Knowledge Management Codes
The Yerra Global KM Expert Group knowledge management codes, the only UTBMS set designed for internal use, doubling as a KM maturity framework with test questions per task.
The knowledge management code set is the only UTBMS standard designed primarily for internal use: it tracks how a law department creates, develops, and leverages knowledge, and doubles as a maturity framework for building a KM strategy.
Unlike every other set, its main audience is not an invoice reviewer but a law department, firm, or provider measuring its own knowledge work. Each task carries a test question from the standard that turns the code into a self-assessment prompt, and phase-level codes are billable on their own when the sub-task breakdown is not needed. Every code is searchable alongside all sets at the UTBMS code database.
Because the value here is internal visibility rather than vendor-invoice recovery, this set connects to a legal spend management program differently: it measures where knowledge investment goes and whether it compounds, which is a leading indicator of the efficiency the rest of a spend program tries to produce.
What are knowledge management codes used for?
Knowledge management codes classify how an organization builds and reuses knowledge, across phases from assessing the current state through creating, maintaining, and leveraging knowledge assets. Because the set doubles as a maturity framework, coding KM work is also a way of scoring a KM program.
The signals here are about compounding rather than cost. Since KM coding is mostly internal, the recurring question is whether investment produces reusable assets that make later work cheaper, which the test questions on each task are designed to surface.
What should review know about the KM codes?
Because KM coding is mostly internal, the review questions differ from vendor-invoice review: the value is visibility into where KM investment actually goes. The one external-billing scenario worth watching is provider-delivered KM services coded here, where phase-level coding alone (KM100 rather than its sub-tasks) reduces the visibility the set exists to provide. The standard's own test questions are the natural audit instrument: coded time should correspond to answerable progress on them.
What does each knowledge management code cover?
The phase-level code is billable on its own when the sub-task breakdown is not needed.
When to use this code: Assessing existing knowledge, expertise, processes, technology, and culture; KM100 itself is usable when the sub-task breakdown is not needed.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Assessments rebuilt from scratch each cycle rather than maintained against prior findings.
What invoice review checks: Declining assessment cost across cycles on a maintained knowledge base.
KM110: Identify and Evaluate Explicit KnowledgeYerra KM (2014)
Identifying and evaluating formalized knowledge in internal and external databases, systems, and platforms.
Test question from the standard: Can we describe where relevant knowledge is located, internally and externally, and can our people rely on its quality?
KM120: Identify and Evaluate Tacit Knowledge and ExpertiseYerra KM (2014)
Identifying and evaluating unformalized knowledge, skills, and expertise inside and outside the organization.
Test question from the standard: Can we describe who has what skills and expertise, and do we have the right ones?
KM130: Identify and Evaluate Processes Enabling Knowledge and Expertise to FlowYerra KM (2014)
Identifying and evaluating processes for collecting, retrieving, reusing, sharing, and transferring knowledge, and the organization's ability to collaborate.
Test question from the standard: Are processes in place to access, transform, and exchange knowledge, and how efficient are they?
KM140: Identify and Evaluate Technology Supporting ProcessesYerra KM (2014)
Identifying and evaluating the systems and interfaces enabling knowledge development and leverage.
Test question from the standard: Do systems effectively support the processes, and is the landscape simple, integrated, and sustainable?
KM150: Identify and Evaluate CultureYerra KM (2014)
Identifying and evaluating the cultural environment for knowledge development and mobilization.
Test question from the standard: Does the culture promote sharing or hiding, and is expertise recognized?
KM160: Benchmark Internally and ExternallyYerra KM (2014)
Mapping evaluation results against business objectives and benchmarking against peers.
Test question from the standard: Do KM activities support business objectives, and what is our maturity versus peers?
The phase-level code is billable on its own when the sub-task breakdown is not needed.
When to use this code: Defining the KM vision, gap analysis, and strategies for knowledge, process, technology, culture, and change management.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Strategy phases producing documents without the decision artifacts (gap analysis, KPIs) the later phases depend on.
What invoice review checks: Each KM200 deliverable traceable into a KM300 implementation workstream.
KM210: Formulate VisionYerra KM (2014)
Developing the future-state KM vision.
Test question from the standard: Is the vision aligned with business objectives on quality, risk, and productivity?
KM220: Perform Gap AnalysisYerra KM (2014)
Identifying missing knowledge sources, processes, systems, and cultural elements.
Test question from the standard: Do we know what is missing between current and target state?
KM230: Develop Knowledge and Expertise StrategyYerra KM (2014)
Defining the strategy to improve available knowledge and expertise.
Test question from the standard: What must we do to have the right knowledge and expertise available and leveraged?
KM240: Develop Process StrategyYerra KM (2014)
Defining the process strategy for access, retrieval, sharing, and leverage.
Test question from the standard: What processes enable development, validation, and efficient reuse?
KM250: Develop Technology StrategyYerra KM (2014)
Defining the technology strategy for systems, simplification, and interfaces.
Test question from the standard: What systems support KM, and how do we keep the landscape simple and connected?
KM260: Develop Culture StrategyYerra KM (2014)
Defining the strategy to remove cultural barriers and incentivize sharing.
Test question from the standard: How do we change culture to facilitate knowledge mobilization?
KM270: Develop Change Management StrategyYerra KM (2014)
Defining the change management strategy for systems, process, and cultural change.
Test question from the standard: How do we manage the change our KM strategy requires?
The phase-level code is billable on its own when the sub-task breakdown is not needed.
When to use this code: Executing the five strategies: stakeholder validation, project plans, communication, KPIs, and delivery.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Implementation time without the KPI definitions KM310 through KM350 each require.
What invoice review checks: Implementation spend per strategy stream against the KPIs defined at its start.
KM310: Implement Knowledge and Expertise StrategyYerra KM (2014)
Executing the knowledge and expertise strategy through validated plans, communication, and KPIs.
Test question from the standard: Have we delivered the strategy, including content lifecycle structures for findability?
KM320: Implement Process StrategyYerra KM (2014)
Executing the process strategy.
Test question from the standard: Are collection, classification, validation, and reuse processes delivered?
KM330: Implement Technology StrategyYerra KM (2014)
Executing the technology strategy.
Test question from the standard: Are the right systems in place, simplified, usable, and connected?
KM340: Implement Culture StrategyYerra KM (2014)
Executing the culture strategy.
Test question from the standard: Has the culture change to facilitate and incentivize sharing been delivered?
KM350: Implement Change Management StrategyYerra KM (2014)
Executing the change management strategy.
Test question from the standard: Has the organizational change been managed?
When to use this code: Metrics and analytics on benefits from the new knowledge, process, technology, and culture state.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Measurement defined once and never revisited as results arrive.
What invoice review checks: KM430 reporting feeding changes to KM410 definitions, closing the loop the standard designs for.
KM410: DefineYerra KM (2014)
Defining what to measure, how, and how often across knowledge, processes, technology, and culture.
Test question from the standard: How much knowledge is contributed and reused, and how do we measure effectively?
KM420: MeasureYerra KM (2014)
Carrying out the defined measurements.
Test question from the standard: Have we achieved the measurements we defined?
KM430: ReportYerra KM (2014)
Reviewing and reporting measurement results.
Test question from the standard: Are reports useful, and do results suggest different measurements?
The phase-level code is billable on its own when the sub-task breakdown is not needed.
When to use this code: Maintaining enhanced knowledge, expertise, processes, technology, and culture against the vision.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Maintenance work drifting back into full reassessment, which belongs in a new KM100 cycle.
What invoice review checks: Steady-state maintenance cost as the baseline that makes KM investment cycles measurable.
KM510: Maintain/Retain/Update KnowledgeYerra KM (2014)
Reviewing, refreshing, retaining, and archiving knowledge; capturing know-how from current matters.
Test question from the standard: Are we reviewing at quality-appropriate frequencies, filling gaps, and retaining knowledge through after-action reviews and exit interviews?
KM520: Maintain/Retain/Update ExpertiseYerra KM (2014)
Maintaining and renewing expertise through training, mentoring, and succession planning.
Test question from the standard: Do structured training, mentoring, and succession programs retain the expertise we need?
KM530: Maintain/Update Process EfficiencyYerra KM (2014)
Reviewing and maintaining KM processes.
Test question from the standard: Are processes still valid, and can they be simplified?
KM540: Maintain/Support/Update TechnologyYerra KM (2014)
Reviewing and maintaining KM systems and infrastructure.
Test question from the standard: Are systems current, secure, aligned with IT strategy, and used?
KM550: Maintain CultureYerra KM (2014)
Sustaining a knowledge-sharing culture through incentives, recognition, and reward.
Test question from the standard: Are we maintaining a culture that encourages knowledge mobilization?
How should legal departments use knowledge management codes in invoice review?
KM review is a visibility-and-maturity exercise more than a cost-recovery one. Use the test questions on each task to assess whether knowledge work is building reusable assets, watch for assessment work rebuilt from scratch each cycle rather than maintained, and read KM investment as a leading indicator of future efficiency.
Tracking KM as a maturity framework depends on the systems that capture it, which is where legal technology implementation matters: coding internal knowledge work and mapping it to the maturity model lets a department see whether its KM investment is actually compounding.
How do Knowledge Management Codes support legal spend management?
Knowledge Management Codes only deliver value inside a program that enforces them. Our legal spend management and enterprise legal management hubs cover how coded invoices become spend control, and our guides to building a legal spend management program, spend analytics versus reporting, and reducing legal spend without sacrificing quality go deeper on the review programs, guidelines, and eBilling rules that put UTBMS coding to work.
Bottom Line
The KM set is the outlier in UTBMS: built for internal measurement, not invoice review, and doubling as a maturity framework. Its test questions turn each code into a self-assessment prompt, and its phase-level billing supports lighter-touch tracking. For a legal department, it measures whether knowledge investment compounds into cheaper future work.
Coded and scored against its own test questions, KM work becomes a measurable maturity program rather than an invisible cost.
Frequently asked questions
What are UTBMS knowledge management codes used for?
They track how a law department, firm, or provider creates, develops, and leverages knowledge. Uniquely among UTBMS sets, they are designed primarily for internal use and double as a maturity framework for building and measuring a knowledge management strategy.
What are the test questions on each KM code?
Each task carries a test question from the standard that turns the code into a self-assessment prompt. Instead of only classifying work, the question asks whether the organization can actually do the thing the code describes, which is what makes the set a maturity framework.
How is the KM set different from other UTBMS sets?
Its main audience is internal, not an invoice reviewer, so it measures a program rather than a vendor bill. Phase-level codes are billable on their own when the sub-task breakdown is not needed, and each task carries a maturity test question no other set includes.
How should KM codes be used?
Use the test questions to assess whether knowledge work builds reusable assets, watch for assessments rebuilt from scratch each cycle, and read KM investment as a leading indicator of future efficiency. Each code below carries its test question and what review checks.
How do UTBMS codes relate to outside counsel billing guidelines and legal spend management?
UTBMS codes are the shared vocabulary that outside counsel billing guidelines and a legal spend management program depend on. Guidelines define what each code should and should not contain, the eBilling system enforces those rules, and consistent coding is what makes spend analytics and cross-firm benchmarking possible. Without agreed codes, guidelines cannot be enforced and spend data cannot be compared.
About this reference
UTBMS code sets are standards published by their respective bodies, including the ABA, the LEDES Oversight Committee, UTBMS.com, the CBA, DRI, the Judiciaries of England and Wales, and the Yerra Global KM Expert Group. All copyrights and trademarks are the property of their respective owners; Swiftwater & Company is not affiliated with or endorsed by any of them.
Code identifiers follow the published standards, while all descriptions and annotations are original Swiftwater commentary, developed with human expertise, proprietary consulting knowledge, and AI assistance.
This is general reference material, not legal advice. Standards are revised over time, so confirm the current version with the originating body before implementing.
Next Step
Ready to talk to a legal operations practitioner who has actually done it?
Start with the free CURRENT Assessment to benchmark your spend program, or use legaltechcalculator.com to build the cost case for the eBilling rules that enforce these codes.
Book a Discovery CallNo commitment and no pitch deck, just a direct conversation with a legal operations practitioner.