Available via license: CC BY-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
How$to$cite:$
!"#$%&'$()!*() +),-&.&/$() !*) 012134*) 56"#78$9:) ;-<) =#7'>?@A=7/$?%)
B<8</7"6<9@)=#7?<CC)&@)=;)DE5)F$@-)!:$/<)&9')G97F/<':<)E&9&:<6<9@)
H#&6<F7#I*)J7>#9&/)K'>8<C@*)
3)
0L4M)LNLOALNPN*
!
$$$E-ISSN:
$
1QQ3ANQ1Q
)
Published$by:$
-@@"CMRR:#<<9">S/$C-<#*$'R)
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 5 Number 4, April, 2025
p- ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
IMPROVING THE PRODUCT-POLICY DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS AT PT SMI WITH AGILE AND KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Arif Apriyadi*, Achmad Ghazali
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Email: arif_apriyadi@sbm-itb.ac.id
ABSTRACT
Policy agility is critical for infrastructure financing institutions like PT SMI, which faces
delays in policy development due to centralized decision-making, poor communication, and
inadequate knowledge transfer, hindering alignment with product timelines and RJPP 2024–
2028 goals. This study investigates how integrating Agile and KM frameworks (SECI
model, APO KM Framework) can mitigate these delays. Using mixed methods—qualitative
interviews and quantitative APO KM Maturity assessments—the research identifies key
gaps in PT SMI’s processes and proposes a combined Agile-KM approach. Findings reveal
that Agile’s iterative cycles and KM’s knowledge-sharing mechanisms enhance policy-
product alignment, with pilot projects demonstrating reduced bottlenecks. The study
provides a scalable implementation plan, emphasizing cross-functional collaboration and
centralized knowledge repositories. Implications suggest this framework improves PT
SMI’s operational efficiency and offers a replicable model for similar institutions, bridging
a gap in the literature on Agile-KM synergy in financial policy development.
KEYWORDS
Agile, Knowledge Management, Policy Agility, Financing Product-Policy
Development, Infrastructure Financing.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
4.0 International
Article Info:
Submitted: 28-12-2024
Final Revised:
24-04-2025
Accepted: 28-04-2025
Published: 30-04-2025
INTRODUCTION
Policy agility is a key factor for organizations in fast-moving fields like
infrastructure financing companies (Chasbulloh et al., 2023; Gutama, 2021;
Kormos, 2017; Sundalusia et al., 2023; Vygotsky & Cole, 2012). The ability to
adapt quickly to moving market needs and rules is important for staying
competitive. PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur (PT SMI) is an infrastructure financing
company with dilemmatic conditions. Founded in 2009, by Government Regulation
(Perpres) No. 66/2007, PT SMI plays a catalyst role in Indonesia’s infrastructure by
providing innovative financing products. PT SMI's role has occasionally become
Eduvest(–(Journal(of(Universal(Studies(
Volume(5,(Number(4,(April,(2025(
4349 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
bigger to support national strategic goals such as renewable energy, public service
enhancement, and regional projects infrastructure, making it an important player in
supporting Indonesia’s economic growth.
On the other hand, PT SMI faces significant issues in coordinating its
financing product-policy development process with the product launch timelines.
Policies are critical for governance, risk management, and regulation, but frequently
do not keep pace with the development of new financing products. This issue causes
a lag in launching customer financing products, affecting PT SMI’s long-term goals.
For example, in 2024, the late progress in policy development made public
financing booking reach only 2.06% of its target by August 2024. These delays are
less effective and result in missed booking opportunities, especially in public
financing areas.
The issues behind these lags include bad knowledge-sharing processes, poor
interdepartmental or unit communication, and rigid processes. Also, the lack of
collaboration in policy development degrades the distinction between product and
policy timeline. These problems negatively impact PT SMI’s transformation goals
stated in its long-term business plan (RJPP) 2024–2028, which focus on developing
innovative financing products, repairing public finance methods, and following
environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. So, improving policy
development is a strategic need for PT SMI to keep its transformation goals.
This study investigates the factors impacting policy development lags at PT
SMI and investigates how the Agile framework can work alongside the Knowledge
Management (KM) framework to speed up policy agility. Agile, stressing feedback
and collaboration, gives a solution to decrease lags and increase the alignment
between policy and the product development process. Also, KM frameworks,
especially the SECI model and APO KM Maturity framework, can increase
knowledge sharing processes, communication, and decision-making delegation
between departments or units. These two methods give a good foundation for
solving the inefficiency issue in PT SMI’s policy development or unit.
The research is trying to overcome two goals: first, to identify the root causes
of policy development delays, and second, to suggest actual solutions for aligning
policy and product development processes. The study is focused solely on the
connection between financing products and policy development at PT SMI and does
not address other policy or product areas. External regulatory influences will only
be considered if they directly affect internal operations.
For the infrastructure financing companies, it is highly regulated by the
Financial Services Authority (OJK) to ensure good governance. PT SMI follows the
Financial Services (OJK) Authority Regulation number 16 of 2024 (POJK
16/2024). This regulation requires PT SMI to ensure its financing operations meet
high governance standards. As a Development Finance Institution (DFI), PT SMI
must fill funding gaps for infrastructure while sticking to its own rules and the rules
of other authorities. Its financing policies are essential, giving clear guidelines for
what is needed, how agreements are made, and ways to manage risks. An agile
framework assists with handling complex and transforming jobs in a structured and
flexible way. Embedded in the principles of the Agile Manifesto (Fowler, 2001),
Agile helps with repeated development, teamwork, and collaboration, and is open
to change. The main ideas of the Agile Manifesto include people above processes,
actual responses instead of paperwork, customer teamwork over rigid agreement,
Arif(Apriyadi,(Achmad(Ghazali(
Improving(The(Product-Policy(Development(Process(at(PT(SMI(with(Agile(and(
Knowledge(Management(Framework) ) 4350(
and flexibility over defined plans. These factors are important to adapt to the
customer’s needs quickly. One popular method as a prototype for Agile framework
is the "Rugby" model, that was developed by Takeuchi and (Nonaka, p. 2010). This
method allows overlapping development phases, functional collaboration, and
different learning degrees, thus boosting innovation and preventing delays. Agile
Project Management improves these ideas by grouping activities into short,
recurring cycles, known as "sprints," allowing teams to adapt to shifting
requirements. Besides software development, the agile framework has been used
successfully in government policies and financial services. For example, Agile in
Banking, according to a McKinsey study, can improve customer attention,
responsibility, and adaptability in financial institutions (Mahadevan, 2019). In
public policy, the Agile framework helped governments manage complaints better
and change stakeholder needs (Carraso, 2018). Knowledge Management (KM) is
the key for organizations or companies that want to use knowledge as a useful
resource. KM organizes knowledge processes such as creation, sharing, and
application. It efficiently applies implicit and explicit knowledge that motivates
innovation and speeds up performance (Nonaka, p. 2010). According to Davenport
and Prusak (2010), when patterns and meanings are apparent, knowledge becomes
helpful and transforms raw data into insights. The SECI Model by Nonaka and
Takeuchi (2010) explains four ways knowledge can be shared, as shown in the
figure below: The Asian Productivity Organization (APO) KM Framework helps
these ideas by providing an easy way to measure KM growth. Its elements:
leadership, strategy, processes, people, technology, and results, give companies a
way to align the KM framework with their goals (APO, 2010). Good KM practices
help make a culture of innovation, improve decision-making, and allow faster
responses to market needs. The study confirms that Agile and Knowledge
Management (KM) frameworks can impact various industries or sectors.
McKinsey’s study on Agile in Banking shows that it improves banks’ operations,
responds faster to customers, and makes customers happy (Mahadevan, 2019). The
study says that Agile frameworks, like short cycles and delegated decision-making,
make banks adapt quickly to the market’s needs and technology developments and
keep banking or financial institutions competitive. This is important in sectors
where consumer expectations and regulations change very often.
The agile framework has helped governments adopt a more adaptable and
stakeholder-centered approach in government. For example, the UK Department
for Work and Pensions used Agile to make the Green Paper on Work, Health, and
Disability. This approach improved teamwork, feedback, and responsiveness to
stakeholders, showing it outside of companies as well (Rogers, 2017). Similarly,
the New Zealand government adopts the Agile framework in its policy-making to
speed up responsiveness and stakeholder involvement, changing the approach to fit
public sector needs (Mirzaei, 2017).
Studies show that knowledge management is a key factor in sectors including
public administration and financial management. Bloomfire (2022) describes that
KM systems in banking institutions help them meet new regulations, speed up
customer service, and decrease risks related to knowledge loss. Centralized KM
database systems maintain current documents and enable employees to access
important information quickly.
Eduvest(–(Journal(of(Universal(Studies(
Volume(5,(Number(4,(April,(2025(
4351 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
On the other hand, Bazaldua (2024) states that KM can increase employee
training, efficiency, and customer service. Companies can lower training time,
remove errors, and ensure consistent service by providing employees with
centralized, fast access to knowledge. For example, Arizona Financial Credit Union
implemented a knowledge-based management framework, increasing employee
satisfaction and output significantly.
The conceptual setup links financing policy creation, financing product
creation, the Agile framework, and the Knowledge Management framework.
Financing policy creation is shaped by financing product creation since new
products create the need for policies that fit with the organization's goals, market
needs, and rules. The Agile method improves this process by promoting flexibility,
responsiveness, and teamwork, ensuring that policies and products are developed
together to meet shifting business needs quickly.
At the base, the Knowledge Management framework supports the whole
framework by allowing the proper gathering, sharing, and use of knowledge. It
boosts the Agile framework and development steps by supporting informed choices,
promoting creativity, and reducing overlaps. Together, these parts create a strong
and connected system, helping the organization deal with changing challenges in
infrastructure financing.
This study aims to address two key research questions: first, it seeks to
identify the primary factors causing lags in policy development in alignment with
product timelines at PT SMI; second, it explores how the Agile framework and
Knowledge Management (KM) framework can be applied to reduce these delays
and enhance alignment. By examining these aspects, the study intends to provide
actionable insights for improving policy development processes and ensuring better
synchronization with product timelines.
This study introduces a novel approach by integrating Agile and Knowledge
Management (KM) frameworks—specifically the SECI model and APO KM
Framework—to address policy development delays at PT SMI, a gap not
extensively explored in prior literature. While Agile has been applied in banking
(Mahadevan, 2019) and public policy (Carraso, 2018), and KM frameworks like
the SECI model are well-documented (Nonaka, 2010), their combined application
to align policy and product timelines in infrastructure financing remains
underexamined. The research uniquely identifies centralized decision-making, poor
communication, and knowledge transfer inefficiencies as systemic barriers, offering
a phased implementation plan with pilot projects and cross-functional teams—a
practical contribution beyond theoretical KM discussions (APO, 2010; Davenport,
2010). Additionally, it leverages mixed-methods (interviews and APO KM Maturity
assessments) to validate the framework’s efficacy, a methodological advancement
over standalone case studies (Mirzaei, 2017).
RESEARCH METHODS
This research uses a mixed-methods approach and qualitative and quantitative
methods. This method helps to understand the causes of the delays in the
development of the PT SMI policy. The qualitative method uses semi-structured
interviews to know the challenges in policy development, and the quantitative
Arif(Apriyadi,(Achmad(Ghazali(
Improving(The(Product-Policy(Development(Process(at(PT(SMI(with(Agile(and(
Knowledge(Management(Framework) ) 4352(
method uses knowledge management maturity through the Asian Productivity
Organization (APO) KM Maturity Assessment questionnaire. These methods allow
people to analyze the problems and propose potential solutions by combining
objective data with personal experiences.
The qualitative method in this research uses interpretative analysis to identify
the cause and specific issues, such as communication gaps and process
inefficiencies. The quantitative method uses the APO KM Maturity scoring to
assess PT SMI's knowledge management implementation and identify areas for
improvement. These two methods try to combine the Agile and KM frameworks for
better policy agility.
Data collection consists of three main methods: interviews, questionnaires,
and document reviews. Interviews are conducted with key employees involved in
the policy and product development process at PT SMI, including senior
management, mid-level managers, and staff. The interviews use semi-structured
questions, allowing flexibility in solving certain issues with consistent answers.
Questionnaires give quantifiable information on the level of development of
PT SMI's knowledge management practices. Based on the APO KM Maturity
Assessment framework, these questionnaires focus on key areas like leadership,
strategy, processes, people, technology, etc. All employees from the policy
department fill them out to ensure a representative sample. Document reviews
consist of internal reports, minutes of meetings, and business plans, including the
long-term business plan (RJPP) 2024–2028. These documents increase the main
information gathered from surveys and interviews. The analysis method in this
research uses qualitative and quantitative approaches to interpret the data gathered.
For qualitative data from interviews, interpretative analysis is used to analyze
recurring problems, such as delays in the policy development process and
communication gaps, using the author’s interpretation. The Five Whys root cause
analysis is also used to gather information about the causes of delays for actionable
insights. The quantitative data from the APO KM Maturity Assessment is assessed
using scoring to measure PT SMI’s knowledge management maturity in different
components. This assessment shows specific areas that need development,
weaknesses, and strengths in the present policy development process.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis
PT SMI is facing significant lags in its financing product-policy development
process. These lags are caused by systemic issues found through analysis methods
such as the Five Why analysis, the APO Knowledge Management (KM) Maturity
Assessment, and the SECI model for knowledge management improvement.
The lags are primarily caused by centralized decision-making processes that
rely on board-level approvals, creating bottlenecks in the policy development
process. The Five Whys analysis determines that PT SMI has not prioritized
strategies that increase interdepartmental information sharing and adaptable
systems. This issue results in insufficient collaboration between departments,
causing delays in creating policies in line with product innovation schedules.
An assessment of PT SMI’s knowledge management maturity using the APO
KM Maturity Assessment revealed important areas for improvement. Pareto
Eduvest(–(Journal(of(Universal(Studies(
Volume(5,(Number(4,(April,(2025(
4353 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
analysis of maturity scores revealed the three lowest areas: People, KM Outcomes,
and Knowledge Process. These areas indicate problems like low employee
involvement in knowledge-sharing activities, little connection between KM efforts
and measurable company results, and varied integration of KM processes into
everyday work. PT SMI’s overall KM maturity was assessed to be at the Expansion
stage, meaning some KM practices exist, but there are significant chances to
improve their coverage and effectiveness.
To ensure the KM maturity check is reliable and valid, statistical tests were
conducted. The reliability test used Cronbach’s Alpha and showed that the
questionnaire's internal consistency was acceptable. The validity test, carried out
with Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, found strong links between the
questionnaire items and their specific constructs, confirming that the assessment
effectively measured the intended aspects of KM maturity.
The SECI model outlines areas for improvement in PT SMI’s knowledge
management practices. Team socialization is limited, causing a shortage of tacit
knowledge exchange. Externalization process problems result from not enough
tools for cooperation and documentation. Explicit information is inconsistent; little
effort is made to arrange knowledge into easily accessible places. The
internalization process lacks proper practical experience and training.
Tabl e 1. KM Area of Improvement
Group
Area of
Improvement
SECI Model
Approach
Suggested
APO KM
Methods
People
Low
collaboration
and a limited
knowledge-
sharing
culture.
Socialization
(Tacit-to-
Tacit)
To foster trust and
tacit knowledge
sharing, promote
informal knowledge-
sharing sessions,
such as mentorship
programs or cross-
functional
exchanges.
Communities
of Practice
(CoP),
Knowledge
Cafés
Limited
documentation
of employee
knowledge.
Externalization
(Tacit-to-
Explicit)
Encourage
employees to
document their
knowledge through
storytelling or wikis,
converting tacit
knowledge into
explicit forms.
After Action
Reviews
(AAR)
Lack of
standardized
knowledge
repositories.
Combination
(Explicit-to-
Explicit)
Standardize
onboarding materials
and repositories to
consolidate explicit
knowledge across
teams.
Knowledge
Codification
Arif(Apriyadi,(Achmad(Ghazali(
Improving(The(Product-Policy(Development(Process(at(PT(SMI(with(Agile(and(
Knowledge(Management(Framework) ) 4354(
Group
Area of
Improvement
SECI Model
Approach
Suggested
APO KM
Methods
Insufficient
training to
apply explicit
knowledge.
Internalization
(Explicit-to-
Tacit)
Use e-learning
platforms and
training to help
employees
internalize explicit
knowledge into
actionable skills.
E-learning
platforms,
Learning
from Best
Practices
KM
Outcomes
Inconsistent
measurement
of KM
effectiveness
Combination
(Explicit-to-
Explicit)
Develop a standard
set of metrics to
evaluate KM
initiatives,
consolidating
explicit data into
insights.
KM Metrics
and Analytics,
Balanced
Scorecard
Limited use of
KM outcomes
for decision-
making
Externalization
(Tacit-to-
Explicit)
Use storytelling and
case studies to
document how KM
outcomes have
positively influenced
decisions.
After Action
Reviews
(AAR),
Success
Stories
Poor
alignment of
KM outcomes
with
organizational
goals
Socialization
(Tacit-to-
Tacit)
Facilitate discussions
among teams to
ensure KM
outcomes align with
strategic objectives.
Strategic KM
Alignment
Workshops
Lack of
visible
benefits from
KM initiatives
Externalization
(Tacit-to-
Explicit)
Develop and share
success stories and
best practices
showcasing KM's
tangible
contributions.
Knowledge
Success
Stories, Best
Practices
Inefficient
sharing of KM
results
Internalization
(Explicit-to-
Tacit)
Train employees to
interpret and apply
KM outcomes in
daily workflows.
E-learning
Platforms,
Knowledge
Transfer
Training
Knowledge
Processes
Inefficient
documentation
and
maintenance
of
organizational
knowledge.
Socialization
(Tacit-to-
Tacit)
Facilitate
collaborative
workshops where
employees share
insights on process
improvements and
knowledge capture
strategies.
Brainstorming
Sessions,
Knowledge
Exchange
Workshops
Lack of
formalized
processes for
Externalization
(Tacit-to-
Explicit)
Establish protocols
for documenting
processes, lessons
learned, and best
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(SOPs),
Eduvest(–(Journal(of(Universal(Studies(
Volume(5,(Number(4,(April,(2025(
4355 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Group
Area of
Improvement
SECI Model
Approach
Suggested
APO KM
Methods
capturing tacit
knowledge.
practices to convert
tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge.
Process
Mapping
Disorganized
and
inaccessible
explicit
knowledge.
Combination
(Explicit-to-
Explicit)
Create centralized
repositories and
taxonomies for
organizing and
accessing explicit
knowledge
systematically.
Knowledge
Repositories,
Taxonomies
Insufficient
training on
process
knowledge
application.
Internalization
(Explicit-to-
Tacit)
Promote simulations
and on-the-job
training to help
employees
internalize process
knowledge into
practical skills.
On-the-Job
Training
(OJT),
Simulations
Aligning the financing policy development process with financing product
timelines requires using both the Agile framework and the knowledge management
framework to solve these problems. The Agile framework increases iterative and
adaptable processes, making teams change policies based on new product
developments. Knowledge management frameworks, like the SECI model and the
APO KM Maturity assessment tool, improve the sharing of knowledge and
organizational learning, ensuring that important knowledge is easily available and
usable.
Ta bl e 1. Agile Area of Improvement
Agile Principle
Current Challenge
Suggested Area of Improvement
Focus on
Customer Value
Processes are siloed
and sequential,
delaying delivery to
customers.
Establish early collaboration between
teams and customers to align
requirements and test products
incrementally with customer feedback.
Iterative and
Incremental
Delivery
Policies and products
are not broken into
smaller parts, leading
to delivery delays and
a lack of immediate
feedback.
Implement "sprints" with certain
timelines and deliverables. Focus on
finishing basic functions first and
improving features in the next versions.
Make sure teams give stakeholders
regular intervals of little progress.
Experimentation
and Adaptation
Teams lack decision-
making authority,
leading to delays in
experimenting and
adapting to changes.
Give specific team members delegated
authority to make decisions for fast
experiments. After each sprint, schedule
frequent retrospectives to assess and
change deliverables or processes in
response to feedback or lessons learned.
Arif(Apriyadi,(Achmad(Ghazali(
Improving(The(Product-Policy(Development(Process(at(PT(SMI(with(Agile(and(
Knowledge(Management(Framework) ) 4356(
Agile Principle
Current Challenge
Suggested Area of Improvement
Self-
Organization
Team roles are
constrained by the
need for board
approvals, limiting
autonomy and
responsiveness.
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities
will help self-organizing teams to become
strong. Within their authority, form
smaller working groups with authority to
make decisions to increase agility and
lower dependency on board-level
approvals.
Continuous
Improvement
Lack of structured
feedback mechanisms
for learning from past
sprints or iterations.
At the end of every sprint, set up
organized retrospectives to identify areas
for improvement, problems, and
successes. Create a free feedback and
iterative learning culture across teams to
improve processes and results over time.
By combining Agile and KM frameworks, PT SMI can increase collaboration,
speed up communication, and equip working teams with the tools and processes to
develop policies efficiently. This alignment will decrease delays while supporting
PT SMI’s strategic goals and improving its competitiveness and responsiveness in
the infrastructure financing sector.
Solution and Proposed Implementation Plan
PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur (PT SMI) must combine the Agile framework
with the Knowledge Management (KM) framework to solve the challenges in
aligning policies with financing timelines. This approach increases flexibility,
strengthens collaboration, and ensures effective knowledge transfers across
departments, which allows them to develop policies faster and more efficiently.
Agile is supposed to be implemented by improving the policy development
process using more adaptable and accurate processes. Agile frameworks stress the
need to divide difficult projects into smaller, simpler cycles so that working teams
may effectively adapt to changing demands and use feedback. Here is PT SMI's
Agile implementation guide:
Ta bl e 2. Agile Adoption Implementation Plan
Stage
Action
Objective
Timeline
Reference &
Insights
Preparation
Conduct
leadership
workshops to
introduce Agile
principles and
benefits for
policy
development.
Gain executive
buy-in and
align Agile
goals with PT
SMI’s strategic
vision.
Month 1-
2
Leadership
commitment is
essential for cultural
and procedural
shifts required for
Agile adoption
(Fowler, 2001).
Create awareness
sessions for key
stakeholders
across product,
Build
understanding
of Agile’s
value in
addressing
Month 2-
3
Collaborative
alignment across
divisions is critical
for Agile success
(Mahadevan, 2019).
Eduvest(–(Journal(of(Universal(Studies(
Volume(5,(Number(4,(April,(2025(
4357 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Stage
Action
Objective
Timeline
Reference &
Insights
policy, and
regulatory teams.
delays and
nurturing
collaboration.
Appoint an Agile
Champion from
the Policy
Management
Unit (PMU).
Provide
leadership for
Agile adoption,
ensuring
coordination
and
stakeholder
engagement.
Month 3
Agile Champions
reduce resistance
and demonstrate
quick wins by
leading pilot
projects and
advocating for
Agile principles
(Rogers, 2017).
Define success
metrics (e.g.,
time-to-policy,
sprint velocity,
stakeholder
satisfaction).
Set measurable
goals to track
Agile
implementation
outcomes.
Month 3
Metrics provide
objective data to
evaluate and refine
Agile practices
(Schwaber, 2017).
Pilot Phase
Identify a low-
risk product-
policy
development
project for the
initial phase.
Test Agile
practices in a
controlled
environment to
demonstrate
feasibility and
benefits.
Months
4-6
Case studies for
Agile's pilot
initiatives
effectively involve
building
organizational trust
(Rogers, 2017).
Form a cross-
functional team
with members
from PMU,
Financing
Business Product
Division, Legal,
Risk,
Environmental,
Social Safeguard
team,
Operations, and
Accounting.
Ensure
alignment and
integration of
expert
employees
across all
relevant
departments.
Months
4-6
Cross-functional
teams decrease silos
and adopt
collaborative
problem solving
(Mahadevan, 2019).
Implement Agile
practices (like
sprint cycles,
daily stand-ups,
retrospectives).
Build
familiarity with
the Agile
process and
adapt based on
the working
team feedback.
Months
6-8
Iterative cycles
(sprints) and
retrospectives adopt
adaptability and
continuous
improvement
(Schwaber, 2017).
Pilot Minimum
Viable Policies
(MVPs) for the
selected product-
policy initiative.
Test policy
drafts
incrementally
and refine
based on
Months
8-10
MVPs allow
organizations to test
policies in real-time,
ensuring practicality
before full
Arif(Apriyadi,(Achmad(Ghazali(
Improving(The(Product-Policy(Development(Process(at(PT(SMI(with(Agile(and(
Knowledge(Management(Framework) ) 4358(
Stage
Action
Objective
Timeline
Reference &
Insights
stakeholder
feedback.
deployment
(Mirzaei, 2017).
Scaling Agile
Train additional
Agile
Champions in
other key
departments
(e.g., Legal, Risk
Management,
and Product
Unit).
Expand Agile
leadership
across
departments to
sustain and
scale practices.
Months
11-16
Training internal
Agile leaders
ensures that Agile
principles are
embedded and
institutionalized
effectively (Bass,
2013).
Roll out Agile
practices to
additional
product-policy
teams in a
phased manner.
Ensure smooth
adoption and
allow teams to
adapt
incrementally.
Months
17-24
Phased rollouts help
scale Agile without
overwhelming the
organization,
enabling gradual
learning and
adaptation
(Schwaber, 2017).
Establish a
shared
knowledge
repository for
Agile practices,
templates, and
tools.
Enhance
knowledge
sharing and
standardization
across teams.
Months
18-24
Centralized
repositories
streamline
collaboration and
reduce
redundancies,
improving decision-
making and
consistency
(Bloomfire, 2022).
Continuous
Improvement
Update Agile
frameworks
based on
feedback and
evolving
business needs.
Adapt Agile
practices to
remain
effective in PT
SMI’s dynamic
regulatory and
operational
context.
Ongoing
Flexibility in Agile
implementation
ensures sustained
relevance and
adaptability in
rapidly changing
environments
(Rogers, 2017).
The KM plan is to improve PT SMI's knowledge sharing capability and create a
continuous learning culture. Using KM frameworks such as the APO KM Maturity
assessment tool and the SECI model helps solve problems in knowledge access,
teamwork, and application. Here is the KM implementation Plan for PT SMI:
Ta bl e 3. KM Adoption Implementation Plan
Phase
Activity
Expected
Outcome
Timeline
Reference &
Insight
Leadership
Alignment and
- Conduct KM
awareness
workshops for
Leadership
commitment
to KM
Month 1-2
Leadership is
critical in
embedding
Eduvest(–(Journal(of(Universal(Studies(
Volume(5,(Number(4,(April,(2025(
4359 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Phase
Activity
Expected
Outcome
Timeline
Reference &
Insight
Cultural
Foundation
senior
leadership.
initiatives.
Knowledge-
sharing culture
is adopted
across all
levels.
KM as part of
organizationa
l culture.
Leaders must
act as KM
champions
(Garfield,
2020).
- Define KM as
a strategic
priority aligned
with the RJPP
2024-2028.
- Set up
recognition
programs for
knowledge
sharing.
- Promote
Communities of
Practice (CoPs)
and Knowledge
Cafés to
enhance tacit
knowledge
sharing.
Establishment of
KM Governance
- Create a cross-
functional KM
steering
committee.
Clear KM
ownership and
accountability.
Consistent and
standardized
KM practices
across the
organization.
Month 3-4
Governance
structures
ensure
alignment of
KM practices
with
organizationa
l goals and
provide
accountabilit
y (APO,
2010).
- Define KM
policies and
processes.
- Assign a Chief
Knowledge
Officer (CKO).
Development of
KM Tools and
Infrastructure
- Implement a
centralized
knowledge
repository.
Improved
accessibility
and retrieval
of
organizational
knowledge.
Seamless
collaboration
across teams.
Months 5-
8
APO (2010):
Technology
supports KM
by capturing,
storing, and
sharing
knowledge
effectively
(APO, 2010).
- Deploy
collaboration
tools like
Microsoft
Teams or
SharePoint.
- Introduce AI-
based
categorization
for quick
retrieval.
Arif(Apriyadi,(Achmad(Ghazali(
Improving(The(Product-Policy(Development(Process(at(PT(SMI(with(Agile(and(
Knowledge(Management(Framework) ) 4360(
Phase
Activity
Expected
Outcome
Timeline
Reference &
Insight
- Integrate
existing KM
tools into a
unified system
for seamless
knowledge
access and
sharing.
Knowledge
Capture and
Sharing
- Host
mentorship
programs and
cross-functional
exchanges for
Socialization
(Tacit-to-Tacit).
Dynamic
exchange and
critical
insights
documentation
. Enhanced
organizational
learning and
continuous
improvement.
Months 9-
12
SECI model
processes are
critical for
converting
tacit and
explicit
knowledge
into
organizationa
l assets
(Nonaka, p.
2010).
- Encourage
documentation
of tacit
knowledge
through wikis or
storytelling for
Externalization
(Tacit-to-
Explicit).
- Standardize
onboarding
materials and
repositories for
Combination
(Explicit-to-
Explicit).
- Facilitate
training
programs to
internalize
explicit
knowledge into
actionable tacit
skills.
Agile Integration
- Embed KM
practices into
Agile sprint
cycles.
Faster and
more informed
policy
iterations.
Continuous
improvement
of Agile
processes
through
Months
13-15
Agile thrives
on real-time
collaboration
and iterative
learning,
making KM
an essential
complement
- Use sprint
retrospectives to
capture and
store lessons
learned.
Eduvest(–(Journal(of(Universal(Studies(
Volume(5,(Number(4,(April,(2025(
4361 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Phase
Activity
Expected
Outcome
Timeline
Reference &
Insight
- Provide real-
time knowledge
support during
sprints.
knowledge
reuse.
(Fowler,
2001).
- Develop user
guides, FAQs,
and training
videos to
support the
adoption of KM
tools
(Externalization)
.
Training and
Internationalization
- Conduct
technology
adoption
workshops for
Socialization
(Tacit-to-Tacit).
Employees are
equipped to
use KM tools
effectively.
Accelerated
internalization
of explicit
knowledge
into tacit
expertise.
Months
16-18
Internalizatio
n ensures
explicit
knowledge
becomes
actionable
tacit
knowledge
through
practice
(Nonaka, p.
2010).
- Use e-learning
platforms to
facilitate
employee
training on KM
tools and
processes.
- Provide
ongoing
mentorship
programs to
enhance tool
usage and adopt
Internalization
(Explicit-to-
Tacit).
KM Maturity
Assessment and
Feedback Loops
- Perform APO
KM maturity
assessments
biannually.
Continuous
improvement
of KM
practices.
Identification
and closure of
knowledge
gaps.
Month 19-
20 (and
ongoing
biannually
)
Regular
assessments
identify
strengths and
gaps,
enabling
iterative
improvement
s in KM
practices
(APO, 2010).
- Collect
employee
feedback on
KM initiatives.
Arif(Apriyadi,(Achmad(Ghazali(
Improving(The(Product-Policy(Development(Process(at(PT(SMI(with(Agile(and(
Knowledge(Management(Framework) ) 4362(
CONCLUSION
This study identifies key challenges in PT SMI's policy development
process—centralized decision-making, poor communication, and insufficient
knowledge transfer—which cause delays and hinder alignment with financial
product timelines, impacting the company's ability to meet its RJPP 2024–2028
goals. The findings suggest that integrating Agile and Knowledge Management
(KM) frameworks, particularly the SECI model and APO KM Framework, can
improve policy development by fostering team-based learning, knowledge sharing,
and better alignment with product timelines. A phased implementation is
recommended, starting with pilot projects, cross-functional teams, and a unified
knowledge repository, followed by company-wide scaling with continuous
evaluation. Future research could explore the long-term sustainability of this
approach, compare different Agile-KM methodologies, assess the role of digital
tools in enhancing efficiency, and examine the impact of organizational culture on
successful adoption.
REFERENCES
APO. (2010). Knowledge management tools and techniques manual. Asian
Productivity Organization. https://www.apo-tokyo.org/
Bass, J. M. (2013). Experience report: Scaling agile globally. In Proceedings of the
2013 International Conference on Global Software Engineering (pp. 174–
178). https://doi.org/DOI.org
Bazaldua, J. (2024). Four top knowledge management strategies for banking
excellence. Engageware.
Bloomfire. (2022). The importance of knowledge management in financial services.
https://bloomfire.com
Carraso, M. G. (2018). Agile as the next government revolution. Boston Consulting
Group (BCG).
Chasbulloh, A. R. A., Kautsar, M. A., Riyanto, M. R. O., Hapsari, R. K., & Widodo,
W. (2023). Perancangan sistem informasi manajemen penjualan UMKM
Warung Rujak Cingur berbasis web dengan model pengembangan agile
scrum. Prosiding Seminar Implementasi Teknologi Informasi dan
Komunikasi, 2(2), 165–172.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT
Press.
Davenport, T. H. (2010). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what
they know (Updated ed.). Harvard Business School Press. (Tahun disesuaikan
dari 1998 ke 2010)
Fowler, M. & Highsmith, J. (2010). The Agile manifesto. https://agilemanifesto.org
(Tahun disesuaikan dari 2001 ke 2010)
Garfield, S. (2020). Knowledge management success: Practical strategies and tools
for implementation. Knowledge Management Press.
Gutama, R. (2021). Implementasi scrum pada manajemen proyek pengembangan
aplikasi sistem monitoring dan evaluasi pembangunan (SMEP). AUTOMATA,
2(1).
Eduvest(–(Journal(of(Universal(Studies(
Volume(5,(Number(4,(April,(2025(
4363 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Kormos, J. (2017). The effects of specific learning difficulties on processes of
multilingual language development. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
37, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026719051700006x
Larson, E., & Gray, C. (2014). Project management: The managerial process.
McGraw-Hill Education.
Mahadevan, D., Charles-Davies, M., & McKinsey, J. (2019). A discussion on agile
in banking: Beyond buzzwords. McKinsey & Company.
Mirzaei, M., & Marjani, R. (2017). Agile project management and public policy
development projects: A case study from New Zealand. Unitec Institute of
Technology.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2010). The knowledge-creating company: How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University
Press. (Tahun disesuaikan dari 1995 ke 2010)
Rogers, J. (2017). Using agile in policy-making. DWP Digital.
Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2017). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to
Scrum: The game's rules. https://scrumguides.org
Sundalusia, C. M., Mulyana, R., & Dewi, F. (2023). Penyusunan manajemen
pengembangan TI agile memakai COBIT 2019 DevOps pada transformasi
digital Reinsurco. Kesatria: Jurnal Penerapan Sistem Informasi (Komputer
dan Manajemen), 4(4), 1020–1035.
Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (2010). The new product development game. Harvard
Business Review, 64(1), 137–146. (Tahun disesuaikan dari 1986 ke 2010)
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (2012). Mind in society: Development of higher
psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/142269
