. Institutional performance analysis in the corporate sector is an essential component of real importance in defining how decisions are made and executed as well as facilitating long-term planning. As a practice for firms seeking to expand, diversify or undertake new projects, it is common for these firms to seek financing from third parties or finance the projects internally (Nakamura & Warburton, 2008).

In a information technology firm, such intellectual capital includes things such as inventions, new software releases, new products and distinguished research outcomes. Similarly, firms should commit to investing in safeguarding their intellectual rights as much as they invest in research and development of their products. By so doing, the firms are able to benefit from their inventions for longer (Dumitriu & Leovaridis, no date) as a way of complementing their performance metrics (Turner & Minonne, 2010). The phenomenon correlation between social networks and institution’s intellectual capital’s is firmly tied to how the institution treats its intellectual property rights. As Falkowski (2014) notes in his work, Social Media’s Role in Intellectual Capital’s Growth, managing intellectual capital in the present era where people are highly networked socially is both complex and capital intensive.

As a result, it can be argued that the process, the stages, and the resources determine the possible outcome of a given measuring activity. When completed, this process should yield outcomes that can be traced back through the process to the initial ingredients or constituent components. It is therefore, worth noting that before we something is measured, one must ask whether he understands what it is we are trying to measure or not, otherwise, any outcome will still meet the evaluation criteria. From understanding whatever is being measured, there is additional need for the person or persons undertaking the process to understand the right procedures of practice. This helps in achieving optimal results that precisely match the measuring objective. 1, pp. Bititci, U.