Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Management Success:
Kristin Klinger
Julia Mosemann
Lindsay Johnston
Christine Bufton
Milan Vracarich
Michael Brehm
Jamie Snavely
Lisa Tosheff
List of Reviewers
Rodrigo Baroni de Carvalho, FUMEC University, Brazil
Vittal S. Anantatmula, Western Carolina University, USA
Kerstin Fink, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Hannu Kivijrvi, Helsinki School of Economics, Finland
P. Lpez Sez, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Shahnawaz Muhammed, Fayetteville State University, USA
Alexander Orth, Accenture, Germany
Vincent M. Ribire, Bangkok University, Thailand
Silke Wei, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Suzanne Zyngier, LaTrobe University, Australia
Thomas Menkhoff, Singapore Management University, Singapore
Table of Contents
Section 2
KM Measurements
Chapter 6
Process Model for Knowledge Potential Measurement in SMEs ......................................................... 91
Kerstin Fink, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Chapter 7
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge
Management Success .......................................................................................................................... 106
Shahnawaz Muhammed, American University of Middle East, Kuwait
William J. Doll, University of Toledo, USA
Xiaodong Deng, Oakland University, USA
Chapter 8
Validating Distinct Knowledge Assets: A Capability Perspective ...................................................... 128
Ron Freeze, Emporia State University, USA
Uday Kulkarni, Arizona State University, USA
Chapter 9
Assessing Knowledge Management: Refining and Cross-Validating the Knowledge
Management Index (KMI) using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Techniques ......................... 150
Derek Ajesam Asoh, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA
& National Polytechnic, University of Yaounde, Cameroon
Salvatore Belardo, University at Albany, USA
Jakov (Yasha) Crnkovic, University at Albany, USA
Chapter 10
A Relational Based-View of Intellectual Capital in High-Tech Firms................................................ 179
G. Martn De Castro, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
P. Lpez Sez, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
J.E. Navas Lpez, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
M. Delgado-Verde, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Section 3
KM Strategies in Practice
Chapter 11
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization
KM Approaches .................................................................................................................................. 192
Vincent M. Ribire, Bangkok University, Thailand
Chapter 12
Advancing the Success of Collaboration Centered KM Strategy ...................................................... 213
Johanna Bragge, Aalto University School of Economics, Finland
Hannu Kivijrvi, Aalto University School of Economics, Finland
Chapter 13
The Relevance of Integration for Knowledge Management Success:
Towards Conceptual and Empirical Evidence .................................................................................... 238
Alexander Orth, Accenture, Germany
Stefan Smolnik, EBS University of Business and Law, Germany
Murray Jennex, San Diego State University, USA
Chapter 14
Strategies for Successful Implementation of KM in a University Setting .......................................... 262
Vittal S. Anantatmula, Western Carolina University, USA
Shivraj Kanungo, George Washington University, USA
Chapter 15
DYONIPOS: Proactive Knowledge Supply ....................................................................................... 277
Silke Wei, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Josef Makolm, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Doris Ipsmiller, m2n development and consulting gmbh, Austria
Natalie Egger, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 288
About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 317
Index ................................................................................................................................................... 325
This chapter describes a knowledge management, KM, Success Model that is derived from observations generated through a longitudinal study of KM in an engineering organization, KM success factors
found in the literature, and modified by the application of these observations and success factors in
various projects. The DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) IS Success Model was used as a framework
for the model as it was found to fit the observed success criteria and it provided an accepted theoretical
basis for the proposed model.
Chapter 3
Market Knowledge Management, Innovation and Product Performance: Survey in Medium
and Large Brazilian Industrial Firms .................................................................................................... 32
Cid Gonalves Filho, FUMEC University, Brazil
Rodrigo Baroni de Carvalho, FUMEC University, Brazil
George Leal Jamil, FUMEC University, Brazil
In a business environment characterized by a high level of competitiveness, the impact of new products
on an organizations revenue is an important factor. This research was developed with the objective
of examining empirically the relationships between market knowledge management, innovation and
the performance of new products in the market. This chapter analyzes KM (Knowledge Management)
success trough a market-oriented perspective because, at the end of the day, KM success must lead to
better organizational performance. The research model was generated by the combination of market
knowledge models and KM success and maturity models. By means of a survey, based on 387 medium
and large industrial firms, and the use of structural equation modeling, the supremacy of the competitor
knowledge management process over other constructs was verified, as the most important antecedent
of new product performance in the market. The results also revealed that innovation was strongly impacted from technology knowledge management and customer knowledge management.
Chapter 4
Does KM Governance = KM Success? Insights from a Global KM Survey........................................ 51
Suzanne Zyngier, LaTrobe University, Australia
This chapter examines factors that contribute to KM success by differentiating between KM leadership through management and through governance. We look at governance as a structural mechanism
that both embeds KM into organizational activity, and lifts it from a series of initiatives to a structured
program of activities that are subject to authority, policy, risk management, financial fiduciary duty, and
evaluation. Using evidence from 214 respondents to a global internet based KM survey; we find that
having a recognized and defined authority for KM that is well-resourced leads to strategically aligned
benefits realized from investment in KM. We demonstrate that governance through assigned authority
strongly contributes to strategic KM success.
Chapter 5
An Evaluation of Factors that Influence the Success of Knowledge Management Practices
in US Federal Agencies ........................................................................................................................ 74
Elsa Rhoads, The George Washington University, Institute of Knowledge & Innovation, USA
Kevin J. OSullivan, New York Institute of Technology, USA
Michael Stankosky, The George Washington University, USA
This research chapter investigates the status of knowledge management practices implemented across
federal agencies of the U.S. government. It analyzes the extent to which this status is influenced by the
size of the agency, whether or not the agency type is a Cabinet-level Department or Independent Agency, the longevity of KM Practices implemented in the agency, whether or not the agency has adopted a
written KM policy or strategy, and whether the primary responsibility for KM Practices in the agency
is directed by a CKO or KM unit versus other functional locations in the agency. The research also
tests for possible KM practitioner bias, since the survey was directed to members of the Knowledge
Management Working Group of the Federal CIO Council who are KM practitioners in federal agencies.
Section 2
KM Measurements
Chapter 6
Process Model for Knowledge Potential Measurement in SMEs ......................................................... 91
Kerstin Fink, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Knowledge measurement is developing into a new research field in the area of knowledge management.
To ensure that a company is successful, business, technology, and human elements must be integrated
and balanced into a knowledge measurement system. The introduction of a knowledge audit with the
objective to uncovering the tacit knowledge in an organization and of identifying the existing management practices is needed. This chapter uses the quantum mechanical thinking as a reference model for
the development of a knowledge potential measurement system. This system is influenced by three
measurement components: (1) Person-dependent variables, (2) System-dependent variables and (3)
knowledge velocity. Based on several case studies conducted in small and medium-sized enterprises,
a process model for the implementation of the knowledge potential framework is discussed and introduced. Future research and limitations of the model are discussed in the final part.
Chapter 7
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge
Management Success .......................................................................................................................... 106
Shahnawaz Muhammed, American University of Middle East, Kuwait
William J. Doll, University of Toledo, USA
Xiaodong Deng, Oakland University, USA
Success of organizational level knowledge management initiatives depends on how effectively individuals implementing these initiatives use their knowledge to bring about outcomes that add value
in their work. To facilitate assessment of individual level outcomes in the knowledge management
context, this research provides a model of interrelationships among individual level knowledge management success measures which include conceptual knowledge, contextual knowledge, operational
knowledge, innovation, and performance. The model was tested using structural equation modeling
based on data collected from managerial and professional knowledge workers. The results suggest
that conceptual knowledge enhances operational and contextual knowledge. Contextual knowledge
improves operational knowledge and is also a key predictor of innovations. The innovativeness of an
individuals work along with operational knowledge enhances work performance. The results support
the proposed model. This model can potentially be used for measuring knowledge management success
at the individual level.
Chapter 8
Validating Distinct Knowledge Assets: A Capability Perspective ...................................................... 128
Ron Freeze, Emporia State University, USA
Uday Kulkarni, Arizona State University, USA
Identification and measurement of organizational Knowledge Management capabilities is necessary to
determine the extent to which an organization utilizes its knowledge assets. We developed and operationalized a set of constructs to measure capabilities associated with management of knowledge assets
identified as distinct Knowledge Capabilities (KCs) comprising the overall Knowledge Management
(KM) capability of an organizational unit. Each KC represents a distinct kind of knowledge that requires different organizational process and technological support. This delineation of knowledge allows targeted improvement to a specific KC. We present validation of these capability constructs with
empirical evidence from two separate business units in a large semi-conductor manufacturing company,
providing the basis of measurement standardization for KM Capability improvement. Confirmatory
factor analysis affirmed four KCs, each identified as an overall factor influencing a set of latent descriptor variables. Second Order and General-Specific Structural Equation Models of each capability provide evidence as to the validity of measurement of these knowledge assets. A standardized instrument
for measuring knowledge capabilities would not only allow benchmarking, but also allow tracking
capabilities over time and linking them to those performance metrics that are deemed appropriate by
the organization.
Chapter 9
Assessing Knowledge Management: Refining and Cross-Validating the Knowledge
Management Index (KMI) using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Techniques ......................... 150
Derek Ajesam Asoh, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA
& National Polytechnic, University of Yaounde, Cameroon
Salvatore Belardo, University at Albany, USA
Jakov (Yasha) Crnkovic, University at Albany, USA
With growing interest in KM-related assessments and calls for rigorous assessment tools, the objective of this study was to apply SEM techniques to refine and cross-validate the KMI, a metric to assess
the degree to which organizations are engaged in knowledge management (KM). Unlike previous KM
metrics research that has focused on scales, we modeled the KMI as a formative latent variable, thereby
extending knowledge on formative measures and index creation from other fields into the KM field.
The refined KMI metric was tested in a nomological network and found to be robust and stable when
cross-validated; thereby demonstrating consistent prediction results across independent data sets. The
study also verified the hypothesis that the KMI is positively correlated with organizational performance
(OP). Research contributions, managerial implications, limitations of the study, and direction for further research are discussed.
Chapter 10
A Relational Based-View of Intellectual Capital in High-Tech Firms................................................ 179
G. Martn De Castro, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
P. Lpez Sez, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
J.E. Navas Lpez, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
M. Delgado-Verde, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
The Resource-Based Theory (RBT) has tried to test the role of strategic resources on sustained competitive advantage and superior performance. Although this theory has found several flaws in order to
reach its objective effectively (Priem & Butler, 2001; Foss & Knudsen), recent proposals have suggested that these problems can be overcome (Peteraf & Barney, 2003). This solution requires paying a
greater attention to the analysis of knowledge stocks, developing a mid-range theory: the Intellectual
Capital-Based View (Reed, Lubatkin & Srinivasan, 2006). This mid-range and pragmatic theory allows
the hypotheses development and empirical testing in a more effective way than the Resource Based
View (RBV). There is a certain degree of general agreement about the presence of human capital and
organizational capital as the main components of intellectual capital, as well as about the fact that the
configuration of knowledge stocks will vary from one industry and firm to another one. Taking these
assumptions as a starting point, this chapter explores the configuration of intellectual capital that can
be empirically found on a sample of high-technology firms. Our findings highlight the importance of
relational capital, which must be divided in business and alliance capital, so the strategic alliances play
a relevance role in the type of firms that have been included in our research.
Section 3
KM Strategies in Practice
Chapter 11
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization
KM Approaches .................................................................................................................................. 192
Vincent M. Ribire, Bangkok University, Thailand
Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives are expanding across all types of organizations worldwide.
However, not all of them are necessarily successful mainly due to an unfriendly organizational culture.
Organizational trust is often mentioned as a critical factor facilitating knowledge sharing. For this
research we took an empirical approach to validate this assumption. The purpose of this research is
to explore the relationships between organizational trust, a knowledge management strategy (codification vs. personalization) and its level of success. This study was conducted among 97 US companies
involved in knowledge management. A survey tool was developed and validated to assess the level
of trust, the level of success and the dominant KM strategy deployed by an organization. Six main
research hypotheses and a conceptual model were tested. The findings show the impact of trust on the
choice of the KM strategy as well as on the level of success.
Chapter 12
Advancing the Success of Collaboration Centered KM Strategy ...................................................... 213
Johanna Bragge, Aalto University School of Economics, Finland
Hannu Kivijrvi, Aalto University School of Economics, Finland
Knowledge is today more than ever the most critical resource of organizations. At the same time it is,
however, also the least-accessible resource that is difficult to share, imitate, buy, sell, store, or evaluate.
Organizations should thus have an explicit strategy for the management of their knowledge resources.
In this chapter we pay special attention to a KM strategy called collaboration centered strategy. This
strategy builds on the assumption that a significant part of personal knowledge can be captured and
transferred, and new knowledge created through deep collaboration between the organizations members. A critical element in the collaboration centered KM strategy is the facilitation process that involves managing relationships between people, tasks and technology. We describe how the Collaboration Engineering approach with packaged facilitation techniques called ThinkLets is able to contribute
to this endeavour.
Chapter 13
The Relevance of Integration for Knowledge Management Success:
Towards Conceptual and Empirical Evidence .................................................................................... 238
Alexander Orth, Accenture, Germany
Stefan Smolnik, EBS University of Business and Law, Germany
Murray Jennex, San Diego State University, USA
Many organizations pursue knowledge management (KM) initiatives, with different degrees of success.
One key aspect of KM often neglected in practice is following an integrated and holistic approach.
Complementary, KM researchers have increasingly focused on factors that determine KM success and
examined whether the metrics used to measure KM initiatives are reasonable. In this chapter, the importance of integration issues for successful KM is analyzed by means of a case study of a KM initiative
at an international consulting company. The investigations demonstrate the importance of an integrated
KM approach an integrated view of KM strategy, KM processes, KM technology, and company culture to ensure KM success.
Chapter 14
Strategies for Successful Implementation of KM in a University Setting .......................................... 262
Vittal S. Anantatmula, Western Carolina University, USA
Shivraj Kanungo, George Washington University, USA
Research has identified enabling factors and inhibitors for implementing knowledge management successfully and to accomplish its strategic objectives. However, it is important to understand how these
factors interact with each other to improve or inhibit the performance. With this in mind, this chapter
presents a model, based on a research study, to determine underlying relations among these factors and
develop strategies implementing KM initiatives.
Chapter 15
DYONIPOS: Proactive Knowledge Supply ....................................................................................... 277
Silke Wei, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Josef Makolm, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Doris Ipsmiller, m2n development and consulting gmbh, Austria
Natalie Egger, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Traditional knowledge management is often combined with extra work to recollect information which
is already electronically available. Another obstacle to overcome is to make the content of the collected
information easily accessible to enquiries, as conventional searching tools provide only documents and
not the content meaning. They are often based on the search for character strings, usually resulting in
many unnecessary hits and no or less context information. The research project DYONIPOS focuses
on detecting the knowledge needs of knowledge users and automatically providing the required knowledge just in time, while avoiding additional work and violations of the knowledge workers privacy,
proposing a new way of support. This knowledge is made available through semantic linkage of the
relevant information out of existing artifacts. In addition DYONIPOS creates an individual and an organizational knowledge base just in time.
Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 288
About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 317
Index ................................................................................................................................................... 325
xiv
Preface
Organizations use KM (Knowledge Management), because it makes sense. KM, when done successfully,
has an impact on the organization and its members. How do organizations define and measure success or
its impact on the organization? Also, while knowing that KM improves an organization may be enough
to encourage organizations to pursue a KM initiative, many organizations still need to quantitatively
justify an investment in KM. Calculating Return on Investment (ROI), is a popular approach, but how
is this done? There are some commonly accepted first steps:
Easily stated but not easily done and the resulting financial numbers are often questionable. Do the
numbers present the full story for KM? Many think they do not, and that stories and anecdotes about
KM need to be included to make KM real to management (Moore, 2008). However, is this enough
measurement for an organization?
This book is about how to implement successful KM initiatives. What is required for KM to be successful? Jennex and Olfman (2005) summarized and synthesized the literature on KM/KMSs critical
success factors (CSF) into an ordered set of twelve KM CSFs identified from 17 studies of more than
200 KM projects. These CSFs were thereafter sequentially ordered according to the number of studies
identifying them:
A knowledge strategy that identifies users, sources, processes, storage strategy, knowledge, and
links to knowledge for the KMS;
Motivation and commitment of users, including incentives and training;
Integrated technical infrastructure, including networks, databases/repositories, computers, software,
and KMS experts;
An organizational culture and structure that supports learning and the sharing and use of knowledge;
A common enterprise-wide knowledge structure that is clearly articulated and easily understood;
Senior management support, including allocation of resources, leadership, and training;
Learning organization;
The KMS has a clear goal and purpose;
Measures are established to assess the impacts of the KMS and the use of knowledge, as well as
verification that the right knowledge is being captured;
xv
The search, retrieval, and visualization functions of the KMS support facilitated use of knowledge;
Work processes are designed that incorporate knowledge capture and use; and
Knowledge is secured/protected.
While the above CSFs are useful for determining if the antecedents for KM success exist in an
organization, they do not state what success is or how to assess it. This book attempts to answer these
questions. Three sections are provided: Section 1 discusses KM success. It defines what KM success
is, provides a model of KM success, and discusses KM success in a variety of contexts. Section 2 addresses the issue of measuring KM. It is proposed that organizations cannot manage what they cannot
measure. This section provides a variety of studies that provide KM measures based on various theoretical perspectives. Finally, knowing how to define KM success and how to measure KM is important, but
without a strategy for implementing the KM initiative the organization is not likely to succeed. Section
3 presents several KM strategies as implemented in a variety of contexts. The following paragraphs
provide further description of the chapters.
xvi
means of a survey, based on 387 medium and large industrial firms, and the use of structural equation
modeling, the supremacy of the competitor knowledge management process over other constructs
was verified, as the most important antecedent of new product performance in the market. The results
also revealed that innovation was strongly impacted from technology knowledge management and
customer knowledge management.
Chapter 4: Does KM Governance = KM Success? Insights from a Global KM Survey by Suzanne
Zyngier, examines factors that contribute to KM success by differentiating between KM leadership
through management and through governance. We look at governance as a structural mechanism that
both embeds KM into organizational activity, and lifts it from a series of initiatives to a structured program of activities that are subject to authority, policy, risk management, financial fiduciary duty, and
evaluation. Using evidence from 214 respondents to a global internet based KM survey; we find that
having a recognized and defined authority for KM that is well-resourced leads to strategically aligned
benefits realized from investment in KM. We demonstrate that governance through assigned authority
strongly contributes to strategic KM success.
Chapter 5: An Evaluation of Factors that Influence the Success of Knowledge Management Practices in US Federal Agencies, by Elsa Rhoads, Kevin J. OSullivan, Michael Stankosky, investigates
the status of knowledge management practices implemented across federal agencies of the U.S. government. It analyzes the extent to which this status is influenced by the size of the agency, whether
or not the agency type is a Cabinet-level Department or Independent Agency, the longevity of KM
Practices implemented in the agency, whether or not the agency has adopted a written KM policy or
strategy, and whether the primary responsibility for KM Practices in the agency is directed by a CKO
or KM unit versus other functional locations in the agency. The research also tests for possible KM
practitioner bias, since the survey was directed to members of the Knowledge Management Working
Group of the Federal CIO Council who are KM practitioners in federal agencies.
Section 2: KM MeaSureMentS
Chapter 6: Process Model for Knowledge Potential Measurement in SMEs by Kerstin Fink, shows that
knowledge measurement is developing into a new research field in the area of knowledge management.
To ensure that a company is successful, business, technology, and human elements must be integrated
and balanced into a knowledge measurement system. The introduction of a knowledge audit with the
objective to uncovering the tacit knowledge in an organization and of identifying the existing management practices is needed. This chapter uses the quantum mechanical thinking as a reference model for
the development of a knowledge potential measurement system. This system is influenced by three
measurement components: (1) Person-dependent variables, (2) System-dependent variables and (3)
knowledge velocity. Based on several case studies conducted in small and medium-sized enterprises, a
process model for the implementation of the knowledge potential framework is discussed and introduced.
Future research and limitations of the model are discussed in the final part.
Chapter 7: Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success by Shahnawaz Muhammed, William J. Doll, Xiaodong Deng, Show how success
of organizational level knowledge management initiatives depends on how effectively individuals
implementing these initiatives use their knowledge to bring about outcomes that add value in their
work. To facilitate assessment of individual level outcomes in the knowledge management context,
xvii
this research provides a model of interrelationships among individual level knowledge management success measures which include conceptual knowledge, contextual knowledge, operational
knowledge, innovation, and performance. The model was tested using structural equation modeling
based on data collected from managerial and professional knowledge workers. The results suggest
that conceptual knowledge enhances operational and contextual knowledge. Contextual knowledge
improves operational knowledge and is also a key predictor of innovations. The innovativeness of an
individuals work along with operational knowledge enhances work performance. The results support the proposed model. This model can potentially be used for measuring knowledge management
success at the individual level.
Chapter 8: Validating Distinct Knowledge Assets: A Capability Perspective, by Ron Freeze, Uday
Kulkarni, explain how identification and measurement of organizational Knowledge Management capabilities is necessary to determine the extent to which an organization utilizes its knowledge assets.
We developed and operationalized a set of constructs to measure capabilities associated with management of knowledge assets identified as distinct Knowledge Capabilities (KCs) comprising the overall
Knowledge Management (KM) capability of an organizational unit. Each KC represents a distinct kind
of knowledge that requires different organizational process and technological support. This delineation
of knowledge allows targeted improvement to a specific KC. We present validation of these capability
constructs with empirical evidence from two separate business units in a large semi-conductor manufacturing company, providing the basis of measurement standardization for KM Capability improvement.
Confirmatory factor analysis affirmed four KCs, each identified as an overall factor influencing a set
of latent descriptor variables. Second Order and General-Specific Structural Equation Models of each
capability provide evidence as to the validity of measurement of these knowledge assets. A standardized instrument for measuring knowledge capabilities would not only allow benchmarking, but also
allow tracking capabilities over time and linking them to those performance metrics that are deemed
appropriate by the organization.
Chapter 9: Assessing Knowledge Management: Refining and Cross-Validating the Knowledge
Management Index (KMI) using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Techniques, by Derek Ajesam
Asoh, Salvatore Belardo, Jakov (Yasha) Crnkovic, show how with growing interest in KM-related
assessments and calls for rigorous assessment tools, the objective of this study was to apply SEM
techniques to refine and cross-validate the KMI, a metric to assess the degree to which organizations
are engaged in knowledge management (KM). Unlike previous KM metrics research that has focused
on scales, we modeled the KMI as a formative latent variable, thereby extending knowledge on formative measures and index creation from other fields into the KM field.
The refined KMI metric was tested in a nomological network and found to be robust and stable when
cross-validated; thereby demonstrating consistent prediction results across independent data sets. The
study also verified the hypothesis that the KMI is positively correlated with organizational performance
(OP). Research contributions, managerial implications, limitations of the study, and direction for further
research are discussed.
Chapter 10: A Relational Based-View of Intellectual Capital in High-Tech Firms by G. Martn De
Castro, P. Lpez Sez, J.E. Navas Lpez, M. Delgado-Verde. The Resource-Based Theory (RBT) has
tried to test the role of strategic resources on sustained competitive advantage and superior performance.
Although this theory has found several flaws in order to reach its objective effectively (Priem & Butler,
2001; Foss & Knudsen), recent proposals have suggested that these problems can be overcome (Peteraf
& Barney, 2003). This solution requires paying a greater attention to the analysis of knowledge stocks,
xviii
developing a mid-range theory: the Intellectual Capital-Based View (Reed, Lubatkin & Srinivasan, 2006).
This mid-range and pragmatic theory allows the hypotheses development and empirical testing in a more
effective way than the Resource Based View (RBV). There is a certain degree of general agreement about
the presence of human capital and organizational capital as the main components of intellectual capital,
as well as about the fact that the configuration of knowledge stocks will vary from one industry and
firm to another one. Taking these assumptions as a starting point, this paper explores the configuration
of intellectual capital that can be empirically found on a sample of high-technology firms. Our findings
highlight the importance of relational capital, which must be divided in business and alliance capital, so
the strategic alliances play a relevance role in the type of firms that have been included in our research.
xix
referenceS
Jennex, M.E., & Olfman, L. (2005). Assessing Knowledge Management Success. International Journal
of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 33-49.
Moore, M. (2008). Justifying Your Knowledge Management Programme. White Paper retrieved on
March 30, 2009 from http://innotecture.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/justifying_your_km_prog3.pdf
Section 1
Knowledge Management
Success
Chapter 1
Towards a Consensus
Knowledge Management
Success Definition
Murray E. Jennex
San Diego State University, USA
Stefan Smolnik
EBS University of Business and Law, Germany
David T. Croasdell
University of Nevada, Reno, USA
abStract
This chapter explores knowledge management (KM), and knowledge management system (KMS), success. The inspiration for this chapter is the KM Success and Measurement minitracks held at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences in January of 2007 and 2008. KM and KMS success are
issues needing to be explored. The Knowledge Management Foundations workshop held at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39) in January 2006 discussed this issue and
reached agreement that it is important for the credibility of the KM discipline that we be able to define
KM success. Additionally, from the perspective of KM academics and practitioners, identifying the factors, constructs, and variables that define KM success is crucial to understanding how these initiatives
and systems should be designed and implemented. This chapter presents the results of a survey looking
at how KM practitioners, researchers, KM students, and others interested in KM view what constitutes
KM success. This chapter presents some background on KM success and then a series of perspectives
on KM/KMS success. These perspectives were derived by looking at responses to questions asking academics and practitioners how they defined KM/KMS success. The chapter concludes by presenting the
results of an exploratory survey on KM/KMS success beliefs and attitudes.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch001
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
bacKground on KM SucceSS
Jennex summarized various definitions of KM to
propose that KM success be defined as reusing
knowledge to improve organizational effectiveness by providing the appropriate knowledge
to those that need it when it is needed (Jennex,
2005). KM is expected to have a positive impact
on the organization that improves organizational
effectiveness. DeLone and McLean use the terms
success and effectiveness interchangeably and
one of the perspectives proposed in this chapter
does the same for KM (DeLone and McLean,
1992 and 2003).
Jennex and Olfman (2005) summarized and
synthesized the literature on KM/KMS critical
success factors, CSFs, into an ordered set of 12
KM CSFs. CSFs were ordered based on the number of studies identifying the CSF. The following
CSFs were identified from 17 studies looking at
78 KM projects:
Measures are established to assess the impacts of the KMS and the use of knowledge as well as verifying that the right
knowledge is being captured;
The search, retrieval, and visualization
functions of the KMS support easy knowledge use;
Work processes are designed that incorporate knowledge capture and use;
Security/protection of knowledge.
PerSPectiVeS on
KM/KMS SucceSS
The KM workshop at the 2006 HICSS-39 found
that there were several perspectives on KM
success. This section briefly summarizes these
perspectives.
MetHodologY
This chapter is exploratory research with the goal
of guiding the KM community towards a consensus
definition of KM success. The chapter builds on
the results of an exploratory and a confirmatory
survey (discussed below) reported in Jennex,
et al., (2007). These survey results included a
definition of KM success and identification of a
set of dimensions and measures. As part of the
confirmatory survey, respondents were asked
what dimensions/measures they would add or
delete from a list of those presented. This chapter
analyzes these comments by tallying them and
then putting them into context by comparing the
KM success definition dimensions and measures
to the Jennex Olfman (2006) KM Success Model.
The exploratory survey was generated through
an expert panel approach. The 30 members of the
editorial review board of the International Journal
of Knowledge Management, IJKM, were asked to
provide their definitions of KM success. Thirteen
responses were received. These responses were
used to generate an exploratory survey of KM
success, which used 5-point Likert scale items to
solicit agreement on various perspectives and proposed KM success definitions. The perspectives
were generated through an analysis of the expert
board responses that distinguished two groups.
The first grouping examined the measures used
to determine KM success. Three subgroups were
then observed: process-based measures, outcomebased measures, and a combination of process
and outcome based measures. The second grouping of responses provided two subgroups: those
that combined KM and KMS success measures
and those that viewed KM and KMS success as
separate measures. A final observation was that
many proposed definitions used success and effectiveness interchangeably.
The exploratory survey also collected data on
the KM expertise and focus of the respondents.
Furthermore, the survey offered text boxes that allowed for free form input of additional KM success
factors or measures, KM success definitions, and
thoughts on the differences between KM and KMS
success. The exploratory survey was administered
using a web form with data collected and stored
automatically. Survey respondents were solicited
via broadcast emails to the ISWorld and DSI email
list servers, to lists of KM researchers maintained
by the authors, and to the editorial review board
and list of authors for the International Journal
of Knowledge Management, IJKM. An initial
request was sent followed by a second request
approximately one week later.
One hundred and three usable survey responses
were received. Thirteen were from KM practitioners, 70 were from KM researchers, 6 were from
KM students, and 14 were from others including
academics interested in KM but not active KM
researchers. Likert items were analyzed using
means and standard deviations as no hypotheses
have been proposed and need testing.
The results of the exploratory survey were used
to generate a second survey. This survey presented
a composite definition of KM success and a set of
measures for each of the indicated dimensions. A
7-point Likert scale was used to solicit agreement
Table 1. Opinions on KM success perspectives, mean (std dev) (5-point Likert scale)
Definition
Overall
Research
Practice
Other
Student
Success = Effectiveness
3.1 (1.4)
3 (1.4)
3.3 (1.3)
3.2 (1.5)
3.7 (0.5)
KM = KMS Success
2.6 (1.5)
2.5 (1.4)
3.2 (1.6)
3.4 (1.5)
2.2 (1)
KM = KMS Measures
2.6 (1.4)
2.4 (1.4)
3.2 (1.6)
3 (1.4)
2.4 (0.9)
KM Success = Process
2 (1)
1.9 (0.9)
2.2 (1.1)
1.9 (0.8)
3 (1.3)
2 (1)
2 (1)
2.2 (1.4)
1.7 (0.8)
2.3 (1)
4 (0.9)
3.9 (1)
3.8 (1)
4.3 (0.6)
4.2 (0.8)
KM Success = Outcomes
KM Success = Process & Outcomes
on the composite definition and each set of measures. Additionally, as in the exploratory survey
items were provided for collecting data on KM
expertise and respondent focus. Also, each set
of measures had boxes where respondents could
indicate measures they would add or remove from
each set of measures.
The second survey was also administered
using a web form with respondents solicited in
the same manner as the exploratory survey. One
hundred and ninety-four usable survey responses
were received. Sixteen were from KM practitioners, 114 were from KM researchers, 23 from
KM students, and 41 were from others including
academics interested in KM but not active KM
researchers. Likert items were analyzed using
means and standard deviations as no hypotheses
have been proposed and need testing.
reSultS
There was little consensus on KM success perspective or definition from the first survey while we
did find agreement on a definition of KM success
and measures of success in the second survey.
The results of the first survey are summarized in
Tables 1-3 while the results of the second survey
are presented in Table 4.
Table 1 presents opinions with respect to the
perspectives on KM success. The only perspective
that tends to have any consensus agreement is
that KM success is a combination of process and
Table 2. Opinions on KM and KMS success definition components, mean (std dev) (5-point Likert scale)
Overall
Research
Practice
Other
Student
Subjective measure of various outcomes of KM processes capabilities should be included in a definition of KM success
4.1 (0.8)
4 (0.9)
4.3 (0.8)
4.2 (0.9)
4.5 (0.8)
Achieving direct returns from learning and projection should be included in a definition of KM success
3.8 (1)
3.7 (1)
4 (1)
3.6 (1)
4.3 (0.5)
Success of KMS should be measured in terms of pure usage statistics should be included in a definition of KM success
2.5 (1.2)
2.5 (1.2)
2.2 (1.1)
2.6 (1.2)
2.8 (1.2)
Success of KMS should be measured in terms of firm performance should be included in a definition of KM success
3.7 (1)
4.1 (1)
3.6 (1.1)
3.5 (0.8)
4 (0.9)
Providing the appropriate knowledge when needed should be included in a definition of KM success
4.2 (0.9)
4.2 (0.9)
4.3 (0.9)
4.4 (0.6)
4.3 (0.5)
Table 3. Opinions on KM and KMS success definitions; mean (std dev) (5-point Likert scale)
Overall
Research
Practice
Other
Students
KMS success can be defined as making KMS components more effective by improving search speed, accuracy, etc.
3 (1.2)
2.8 (1.1)
3.6 (1.2)
3.1 (1.1)
3.2 (1)
4 (1)
4.3 (0.9)
3.9 (0.9)
3.7 (1)
KM success is reusing knowledge to improve organizational effectiveness by providing the appropriate knowledge to those that need it
when it is needed.
3.9 (1)
3.8 (1.1)
4.4 (0.91)
4.1 (0.7)
3.8 (0.4)
KM success is knowledge tacit and explicit alike circulates freely throughout the organization, with no debilitating clumping, clotting, or hemorrhaging.
3 (1.2)
2.8 (1.2)
3.2 (1.5)
3.4 (0.8)
2.7 (1)
KM success is the efficient achievement of well defined organizational and process goals by means of the systematic employment of both
organizational instruments and information and communication technologies for a targeted creation and utilization of knowledge as well
as for making knowledge available.
3.7 (1.2)
3.5 (1.3)
4.2 (1.1)
3.8 (0.9)
3.8 (1.2)
Table 4. Opinions on KM and KMS success definition and sets of measures, mean (std dev) (5-point
Likert scale)
Overall
Research
Practice
Other
Student
KM success is a multidimensional concept. It is defined by capturing the right knowledge, getting the right knowledge to the right user,
and using this knowledge to improve organizational and/or individual performance. KM success is measured using the dimensions of
impact on business processes, strategy, leadership, efficiency and effectiveness of KM processes, efficiency and effectiveness of the KM
system, organizational culture, and knowledge content.
5.4 (1.4)
5.3 (1.5)
6.1 (1.4)
5.6 (1.4)
5.5 (1.2)
5.7 (1.2)
5.7 (1.0)
5.3 (1.4)
5.7 (1.0)
5.3 (1.3)
5.4 (1.6)
5.3 (1.4)
5.8 (1.4)
Strategy measures
5.3 (1.4)
5.1 (1.6)
5.2 (1.5)
5.1 (1.5)
6.1 (0.6)
Leadership measures
5.3 (1.5)
5.5 (1.4)
6.2 (0.8)
5.8 (1.3)
5.7 (1.4)
5.5 (1.4)
6.0 (0.7)
5.8 (1.2)
5.4 (1.3)
5.7 (1.1)
5.6 (1.2)
5.7 (1.2)
5.5 (1.3)
5.5 (1.4)
5.4 (1.4)
5.2 (1.5)
6.0 (0.8)
Knowledge content measures
6.0 (1.0)
diScuSSion
This was exploratory research so few conclusions
can be drawn. However, using two surveys has
allowed us to reach some consensus on a KM
success definition and set of success measures.
The consensus KM success definition is:
KM success is a multidimensional concept. It is
defined by capturing the right knowledge, getting
the right knowledge to the right user, and using
this knowledge to improve organizational and/
or individual performance. KM success is measured using the dimensions of impact on business
processes, strategy, leadership, efficiency and
effectiveness of KM processes, efficiency and
effectiveness of the KM system, organizational
culture, and knowledge content.
10
concluSion
It is difficult to reach any conclusions with this
research; no hypotheses were proposed or tested.
This is okay as the purpose of this chapter is to
propose a definition of KMS success. Before doing
this it is important to identify areas of consensus
and areas of disagreement. The following points
are areas of agreement:
11
referenceS
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge
Management Systems: Emerging Views and
Practices from the Field. In Proceedings of the
32nd Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences. Hawaii, USA: IEEE Computer Society
Press.
Bals, C., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2007). Assessing User Acceptance of a Knowledge Management System in a Global Bank: Process Analysis
and Concept Development. In Proceedings of
the 40th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences. Hawaii, USA: IEEE Computer
Society Press.
Chan, I., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2005). Getting Knowledge Management Right: Lessons from Failure.
International Journal of Knowledge Management,
1(3), 4054.
Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach
(revised and updated). New York: Dell Publishing.
Cross, R., & Baird, L. (2000). Technology Is
Not Enough: Improving Performance by Building Organizational Memory. Sloan Management
Review, 41(3), 4154.
Davenport, T. H., DeLong, D. W., & Beers, M. C.
(1998). Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 4357.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent
Variable. Information Systems Research, 3, 6095.
doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The
DeLone and McLean Model of Information
Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 19(4), 930.
12
Storey, J., & Barnett, E. (2000). Knowledge management Initiatives: Learning from Failure. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(4), 145156.
doi:10.1108/13673270010372279
Turban, E., & Aronson, J. E. (2001). Decision
Support Systems and Intelligent Systems (6th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yu, S.-H., Kim, Y.-G., & Kim, M.-Y. (2004).
Linking Organizational Knowledge Management
Drivers to Knowledge Management Performance:
An Exploratory Study. In Proceedings of the 37th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, USA: IEEE Computer Society
Press.
Zolingen, S. J., Van, Streumer, J. N., & Stooker,
M. (2001). Problems in Knowledge Management: A Case-Study of a Knowledge-Intensive
Company. International Journal of Training and
Development, 5(3), 168184. doi:10.1111/14682419.00130
13
14
Chapter 2
A Model of Knowledge
Management Success
Murray E. Jennex
San Diego State University, USA
Lorne Olfman
Claremont Graduate University, USA
abStract
This chapter describes a knowledge management (KM), Success Model that is derived from observations
generated through a longitudinal study of KM in an engineering organization, KM success factors found
in the literature, and modified by the application of these observations and success factors in various
projects. The DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) IS Success Model was used as a framework for the
model as it was found to fit the observed success criteria and it provided an accepted theoretical basis
for the proposed model.
introduction
Knowledge Management, KM, and Knowledge
Management System, KMS, success is an issue
needing to be explored. The Knowledge Management Foundations workshop held at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences in
January 2006 discussed this issue and reached
agreement that it is important for the credibility
of the KM discipline that we be able to define
KM success. Also, Turban and Aronson (2001)
list three reasons for measuring the success of
KM and a KMS:
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch002
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
15
knowledge representations. Technical components are concrete concepts that can be readily
expressed. Explicit knowledge also consists of
these technical components that can be directly
expressed by knowledge representations. Knowledge management, KM, in an organization occurs
when members of an organization pass tacit and
explicit knowledge to each other. Information
Technology, IT, assists KM by providing knowledge repositories and methods for capturing and
retrieving knowledge. The extent of the dimension of the knowledge being captured limits the
effectiveness of IT in assisting KM. IT works best
with knowledge that is primarily in the explicit
dimension. Knowledge that is primarily in the tacit
dimension requires that more context be captured
with the knowledge where context is the information used to explain what the knowledge means
and how it is used. Managing tacit knowledge is
more difficult to support using IT solutions.
Jennex (2005) looked at what KM is and
found no consensus definition. However, using
the review board of the International Journal of
Knowledge Management as an expert panel and
soliciting definitions of KM that were used by the
board members, the following working definition
is used to define KM for this paper:
KM is the practice of selectively applying
knowledge from previous experiences of decision
making to current and future decision making
activities with the express purpose of improving
the organizations effectiveness.(Jennex, 2005)
KM is an action discipline; knowledge needs
to be used and applied for KM to have an impact.
We also need measurable impacts from knowledge
reuse for KM to be successful. Decision making
is something that can be measured and judged.
Organizations can tell if they are making the same
decisions over and over and if they are using
past knowledge to make these decisions quicker
and better. Also, decision making is the ultimate
application of knowledge. This working defini-
16
KM Success
The above paragraphs define KM success as
reusing knowledge to improve organizational
effectiveness by providing the appropriate knowledge to those that need it when it is needed. KM is
expected to have a positive impact on the organization that improves organizational effectiveness.
DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) use the terms
success and effectiveness interchangeably. This
paper uses KM success and KM effectiveness
interchangeably by implying that increasing decision making effectiveness has a positive impact on
the organization resulting in successful KM. KM
and KMS success is also used interchangeably.
KMS success can be defined as making KMS
components more effective by improving search
speed, accuracy, etc. As an example, a KMS that
enhances search and retrieval functions enhances
decision making effectiveness by improving the
ability of the decision maker to find and retrieve
appropriate knowledge in a more timely manner. The implication is that by increasing KMS
effectiveness, KMS success is enhanced and
decision making capability is enhanced leading
to positive impacts on the organization. This is
how KM success is defined and it is concluded
that enhancing KMS effectiveness makes the KMS
more successful as well as being a reflection of
KM success.
17
KM Success Model
The model developed in this paper was initially
proposed by Jennex, et al. (1998) after an ethnographic case study of KM in an engineering organization. The model was modified by Jennex and
Olfman (2002) following a five year longitudinal
study of knowledge management in an engineering organization and is based on the DeLone and
McLean (2003) revised IS Success Model. This
final model was developed to incorporate experience in using the model to design KMS and
for incorporating other KM/KMS success factor
research from the literature. Figure 3 shows the
KM Success Model. The KM Success Model is
based on DeLone and McLean (2003). Since the
KM Success Model is assessing the use of orga-
18
System Quality
Jennex and Olfman (2000, 2002) found infrastructure issues such as using a common network
19
20
Knowledge Quality
Jennex and Olfman (2000, 2002) identified that
having a KM process and an enterprise wide
knowledge infrastructure, incorporating KM
processes into regular work practices, and that
knowledge needs were different for users of different levels were key issues to determining and
implementing what is the right knowledge for KM
to capture. Additionally it was found that KM users have formal and/or informal drivers that guide
them in selecting information and knowledge to be
retained by KM and formal and informal processes
for reviewing and modifying stored information
and knowledge. The Knowledge Quality dimension incorporates this and ensures that the right
knowledge with sufficient context is captured and
available for the right users at the right time. Three
constructs: the KM strategy/process, knowledge
richness, and linkages between knowledge components are identified. The KM strategy/process
construct looks at the organizational processes for
identifying knowledge users and knowledge for
capture and reuse, the formality of these processes
including process planning, and the format and
context of the knowledge to be stored. This construct determines the contents and effectiveness
of the other two constructs. Richness reflects the
accuracy and timeliness of the stored knowledge
as well as having sufficient knowledge context and
cultural context to make the knowledge useful.
Linkages reflect the knowledge and topic maps
and/or listings of expertise available to identify
sources of knowledge to users in the organization.
methodologies and processes for the codification, documentation, and storage of knowledge,
processes for capturing and converting individual
tacit knowledge into organizational knowledge as
important. Cross and Baird (2000) who found that
for KM to improve business performance it had
to increase organizational learning by supporting personal relationships between experts and
knowledge users, providing distributed databases
to store knowledge and pointers to knowledge,
providing work processes for users to convert
personal experience into organizational learning,
and providing direction to what knowledge the
organization needs to capture and learn from.
Davenport, et al. (1998) who identified three key
success factors for KM strategy/process as clearly
communicated purpose/goals, multiple channels
for knowledge transfer, and a standard, flexible
knowledge structure. Mandviwalla, et al. (1998)
who described several strategy issues affecting
KM design. These include the KM focus (who
are the users), the quantity of knowledge to be
captured and in what formats; who filters what
is captured, what reliance and/or limitations are
placed on the use of individual memories, how
long the knowledge is useful, and the work activities and processes that utilize KM. Sage and
Rouse (1999) who identified modeling processes
to identify knowledge needs and sources, KM
strategy for the identification of knowledge to
capture and use and who will use it, an understood
enterprise knowledge structure, and clear KM
goals as important.
Service Quality
The Service Quality dimension ensures that KM
has adequate support for users to utilize KM effectively. Three constructs, management support,
user KM service quality, and IS KM service quality, are identified. Management support refers to
the direction and support an organization needs
to provide to ensure that adequate resources are
allocated to the creation and maintenance of KM,
21
22
User Satisfaction
The User Satisfaction dimension is a construct
that measures satisfaction with KM by users. It
is considered a good complementary measure of
KM use as desire to use KM depends on users
being satisfied with KM. User satisfaction is considered a better measure for this dimension then
actual KM use as KM may not be used constantly
yet still be considered effective. Jennex (2005)
found that some KM repositories or knowledge
processes, such as email, may be used daily while
others may be used once a year or less. However,
it was also found that the importance of the once
Net Impact
An individuals use of KM will produce an impact
on that persons performance in the workplace. In
addition, DeLone and McLean (1992) note that
an individual impact could also be an indication
that an information system has given the user a
better understanding of the decision context, has
improved his or her decision-making productivity, has produced a change in user activity, or has
changed the decision makers perception of the
importance or usefulness of the information system. Each individual impact should have an effect
on the performance of the whole organization.
Organizational impacts usually are not the summation of individual impacts, so the association
between individual and organizational impacts
is often difficult to draw. DeLone and McLean
(2003) recognized this difficulty and combined
all impacts into a single dimension. Davenport,
et al. (1998) overcame this by looking for the establishment of linkages to economic performance.
Alavi and Leidner (1999) also found it important
to measure the benefits of KM as did Jennex and
Olfman (2000).
We agree with combining all impacts into
one dimension and the addition of the feedback
loop to the User Satisfaction and Intent to Use/
Perceived Benefit dimensions but take it a step
further and extend the feedback loop to include
the KM Strategy/Process construct. Jennex and
Olfman (2002) showed this feedback in their
model relating KM, OM, organizational learning,
and effectiveness shown in Figure 4. This model
recognizes that the use of knowledge may have
good or bad benefits. It is feedback from these
benefits that drives the organization to either use
more of the same type of knowledge or to forget
the knowledge and which also provides users with
feedback on the benefit of the KMS. Alavi and
Leidner (2001) also agree that KM should allow
for forgetting of some knowledge when it has no
or detrimental benefits. To ensure this is done
23
24
Technical Resources
User competency survey, observation and document research of IS capabilities, interview with
IS Manager on infrastructure
Form of KMS
Level of KMS
KM Strategy/Process
Survey on drivers for putting knowledge into the KMS and for satisfaction with the knowledge
in the KMS, check on if a formal strategy/process exists
Richness
Usability test on adequacy of stored knowledge and associated context, interviews and satisfaction survey on adequacy of knowledge in KMS
Linkages
Usability test on adequacy of stored linkages, interviews and satisfaction surveys on satisfaction with linkages stored in KMS
Management Support
Interviews and Social Factors construct of Thompson, Higgins, and Howells survey on perceived benefit
IS KM Service Quality
Interview with IS Manager on IS capabilities. Interviews with users on needs and capabilities.
Suggest adding user satisfaction survey on service issues
Interview with user organization KM team on capabilities and responsibilities, and needs from
IS. Interview with users on needs and capabilities. Suggest adding user satisfaction survey on
service issues
User Satisfaction
Intent to Use/ Perceived Benefit
Net Impacts
Doll and. Torkzadeh (1988) End User Satisfaction Measure, any other user satisfaction measure
Thompson, Higgins, and Howells (1991) survey on perceived benefit
Determine Individual and Organizational productivity models through interviews, observation,
tend to be specific to organizations
System Quality
Three constructs were proposed for the system
quality dimension: technical resources, KM
form, and KM level. Jennex and Olfman (2002)
found that the capabilities of the IS organization
and the users can impact the success of KM. IS
infrastructure and organizational capabilities that
enhanced KM effectiveness included a fast, high
capacity infrastructure, strong application development skills, network skills, and awareness of
the user organizations knowledge requirements.
Users capabilities that enhanced KM effectiveness included a high degree of computer literacy
and high-end personal computers. Given the
importance of these technical resources, operationalization of the technical resources construct
can be accomplished by focusing on the overall
experience of the development group in building
and maintaining networked systems that support
25
Knowledge Quality
Knowledge quality has three constructs, KM strategy/process, richness, and linkages. Jennex and
Olfman (2002) used surveys of users to determine
drivers for putting knowledge into KM repositories
and user satisfaction with the knowledge that was
in these repositories. Jennex, Olfman, and Addo
(2003) surveyed organizations to determine if they
had a KM strategy and how formal it was. Jennex
and Olfman (2002) used interviews of KM users
to determine their satisfaction with the accuracy,
timeliness, and adequacy of available knowledge.
The need for linkages and personification of
knowledge was found through interviews with
users on where they went to retrieve knowledge.
Additionally, it was found that users KM needs
vary depending on their experience level in the
organization. Context of the knowledge is critical.
New members did not have this context and the
26
Service Quality
Service quality was defined previously as how well
the organization supports KM. Three constructs
are proposed: management support, IS KM service
quality, and user KM service quality. Jennex and
Olfman (2002) identified these constructs through
interviews that found evidence to show that the
service quality of the IS and user organizations
can impact KM success and that service quality
was determined by the organizations possessing
certain capabilities. IS KM service consisted of IS
being able to build and maintain KM components
and to map the knowledge base. IS organizational
capabilities that enhanced this service effectiveness included data integration skills, knowledge
representation skills, and awareness of the user
organizations knowledge requirements. User organization KM service consisted of incorporating
knowledge capture into work processes and being
able to identify key knowledge requirements.
User organization KM capabilities that enhanced
this service effectiveness included understanding and being able to implement KM techniques
such as knowledge taxonomies, ontologies, and
knowledge maps; and process analysis capabilities. Additionally, service was enhanced by either
the IS or the user organization providing training
on how to construct knowledge searches, where
the knowledge was located, and how to use KM.
The key construct, management support, was
measured using interviews and the social factors
measure of Thompson, Higgins, and Howells
survey on perceived benefit. The social factors
measure uses a likert scale survey to determine
User Satisfaction
User satisfaction is a construct that measures perceptions of KM by users. This is one of the most
frequently measured aspects of IS Success, and
it is also a construct with a multitude of measurement instruments. User satisfaction can relate to
both product and service. As noted above, product
satisfaction is often used to measure knowledge
quality. Product satisfaction can be measured
using the 12-item instrument developed by Doll
and Tordzadeh (1988). This measure addresses
satisfaction with content, accuracy, format, ease
of use, and timeliness. Additionally, measures
addressing satisfaction with interfaces should
be used. Other user satisfaction measures can be
used to assess the specific quality constructs as
discussed in previous paragraphs.
All five factors were found to support continued KM use during the initial measurements.
Jennex and Olfman (2002) found continued KM
use throughout the five years of observing KM
usage and concluded that the Perceived Benefit
model was useful for predicting continued use.
Jennex (2000) used these factors to design the
site, work processes, and management processes
for a virtual project team using web based KM
to perform a utility Year 2000 project. Promoting
the Social factors and providing near term job fit
were critical in ensuring the virtual project team
utilized KM. KM use was considered highly successful as the project went from performing in the
bottom third of utility projects to performing in
the top third of all utility projects.
Net Benefits
The net benefits dimension looks for any benefits
attributed to use of the KMS. We attempted to
measure benefits associated with individual and
organizational use of KM through the generation
of productivity models which identified where
knowledge use impacted productivity. KM benefits for an individual are found in their work
processes. Jennex and Olfman (2002) queried
supervisors and managers to determine what they
believed were the nature of individual productivity in the context of the station-engineering work
27
28
concluSion
The DeLone and McLean IS Success Model is a
generally accepted model for assessing success
of an IS. Adapting the model to KM is a viable
approach to assessing KM success. The model
presented in this paper meets the spirit and intent of
DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003). Additionally,
Jennex (2000) used an earlier version of the KM
Success Model to design, build, and implement
Intranet based KM that was found to be very
effective and successful. The conclusion of this
paper is that the KM Success Model is a useful
model for predicting KM success. It is also useful
for designing effective KM.
referenceS
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review:
Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107136.
doi:10.2307/3250961
Barna, Z. (2003). Knowledge Management: A Critical E-Business Strategic Factor (Unpublished
Masters Thesis). San Diego State University.
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Gant, D. B. (2006).
Understanding the Factors Influencing the Value
of Person-to-Person Knowledge Sharing. 39th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society.
29
30
31
32
Chapter 3
Market Knowledge
Management, Innovation
and Product Performance:
Survey in Medium and Large
Brazilian Industrial Firms
Cid Gonalves Filho
FUMEC University, Brazil
Rodrigo Baroni de Carvalho
FUMEC University, Brazil
George Leal Jamil
FUMEC University, Brazil
abStract
In a business environment characterized by a high level of competitiveness, the impact of new products
on an organizations revenue is an important factor. This research was developed with the objective
of examining empirically the relationships between market knowledge management, innovation and
the performance of new products in the market. This chapter analyzes KM (Knowledge Management)
success trough a market-oriented perspective because, at the end of the day, KM success must lead to
better organizational performance. The research model was generated by the combination of market
knowledge models and KM success and maturity models. By means of a survey, based on 387 medium
and large industrial firms, and the use of structural equation modeling, the supremacy of the competitor
knowledge management process over other constructs was verified, as the most important antecedent of
new product performance in the market. The results also revealed that innovation was strongly impacted
from technology knowledge management and customer knowledge management.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch003
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
introduction
In a business environment characterized by a high
level of competitiveness, the impact of new products on revenues is an important factor. Innovation
consequences include firms innovativeness, their
ability to create and implement new ideas, products and processes, and new product performance
defined as the success of new products in terms
of market share, sales, return on investment, and
profitability (Im and Workman, 2004; Hult and
Ketchen, 2001; Kirca et al., 2005). Innovation
is usually described as a knowledge-intensive
activity, involving the discovery, experimentation,
and development of new technologies, services,
production processes and organizational structures (Carneiro, 2000; Khalifa et al., 2008). In
a post-industrial society, the growing perception
of the strategic role of knowledge in innovation
processes has contributed to the development of
Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives.
KM refers to identifying and leveraging the
collective knowledge in an organization to help
it compete (von Krogh, 1998). KM intends to be
an area of research and practice that deepens the
understanding of knowledge processes in organizations, and develops procedures and instruments
to support the transformation of knowledge into
economic and social progress (Carvalho and
Ferreira, 2001). In fact, different aspects of these
issues have been studied for decades in many different disciplines, and one of the most important
contributions of the KM concept is creating a space
(in academic and business world) where practitioners and scholars from different backgrounds
may discuss and work together.
KM is closely related to the organizations
capabilities of collecting, filtering, organizing and
disseminating existing information and knowledge. The organizational knowledge strategy
is usually a mix of exploitation and exploration
(Choo and Bontis, 2002). Exploitation emphasizes
knowledge codification and the reuse of existing
knowledge. When exploitation is overemphasized,
the organization may diminish its capacity to innovate, resulting in obsolescence. On the other
hand, exploration stimulates the creation of new
knowledge, applying it to the development of
products and services. When exploration is overemphasized, the organization reduces its ability
to externalize knowledge and to convert it into
organizational memory. Despite the quicker return
on investment (ROI) of exploitation approach, the
dynamic balance between exploration and exploitation seems to produce better results in a longer
term, because innovation demands exploration.
Furthermore, the collaborative development of
strategy leverages a firms collective knowledge
and capabilities, leading to more creative and
realistic strategies (Gebhardt et al., 2006). This
collaborative process also leads to higher commitment to the firm, which again increases the
likelihood of success.
Internal sources of organizational knowledge
include business processes, databases and employees, while external sources consist of interorganizational processes, customers, business
partners, market and competitive intelligence
(Khalifa et al., 2008). Many of the existing studies
in the KM field place more emphasis on organizational internal knowledge and its exploitation.
This survey intended to discuss the exploration
perspective that is related to market and customer
knowledge, pushing the KM approach out of the
boundaries of the firm.
This complimentary orientation is justified
because it was observed that the financial results
of some firms have improved more than others in
the same market segment. As a result of efficient
market orientation and creative management of
market knowledge, it is possible that consecutive
releases of new products and services with a high
level of market acceptance have contributed to this
advantageous position. According to Martin et al.
(2009), a market orientation is a strong source of
sustainable competitive advantage because it is
difficult to imitate, focuses the firm on finding
33
34
bacKground
Market orientation and Market KM
At the beginning of the 1950s, the concept of
marketing and the philosophical foundations of
the marketing orientation were introduced. Glazer
(1991) considers market knowledge a companys
strategic resource. Aaker (1998), Aaker et al.
(1998), Capon et al.(1992), Day (1999) and Geus
(1997) observed that the competencies in associated with market knowledge can be the elements
that generate competitive advantages in new
products (Porter, 1995).
Market orientation has been conceptualized
from both behavioral and cultural perspectives
(Kirca et al., 2005). The behavioral perspective
concentrates on organizational activities that are
associated to the generation, distribuition and
responsiveness to market intelligence (Kohli and
Jaworski, 1990). On the other hand, the cultural
perspective places focus on organizational norms
and values that encourage behaviors that are
consistent with market orientation (Narver and
Slater, 1990). Market orientation is a fundamental
aspect of an organizations culture that defines
competitive value, norms, artifacts and behaviors
that collectively create the opportunity for competitive advantage (Martin et al., 2009). Verhoef
and Leeflang (2009) defines market orientation
as a business culture that (1) places the highest
priority on the profitable creation and maintenance
of superior values for customers while considering
the interest of other stakeholders and (2) provides
norms of behaviors regarding market information.
The cultural perspective is also present in some KM
35
36
The KMMM provides qualitative and quantitative results, allowing a comprehensive assessment of the KM activities which covers eight key
areas: strategy and knowledge goals; environment
and partnerships; people and competencies; collaboration and culture; leadership and support;
knowledge structures and knowledge forms;
technology and infrastructure; processes, roles,
and organization (Ehms and Langen, 2002).
The KMMM received a strong influence of
the CMM (Capability Maturity Model) of the
Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie
Mellon University. Although the CMM (Paulk et
al., 1995) is applied to the software development
context, the KMMM adopts the same name for its
five levels, and adapts the maturity concept to the
KM domain. The five levels are: initial, repeatable,
defined, managed, and optimizing. The maturity
level is assessed for the individual topics and condensed into one maturity level for each key area.
Berztiss (2002) also proposed a capability
maturity model for KM based on CMM. The following requirements, defined by CMM as KPA
(key process areas), were suggested for each KM
maturity level:
37
38
Process of Customer
Knowledge Management
Market orientation proposes to enhance customerperceived quality of products and services by
helping maintain superior customer value (Brady
and Cronin, 2001; Kirca et al., 2005). Market
orientation enhances customer loyalty and satisfaction because market-oriented companies
anticipate customer needs and offer products and
services to satisfy those needs (Slater and Narver,
1994). According to Verhoef and Leeflang (2009),
several studies have revealed that marketing activies, such as creating satisfied customers and
corporate advertising are positively related to
shareholder value and greater customer lifetime
value. By responding rapidly to changes in customer demand, a company can enhance customer
satisfaction and loyalty, leverage the knowledge
embedded in customers and take the advantage
of the windows of opportunities that appear in the
market from time to time (Khalifa et al., 2008).
Consistent with the theories of organizational
learning (Hair et al., 1998), the process of customer
KM can be approached using Davenport and Prusaks model (1998), which consists in generating,
codifying and distributing the knowledge. The
customer KM process would involve marketing
research, regular meetings and interactions with
customers, personal interviews and focus groups
(Capon et al., 1992) and problem-solving sessions.
Choo (1998) considered sensemaking as a
dimension of the Knowing Organization model,
Berztiss (2002) listed external knowledge acquisition as one of key indicators of KM maturity, and
Ehms and Langen (2002) included environment
and partnerships as a key area of the KMMM,
giving support to two constructs in our research
model: customer KM and competitor KM. Han,
Kim and Srivastava in Narver and Slater (1995),
Li and Calantone (1998), Jaworski and Kohli
(1990), Hurley and Hult (1998), are some of the
authors that have performed empirical research
on customer orientation, innovation, market KM
39
Process of Competitor
Knowledge Management
Truly market-oriented firms identify competitive
advantages based on satisfying both the current
needs of customers and doing this better than
competitors (Martin et al., 2009). Narver and
40
Slater (1990) have defined customer and competitor orientation as information acquisition
and dissemination activities that are necessary to
understand what buyers value and the strategies
used by competitors in serving target buyers. This
knowledge provides a framework to create superior value for customers relative to competitors.
The process of competitor KM involves obtaining, codifying, storing and distributing information
as a continuous activity of competitive intelligence
gathering. Knowledge of competitors exercises a
fundamental role in the competitive positioning
of organizations (Day, 1999; Aaker, 1998; Geus,
1997). Geus (1997) affirmed: the only source
of competitive advantage in the future will be to
learn (about the competition) faster than your
competitors.
Previous empirical research analyzed the influence of competitors regarding intensity of market
Process of Technological
Knowledge Management
Narver and Slater (1995), along with Jaworski
and Kohli (1990), aimed to verify the empirical
connections between technological change and
the results achieved in the marketplace. Ehms and
Langen (2002) included technology and infrastructure as a key area of the KMMM. However,
Jennex (2005) proposes that for KM systems it is
not the amount of use that is important, but rather,
the quality of use and the intention to use.
In their research, Li and Calantone (1998)
failed to directly consider the management of
technological knowledge. In view of this omission and because of the importance of verifying
the influence of the management of technological knowledge on the innovation process and the
results obtained in the market, hypotheses H5 and
H6 were formulated:
H5:The greater the intensity of the process of
technological knowledge management is, the
greater will be the intensity of innovation.
H6:The greater the intensity of the process of
technological knowledge management, the greater
will be the intensity of the performance of the new
products in the market.
41
Methodology
First of all, a literature review was carried out.
Some classic and seminal works on marketing
knowledge, market orientation, KM, innovation
and strategic marketing were analyzed (Treacy
and Wiersema, 1995), as well as a series of previous pieces of empirical research that preceded
this article. Based on the defined constructs, the
measurement items were obtained from previous
researches and the existing literature, focus groups
with managers and specialist panels. A pre-test
involving 46 respondents was made and analyzed.
An 11-point Likert-type scale was adopted, so that
they could be processed as continuous variables
and possibly achieved a better measurement.
The research constructs were generated by the
following procedures:
42
Customers KM
Operational definition: the items were obtained
from Li and Calantones (1998) research, Jaworski and Kohli (1993), Ehms and Lagen (2002),
Berztiss (2002), Choo (1998), focus groups and
specialist panels.
Competitor KM
The items were obtained from Li and Calantone
(1998), Jaworski and Kohli (1993), Ehms and
Lagen (2002), Choo (1998), focus groups and
specialist panel.
Technological KM
Operational definition: the items were obtained
initially from research made by Cooper (1984),
Davenport (1998), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1997),
Ehms and Lagen (2002), Clark and Wheelwright
(1995), Day (1999) and Ashok (1999)
Innovation of New Products
Operational definition: the items were obtained
from Hurley and Hult (1998), focus groups and
specialist panel.
Performance of New Product in the Market
Operational definition: the items were obtained
from Li and Calantone (1998), focus groups and
specialist panel.
data analysis
It was decided to carry out a survey using mail as
the principal mean of contacting the respondents.
The sample consisted of 1,870 medium and large
Brazilian industrial firms that are members of
FIEMG (Confederation of Industries of the State
of Minas Gerais, the 3rd largest state in Brazil).
Most of the industries sampled are in very competitive markets, as clothing, packing, furniture
and automotive industries.
The companies in the sample had more than
30 employees. This cross section was selected
because, in a pre-test, it was confirmed that the
marketing structure in small organizations does not
allow them to answer the questionnaire correctly.
The questionnaires were answered by marketing
managers in these companies. After making the
construct Validity
The returned questionnaires were checked for
incomplete or blank data, since this is a very
common occurrence in self-administered questionnaires. After this, a check was carried out for
univariate and multivariate outliers. It was verified
that the Mardia statistic -LISREL (Jreskog and
Dag, 1998) output -, designated PK, based on
kurtosis and asymmetry functions, should have
a value smaller than 3, which, on the basis of
this practical criterion, would lead to acceptance
of the hypothesis which states that multivariate
normality was reached.
All the constructs presented Cronbachs Alpha
values in conformance with the acceptance strip,
that is, above or equal to 0.70. In order to examine the reliability more deeply, an analysis of the
composite reliability was made. It was observed
explanatory Phase
The authors opted for the process of direct estimation, using the co-variance matrix as an entrance
matrix (Hair et al., 1998). The chosen estimation
method for this research was GLS (Generalized
Least Squares), which, according to Hair et al.
43
DF1
2 / DF
RMSEA2
GFI3
AGFI4
PNFI5
NFI6
91.01
75
1.34
0.029
0.975
0.954
0.583
0.895
0.101
Notes:
1 DF (Degrees of Freedom)
2 RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation)
3 GFI (Goodness of Fit Index)
4 AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index)
5 PNFI (Parsimony Normed Fit Index)
6 NFI (Normed Fit Index)
44
Estimated values
Standard error
Statistic t
P Value
Competitor KM Innovation
0.105
0.065
1.619
>0.10
Customer KM Innovation
0.094
0.048
1.978
<0.05
Technology KM Innovation
0.294
0.049
5.981
<0.01
Customer KM Competitor KM
6.945
<0.01
Customer KM Technology KM
7.317
<0.01
CompetitorKM Technology KM
6.549
<0.01
0.131
0.043
3.049
<0.01
0.086
0.043
2.006
<0.05
0.259
0.065
3.964
<0.01
0.246
0.049
4.966
<0.01
Hypothetical
relation
Results obtained
Positive
Confirmed2
Positive
Confirmed2
Positive
Not Confirmed3
Positive
Confirmed1
Positive
Confirmed1
Positive
Confirmed1
Positive
Confirmed1
Positive
Confirmed1
Positive
Confirmed1
Positive
Confirmed1
Notes:
1 Estimate is positive and significant (p < 0.01)
2 Estimate is positive and significant (p < 0.05)
3 Estimate is not significant (p > 0.05)
45
Main findingS
Market KM has been seen as an important area
of research from the point of view of managerial
efficiency. However, our current understanding of
that phenomenon is restricted, since market KM
in organizations is a complex area that presents
difficulties of conceptualization and measurement.
Menon and Rajan (1992) stated that organizations
have become more market oriented and, as a result
of that emphasis, the application of the marketing intelligence concepts, as well as the use of
information generated by research, has acquired
strong relevance.
The first aspect to be considered is that the three
processes of KM considered in this research are
elements that enhance the results of new products.
Such results are, as a whole, consistent with those
obtained by Li and Calantone (1998). However,
certain differences about those results have to be
considered. In the results of our research, the order
of importance of the three processes as antecedents
of performance was the following: competitor
knowledge ( = 0.31), technological knowledge
( = 0.21) and customer knowledge ( = 0.12).
According to this model, a greater improvement in the management of competitor knowledge
was the process that generated more results with
new products. This probably occurred because of
the process of product strategy planning, which
seemed to be essentially a comparative process
between competitors products ( = 0.31). Such
empirical verification raised questions about the
statement found in some marketing texts that the
customer is the main focus. Regarding this point,
it was noted that the process of creation of successful products (with actual results reflected in the
market) is a process that is much more based on
46
concluSion
This study brings to light the importance of the
processes of market KM in obtaining innovation
and performance in new product development (Olson et al., 1995). Li and Calantone (1998) pointed
out that organizations need to manage the three
processes of Marketing Knowledge (customers,
competitors and technology) in the process of
development of new products. Day and Wesley
(1988) argued that companies should manage
marketing knowledge and be market oriented in
a balanced way, since it is important for focus on
customers and competitors. However, the research
presented in this paper revealed that this might
not be the best approach.
The data obtained in this research suggested
investment in management of knowledge of competitors, innovation and management of technology knowledge, in this order. It was observed that
the focus on the customer or the orientation to
the customer, elements mentioned in significant
number of marketing books, is not the main driving factor of performance in new products in the
industries investigated. It seems that the focus on
the comparative advantage of products is more
important than focus on the customers desires,
because the purchase decision is a comparative
process of value. Thus the following questions
could be formulated: Is customer orientation a
profitable choice? What is the best balance among
competitors, customers and technology? Do
such factors vary according to industry, trade or
services? Some of these topics can be important
elements for future research opportunities.
On the other hand, innovative companies present processes of KM that focus more closely on
technology and customer knowledge. This fact
leads to the following possibility: the focus on
technological knowledge is the main factor in
innovation, and it should receive greater investment and attention than the others. This procedure
should be guided by customer knowledge, in the
manner proposed by Ashok (1999). However, at
present this does not happen.
The processes of market knowledge management also stood out as important generators
of results regarding new products. This fact is
referenceS
Aaker, D. A. (1998). Strategic marketing management. New York: John Wiley.
Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & Day, G. S. (1998).
Marketing research. New York: John Wiley.
Anantatmula, V., & Kanungo, S. (2005). Establishing and Structuring Criteria for Measuring
Knowledge Management Efforts. In Proceedings
of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.
Ashok, G. (1999). Business driven research &
development: managing knowledge to create
wealth. West Lafayette: Ichor Business.
47
48
Im, S., & Workman, J. P. (2004). Market Orientation, Creativity, and New Product Performance in
High-Technology Firms. Journal of Marketing,
68, 114132.
Lindsey, K. (2002). Measuring Knowledge Management Effectiveness: a task-contingent organizational capabilities perspective. In Proceedings
of the 8th Americas Conference on Information
System (AMCIS), 2085-2090.
Martin, J. H., Martin, B. A., & Minnillo, P. R.
(2009). Implementing a market orientation in
small manufacturing firms: from cognitive model
to action. Journal of Small Business Management,
47(1), 92115.
Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., &
ODriscoll, T. M. (2002). Knowledge in the pursuit
of performance: insights from Nortel Networks.
Management Information Systems Quarterly,
26(3), 269289.
Menon, A., & Rajan, P. V. (1992). A model of
marketing knowledge use within firms. Journal
of Marketing, 56, 53.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect
of market orientation on business profitability.
Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 2035.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. Journal
of Marketing, 59(3), 6374.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1997). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
49
50
51
Chapter 4
Does KM Governance
= KM Success?
abStract
This chapter examines factors that contribute to KM success by differentiating between KM leadership
through management and through governance. We look at governance as a structural mechanism that
both embeds KM into organizational activity, and lifts it from a series of initiatives to a structured program of activities that are subject to authority, policy, risk management, financial fiduciary duty, and
evaluation. Using evidence from 214 respondents to a global internet based KM survey; we find that
having a recognized and defined authority for KM that is well-resourced leads to strategically aligned
benefits realized from investment in KM. We demonstrate that governance through assigned authority
strongly contributes to strategic KM success.
introduction
The implementation of knowledge management
(KM) programs continues to be contentious because it is frequently difficult to establish the return
on investment. KM practitioners and theoreticians
understand and undertake to create a sustainable
program of strategies to leverage knowledge to
fulfill organizational aims and objectives and to
realize benefits from them. However, many KM
strategies implementations fail to realize the
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch004
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
52
tion Systems research. It concludes that leveraging knowledge through programs of activities
is a global phenomenon. KM governance as the
exercise of authority over the development and
implementation of strategies to manage organizational knowledge enables the long-term realization
of anticipated benefits therefore, KM governance
leads to KM success.
The sections are arranged as follows. The concept of KM success is introduced in the context
of the alignment of KM with business strategy to
support the aims and objectives of the organization.
We propose that this is clearly achieved through
the effective governance of KM. KM governance
activities are examined and contextualized. Following the reader is presented with the design and
the results of the survey and conclusions are drawn.
underStanding KM SucceSS
This examination of the literature focuses on understanding the realization of KM success as the
effective leveraging of organizational knowledge
resources to achieve the aim and objectives of the
organization. Leveraging knowledge resources
includes harnessing both tacit and explicit forms
as appropriate to the industry sector and the
specific needs of that organization. We suggest
that by making the alignment of KM strategy
and business strategy explicit through authorized
direction at executive level of the organization
it facilitates KM success. It does this in several
ways: it transparently permits policy development
to align KM, it allows management of risk to
KM strategy, it gives direct to the fiscal security
of KM activity, and finally it creates a frame for
the evaluation or measurement of KM outcomes
against the strategic aims and objectives initially
developed. This enables the review and revision
of policy and direction against any changes in
strategic intent within the organization. How then
can we understand indicators of KM success?
governance of Knowledge
Management
KM governance is still mentioned infrequently
in the extant literature (Jennex & Zyngier, 2008)
and within that spectrum, the roles and tasks of
KM governance were not fully explored until
first developed by Zyngier, Burstein, & McKay
(2004) then finally defined by Zyngier (2005). KM
governance demands purposeful consideration
of knowledge strategies in place in the long and
medium term. KM governance uses measurement
of the effectiveness and efficiency of all aspects
of KM as a tool to ensure that KM objectives and
benefits are realized.
A governance framework operates across key
domains: principles, infrastructure strategies,
architecture and investment, and prioritization.
Governance provides check and balance mechanisms that enable the decision-making processes
53
54
Authority
Authority is different to power. The exercise
of power has organizational costs and benefits.
ODell and Leavitt (2004) suggest that the exercise
of power may require trade offs against interpersonal relationships. The exercise of legitimated
power is expected within organizational context.
This is authority rather than power as authority is
provided by rank or position within an organization. The position of the individual is endowed
with power - that is the position has authority
regardless of the charisma or personal power of
the holder of that office (Weber, 2005). The exercise of authority may strengthen the authority
base from which it derives and serves. Individuals with authority are expected to exercise that
authority and may be viewed as negligent, lax or
inattentive to their responsibilities when they fail
to do so (Pfeffer, 2005).
KM governance formalizes decision-making
authority that exercises financial responsibility,
evaluation, measurement, and risk management
in service delivery. KM governance ensures that
these processes meet organizational needs and
expectations or to resolve problems arising by
setting the rules of the game (Braganza, Hackney,
& Tanudjojo, 2007, p. 12). The development of
KM policy enables the satisfaction of each of
these elements through the clear identification
Risk management
55
establishing KM Success
Deliberate strategies are usually articulated as a
plan. Mintzberg (1994) suggested that strategic
planning processes fail when they are not constructed to understand, internalize and synthesize,
that is to learn from the successes or failures of the
strategic process as it is implemented. It can be suggested that some approaches to KM are vulnerable
unless the strategy is conceived of as a learning
process. The step of articulating a suitable KM
strategy or series of programs for an organization
is only part of the challenge. Ensuring effective
implementation and ongoing development and
redevelopment are vital to the success of a KM
strategy that is capable of response and change.
Devising appropriate KM processes, structures,
policies or principles and mechanisms to ensure
sound decision making over time are required and
these are all indicative that knowledge management governance is required.
KM governance acts to support organizational
governance through transparent activity. It provides a mechanism for managing the identified
risks to knowledge assets in a planned and fiscally
responsible manner. Organizational governance
controls, directs and supports KM governance
through the establishment of the organizational
aims and objective of the business strategy. KM
governance should enable the strategic alignment
of KM strategy development and implementation
56
reSearcH deSign
This research aimed to investigate patterns of
governance and outcomes in strategies to leverage
organizational knowledge the phenomena of governance over KM. The research design describes
a questionnaire grounded in the theoretical KM
literature and that was adapted from previously
validated research surveys designed and used in
the European Union and was subsequently again
used twice in a longitudinal study of the understanding and uptake of KM in Australia (Ionescu,
Burstein, & Zyngier, 2006; Murray, 1998; Zyngier,
Burstein, & Rodriguez, 2003). Those areas of
the instrument adapted to include elements of
governance was informed by constructs derived
through recent related case study data collection
(Zyngier, 2006, 2008; Zyngier & Burstein, 2009).
This research was directed to those engaged in
KM activity in: public and private companies, and
57
58
Table 1. Defining KM
Definition
Response
rate
Business focused creation dissemination & utilization of knowledge to fulfill org. objectives
49.5%
32.8%
11.3%
6.4%
SurVeY reSultS: KM
goVernance and
Strategic ManageMent
Respondents came from 34 countries across every
continent indicating that KM is truly a widely
practiced organizational activity. The first section
of the survey deals with the respondents definition of KM and issues relating to KM strategies
contributing to the achievement of business goals.
The responses as shown in Table 1, defining an
organizations understanding of KM indicated
a strong trend of understanding KM as a business focused approach that comprises the whole
collection of processes that govern the creation,
dissemination and utilization of knowledge to
fulfill organizational objectives.
This definition clearly separates respondents
who see KM as being the capability to from those
who have a more strategic approach to the utility
of organizational KM. The other options offered
were: about intellectual assets, and as a technological concept. Only four percent of respondents
chose not to define that understanding.
The research then sought to establish from
the data, which role has authority over the KM
strategy. This survey instrument suggested that
these might be a CEO or Managing Director, a
59
60
61
62
63
64
concluSion and
future reSearcH
This research confirms that the management of
knowledge is considered a key organizational
resource by many organizations across the globe.
Further it point clearly to indicators that as the
significance and consequential positive impact
of KM becomes apparent, so too do the seniority
of those with responsibility for KM. A majority
of organizations resource their KM endeavor
with senior executive staffs organizational time
and resources. It is yet to be established which is
the cause and which is the effect in this scenario.
Organizations invest considerable resources to
support the growth and sustainability of KM. The
greater the maturity of the KM program and levels
of investment in that, the greater the likelihood
that benefits will be actualized.
KM maturity is represented in six stages likened
to the KM maturity models of Ehms & Langen
(2002) and Weerdmeester, Pocaterra, & Hefke
(2003): just curious and exploring; implementing first KM initiatives; have implemented at
least one KM initiative; have implemented
several KM initiatives; KM is operating organisation wide; and that we include management of
knowledge in our strategic planning. This research
extends those models to include the element of
strategic planning where KM is both derived from
and is embedded into organizational strategy. It
must also be said that such strategic planning can
only be successful where it is made sustainable
by the investment of resources in such growth.
We have presented the roles and the responsibilities of 214 organizations, surveyed globally
from March 2008 to the end of June 2008. From
these we have drawn data from 64 success stories
for interpretation, showing indicative factors in establishing leadership that can be cross-referenced
referenceS
ActKM discussion forum. (2006). On Governance.
Retrieved 20 February, 2006, from http://www.
actkm.org.au
Braganza, A., Hackney, R., & Tanudjojo, S. (2007).
Organizational knowledge transfer through creation, mobilization and diffusion: a case analysis
of InTouch within Schlumberger. Information
Systems Journal.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research
methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
65
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance
Measurement to Strategic Management: Part 1.
Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87104.
Kelleher, D., & Courtney, N. (2003). PD 7502
Guide to Measurements in Knowledge Management. London: British Standards Institution.
Kulkarni, U. R., Ravindran, S., & Freeze, R.
(2006). A Knowledge Management Success
Model: Theoretical Development and Empirical
Validation. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 23(3), 309347.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Pfeffer, J. (2005). Understanding the Role of Power
in Decision Making. In Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S.,
& Jang, Y. S. (Eds.), Classics of Organization
Theory (6th ed., pp. 289303). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhardt, K. (2000).
Managing Knowledge; Building Blocks for Success. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2004). Strategic Management of e-Business. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
66
Standards Australia. (2005). AS 5037-2005 Knowledge management - a guide (2nd ed.). Sydney:
Standards Australia.
Stehr, N. (2003). The Governance of Knowledge.
New York: Transaction Publishers.
Sun, P. Y.-T., & Scott, J. L. (2005). An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9(2), 7590.
Sveiby, K. E. (2001, July 2004). Methods for
Measuring Intangible Assets. Retrieved August,
3, 2004, from http://wwwsveiby.com/articles/
IntangibleMethods.htm
Swart, J., & Kinnie, N. (2003). Sharing knowledge
in knowledge-intensive firms. Human Resource
Management Journal, 13, 60.
Tanudjojo, S., & Braganza, A. (2005). Overcoming
Barriers To Knowledge Flow: Evidence-Based
Attributes Enabling The Creation, Mobilization,
and Diffusion of Knowledge. Paper presented
at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii.
Tiwana, A. (2002). The Knowledge Management
Toolkit: Orchestrating IT, Strategy, and Knowledge Platforms (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Van den Berghe, L., & De Ridder, L. (1999). International Standardisation of Good Corporate
Governance: Best Practices for the Board of
Directors. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Van Grembergen, W., De Haes, S., & Van Brempt,
H. (2007). Strong Consensus on the Most Important Business and IT Goals. COBIT Focus, 3, 13.
Weber, M. (2005). Bureaucracy. In Shafritz, J. M.,
Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (6th ed., pp. 7378). Belmont,
CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
67
68
69
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
70
There are a number of definitions of knowledge management listed below. Please indicate the one
that most closely reflects your organizations interpretation.
A technological concept - the use of information technology to capture data and information
in order to manage knowledge
A business focused approach - the collection of processes that govern the creation, dissemination, and utilisation of knowledge to fulfil organisational objectives
About intellectual assets - taking the form of documents and information bases
Growing revenue
Growing profits
Instigating change
Improving efficiency
Improving effectiveness
Facilitated networking
Innovation support
Storytelling
Knowledge brokers
Narrative
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Video-conferencing
Intranet
Portal
Expert systems
Document repositories
Instant messaging
Wikis
Blogs
Who has authority for the KM strategy?
A stakeholder group
Director of HR
Consultant
No-one
Is there a formal terms of reference or position description for this authority
What does the authority cover?
KM Policy development
Authorizing strategy
Director of HR
A department/function
Consultant
71
Selection of KM techniques
Selection of KM tools
Financial management
Director of HR
A department/function
Consultant
Organise knowledge
72
73
74
Chapter 5
An Evaluation of Factors
that Influence the Success
of Knowledge Management
Practices in US Federal Agencies
Elsa Rhoads
The George Washington University, Institute of Knowledge & Innovation, USA
Kevin J. OSullivan
New York Institute of Technology, USA
Michael Stankosky
The George Washington University, USA
abStract
This chapter investigates the status of knowledge management practices implemented across federal
agencies of the U.S. government. It analyzes the extent to which this status is influenced by the size of
the agency, whether or not the agency type is a Cabinet-level Department or Independent Agency, the
longevity of KM Practices implemented in the agency, whether or not the agency has adopted a written
KM policy or strategy, and whether the primary responsibility for KM Practices in the agency is directed
by a CKO or KM unit versus other functional locations in the agency. The research also tests for possible KM practitioner bias, since the survey was directed to members of the Knowledge Management
Working Group of the Federal CIO Council and KM practitioners in federal agencies.
introduction
The implementation of knowledge management
practices has been underway in both the public
and private sectors for many years. For the federal
government this transition was well underway
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch005
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
2.
Long-established hierarchical commandand-control management styles and bureaucratic organizational structures make it
challenging for agencies to share knowledge
through either intra-agency collaboration,
and much less through cross-agency or
inter-agency collaboration.
Agency Information Technology (IT)
systems are a mixture of legacy systems
cobbled together with newer systems and
technologies, making interoperability a
75
reSearcH bacKground
One of the most inhibiting and intransigent
barriers contributing to the lack of knowledge
transfer within and across federal agencies is the
lingering presence and influence of the historical
culture of organizational bureaucracy that is built
into federal organizations. It is a hierarchical approach to management, more appropriate for the
Industrial Age, in contrast to the practical and
intentional establishment of collaborative working
76
77
78
Commerce
Interior
Defense
Justice
Education
Labor
Energy
State
Transportation
Treasury
Veterans Administration
Smithsonian Institute
79
online survey was tested, and feedback was received from a Survey Special Interest Group (SIG)
of members of the KM WG interested in taking the
survey in order to provide feedback prior to the
survey distribution. Feedback from these members
indicated a concern for the time required to take
the survey, and adjustments were made.
Research Procedures: Procedures recommended by Statistics Canada were followed in
the administration of the research instrument.
In addition, the recommendation of the central
government office in Germany that piloted a
Knowledge Management Practices survey to
utilize a Likert scale was followed. The Canadian
survey used a predictive scale that asked whether
the respondent had implemented the KM Practices
within the past 24 months, or whether they were
considering an implementation within the next
24 months. In January 2005, in a review of the
survey prior to its distribution, Statistics Canada
advised the use of a four-ratio Likert scale instead
of a five-ratio scale.
80
Description
Knowledge Engagement
Knowledge Exchange
Agency value system conducive to promote knowledge-sharing; improve workforce retention; monetary or
non-monetary incentives; capture of Best Practices and Lessons Learned; SME locators; portal for shared
documents; submit best practices
Knowledge Acquisition
Partnerships/alliances to acquire knowledge; captures external knowledge; develop CoPs; transfer knowledge
to less-experienced workers
KM Responsibility
KM Training and
Mentoring
Formal and informal mentoring; funding for work-related courses; funding for KM study
Frequency
Percent
Size
Cabinet
Independent
VA
3%
236,495
Cabinet
US Army
7%
230,496
Cabinet
US Navy
13
10%
174,350
Cabinet
USAF
2%
154,999
Cabinet
TREAS
5%
122,521
Cabinet
Department of Agriculture
USDA
6%
101,472
Cabinet
DOD
13
10%
98,663
Cabinet
HHS
2%
63,514
Cabinet
Department of Transportation
DOT
7%
55,611
Cabinet
USACE
4%
35,250
Independent
EPA
2%
18,452
Independent
Department of Energy
DOE
11
9%
14,990
Cabinet
GSA
4%
12,472
Independent
WB
2%
9,300
Special
GPO
2%
2,395
Independent
USAID
6%
2,317
Independent
PBGC
10
8%
780
Special
81
Size_S_L
Mean
Std. Deviation
Small
Large
33
13.1192
2.03984
.35509
53
11.2106
3.37009
.46292
Mean
Std. Deviation
Agency type
Cabinet
75
11.3290
3.21994
.37181
Independent
32
12.6541
3.00754
.53166
Figure 1. Comparison between the KM Index Score of Small and Large Agencies
82
2. Cabinet Agencies vs. Independent Agencies Influence: Hypothesis HI tests the difference
between the KM Practices Index Score (dependent variable) associated with Cabinet-level and
Independent Agencies (independent variable). HI:
Independent agencies have higher KM Practices
Index Scores than Cabinet agencies.
The KM Practices Index Score variable was
measured on an interval/ratio scale of values
ranging from (5-20). An independent-sample
one-tailed t test was used to analyze the differences of means between the two groups (cabinet
and independent). Table 5 provides descriptive
statistics of the two groups studied.
The probability associated with the Levenes
test for equality of variance is 0.594 (Table 6, row
(1)). Because this is more than .05, there is no
reasonable certainty that the variance of the KM
Table 6. Comparison between the KM Index Score of Cabinet-level and Independent Agencies
Independent Samples Test
Levenes
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
KMIndexScore
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
.286
Sig.
.594
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
-1.987
105
.050
-1.32516
.66696
-2.64761
-.00271
-2.043
62.476
.045
-1.32516
.64877
-2.62184
-.02848
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
< 2 years
38
31.9
31.9
31.9
2-4 years
36
30.3
30.3
62.2
5-9 years
15
12.6
12.6
74.8
> 10 years
Dont know!
Total
6.7
6.7
81.5
22
18.5
18.5
100.0
119
100.0
100.0
83
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower Bound
< 2 years
33
11.1827
2.54444
.44293
Minimum
Maximum
5.00
16.75
Upper Bound
10.2805
12.0849
2-4 years
32
12.1618
3.04531
.53834
11.0638
13.2597
5.00
17.32
5-9 years
14
13.7454
3.08852
.82544
11.9622
15.5287
9.05
18.63
> 10 years
13.3135
2.72521
.96351
11.0352
15.5919
9.40
18.88
87
12.1511
2.94919
.31619
11.5226
12.7797
5.00
18.88
Total
84
df1
df2
3
Sig.
83
.529
Df
Mean Square
77.348
25.783
Within Groups
670.659
83
8.080
Total
748.006
86
Sig.
.028
3.191
Value of
Contrast
Std. Error
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
-3.7145
1.44380
-2.573
83
.012
-3.7145
1.44765
-2.566
26.987
.016
Mean
Std. Error
Mean
Std. Deviation
KM policy or strategy
38
14.2423
2.37113
.38465
No KM policy or strategy
69
10.3391
2.72698
.32829
Table 13. Comparison Between The KM Index Score of Agencies with or without A KM Policy or Strategy
Independent Samples Test
Levenes
Test for
Equality of
Variances
KMIndexScore
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Sig.
.248
.620
7.411
7.718
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Lower
Upper
105
.000
3.90320
.52667
2.84891
4.94749
85.773
.000
3.90320
.50570
2.89787
4.90852
df
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
85
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Minimum
Maximum
HR
12.1220
2.38630
.84368
10.1270
14.1170
9.60
16.33
IT
17
12.6078
2.72768
.66156
11.2054
14.0103
9.23
18.88
KM Unit
22
12.8744
2.86626
.61109
11.6035
14.1452
6.25
16.98
Library
8.8708
2.33934
1.65417
-12.1473
29.8890
7.22
10.53
Executive
11
12.9644
2.92186
.88097
11.0015
14.9273
7.63
18.63
Grass-Roots
26
10.4692
3.23647
.63472
9.1619
11.7764
5.00
17.63
Total
86
11.9430
3.06369
.33067
11.2861
12.5998
5.00
18.88
df1
.308
86
df2
5
Sig.
80
.907
df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
113.681
22.736
2.659
.028
Within Groups
684.144
80
8.552
Total
797.825
85
Value of
Contrast
Std. Error
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
-7.3375
4.08316
-1.797
80
.076
-7.3375
3.79480
-1.934
17.591
.069
concluSion
The conclusions of the study were that the size
of the agency does influence the advance of KM
Practices within the federal agencies that were the
subject of this study. We can be reasonably certain
that small agencies have higher KM Practices,
as measured by the KM Index Score, than large
agencies. There was no previous expectation that
agency size would have an effect on the level
of the implementation of KM Practices in the
research population.
The study also found that whether or not
the agency is a Cabinet-level Department or an
Independent Agency does influence the advance
of KM Practices within the agency. Independent
agencies have higher KM Practices Index Scores
than Cabinet-level Departments. There was no
expectation that the type of agency, either Cabinetlevel or Independent Agency, would have an effect on the level of their implementation of KM
Practices. The research gives no indication for
87
88
referenceS
Almashari, M., Zairi, M., & Alathari, A. (2002).
An Empirical Study of the Impact of Knowledge
Management on Organizational Performance.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(5),
7482.
Barquin, R. C., Bennet, A., & Remez, S. G.
(2001). Knowledge Management: The Catalyst
for Electronic Government. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.
Commission, 911 (2004). The 9/11 Commission
Report: Final Reort of the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd.
Commission, 911 (2005). Final Report of the
9/11 Public Discourse Project, December 5,
2005. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://
www.9-11pdp.org
Dupuy, F. (2000). Why Is It So Difficult to Reform
Public Administration? Government of the Future.
Paris: OECD Publications.
GAO. (2004). GAO Strategic Plan for 2004-2009,
Document # GAO-04-5334SP. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://www.gao.gov/sp.html
GAO. (2005). High-Risk Series, An Update, January, 2005, Document # GAO-05-207. Retrieved
February 2, 2005, from http://www.gao.gov/sp
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2005). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference
12.0 Update, 5th Edition.
Henderson, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations. IBM Systems
Journal, 32(2), 416.
Koh, E. C., Ryan, S., & Prybutok, V. R. (2005).
Creating value through managing knowledge in
an e-Government to constituency (G2C) environment. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
45(4), 3242.
Lai, H., & Chu, T. (2002). Knowledge Management: A Review of Industrial Cases. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 42(5), 2639.
Liebowitz, J. (2003-2004). A Knowledge Management Strategy for the Jason Organization: A
Case Study. Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 44(2), 15.
89
Section 2
KM Measurements
91
Chapter 6
abStract
Knowledge measurement is developing into a new research field in the area of knowledge management.
To ensure that a company is successful, business, technology, and human elements must be integrated
and balanced into a knowledge measurement system. The introduction of a knowledge audit with the
objective to uncovering the tacit knowledge in an organization and of identifying the existing management practices is needed. This chapter uses the quantum mechanical thinking as a reference model
for the development of a knowledge potential measurement system. This system is influenced by three
measurement components: (1) Person-dependent variables, (2) System-dependent variables and (3)
knowledge velocity. Based on several case studies conducted in small and medium-sized enterprises, a
process model for the implementation of the knowledge potential framework is discussed and introduced.
Future research and limitations of the model are discussed in the final part.
Knowledge MeaSureMent
introduction
In recent years, not only knowledge management,
but also primarily the measurement of knowledge
(Holsapple, 2008; Jennex, 2007; Skyrme, 1998;
Tiwana, 2000) is developing into a new research
field. Skyrme (1998) sees the measurement and
management of knowledge-based assets as one of
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch006
the most important issues for knowledge organizations. As a result, new methods, new methodologies, and new tools have to be developed to
measure the knowledge of organizations and of
the knowledge workers. A range of quantitative
measures - mainly money-based - is available to
measure the value of a firm and its intellectual
capital. The focus is primarily in the measurement of stocks or flows. Business measurements
are the bases for decision making. Defining and
measuring the value of a company are key stra-
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
92
In general, knowledge measurement approaches can be clustered into two mainstream areas:
(1) Cognitive Science and (2) Management Approaches. Cognitive Science deals with the nature
of intelligence, and it rests on empirical studies
that describe the performance of human subjects
in cognitive tasks. Another way to structure cognitive science is to understand that field more deeply
and to know the disciplines that contributed to its
foundation. Simon and Kaplan (Simon & Kaplan,
1989) identify six disciplines which determine
the field: philosophy, psychology, neurosciences,
artificial intelligence, language, and cognition.
These six fields correspond to The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (Wilson &
Keil, 1999) that constitutes the foundation on the
cognitive sciences. The Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) clustering of the cognitive
sciences into the fields of philosophy, psychol-
2.
3.
4.
5.
93
quantuM MecHanical
tHinKing and Knowledge
The concept of quantum mechanical thinking
and the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg are
the basic frameworks for the derivation of the
Knowledge Potential Measurement Model.
94
quantum organization
There is an aspect of uncertainty (Pearl, 1990)
associated with knowledge management and
measurement. Looking at our daily reasoning processes, most of the decisions are based on uncertain
premises, meaning that most of the action relies on
guesses. In general, it has to be accepted the fact
that uncertainty is a fact of life. Nature shows that
uncertainty exists from quantum to cosmological
scales. Complex systems, such as the ecosystem,
the economy, society, and climate border chaos
and order where the Nature is very creative. In the
knowledge management environment complexity
and uncertainty are combined forces influencing
the system and making it difficult to predict an
outcome. Uncertainty is responsible for the fact
that the more a system gets complex, the less
precise statements can be made.
Kilmann (2001) is introducing the quantum
organization as a new paradigm to manage organizational transformation in a world which
is highly interconnected and where success depends whether the participants progress towards
self-aware consciousness. This means, that
the process of transformation in organizations
requires that individuals develop a self-aware
consciousness. The transformation for organizations has to be seen in the light of the shift from
the old paradigm which Kilmann (2001) calls
Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm, to the new
paradigm, the Quantum-Relativistic Paradigm.
The traditional old paradigm separates people
from an outside, objective material universe.
This worldview is influenced by the separation
of consciousness and matter. The physical world
exists on its own, and it is unaffected by human
beings. This means, that the human mind has no
effect on the nature of the physical reality. The old
paradigm is underlying a deterministic certainty
in the sense that objects are inert and only moved
by external forces. Objects can be compared with
a billiard ball for which position and momentum
can be determined simultaneously and precisely.
2.
3.
4.
The Inclusion of Consciousness in SelfDesigning Systems. This means that each employee has knowledge, skills, and experience
to influence the design of the organizational
system. It is a proactive approach which also
includes the knowledge of stakeholders such
as customers, competitors, suppliers and
other partners. Each individual is contributing creativity and knowledge-in-action to
solve problems.
Organizations as Conscious Participants
Actively Involved in Self-Designing
Processes. This dimension of quantum organizations implies that each employee tries
to design value-added processes throughout
the organization. Participants should reflect
on their processes and built new knowledge which is applied to add value to the
organization.
Cross-Boundary Processes as Explicitly
Addressed and Infused with Information.
In a quantum organization, its members are
encouraged to exchange knowledge with
other partners across the organizational
boundary.
The Conscious Self-Management of a
Flexibly Designed Organization. In contrast
to the Newtonian organization, the subunits
95
5.
6.
7.
96
uncertainty Principle
In 1927 Heisenberg articulated the so called
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or Indeterminacy Principle (Green, 2000; Wick, 1995).
According to the Uncertainty Principle, the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be
measured exactly at the same time. Any attempt
to measure the velocity of a subatomic particle,
such as an electron, precisely is unpredictable,
so a simultaneous measurement of its position
has no validity. This result has nothing to do
with inadequacies in the measuring instruments,
the technique, or the observer; it arises from the
intimate connection in nature between particles
and waves in the subatomic realm.
There are four properties which are important
to the Uncertainty Principle: the position of the
electron, its momentum (which is the electrons
mass times its velocity), its energy, and the time.
These properties appear as variables in equations
that describe the electrons motion. Uncertainty
relationships have to do with the measurement of
these four properties; in particular, they have to
do with the precision with which these properties
can be measured. Until the advent of quantum
mechanics, everyone thought the precision of any
measurement was limited only by the accuracy
of the measurement instruments used. Heisenberg showed that regardless of the accuracy of
the instruments used, quantum mechanics limits
precision when two properties are measured at
the same time. These are not just any two prop-
Putting these symbols together, the two uncertainty relationships look like the following
(Gerjuoy, 1993):
px
h
4
Knowledge Potential
MeaSureMent fraMeworK
basic concept and assumptions
and
E t
h
4
h
x
4
It can be seen that the uncertainty in the momentum measurement, p, is very large because
x in the denominator is very small. In fact, if
97
2.
3.
The constant h will not be used; it is substituted for the knowledge potential of a
knowledge worker.
The measurement procedure is not a physical one. Thus, characteristics of a human
resource based approach must be taken into
consideration. A basic physical definition has
to be re-interpreted and put into a knowledge
context by using the analogical reasoning
process.
The theoretical implication of Heisenbergs
measurement is that the more precisely the
position is determined, the less precisely the
momentum is known in this instant, and vice
versa. This physical phenomenon is difficult
to explain for the knowledge measurement
process, hence, the conducted case studies
show first implications of this phenomenon.
98
Knowledge Potential
Measurement Process
Figure 2 illustrates the Knowledge Potential
Measurement Model (Fink, 2004).
The two key measured properties are:
in a particular direction. So velocity is directionoriented. When evaluating the velocity of an object, one must monitor the direction. To determine
the velocity of an object, one would need to know
the speed and direction of the object. In terms of
the knowledge potential view, knowledge velocity
is the accomplishment of problem solving objectives. How good or bad has a knowledge worker
reached his objectives within a certain time? This
means, if a person has to solve a problem, quality
of the problem solution and length of time to solve
a problem are important facts. The quality of the
solution process is relevant, but the time it took
to solve the problem also is relevant. Velocity is
an expression of the quality of the problem solution process for a knowledge worker in a certain
time. It is not enough that a knowledge worker
solves a problem quickly, but you also need to
know the direction of the solution process. Velocity measures the degree to which any knowledge
contributes to knowledge potential. An optimal
velocity performance is knowledge with a high
degree of contribution towards the improvement of
the knowledge potential. Tiwana (Tiwana, 2000)
uses the term knowledge velocity that successful
99
100
101
102
referenceS
Amar, A. (2002). Managing Knowledge Workers.
Westport: Quorum Books.
Corso, M., Martini, A., Paolucci, E., & Pellegrini,
L. (2003). Knowledge management configurations in Italian small-to-medium enterprises.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14(1), 4656.
doi:10.1108/09576060310453344
Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1997). Why Computers May Never Think Like People. In Ruggles, R.
(Ed.), Knowledge Management Tools (pp. 3150).
Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fink, K. (2009). Knowledge Measurement Barriers. Paper presented at the 15th American Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco.
Fink, K., & Ploder, C. (2006). The Impact of
Knowledge Process Modeling on Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises. In K. Tochtermann
& H. Maurer (Eds.), Proceedings of I-KNOW
06: 6th International Conference on Knowledge
Management (pp. 47-51). Graz: J.UCS.
Fink, K., & Ploder, C. (2007). Knowledge Process
Modeling in SME and Cost-Efficient Software
Support: Theoretical Framework and Empirical
Studies. In Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.), Managing
Worldwide Operations and Communications with
Information Technology. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
103
104
105
106
Chapter 7
abStract
Success of organizational level knowledge management initiatives depends on how effectively individuals implementing these initiatives use their knowledge to bring about outcomes that add value in their
work. To facilitate assessment of individual level outcomes in the knowledge management context, this
research provides a model of interrelationships among individual level knowledge management success measures which include conceptual knowledge, contextual knowledge, operational knowledge,
innovation, and performance. The model was tested using structural equation modeling based on data
collected from managerial and professional knowledge workers. The results suggest that conceptual
knowledge enhances operational and contextual knowledge. Contextual knowledge improves operational
knowledge and is also a key predictor of innovations. The innovativeness of an individuals work along
with operational knowledge enhances work performance. The results support the proposed model. This
model can potentially be used for measuring knowledge management success at the individual level.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch007
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
introduction
At an organizational level, an important aspect of
knowledge management (KM) success is to have
systems and processes that enable getting the right
information to the right person at the right time
(Jennex, Smolnik & Croasdell, 2007). How these
systems and processes impact an individuals
knowledge and the subsequent work outcomes
are an equally important aspect, if not of greater
significance. One of the most important objectives
of various organizational systems and processes
is to empower individuals to take informed actions that will create value for the organization.
A pragmatic view of individual knowledge and
how it is related to other performance outcomes is
lacking in the literature. This research addresses
this gap and empirically tests a model of individual task knowledge and its relationship with
other individual level outcomes in the context of
KM success.
A significant amount of KM success literature
focuses mainly on systems and processes; often
with little emphasis on the individual who use these
systems to solve problems and create value (Guo
& Sheffield, 2006). Knowledge is often viewed
as an organizational resource that has to be managed well in order to gain competitive advantage.
Such an organizational view of knowledge is
comparable to the resource based view of the firm
(Grant, 1996; Grover & Davenport, 2001). From
the organizational view of knowledge, specific
processes and systems including information systems (IS) are used to manage this organizational
resource. These processes and systems often form
the key elements of most organizational level
KM initiatives. In the KM literature, knowledge
is seldom studied as an individual resource that
improves the individuals productivity and innovation. Individuals productivity and innovation
can contribute to organizational success.
Several researchers acknowledge the importance of individual knowledge in the implementation and success of organizational level KM
Knowledge ManageMent
SucceSS
KM success is viewed from many different
perspectives in the KM literature. From an IS
perspective, KM success is often equated with
knowledge management system (KMS) success.
107
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
108
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
109
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
110
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
111
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
Productivity benefits
This study examines a model of KM success at the
individual level and hence individuals are the unit
of analysis. In our model of KM success, in addition to the task knowledge we consider individual
112
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
tion efficiency resulting in new product performance (Brockman & Morgan, 2003). In a study
of IS professionals in knowledge management
context, Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003) used
team performance along three dimensions of efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness. This was
based on outcome measures primarily conducted
in job characteristic studies and learning, and can
be applicable to both individual and team levels
(Edmondson, 1999; Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Here we adapt Janz and Prasarnphanichs measure
of team performance and operationalize individual
knowledge worker performance comprising of
efficiency, effectiveness and quality of work.
relationSHiP aMong KM
SucceSS outcoMeS
Figure 3 shows the relationships among the
individual level KM success outcomes considered in this chapter and the subsequent research
model, which include task knowledge and individual productivity benefits. The types of task
knowledge include conceptual, contextual, and
operational knowledge. Productivity benefits
include innovativeness of an individuals work
and performance outcomes. Subsequent discus-
113
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
It hypothesizes only the most likely and theoretically prominent linkages from task knowledge
constructs to productivity benefits.
Conceptual knowledge, which is a deeper and
broader understanding of why a task is performed,
may not always be necessary to accomplish many
aspects of a knowledge workers job satisfactorily.
But having such knowledge provides a sense of
purpose and motivation in performing the task in
the best possible manner by enhancing know-what
and know-how (Agarwal et al., 1997). This broader
understanding also helps the individual contextualize his or her actions in the larger scheme of
things, and helps draw on appropriate and useful
information in novel and useful ways (Kim, 1993).
Conceptual knowledge helps the individual look
at his/her actions from higher levels of abstraction. Being able to conceptualize the task from a
higher level of abstraction means being able to
make richer connections with other knowledge
that may or may not be immediately necessary
for the execution of the task at hand, and hence,
enabling the creation of a richer context for the
execution of that task (Gasson, 2005; Johnson et
al., 2002). Thus we contend:
H1:The higher the conceptual knowledge of an
individual, the higher the operational knowledge
of the individual.
H2:The higher the conceptual knowledge of an
individual, the higher the contextual knowledge
of the individual.
Know-who, know-where, and know-when
knowledge creates a rich background for individual actions to take place. Even in situations
where the task is primarily centered on this type
of knowledge, there still exists a potential to draw
upon more of such background information. Such
knowledge helps in contextualizing and enriching
the primary information that individuals need to
use in any of their organizational actions (Johnson
et al., 2002). The greater contextual knowledge
114
individuals can bring to bear, the better the individuals can embellish their direct task-related
knowledge. Especially in todays knowledge
intensive environment there is an increasing need
to combine knowledge from multiple domains
(Gasson, 2005). Thus, we hypothesize:
H3:The higher the contextual knowledge of an
individual, the higher the operational knowledge
of the individual.
A key aspect of being innovative in the work
place is the ability to generate and apply creative
and useful ideas in ones work. Creative artifacts
originate from ideas in an individuals mind.
Novelty is the hallmark of a creative production
and requires that individuals connect disparate
knowledge in novel ways in their minds. Wiig
and Jooste (2004) indicate that having broader
task knowledge should provide more innovative work outcomes. Rich contextual knowledge
provides the potential for the individuals to draw
upon seemingly unimportant data to connect
them in novel ways to the task at hand. Knowing
who the stakeholders are and understanding their
needs and expectations can positively contribute
to making the outcomes of a knowledge workers
actions useful, novel, and interesting. Being able
to easily access knowledge about where to get
appropriate resources and information regarding
a particular task, and knowing when to use such
information and take appropriate actions can help
the individuals ease the task of performing those
actions. This frees their mental prowess for more
creative work. Further, it is often essential to
make use of disparate, multi-domain contextual
information to produce hybrid and novel solutions
(Engestrom, Engestrom & Karkkainen, 1995).
Thus, we contend:
H4:The higher the contextual knowledge of an
individual, the higher the innovativeness of the
individuals work.
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
Operational knowledge is the primary knowledge that an individual needs to have in performing
the task. This knowledge includes knowing what
needs to be done to accomplish a task and how to
do it. When an individual has such information
readily accessible to his or her mind, performing
the task becomes substantially effortless. Wiig and
Jooste (2004) contend that having such knowledge
and understanding provides workers with the basic
ability to be efficient. When more such information
is available, the implementation of such actions
becomes more effective and efficient. In this case,
the individual can focus on performing the task
with efficiency, effectiveness, and quality.
H5:The higher the operational knowledge of
an individual, the higher the individuals work
performance.
Organizational productivity gains are achieved
by making people work more efficiently through
many work improvements including better innovations (Wiig & Jooste, 2004). Especially, in
non-routine work such as in knowledge work,
innovations of individuals create procedures and
artifacts that help them accomplish the task faster
and more effectively (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Van
De Ven, 1986). Over time, even small innovations
in work can accumulate to produce significant
performance improvement for the individual and
the firm. Thus, we hypothesize:
H6:The higher the innovativeness of an individuals work, the higher will be the individuals
work performance.
reSearcH MetHodS
A cross-sectional survey design was used to
collect the data to test our model. In developing
and refining the new measures, a pretest of the
measurement items were conducted followed by
a pilot test. Pilot test involved a small scale data
collection and assessment of validity, dimensionality, and reliability of the scales. Subsequently, a
large scale data collection targeting managerial and
professional knowledge workers was implemented
using a web-based questionnaire. The following
sections briefly describe the pilot, the large scale
sample, and the measurement development. The
structural equation modeling software package
LISREL is employed for measurement assessment
and for testing the structural model and hypotheses.
Pilot testing
A pilot test was performed based on 53 responses
obtained out of 68 survey requests from knowledge workers in the United States. Twenty four
responses were received from the individuals
working in the various functions within organizations involved in design, manufacturing or
consulting and the rest of the 29 responses were
received from MBA students working for various manufacturing firms. The respondents were
identified by their managers or themselves as
knowledge workers who used information technology heavily for their daily work. The pilot stage
data analysis involved item purification using
corrected item-total correlation (CITC) scores,
evaluation of unidimensionality using principal
component factor analysis, evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity using structural
equation modeling, and reliability assessment
using Cronbachs alpha. Items pertaining to each
construct were modified or eliminated based on
the feedback from the pilot results.
115
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
116
evaluated using a Chi-square test of goodness-offit of various demographic variables between the
first and second wave of data collection (Smith,
1983). Results indicated no significant difference
(p-value > 0.10) between the various demographic
variables. Measures were then evaluated in steps
similar to the pilot stage involving item purification, evaluation of factor structure, unidimensionality, and convergent and discriminant validity.
Measures
Respondents were asked to answer the survey
items based on a particular project or an assignment, or based on their work during the last six
months if they did not typically work on a specific
project. Providing a more specific framework as
mentioned above was expected to help respondents
recall the work situation and answer the questions
with a more consistent frame of reference. It is
important to provide such a consistent framework
to elicit the level of respondents knowledge within
the specified duration because conceptual and
contextual task-knowledge at any given time may
be the result of knowledge that may have been
accumulated over a long period of time, whereas
the operational knowledge is often acquired
closer to when the task needs to be performed.
The specific measures for the three dimensions
of task knowledge uses a five point Likert type
scale where 1= None or to a very little extent
and 5= To a very great extent (see Appendix A).
Innovation was measured using three items (see
Appendix A) based on Oldham and Cummings
(1996) creative performance and Scott and Bruces
(1994) innovative behavior with a focus on the
work outcome. The performance measure was
adapted from Janz and Prasarnphanichs (2003)
measure used in a team performance context.
Here it was adapted to focus on the individual as
the unit of analysis.
For innovation, a seven point Likert type scale
ranging from 1= Not at all to 7= To an exceptionally high degree was used. A scale ranging
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
reSultS
First, the data was examined using exploratory
factor analysis to validate that the five factors
had a simple structure. Next, data was analyzed
using LISREL in a two step process (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988) where (a) the measurement model
is evaluated and then (b) the structural model is
evaluated. In step (a) descriptive statistics were
presented along with the analysis of reliability,
convergent validity and discriminant validity of
the measures. In step (b), the structural model
was evaluated to test the substantive hypotheses
H1 through H6.
Common method bias introduced due to the
measurement of both independent and dependent
variable using a single source is an important issue
in similar studies. Several procedural and statistical approaches are available to minimize or even
eliminate such bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We
used these procedural approaches such as providing anonymity in responding to the survey, improving the scale items through piloting it before the
large scale, and counterbalancing by randomizing
the order of dependent and independent variables.
Statistical remedy suggested by Podsakoff et al.
(2003) by using Harmans single factor test also
suggested that the common method bias was not
a significant issue.
factor analysis
All the items were factor analyzed with five factor
specified, oblimin rotation, and maximum likelihood extraction. The five factor solution yielded
a simple structure with all the items loading on
their respective factors. Figure 4 below reported
the results of factor analysis with the factors sorted
117
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
Figure 4. Exploratory factor analysis: Pattern matrix with maximum likelihood extraction and oblimin
rotation
Figure 5. Reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity of task knowledge and performance
measures
118
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
119
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
120
diScuSSion
Knowledge management success is a broad
concept when viewed from an organizational
perspective. Previous literature has identified
various factors that are considered to be critical
for KM success (Jennex & Olfman, 2005). This
includes various organizational and individual
characteristics along with aspects of the KM
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
121
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
122
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
referenceS
concluSion
123
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent
variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1),
6095. doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60
Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge
management: The importance of a knowledgecentered culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2),
351384. doi:10.1111/1540-5915.02328
124
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavioral path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580607.
doi:10.2307/256701
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledgecreating company: how Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3),
607635. doi:10.2307/256657
125
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
endnote
1
126
A previous version of this article was presented at the January 7-10, 2008, 41st Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences.
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
127
128
Chapter 8
Validating Distinct
Knowledge Assets:
A Capability Perspective
Ron Freeze
Emporia State University, USA
Uday Kulkarni
Arizona State University, USA
abStract
Identification and measurement of organizational Knowledge Management capabilities is necessary to
determine the extent to which an organization utilizes its knowledge assets. We developed and operationalized a set of constructs to measure capabilities associated with management of knowledge assets
identified as distinct Knowledge Capabilities (KCs) comprising the overall Knowledge Management
(KM) capability of an organizational unit. Each KC represents a distinct kind of knowledge that requires
different organizational process and technological support. This delineation of knowledge allows targeted improvement to a specific KC. We present validation of these capability constructs with empirical
evidence from two separate business units in a large semi-conductor manufacturing company, providing
the basis of measurement standardization for KM Capability improvement. Confirmatory factor analysis
affirmed four KCs, each identified as an overall factor influencing a set of latent descriptor variables.
Second Order and General-Specific Structural Equation Models of each capability provide evidence
as to the validity of measurement of these knowledge assets. A standardized instrument for measuring
knowledge capabilities would not only allow benchmarking, but also allow tracking capabilities over
time and linking them to those performance metrics that are deemed appropriate by the organization.
introduction
The quest to leverage knowledge assets through
effective Knowledge Management (KM) is a
strategic initiative for many firms. Management
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch008
literature has noted the lack of effective management of knowledge and called for establishing
quantitative measures for these intangible assets
(Teece, 1998; Zack, 1999b). Unfortunately, most
KM initiatives in reality have been information
projects that result in only the consolidation of
data and not much by way of improvements in
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Research efforts at understanding KM Capability and its association with organizational effectiveness have attempted to define multiple KM
related constructs. Gold et al. (2001) proposed that
the overall KM Capability consists of knowledge
process capability and knowledge infrastructure
capability with both impacting organizational
effectiveness. In their model, process capability
incorporates the stages of lifecycle through which
knowledge progresses. The knowledge infrastructure capability includes technology, structure and
culture as its building blocks. Their notion of
organizational knowledge views all knowledge
similarly and fails to recognize different types of
knowledge that KM Capability must incorporate.
Tanriverdi (2005) presents KM Capability as a
second order capability comprised of an organizations Product, Customer and Managerial KM
Capability. Each of these first order constructs
comprised four stages of the knowledge lifecycle.
In this case, generic forms of the knowledge lifecycle stages have been used for each first order
construct which implies a separation of processes.
We assert that organizational knowledge covers
a wider range of assets and propose that different types of knowledge assets require different
organizational processes and technology support
to be utilized effectively.
Another significant attempt at conceptually
defining a framework for measuring KM Capability is the Cognizant Enterprise Maturity Model
(CEMM) that introduced the concept of measuring
15 Key Maturity Areas within an organization to
improve its business value through KM (Harigopal
and Satyadas, 2001). While the CEMM identifies
a multitude of knowledge processes through the
Key Maturity Areas, knowledge is differentiated
only through their discussion of tacit and explicit
knowledge. Each of these frameworks has provided valuable steps toward understanding the
nature of KM within an organization. However,
none have identified separate capabilities in distinct knowledge areas that may be individually
129
measured and leveraged within a single organization to more effectively meet its objectives.
The objective of this research is to further develop and validate a set of Knowledge Capability
(KC) measures that accurately capture a firms
overall KM Capability (Freeze and Kulkarni,
2007). Each KC is the knowledge related capability
of an organization within a particular knowledge
type. We draw upon previously identified KM
application areas such as knowledge repositories,
lessons learned, expert networks and communities of practice, etc. (King et al., 2002), and
characteristics of different types of knowledge
assets to conceptualize the KCs. We developed
a Knowledge Management Capability Assessment instrument that operationalizes the KCs.
The contribution of this paper lies in extending
previous research via improving the granularity of
measurement for KM Capability by hypothesizing
separate knowledge capabilities, developing and
validating the necessary measures, and defining the
steps necessary to improve each KC individually
and the KM Capability as a whole. We provide
validation of the KCs with empirical evidence
from two large independent organizational units
within a Fortune-50 semiconductor manufacturing company.
We begin by reviewing how prior research has
viewed the composition of a firms knowledge
asset structure in Section II. These viewpoints
include human capital participation in knowledge
related activities, importance of technological factors, lifecycle stages of knowledge, and the tacit/
implicit/explicit nature of knowledge. We use these
various viewpoints to recognize the different types
of knowledge and the abilities needed to leverage
them effectively. This prior conceptual work had
a significant influence on the composition of each
KC. We identify four important KCs that represent distinct KM capabilities - Lessons Learned,
Knowledge Documents, Expertise and Data. These
four KCs are sufficiently distinct, encompass a
130
Knowledge lifecycle
A lifecycle or knowledge process oriented view
of knowledge assets stipulates that companies that
want to develop and use knowledge effectively
need to treat knowledge differently according to
the stages of its life (Birkinshaw and Sheehan,
2002). KM researchers have regarded these stages
of the knowledge lifecycle as: knowledge flows,
steps to KM, architectures for explicit knowledge,
and knowledge lifecycle (Birkinshaw and Sheehan, 2002; Satyadas et al., 2001; Zack, 1999b).
Evaluating the different stages proposed resulted
in our viewing the knowledge lifecycle for this research as a four stage acquisition/storage/retrieval/
application cycle. Interaction between a firms
human capital and knowledge at different stages
of its lifecycle is facilitated by the technological
factors briefly described below.
The actual acquisition of knowledge and decision to transfer resides solely with the capabilities
associated with a firms human capital. Knowledge
can only be acquired if the knowledge worker
recognizes its value. The next logical stage in leveraging knowledge assets is to codify and capture
this new knowledge in repositories under existing
or expanded taxonomies. These processes begin
the storage stage of the knowledge assets and create the potential to use that captured knowledge.
The retrieval stage is the result of the decision to
reuse/apply existing knowledge; the success of
any attempt to leverage knowledge assets of a
firm is measured by whether a knowledge reuse
has occurred and is the culmination of the entire
cycle. This movement of knowledge exemplifies
the importance of recognizing the knowledge
lifecycle. Closer examination of the knowledge
lifecycle is needed in the context of different
knowledge types to understand each KC.
131
tacit/implicit/explicit Knowledge
Tacit knowledge has engaged researchers for many
years and is described in a multitude of ways: practical know-how, difficult to articulate, transferred
only via observation and practice, subconsciously
understood and applied, and rooted in action,
experience and involvement in a specific context
(Harigopal and Satyadas, 2001; Koskinen, 2003;
Nonaka, 1994; Teece, 1998; Zack, 1999b). Similarly, there is a wealth of research about explicit
knowledge depicting its essence as embodied in
code or language, knowledge already documented,
precisely or formally articulated, codified and
communicated in symbolic form and/or natural
language (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Harigopal and
Satyadas, 2001; Koskinen, 2003; Zack, 1999b).
Knowledge management researchers debate
whether knowledge can exist external to human
beings and therefore be captured electronically.
The research of tacit and explicit knowledge is
intrinsic to this debate.
A holistic view of organizational knowledge
assets must encompass both the tacit and explicit
nature of knowledge and the interplay that exists
between these two types of knowledge. The connection between tacit and explicit knowledge is
apparent when one recognizes that tacit knowledge is the means by which explicit knowledge is
created, captured, assimilated, and disseminated
(Fahey and Prusak, 1998) and where tacit knowledge forms the background necessary for assigning the structure to develop and interpret explicit
knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Polanyi,
1975). These connections between explicit and
tacit knowledge imply a continuum that provides
a scale of media richness vs. externalization:
face-to-face (tacit knowledge), telephone, written
personal, written formal, numeric formal (explicit
knowledge) (Koskinen, 2003).
The continuum of tacit to explicit knowledge
hints at a process in which tacit knowledge is
converted or transformed into explicit knowledge.
This movement of knowledge from tacit to explicit
132
Knowledge capabilities
The framework presented here provides a method
to assess the overall capability of an organization
to manage its knowledge within the four KCs
mentioned earlier: Lessons Learned, Knowledge
Documents, Expertise and Data. Higher levels of
KCs may result in improved organizational per-
133
134
MetHodologY
The conceptual development of the KCs was
done in partnership with a large semiconductor
manufacturing firm comprised of multiple business units in a global setting. The research methodology included face validation of the four KC
areas derived from prior research, construction
of the measurement instrument, identification of
the target population, data collection, and analysis
for construct validation. This was accomplished
in phases over a period of 18 months. The first
phase started with the development of KC constructs including the knowledge processes that
comprise them. The company charged an internal
team of five experts in Process Management,
Information Technology, Value Engineering,
HR, and Training and Development to work
with the external researchers (authors) for the
entire project. The authors and the internal team
studied several internal knowledge documents,
training documents, questionnaires, guidelines,
memos, and other artifacts used by knowledge
workers. They also studied various KM systems
and interviewed knowledge workers in multiple
business units regarding their knowledge sharing
activities. The aim was to achieve an initial face
validation of the KC constructs.
From these field interactions, the team developed a KM Capability assessment instrument to
measure various aspects of the four KCs described
earlier. Each KC was operationalized using a set
of latent descriptor factors guided collectively by
its unique involvement in the knowledge lifecycle,
135
Expertise Taxonomy
er1
Availability of repository(ies)
et1
Existence of taxonomy
er2
Accessibility of repository(ies)
et2
er3
et3
Comprehensiveness
er4
et4
Extensibility
er5
Search capabilities
er6
Ease of searching
ec1
Routineness of use
er7
ec2
Ease of use
ec3
ec4
Collaboration Tools **
Expert Access/Consulting
ea1
ea2
ea3
ep1*
ep2
Communities of Practice**
es1
Participation in SIGs
es2
es3
Ease to use
es4
ep3
Allows self-updating
es5
ep4
Taxonomy
lr1
Availability of repository(ies)
lt1
Existence of taxonomy
lr2
Accessibility of repository(ies)
lt2
lr3
lt3
Comprehensiveness
lr4
lr5
Ease of searching
lc1
Practice of capture
lr6
lc2
lc3*
lc4
Application/Use
la1
Practice of application/use
la2*
la3
Capture
136
Table 1. continued
Knowledge Documents
Knowledge Documents Repository(ies)
Taxonomy**
kr1
Availability of repository(ies)
kt1*
Existence of taxonomy
kr2
Accessibility of repository(ies)
kt2*
kr3
kt3*
Comprehensiveness
kr4
kr5
ks1
Ease to use
kr6
Clarity of meta-data
ks2
ks3
Categorization
kc1
kc2
Ease to use
ku1*
Practice of reference/use
kc3
ku2*
kc4
Data Relevance
dr1
Availability of repository(ies)
dv1
Timeliness
dr2
Accessibility of repository(ies)
dv2
Periodicity
dr3
Currency of data
dv3
Completeness
dr4
Level of detail/summarization
dv4
Usefulness of format
dr5
Clarity of meta-data
dv5
Accuracy
ds1*
Ease of use
ds2*
Sufficiency
137
TLI
Observations
BU1
BU2
BU1
BU2
BU1
BU2
BU1
BU2
Expertise
Repository, Taxonomy,
Access, Profiling,
Collaboration, CoPs
85
78
654
614
0.92
0.92
250
301
Lessons Learned
Repository, Taxonomy,
Use, Capture
84
80
139
143
0.95
0.95
243
290
Repository, Categorization,
Search
88
82
140
140
0.96
0.96
228
283
Repository, Relevance
90
87
97
123
0.97
0.96
224
291
Knowledge
Documents
Data
Descriptor Factors
Chi Square
(p < .001)
138
Taxonomy
BU1
BU2
lr1
0.67
0.70
lr2
0.82
0.86
lr3
0.82
0.80
lr4
0.87
0.92
lr5
0.88
0.86
lr6
0.89
0.86
Capture
BU1
BU2
lt1
0.63
0.64
lt2
0.87
0.87
lt3
0.83
0.91
App/Use
BU1
BU2
lc1
0.67
0.79
lc2
0.89
0.74
lc3
lc4
0.51
0.49
la1
BU1
BU2
0.83
0.84
la2
la3
0.84
0.87
each business unit. The sixth factor, Expert Access, had two items with excellent loadings for
both business units and the third item had either
a very good (BU1) or a good loading (BU2).
The Knowledge Documents KC was originally hypothesized to be composed of five factors.
However, the five scale items hypothesized for
Taxonomy and Reference & Use did not load on
a separate/distinct factor (Table 5). For only the
factors of Repository, Categorization and Search
were we able to achieve our first goal. Pursuant
to our second goal, each of the scale items for
Taxonomy (kt1, kt2 and kt3) and Reference &
Use (ku1 and ku2) were iteratively removed. The
TLI improved with each iteration and a more
parsimonious three-factor model emerged. Our
third goal was achieved with a TLI of 0.96 for
each business unit. For each of the remaining
three factors, there were at least three scale items
with excellent loadings.
The Data KC (Table 6) was originally hypothesized as having three factors. The descriptor
variable Decision Support Tools and the associated scale items (ds1 and ds2) encountered commonalities greater than one while running the ML
and would not complete computation. This factor
did not originally have three items and so these
scale items, as well as the factor, was iteratively
removed, which resulted in convergence to two
factors for data with excellent loadings for all
scale items. The final TLI was 0.97 for BU1 and
0.96 for BU2.
139
BU2
er1
0.64
0.64
er2
0.80
0.85
er3
0.84
0.85
er4
0.85
0.85
er5
0.93
0.90
er6
0.93
0.90
er7
0.92
0.90
Taxonomy
BU1
BU2
et1
0.62
0.58
et2
0.77
0.78
et3
0.80
0.80
et4
0.79
0.78
Profiling
BU1
Access
BU2
BU1
BU2
ea1
0.84
0.97
ea2
0.69
0.59
ea3
0.84
0.75
Collaboration
BU1
BU2
ec1
0.91
0.74
ec2
0.94
0.87
ec3
0.78
0.75
ec4
0.85
0.77
CoPs
BU1
BU2
es1
0.79
0.57
es2
0.88
0.86
es3
0.87
0.80
es4
0.92
0.94
es5
0.83
0.88
ep1
ep2
0.73
0.76
ep3
0.76
0.81
ep4
0.75
0.81
140
Taxonomy
BU2
Categorization
BU1
BU2
BU2
kt1
kt2
kt3
ku1
ku2
0.76
0.74
kr2
0.86
0.80
kr3
0.88
0.79
kr4
0.78
0.80
kr5
0.76
0.77
kr6
0.67
0.73
BU2
kc1
0.58
0.58
kc2
0.78
0.83
kc3
0.80
0.81
kc4
0.81
0.84
BU1
Use
BU1
kr1
BU1
Search
BU2
ks1
0.85
0.82
ks2
0.86
0.78
ks3
0.86
0.76
Relevance
BU2
BU1
Search
BU1
BU2
ds1
ds2
dr1
0.71
0.66
dr2
0.88
0.85
dr3
0.87
0.88
dr4
0.90
0.91
dr5
0.87
0.89
BU2
dv1
0.89
0.88
dv2
0.90
0.91
dv3
0.83
0.85
dv4
0.80
0.85
dv5
0.86
0.88
141
Model Type
Group
df
NNFI
CFI
SRMR
Lessons Learned
Second Order
BU1
223
100
465
0.95
0.96
0.093
Lessons Learned
Second Order
BU2
303
100
629
0.94
0.95
0.120
Lessons Learned
General-Specific
BU1
223
88
355
0.96
0.97
0.069
Lessons Learned
General-Specific
BU2
303
88
394
0.96
0.97
0.093
Data
Second Order
BU1
223
51
183
0.98
0.98
0.032
Data
Second Order
BU2
303
51
198
0.98
0.99
0.034
Data
General-Specific
BU1
223
43
136
0.98
0.99
0.048
Data
General-Specific
BU2
303
43
125
0.99
0.99
0.036
Expertise
Second Order
BU1
223
131
578
0.96
0.97
0.076
Expertise
Second Order
BU2
303
131
477
0.97
0.98
0.066
Expertise
General-Specific
BU1
223
117
461
0.97
0.97
0.034
Expertise
General-Specific
BU2
303
117
391
0.98
0.98
0.030
Knowledge Documents
Second Order
BU1
223
62
263
0.97
0.98
0.052
Knowledge Documents
Second Order
BU2
303
62
241
0.98
0.98
0.043
Knowledge Documents
General-Specific
BU1
223
52
193
0.97
0.98
0.030
Knowledge Documents
General-Specific
BU2
303
52
201
0.98
0.99
0.024
142
143
144
concluSion
In the process of establishing capabilities as
knowledge assets, we have focused our efforts
on establishing measurement consistency and
the representation of each knowledge capability
as a latent factor. Each capability was established
using the two measurement model forms of: (1) a
General-Specific SEM model and (2) a Second-
145
Order SEM model. Both models provided fit indices for all capabilities indicating models of good
fit. The significance of the General factor and the
Second Order factor representing the overall capability provides strong evidence supporting these
knowledge assets as measurable capabilities. This
evidence is further strengthened by the application
of the models to two large independent business
units in a leading semi-conductor manufacturing
company in order to confirm the measurability of
the capabilities as knowledge assets. By using two
measurement models within two business units,
we have provided experimental rigor and some
amount of external validity.
While we have demonstrated the standardized measurability and recognized a different
makeup for each knowledge asset, we recognize
that these results may be limited by the fact that
the data originated from a single organization.
This limitation needs to be evaluated in light of
the vastly different corporate directives and the
autonomous nature of the two business units. One
must also recognize that while the identification
of four capabilities represents an attempt at enumerating diverse knowledge assets within most
organizations, these KCs may not represent all that
is considered as knowledge by every organization.
KM is an evolving field and the definition of what
is knowledge can undergo changes as researchers
and practitioners develop a better understanding
of this complex concept.
Immediate implication for managers is that a
method has been provided to assess the capability
level for these four knowledge assets. Recognition that a specific knowledge capability is low
in comparison to other knowledge capabilities
and organizational strategic goals will allow KM
initiatives to be targeted to that specific KC. For
example, an organization may recognize a need
for contacting experts and using relevant expertise
as a knowledge asset. The Expertise KC may not
be currently understood or exploited as well as
their documented knowledge that is systematically
maintained and shared widely across the organi-
146
referenceS
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management
Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research
Issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107136. doi:10.2307/3250961
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained
Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management,
17(1), 99120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
147
148
149
150
Chapter 9
Assessing Knowledge
Management:
abStract
With growing interest in KM-related assessments and calls for rigorous assessment tools, the objective
of this study was to apply SEM techniques to refine and cross-validate the KMI, a metric to assess the
degree to which organizations are engaged in knowledge management (KM). Unlike previous KM metrics research that has focused on scales, we modeled the KMI as a formative latent variable, thereby
extending knowledge on formative measures and index creation from other fields into the KM field.
The refined KMI metric was tested in a nomological network and found to be robust and stable when
cross-validated; thereby demonstrating consistent prediction results across independent data sets. The
study also verified the hypothesis that the KMI is positively correlated with organizational performance
(OP). Research contributions, managerial implications, limitations of the study, and direction for further
research are discussed.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch009
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
introduction
The knowledge-based view of the firm (Grant,
1996) and the resource-based view of knowledge
(Barney, 1991, 2001) have contributed to an understanding and recognition of knowledge as a
unique resource that enables organizations to attain
and maintain sustainable competitive advantage.
The recognition of the value of knowledge has
propelled many organizations to become more
committed to managing their knowledge assets.
As a result, knowledge management (KM) has
evolved to become a prevalent if not mandatory
practice in such organizations; where expectations
are high, of KM to positively and significantly
contribute to bottom-line results and consequently
overall organizational performance (OP). Yet,
despite massive investment in KM per se, many
organizations are still struggling to assess and tie
KM to such outcomes as improved performance
(Chan & Chau, 2005).
KM benefits are intangible in nature and assessing the performance impact of KM may be one of
the greatest challenges confronting organizations
that have embarked on KM. But the results of the
assessment are quite invaluable to be ignored even
if organizations have to face various challenges or
other deterring factors to the assessment process.
For example, assessing KM permits organizations
to identify and possibly eliminate gaps in knowledge preparedness, set realistic expectations of
KM benefits, and appreciate how such benefits
relate with OP.
As organizations approach KM as a means
to improve their performance, being able to assess the degree of engagement in KM remains
an important task that must be conducted with
a reasonable degree of accuracy if they hope to
use the results for better management decision
making regarding the allocation and deployment
of resources to meet performance goals through
KM. The knowledge management index (KMI)
has been proposed as a metric to measure the degree to which an organization is engaged in KM
151
tHeoretical bacKground
KM assessment requirements,
benefits, and Metrics
To assess KM requires the use of metrics, i.e.
measures that yield key data about KM. Such
152
data can be translated into actionable information for managerial decision making processes.
Unfortunately, as (Lee, Lee, & Kang, 2005) point
out, many organizations that have introduced KM
have yet to develop appropriate means of assessing KM effectiveness and usefulness. While some
organizations currently have a few or no metrics to
assess their commitment to, and their engagement
in KM, it is precisely such assessment metrics,
we contend, that should be developed, validated,
and applied within organizational settings prior
to attempting to associate KM benefits with OP.
Executives and managers often look at metrics
to understand past, current, and possible future
business scenarios before making decisions and
as such, KM assessment should be a routine or
mandatory activity in organizations. Other benefits
of KM assessment can be cited. For example, assessment of the performance impact of KM can
provide the basis for the development and deployment of knowledge resources in the best possible
way to maximize OP. Furthermore, by assessing
KM and OP, key objectives such as evaluating
investment, securing funding for KM, developing
benchmarks, and deriving lessons for the future
can be realized (Kankanhalli & Tan, 2005).
The usefulness of KM metrics extends beyond
the focus of individual organizations. Metrics permit comparability with other organizations, across
industries, time, and geographical regions. Metrics
also permit comparability of research and provide
a basis for validation of theories and relationships
among concepts, as well as facilitate replication
of research without the need to reinvent the wheel
by developing new instruments (Boudreau, Gefen,
& Straub, 2001).
Despite the necessity and usefulness of metrics,
research on the development of KM assessment
metrics has remained largely underdeveloped
(Grover & Davenport, 2001). Equally, the practice
of KM assessment has remained underdeveloped
(Bontis, 2001). These underdevelopments arise
not only as a result of the complexity of assessing organizational initiatives but also because
scales to measure three KM behaviors and practices in organizations which included knowledge
acquisition, knowledge dissemination, and knowledge responsiveness or use. Although these scales
could be useful in identifying knowledge gaps in
organizations, they do not take into consideration
factors that influence or enable the knowledge
behaviors and practices, i.e. KM CSFs.
Equally, Lee et al., (2005) constructed a scale
used in conjunction with an analytical measure
they call the knowledge management performance
index (KMPI). The KMPI focuses primarily on five
KM processes: knowledge creation, accumulation,
sharing, utilization, and internalization. While
the KMPI can be used to measure the quality of
organizational knowledge, just as in the case of
the study by Darroch (2003), the approach by
Lee et al., (2005) neither takes into account the
management of the five KM processes nor considers factors critical to the success of KM efforts,
i.e. KM CSFs.
But according to Asoh et al., (2002), to properly assess KM efforts organizations must not
only consider KMPs but also KM CSFs. Their
underlying assumption, to which we subscribe,
is that in every organization, there is persistent
interaction between knowledge management
processes under the influence of critical success
factors, orchestrated by some actors: employees,
customers, partners, and the environment of the
organization [in pursuit and support of organizational performance objectives]. (p.26). One
implication of the foregoing assumption is that it
is possible to cast and investigate an organizations
engagement in KM, as depicted by the KMI, within
a common frame of KMPs and CSFs.
153
Elicitation
Dissemination
Utilization
Technology
Leadership
Culture
Measurement
154
Knowledge Management
Processes (KMPs)
Different authors have attributed different names
to the same KMPs. We maintain that a parsimonious yet relevant and informative model consists
of the following stages: identification, elicitation,
dissemination, and utilization (Asoh et al., 2002).
These stages, we contend, effectively capture the
various discussions and practices relevant to most
KM programs.
Knowledge identification focuses on discerning the location and value of knowledge, the roles
and expertise of individual employees, constraints
to knowledge flow, and opportunities to leverage
knowledge. Knowledge elicitation focuses on
extracting knowledge from relevant sources to
meet the goals of the organization or to enhance the
organizations knowledge management system.
Knowledge dissemination focuses on distributing knowledge to organizational members, i.e.,
ensuring that those who have knowledge share it
with those who do not have it. Knowledge utilization is defined as the application of knowledge
for the attainment of organizational goals. With
knowledge recognized as a key organizational
resource, the capture (identification and elicitation), sharing (dissemination) and application
(utilization) of knowledge become fundamental
in creating, maintaining, and sustaining an organizations competitive advantage (Grant, 1996;
von Krogh, 1998).
155
Figure 1. The KMI model (LV Model Type II, with 32 indicators)
LV or construct associated with the 32 questionnaire items. In the absence of appropriate previous LV measurement models, it is necessary to
define a preliminary model of the dimensions
of a construct, since this enhances our ability to
understand and interpret empirical results (Sethi
& King, 1991; MacKenzie, 2003).
By definition, the four KMPs (identification,
elicitation, dissemination, and utilization) are
distinct concepts, each of which is a first-order
construct that can be cast across the frame of the
CSFs to take into account the impact of the CSFs
on the specific KMPs. Defining the KMI as the
degree to which an organization is engaged in
KM means it is the combination or aggregate of
various organizational engagements in KMPs that
determines the KMI, rather than the other way
around. On this basis, we modeled the KMI as
a second-order aggregate or formative construct
rather than a superordinate or reflective construct
(Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Diamantopoulos &
Winklhofer, 2001; Jarvis, Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003).
When considered as a second-order formative
unobservable LV, the level of the KMI is dependent
on the summative effect of all four dimensions of
KMPs as influenced by the CSFs. The expectation
is that, as a formative LV, the KMI will increase
or decrease if any of its dimensional components increases or decreases (Diamantopoulos &
156
four first-order dimensions which are then aggregated to form the KMI model as a second-order
construct. Therefore, the KMI is depicted as a
formative second-order model with the KMPs as
dimensions, each of which is a reflective first-order
constructs (Figure 1).
And given this specific dimension of OP, the following sub-hypothesis is investigated:
H1a: The more an organization is engaged in
KM, the more will be the level of development of
its human resources capabilities. In other words,
the KMI is positively correlated with OP viewed
in terms of organizational human resources capabilities.
Considering the four dimensions of the KMI,
the resulting KMI-OP LV nomological network
model of this study is presented in figure 3, where
Q1, Q2, Q32 are the 32 items in the current KMI
instrument; and P1, P2, P16, are OP-related
items discussed later under methodology.
MetHodologY
KMi instrument
In the KMI instrument proposed by Asoh et al.,
(2002), 32 items are used covering the content areas of KMPs and CSFs identified in Belardos Matrix (Table 1). Following two pilot studies (Asoh
et al., 2004; Crnkovic et al., 2004), the instrument
was modified to ensure clarity and avoid jargon.
In the final version of the instrument, respondents
were asked to rate: (1) the degree to which each
item reflected the organizations engagement in
specific KMPs as influenced by specific CSFs;
and, (2) the importance of the concept expressed
by each item to the organization.
The response on the importance of the concept
was used to compute a mean importance score
required in the item purification process as an
external criterion (DeVellis, 1991; Spector,
1992). The rationale for the use of this external
criterion is that since the importance score
reflects the value an organization places on its
KMPs and CSFs, only item measures that correlate positively and highly with the importance
score are meaningful and should be retained for
157
158
159
Table 2. Distribution of KMI Items (Before, during, and after two quantitative screenings)
Knowledge Management Process (KMPs)
Identification
Critical Success
Factors (CSFs)
Dissemination
Utilization
Technology
Q1* Q2*
Q9* Q10
Q17* Q18*
Q25 Q26*
Leadership
Q3 Q4
Q11* Q12
Q19* Q20
Q27* Q28
Culture
Q5 Q6
Q13 Q14
Q21 Q22
Q29 Q30*
Measurement
Q7* Q8
Q15 Q16*
Q23 Q24
Q31 Q32
160
Elicitation
161
162
Figure 4. Measurement models for calibration and validation samples (all loadings significant at
p=0.1level)
163
the impact of the technology CSF on the knowledge utilization KMP. It is possible that the words
transparent to all might have been interpreted in
the sense of dissemination by most respondents
within the calibration sample who also associated
the item with knowledge utilization as expected.
Furthermore, the relatively very low loading of
the same item on the DISSEM construct in the
validation sample and its persistent high loading
on the UTILIZ construct in the same sample seem
to suggest some possible hidden variation between
the two samples rather than specific problems
with the item. We decided to maintain the item.
Having established unidimensionality of the
items, we proceeded to look at items loading
and reliability. The loadings and weights of the
items in the measurement models are indicated in
Figure 4, with numbers in brackets representing
weights. All item loadings in both calibration and
validation samples were significantly related to
their respective constructs at or above the p=0.01
level. The loadings were also within the limit or
164
Internal Consistency
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Cronbach
Alpha
Composite Reliability
IDENT
3
3
8.04
7.40
2.39
2.75
0.61
0.73
0.80
0.85
0.75
0.81
ELICITa
3
3
8.34
8.40
2.81
2.32
0.74
0.68
0.85
0.83
0.63
0.49
0.81
0.79
DISSEMa
3
3
9.50
9.86
2.73
3.20
0.64
0.83
0.81
0.90
0.46
0.61
0.46
0.28
0.77
0.86
UTILIZa
3
3
7.77
7.75
2.58
2.44
0.54
0.57
0.77
0.78
0.44
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.44
0.33
0.72
0.74
HR-CAPa
3
3
9.44
8.58
2.91
2.73
0.68
0.76
0.83
0.86
0.30
0.35
0.30
0.31
0.40
0.20
0.39
0.41
No. of
items
IDENT
Construct
ELICIT
DISSEM
UTILIZ
HR-CAP
0.78
0.82
In each cell: Upper number: calibration sample; lower number: validation sample.
165
166
Structural Models
The structural models for the calibration and
validation samples are presented in Figure 6. We
assessed the structural models by examining the
significance of: (1) path coefficients among the
constructs; and, (2) variance explained (Falk &
Miller, 1992).
To obtain the path coefficients, we conducted
a bootstrap analysis with an initial sample size of
200 as recommended by Chin (2005). The PLS
software provides t-statistics for the path coefficients. For both the calibration and validation
samples, all path coefficients were significant at
the p=0.1 level or higher.
To ensure more confidence in the stability of the
path coefficients, we also assessed the structural
model by considering the significance of variance
explained based on the F-statistics (Falk & Miller,
1992) with the F-statistics computed as:
Figure 6. Structural models for calibration and validation samples (all paths significant at p=0.1level)
N=36;
m
Loading
Correlation
[Partial] R2
F(m, N-m1)
Critical
F(m,N-m-1)
R2 p-level
(2 tail Sign.)
1b
1
0.45
0.53
0.45
0.53
0.20
0.28
8.61
12.90
7.44
9.01
0.01
0.005
IDENT=> KMI
4
4
0.28
0.37
0.80
0.89
0.23
0.33
2.28
3.38
2.12
3.19
0.1
0.025
4
4
0.35
0.28
0.89
0.74
0.31
0.21
3.42
2.10
3.19
2.12
0.025
0.1
DISSEM=>
KMI
4
4
0.32
0.34
0.79
0.75
0.25
0.25
2.56
2.66
2.12
2.12
0.1
0.1
UTILIZ =>
KMI
4
4
0.27
0.27
0.82
0.77
0.22
0.20
2.17
1.99
2.12
2.12
0.1
ns
IV is exogenous & DV is endogenous construct.b Upper number in each cell is for calibration sample while lower number is for validation sample.
F=
R2 m
(1 R ) (N m 1)
2
167
and 20%, respectively, in calibration and validation. All partial contributions were significant in
both samples at the p=0.1 level or above, except
UTILIZ whose partial contribution was narrowly
non-significant at the p=0.1 level in the validation
sample (see Table 5).
While the non-significance of the contribution
of UTILIZ in the validation sample raises some
questions, Falk & Miller (1992) maintain that,
between values of significance and values of
variance explained, preference should be given
to variance explained. According to these authors,
variances explained should be greater than or
equal to 0.10; interpreting variances of less than
0.10, even if statistically significant, offers little
or no benefit. In fact, Falk and Miller strongly
argue that a predictor should only be maintained
in a model if the contribution made by that predictor is at least 1.5% of the total variance of the
predicted variable. Given the conceptualization
of the KMI as a formative construct, the four
dimensions are predictors of the KMI. Evidently,
the 20% contribution of UTILIZ in the validation model is more than ten times the minimum
required contribution (1.5%) advocated by Falk
& Miller (1992). These considerations alleviate
any worries about the nature and stability of the
four dimensions of the KMI in both the calibration
and validation samples.
concluSion
Summary of Study and results
The main purpose of this study was to refine
and cross-validate the KMI model proposed by
Asoh et al., (2002) so that a robust model can be
available for both researchers and practitioners.
In refining and cross-validating the KMI model,
we used empirical data to verify two hypotheses.
First, that the KMI is a multidimensional construct,
and second, that the KMI is significantly and
positively correlated with OP.
168
We rationalized the multi-dimensional perspective of the KMI on the grounds that the
KMPs (identification, elicitation, dissemination,
and utilization) are distinct from each other and
can be measured using different items even if
they are impacted by the same or different CSFs
(technology, leadership, culture, and measurement). In addition, we also maintained that KM
is a multi-faceted organizational phenomenon that
cannot be effectively studied using a reductionism approach based on the mean of responses to
questionnaire items.
For the refinement and validation we employed
quantitative criteria at two levels (correlational
analysis and SEM analysis) using empirical data
collected from U.S. and European samples to refine
and reduce the initial pool of 32 items in the KMI
instrument to 12 items. We further investigated
and compared the psychometric properties of the
12 item refined version of the KMI instrument
with a calibration sample and cross-validated the
model using a validation sample.
Results of our analysis confirmed the multidimensionality of the KMI. Each of the four
dimensions significantly contributed to the KMI.
We also found that the psychometric properties
of both the calibration and validation samples
were within acceptable limits as prescribed in
the SEM literature. The validation sample faithfully replicated the properties of the calibration
sample, thereby confirming cross-validation of the
KMI model. Furthermore, in both the calibration
and validation samples, the KMI was found to
be positively and significantly related to OP by
virtue of the positive and significant path coefficient between the KMI and HR-cap as well as
the significant variance explained (Table 5). The
findings of this study therefore confirm similar
findings from previous research by Asoh et al.,
(2004) and Crnkovic et al., (2004).
research contributions
and implications
KM is an emerging field and developing and using
constructs is an important step in the development
and advancement of theory in the field. In order
not to re-invent the wheel, researchers are urged
to use existing constructs in theory development.
Such an approach makes it possible for comparative evaluation of research results. However, it
is important to know the properties of scales or
indexes developed to measure a construct before
deciding to use the construct (Matsuno et al.,
2000) since results obtained from using inadequate
constructs can be misleading and detrimental to
the development of theory and advancement of
knowledge (MacKenzie, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Jarvis, 2005). This study successfully
refined and cross-validated the KMI models using
the SEM approach via PLS.
Post hoc model modifications and adjustments
are common practices in SEM analysis. As Loehlin
(2004) points out, once a model has been modified
or adjusted on the basis of its fit or lack of fit with
a given dataset, its statistical status is precarious
until it can be tested on a new body of data that
did not contribute to the adjustment (p. 234).
The study cross-validates the KMI model. Crossvalidation of research models is important because
it not only alleviates any concerns regarding model
specification (Rigdon, 1998; Loehlin, 2004) but,
more importantly, demonstrates that the KMI
model can generate consistent results, and will
thus be of practical value in making predictions
among members of the reference population upon
which the model is based. (Sheskin, 2004) (p.
1002). A refined and cross-validated KMI model
makes for easy and confident replication of this
study in future research.
Related assessments of KM have focused on
the development of scales (e.g. Darroch, 2003; Lee
et al., 2005). This study differentiates itself from
the others by casting and investigating the KMI
as a formative latent variable, thereby applying
Management implications
This study revealed the positive and significant
relationship between the KMI and OP. Specifically, the study verified previous research on the
predictive validity of the KMI in the nomological
network with OP, with OP considered in nonfinancial terms of HR capabilities. The study
contributes to management understanding of the
possibility to predict OP based on organizational
KM efforts. Given the definition of the KMI and
the positive correlation between the KMI and OP,
managers would note that greater engagement in
KM would lead to greater accrued or expected
KM benefits and consequently higher accrued
or expected OP.
In addition, the study revealed that although all
four KMPs contribute significantly and positively
to the value of the KMI, knowledge identification,
elicitation, and dissemination seem to contribute
more (respective averages of 28%, 26%, and 25%
for calibration and validation samples) compared
to knowledge utilization (average 21%). While
companies stand to benefit more when knowledge
is used, the lower contribution of knowledge
utilization despite high knowledge identification,
elicitation, and dissemination may seem to suggest
that organizations have to pay more attention to
knowledge utilization.
When we examined the 12 items retained for
the refined KMI within Belardos Matrix, we
found that three CSFs (technology, leadership,
and measurement) impacted at two or more KMPs
while one CSF (culture) impacted only one KMP
(utilization). Although one interpretation may be
that culture is not as important as other CSF when it
comes to knowledge identification, elicitation, and
dissemination, we believe a contrary interpretation
is in order: managers should rather focus greater
169
attention on the culture of knowledge identification, elicitation, and dissemination. This ensures
that the contribution of culture is felt when it
comes to anticipating KM benefits since the KMI
is a formative, rather than a reflective construct.
The KMI model with the refined 12 item instrument should appeal to managers. Managers will
be able to easily use the new instrument to assess
the degree of their organizational commitment to,
and engagement in KM. Such preliminary assessments would further help managers understand
and anticipate potential KM benefits. Those
organizations that are able to identify the knowledge they need, acquire it, and disseminate it so
that it can be utilized in business operations, will
increasingly be able to appreciate and eliminate
knowledge gaps in order to improve KM benefits
and ultimately OP.
170
referenceS
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge
management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues.
Management Information Systems Quarterly,
25(1), 107136. doi:10.2307/3250961
Amabile, T. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving
what you do. California Management Review,
40(1), 3958.
Anantatmula, V. S. (2005). Outcomes of Knowledge Initiatives. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 5067.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423. doi:10.1037/00332909.103.3.411
April, K. A. (2002). Guidelines for developing a
K-strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management,
6(5), 445456. doi:10.1108/13673270210450405
Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs. The
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems,
26(2&3), 4263.
171
172
173
174
175
has a strategic program in place to identify, collect and analyze business intelligence information to develop business strategy*.
management is committed to the identification of the right knowledge for organization business, demonstrates commitment and action in knowledge management policy,
guidelines and activities.
management constantly reviews and acts on opportunities for appropriate alliances and
joint ventures to increase the organizations intellectual capital.
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
Regularly identifies, reviews, and deletes out-of-date information and ensures updates
from designated information owners.
IMP
SD
SA
uses technological tools to create opportunities for employees to contribute knowledge in the form of tips to others*.
10
11
12
management actively promotes behaviors that enable knowledge seekers to ask their
questions to others without penalties for not knowing.
13
14
15
16
176
is constantly evaluating the possibilities to get the most knowledge out of its employees*.
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
Q#
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
constantly measures weather the people who need the knowledge get it when they need
it.
25
26
employs technology that makes the utilization of the knowledge resources transparent to all*.
27
is constantly tracking to ensure people who need knowledge get it when they need
it*.
28
29
employees do not distinguish between personal and corporate knowledge when it comes
to utilizing knowledge resources for organizations business.
30
31
32
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
Bold and asterisk (*): Final items retained for the KMI model
177
10
11
12
13
14
develops indicators and evaluative data that can measure progress toward results and
accomplishments
15
16
Bold and asterisk (*): Final items retained for the HR-Capability component of OP.
178
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
179
Chapter 10
A Relational Based-View
of Intellectual Capital
in High-Tech Firms
G. Martn De Castro
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
P. Lpez Sez
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
J.E. Navas Lpez
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
M. Delgado-Verde
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
abStract
The Resource-Based View (RBV) has tried to test the role of strategic resources on sustained competitive
advantage and superior performance. Although this theory has found several flaws in order to reach its
objective effectively (Priem & Butler, 2001), recent proposals have suggested that these problems can
be overcome (Peteraf & Barney, 2003). This solution requires paying a greater attention to the analysis of knowledge stocks, developing a mid-range theory: the Intellectual Capital-Based View (Reed,
Lubatkin & Srinivasan, 2006). This mid-range and pracmatic theory allows the hypotheses development and empirical testing in a more effective way that the RBV. There is a certain degree of general
agreement about the presence of human capital and organizational capital as the main components of
intellectual capital, as well as about the fact that the configuration of knowledge stocks will vary from
one industry and firm to another one. Taking these assumptions as a starting point, this paper explores
the configuration of intellectual capital that can be empirically found on a sample of high-technology
firms. Our findings highlight the importance of relational capital, which must be divided into business
and alliance capital, so the strategic alliances play a relevance role in the type of firms that have been
included in our research.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch010
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
introduction
From the Resource-Based View (RBV), it is widely
accepted that sustained competitive advantage and
superior rents are closely tied to company ability
to utilize and deploy its intangible resources and
capabilities, or its knowledge stocks (Barney,
1991; Grant, 1996) or intellectual capital (Subramaniam & Yound, 2005).
Nevertheless, the RBV suffers from various
concerns (Priem & Butler, 2001): (i) it is not prescriptive; (ii) it is too general; (iii) and it lacks a
clear definition of its key concepts, among other.
These can be the reasons why there is so little effort
in studying a conceptual and empirical test of it.
To overcome some of these concerns, during the 90s has arisen a pragmatic and focused
framework, called Intellectual Capital-Based View
(ICV) (Reed et al., 2006). As a mid-range theory,
ICV should allow a better hypotheses development and empirical testing than a more generalize
framework as the RBV.
In this sense, there are several intellectual
capital models that have been provided in the literature (Brooking, 1996; Kaplan & Norton, 1996;
Edvinsson & Malone, 1997; Bueno, 1998; CIC,
2003; among others) to measure and conceptualize intellectual capital. However, it is necessary
to improve previous proposals and empirically
support models for the classification and measurement of intellectual capital.
At this point, most of them, use three elements
of intellectual capital: human capital, structural
capital, and relational capital (Leitner, 2005),
which are representing, in a wide sense, all expressions of firms knowledge stocks. In this way,
it is tried to reconcile the concept of intellectual
capital (CIC, 2003).
This work is based on an empirical research in
high-tech organizations since the dominant stream
of the theoretical proposals of intellectual capital
adopt the follow basic three components:
180
tHeoretical bacKground
Knowledge assets -intellectual capital- as economic wealth have been accepted along the scientific
literature as well as its useful application (Teece,
1998). Although studies about its identification,
measurement and strategic assessment are limited
because there are several problems implicated
in that. These problems are examined by the
models of intellectual capital, carrying out their
measurement and identification of the different
components that compose it. Furthermore, the
importance of managing the intellectual capital
in firms supposes a key point to perform a work
like this.
On the other hand, the definition of intellectual
capital by Bueno (1998: 221): basic competen-
181
182
Sample
Response rate
Survey
Ordinary mail
Follow up on the phone
Backup with second ordinary mail, FAX, webpage and e-mail
Standard
Deviation
HC2 - Our employees are among the most experienced in the industry
5.92
1.074
5.81
1.049
5.67
1.232
5.67
1.098
RC5 - Our firm is recognized by the external agents (customers, suppliers, competitors, and the general
public) as one of the best firms in the industry
5.61
1.297
5.35
1.341
RC4 - Our collaboration agreements are held during long periods of time
5.19
1.394
SC1 - Our efforts in creating and sustaining an organizational culture are among the highest in our
industry
5.02
1.651
SC2 - Our firm develops more ideas and products than any other firm in our industry
4.75
1.671
SC3 - We perform a lot of actions to spread our corporate values and beliefs
3.96
1.703
RC3 - Our relations with suppliers are sporadic and punctual (R)
3.81 (R)
1.313
RC1 - Our firm devotes an important part of its budget to funding community and green actions
2.60
1.796
Questionnaire items
(R) Reversed item. Un-reversed mean would be 4.19. Standard deviation remains the same.
reSultS
A factor analysis was developed in order to identify
the main dimensions (Hair et al., 2004) of intellectual capital for these types of industries as well
183
184
.836
HC3
.760
RC5
.739
HC1
.716
HC4
.527
Structural Capital
SC3
Alliance Capital
.448
.500
.892
RC1
SC1
Business Capital
.844
.446
.681
RC3
.821
SC2
.660
RC2
.507
RC4
.903
% variance
25.078
20.000
13.224
11.248
% acumul.
25.078
45.078
58.302
69.550
KMO index
0.618
185
diScuSSion
According to the obtained data, the average balance sheet of intellectual capital that could be found
in a firm of the knowledge-intensive industries of
Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing,
Internet Publishing and Broadcasting, Telecommunications, and Internet Service Providers, Web
Search Portals, and Data Processing Services operating in Bostons Route 128 at the beginnings of
2005 would show something similar to Figure 1.
In this configuration of intellectual capital,
human capital appears as the most influential
component. It includes the experience, creativity
and teamwork of employees, but when a firm
holds a strong position in these areas, an image
of leading firm is projected towards external agents
(customers, suppliers, competitors, and general
public) present in the environmental setting. Thus,
the quality of workforce seems to be the main
indicator of leadership in the industry. Probably,
due to the important knowledge-base of the studied industries, the role of key engineers or experts
could determine that the best people make the
best firm.
186
concluSion and
future trendS
We want to highlight the contribution of our
research towards a Relational-Based View of
Resource-Based View or Intellectual CapitalBased View. Furthermore, although several
proposals about intellectual capital classification,
identification and measurement can be found in the
literature, this work provides an evidence-driven
classification and configuration of intellectual
capital in high-tech firms.
In this sense, it is stressed the relational capital,
as it represents a 35% of the intellectual capital
187
referenceS
Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual Capital: An Exploratory Study that Develops Measures and
Models. Management Decision, 36, 6376.
doi:10.1108/00251749810204142
Brooking, A. (1996). Intellectual Capital. Core Asset for the Third Millennium Enterprise. London:
International Thomson Business Press.
Bueno, E. (1998). El Capital Intangible como
Clave Estratgica en la Competencia Actual.
Boletn de Estudios Econmicos, 53, 207229.
Cabrita, M. R., & Bontis, N. (2008). Intellectual
Capital and Business Performance in the Portuguese Banking Industry. International Journal
of Technology Management, 43(1-3), 212237.
doi:10.1504/IJTM.2008.019416
Carlucci, D., & Schiuma, G. (2007). Exploring
Intellectual Capital Concept in Strategic Management Research. In Joia, L. A. (Ed.), Strategies for
Information Technology and Intellectual Capital
(pp. 1028). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
Carson, E., Ranzijn, R., Winefield, A., &
Marsden, H. (2004). Intellectual Capital. Mapping Employee and Work Group Attributes.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(3), 443463.
doi:10.1108/14691930410550390
CIC (2003). Modelo Intellectus: Medicin y
Gestin del Capital Intelectual (Serie Documentos
Intellectus No. 5). Madrid: Centro de Investigacin
sobre la Sociedad del Conocimiento (CIC).
188
Hall, R. (1992). The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources. Strategic Management Journal,
13, 135144. doi:10.1002/smj.4250130205
Pike, S., Gran, R., & Marr, B. (2005). Strategic Management of Intangible Asset and Value
Drivers in R & D Organizations. R & D Management, 35(2), 111124. doi:10.1111/j.14679310.2005.00377.x
Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The Core
Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 90, 7991.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Tautology in
the Resourced-Based View and the Implications
of Externally Determined Resource Value: Futher
Comments. Academy of Management Review, 26,
5766. doi:10.2307/259394
Reed, K. K., Lubatkin, M., & Srinivasan, N.
(2006). Proposing and Testing an Intellectual Capital-Based View of the Firm. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 867893. doi:10.1111/j.14676486.2006.00614.x
Roos, G., & Roos, J. (1997). Measuring your
Companys Intellectual Performance. Long Range
Planning, 30(3), 413426. doi:10.1016/S00246301(97)90260-0
Rouse, M. J., & Daellenbach, U. S. (1999).
Rethinking Research Methods for the ResourceBased Perspective: Isolating Sources of Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 487494. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1097-0266(199905)20:5<487::AIDSMJ26>3.0.CO;2-K
189
190
Section 3
KM Strategies in Practice
192
Chapter 11
abStract
Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives are expanding across all types of organizations worldwide.
However, not all of them are necessarily successful mainly due to an unfriendly organizational culture.
Organizational trust is often mentioned as a critical factor facilitating knowledge sharing. For this
research we took an empirical approach to validate this assumption. The purpose of this research is to
explore the relationships between organizational trust, a knowledge management strategy (codification
vs. personalization) and its level of success. This study was conducted among 97 US companies involved
in knowledge management. A survey tool was developed and validated to assess the level of trust, the
level of success and the dominant KM strategy deployed by an organization. Nine main research hypotheses and a conceptual model were tested. The findings show the impact of trust on the choice of the
KM strategy as well as on the level of success.
introduction
In 2001, the Journal of Management Information
Systems (JMIS) had a special issue on knowledge
management (KM). In their editorial, Davenport
and Grover (2001), mentioned that a significant
gap between KM theory and practice existed and
that research in the domain seemed fragmented.
Ten years later, we can say that the literature
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch011
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
193
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
reSearcH queStion
and definition of Main
reSearcH VariableS
194
organizational trust
Considerable research has been conducted concerning the concept of trust, both interpersonal
trust and organizational trust. As with the concept
of organizational culture, organizational trust has
been defined somewhat differently in the literature
by numerous authors (Carnevale & Wechsler,
1992; Culbert & McDonough, 1986; Griffin, 1967;
Luhmann, 1979; Matthai, 1989; H. D. McKnight
& Chervany, 2000). The definitions of trust are
numerous and sometimes confusing mainly due
to each discipline viewing trust from its own perspective. Two definitions of trust were selected:
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
Knowledge Management
Strategies and their associated
tools and technologies
Numerous publications present knowledge management practice/tool/technology frameworks.
Among them, the knowledge management spectrum, presented by Binney (2001), offers a good
overview of different KM tools and practices that
are offered to organizations to better manage their
195
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
KM initiative Success
It is always difficult and open to controversy to
define and measure success. Different metrics
(qualitative and quantitative) can be used to
measure success. For example, Jennex and Olfman (2004) offer a success model based upon the
Delone and McLean (1992) IS Success Model and
discussed four different models of KM success:
(1) The Knowledge Value Chain (Bots & Bruiin,
2002); (2) the KM Success Model (2002); (3)
196
2.
3.
4.
Success was measured based on two dimensions. Since the main purpose of a KMS is to
facilitate the flow and dissemination of knowledge,
an important dimension for success is the fact that
different employees use the system. Success factors #1 and #2 were used to measure this dimension
of success. The second dimension of success used
is based on the robustness of the KM initiative.
If KM is given the resources and if there is a clear
commitment from senior management to make it
happen, then robustness is a success factor. Success factors #3 and #4 were used to measure this
second dimension of success.
We believed that it would also be relevant to
check if the expected benefits of the KM initiative
were achieved and, if yes, to what degree. To do
so, we used a questionnaire developed by KPMG
(2000). Fifteen main benefits often expected after
KM implementation were used (KPMG, 2000).
Additional success factors could have been
used such as the 12 KMS success factors presented
by Jennex and Olfman (2004) but it was easier
to work with a smaller number of core variables.
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
research Hypothesis #2
What is the relationship between organizational
trust and the usage of codification tools? We are
now focusing on a human-technology relationship. The knowledge used has been codified and
is available in an information system. The question becomes, does someone who doesnt trust
his/her colleagues will still use the knowledge
they codified in the system or not? In fact this
problem has 2 facets; trust in the system and trust
in its content. We can think that if people dont
trust the system they are not going to use it, so
they will not be able to get and use the knowledge
available in it. This type of research concerns the
field of the adoption of technologies and among
the most used model we can mention the TAM
model originally developed by Davis (Davis,
1989). The trust variable was originally not part
of the TAM model but the numerous evolutions
of the model as well as its customization to ecommerce applications made the trust variable
appear as important additional component of the
model (Bahmanziari, Pearson, & Crosby, 2003;
D. H. McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002;
H. D. McKnight & Chervany, 2000). Bock, Sabherwal and Qian (2008) developed and tested a
model of knowledge repository success (KRS)
including perceived KRS searchability, perceived
KRS output quality, perceived usefulness and user
satisfaction. They examined how three aspects of
social context (extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards,
and organizational trust) affected the dimensions
of the KRS success. The model was tested on KM
systems following a codification strategy. Their
findings suggest to 1) develop organizational trust
and 2) to facilitate intrinsic rewards for knowledge
contribution partly through organizational trust.
Now if we assume that a person does trust the
system but doesnt trust people who populated its
content with knowledge artifact, what can happen?
I dont trust this person so I am not going to contact him/her directly to get their
197
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
knowledge but I have no problem accessing knowledge they shared in the system.
The key is to acquire knowledge no matter
how it was obtained.
I dont trust this person and I will not even
trust what this person shared on the system.
research Hypothesis #3
Early in the 1990s, Jack Welsh had already underlined the important role of trust:
Trust is enormously powerful in a corporation.
People wont do their best unless they believe
theyll be treated fairly--that theres no cronyism
and everybody has a real shot. The only way I
know to create that kind of trust is by laying out
your values and then walking the talk. Youve got
to do what you say youll do, consistently and over
time (Welch, 1993).
198
Hypothesis #4
The personalization approach is intended to facilitate the interaction and collaboration between
individuals so they can share their tacit knowledge,
solve problems more rapidly, make better decisions
in a fastest way, grow intellectually, and be more
creative. Very few studies have been conducted to
assess the relationship between personalization approaches and the success of KM initiatives. Among
them we can mention the research conducted by
Delmonte and Aronso (Delmonte & Aronson,
2004) who demonstrated a significant relationship between social interaction and knowledge
management system success. The trust factor is
often mentioned in this study has been critical.
Another study conducted by Choi and Lee (Choi
& Lee, 2002) establishes the effect of four KM
styles and their effect on corporate performance
(based on benchmarking). Their results shows
that companies adopting a Dynamic style
(highly tacit and explicit oriented) are the most
successful. Results of companies that are mainly
system-oriented (focus on explicit knowledge)
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
Hypothesis #5
Based on Choi and Lees study (Choi & Lee,
2002) previously described it looks like both approaches (codification ad personalization) have a
positive effect on the success of a KM initiative.
Not everyone agrees with this idea. McDermott
(McDermott, 1999) for instance clearly stated
in a provocative paper titled Why information
technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge
management that ICT can only carry the information that will be used for individual or group
thinking which become source of knowledge. To
leverage knowledge, thinking must be leveraged
with appropriate information. For McDermott
the solution resides in Communities of Practice
(CoP) but he doesnt deny the enabling effect of
ICT in KM. We could not think about KM these
days without the use of technology but as often
mentioned its role needs to remain an enabler and
not the center of a KM strategy. Our last research
hypothesis is:
H5:The level of usage of KM codification tools
and practices positively influences the success
level of a KM initiative.
Hypothesis #6
Lee and Choi (2003) studied the relationships between knowledge management enablers, processes
and organizational performance. Their study,
conducted among 63 major Korean companies,
199
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
Hypotheses #7 and #8
Keskin (2005) conducted a study among 128
Turkish SMEs and found that the codification approach had a direct impact on firm performance.
Based on his findings the impact of the codification approach was greater on performance than
the personalization one. Schulz (2001) conducted
a study among 98 subsidiaries of multinational
corporations based in the US and in Denmark
and found that companies that used a focused
approach to codification or personalization will
have positive effect on performance. Schulz
argues that a focused codification approach will
have a stronger impact on performance than a
focused personalization approach. A focused approach is defined as KM strategies that regulate
knowledge flows by controlling the degree to
which knowledge is encoded in forms that match
the information intensity and ambiguity of their
knowledge (Schulz & Jobe, 2001). Zack (1999)
also argues that the nature of the benefits gained
from managing explicit knowledge depends on
the type of application. Based on these findings
we postulated the following two hypotheses:
H7:The level of usage of KM personalization
technologies and practices positively influences
organizational benefits.
200
Hypothesis #9
Assessing the impact of trust on organizational
performance is a difficult task and very few
researches have been conducted to validate this
relationship. Among them we could mention the
work of Sako (2006) who argues that performance
factors can be classified in three categories; reducing transaction costs, investment with future
returns and continuous improvement and learning.
She used a sample of 1,415 responses from first-tier
component suppliers in the automotive industry in
Japan, the USA, and Europe and asked respondents
to evaluate how much trust they could place on
their customers. Three types of trust were used to
validate their relation with business performance;
goodwill trust, contractual trust and competence
trust. Goodwill trust was estimated to have the
stronger influence on business performance. Tam
and Lin (2009) demonstrated that the positive relation between trust in coworkers and performance
is fully mediated by trust in their organization.
De Furia (1997) argues that the benefits of high
trust include; Stimulates innovation, leads to
greater emotional stability, facilitates acceptance
and openness of expression and encourages risk
taking. Therefore, we proposed:
H9: The level of organizational trust positively
influences organizational benefits.
research Model
The five previous hypotheses served as foundation
of the following model (Figure 1).
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
reSearcH MetHodologY
assessment of Variables
A survey tool (a questionnaire) was developed in
order to assess:
201
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
202
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
Reduced costs
0.94
Codification (7)
0.801
Personalization (7)
0.827
Improved productivity
KM Success (4)
0.708
Increased profits
Increased innovation
Personalization
Not applicable
203
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
204
Model Validation
A path analysis using structural equation modeling
techniques was performed to test our model. The
test was performed using the CALIS procedure
of the statistical software SAS. This procedure
uses parameter estimation based on maximum
likelihood. The path diagram is presented on Figure 2. The goodness of fit indexes are presented
on Table 4.
The value of the Chi square listed on this table
represents the null hypothesis test that the covariance matrix generated based on the data collected has the same structure as our theoretical
model, meaning that the model fits our data.
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
Values
11.70
Prob>Chi2
0.07
0.96
0.96
0.91
0.93
Main findingS
Most of the coefficients on the model are highly
significant. Among the most significant coefficient
we can mention the one between the success of the
KM approach and the organizational benefits
(0.72) with a high prediction level (R2=0.69). This
finding demonstrates the positive impact that a
KM initiative can have on an organization in term
of reaching its business objectives. This finding
reinforces the fact that a KM strategy should be
closely aligned with the business strategy of an
organization to bring the most value.
The level of organization trust impacts almost
equally the use of personalization and codification approaches (H1 and H2). As explained in the
definition of the research hypotheses we originally
expected the influence of trust to be higher on
personalization than on codification but it seems
that organizational trust does impact both almost
equally. Nevertheless, the trust factor seems to
be a better predictor of personalization usage
(R2=0.23) than of codification usage (R2=0.16).
Trust then becomes a critical cultural element for
organizations who want to engage in any type of
KM initiatives. This fact is also reinforced with
205
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
206
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
future trendS
It is clear that more research need to be conducted
in order to fully understand the impact of the trust
factor on the use of KM practices and tools. This
research used a quantitative approach and we
will suggest complementing it by a qualitative
approach to better understand the motivations
behind the trusting and non-trusting behaviors.
This research was only conducted with US companies and it will be valuable to test such model
in other countries to assess the impact of national
culture/traits on the willingness to trust and to
share knowledge. The new strong emphasis on
social networking tool might be a new way to start
building trust in between individuals. Research
in this new direction might although be fruitful.
concluSion
Very few quantitative studies had been conducted
to demonstrate and quantify the influence of
organizational trust on the usage level of various KM approaches as well as on the success of
a KM initiative and on the emerging benefits
for organizations. This initial study is a first attempt to do so. The theoretical model presented
has an acceptable fit with the data collected but
will greatly benefit from further validations with
larger data sets and with more diversity in term
of industries represented.
The preliminary theoretical and practical
findings of this research show that organizational
trust plays an important role in the success of KM
initiatives and in the usage level of personalization and codification technologies (which is not
always obvious for the latest). The level of KM
initiative success demonstrated to have a strong
and direct impact on organizational benefits. Organizations with a high level of trust were more
likely to be successful in their KM initiatives and
the choice of a KM dominant strategy (codification, personalization, or balanced) that leaded to
207
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
referenceS
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E.
(2005). An Empirical Examination of the Influence
of Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management Practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191224. doi:10.2753/
MIS0742-1222220307
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review:
Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and
Research Issues. MIS Quaterly, 25, 107136.
doi:10.2307/3250961
Anantatmula, V. S. P. (2007). Linking KM effectiveness attributes to organizational performance.
VINE: The Journal of information and knowledge
management systems, 37(2), 133-149.
Bahmanziari, T., Pearson, J. M., & Crosby, L.
(2003). Is trust important in technology adoption?
A policy capturing approach. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 43(4), 4654.
Bakker, M., Leenders, R. T. A. J., Gabbay,
S. M., Kratzer, J., & Van Engelen, J. M. L.
(2006). Is trust really social capital? Knowledge sharing in product development projects.
The Learning Organization, 13(6), 594605.
doi:10.1108/09696470610705479
Barth, S. (2000, October). KM Horror Stories.
Knowledge Management Magazine, 3, 3740.
Bayyavarapu, H. B. (2005). Knowledge management strategies and firm performance. London,
Ontario: The University of Western Ontario.
208
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
Dennis, A. R., & Vessey, I. (2005). Three knowledge management strategies: knowledge hierarchies, knowledge markets, and knowledge communities. MIS Quaterly Executive, 4(4), 399412.
209
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
Kinsey Goman, C. (2002a, June, 22). Five Reasons people dont tell what they know Retrieved
February, 5, 2003, from http://destinationkm.com/
articles/default.asp?ArticleID=960
210
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
Pauleen, D., & Mason, D. (2002). New Zealand Knowledge Management Survey: Barriers
and Drivers of KM Uptake Retrieved January
10, 2004, from http://www.nzkm.net/mainsite/
NewZealandKnowledgeManagementSurveyBarriersandDriv.html
211
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
212
Von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in Knowledge Creation. [Article]. California Management Review,
40(3), 133153.
Welch, J. (1993, Jan 25). Jack Welchs lessons for
success. Fortune, 127, 8691.
Wick, C. (2000). Knowledge management and
leadership opportunities for technical communicators. Technical Communications, 47(4), 515529.
Williams, S. (2004). Building and repairing trust
Retrieved October, 2008, from http://www.wright.
edu/~scott.williams/LeaderLetter/trust.htm
Wu, J. (2008). Exploring the link beween
knowledge management performance and firm
performance. Lexington, Kentucky: University
of Kentucky.
Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing Codified Knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 4558.
Zack, M. H., & Michael, S. (1998). Knowledge
Management and Collaboration Technologies,
from http://www.lotus.com/services/institute.nsf/
550137bfe37d25a18525653a005e8462/000021ca
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998).
Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141159.
doi:10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
Zand, D. E. (1997). The leadership Triad - Knowledge, Trust, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
213
Chapter 12
abStract
Knowledge is today more than ever the most critical resource of organizations. At the same time it is,
however, also the least-accessible resource that is difficult to share, imitate, buy, sell, store, or evaluate.
Organizations should thus have an explicit strategy for the management of their knowledge resources. In
this chapter we pay special attention to a KM strategy called collaboration centered strategy. This strategy
builds on the assumption that a significant part of personal knowledge can be captured and transferred,
and new knowledge created through deep collaboration between the organizations members. A critical
element in the collaboration centered KM strategy is the facilitation process that involves managing
relationships between people, tasks and technology. We describe how the Collaboration Engineering
approach with packaged facilitation techniques called ThinkLets is able to contribute to this endeavour.
introduction
Knowledge is today more than ever the most critical resource of organizations. At the same time
it is, however, also the least-accessible resource
that is difficult to share, imitate, buy, sell, store,
or evaluate. As for any other critical resource,
organizations should have an explicit strategy
for the management of knowledge resources,
too. Organizations should plan how to harness
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch012
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
214
concePtual bacKgroundS
Knowledge types
Knowledge is today more than ever the most
critical resource of organizations and the impelling force of individuals. Knowledge requires
human judgement, is closely related to action,
and presupposes values and beliefs. Polanyi
(1962) tied personal dimension to all knowledge
and his master-dichotomy between tacit and
explicit knowledge has shaped practically all
epistemological discussion, especially since the
rediscovery and popularization made by Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995).
Knowledge is traditionally interpreted as a
singular, independent object. Another, procedural
interpretation of knowledge is to see it as a path,
consisting of related steps (Carlile and Rebentisch,
2003). A wider interpretation is even to see the
knowledge as a network or a system where every
element is interrelated directly or indirectly with
each other.
Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001, p. 979) define
knowledge by means of the persons ability to draw
distinctions: Knowledge is the individual ability
to draw distinctions within a collective domain
215
216
217
218
Knowledge Sharing
and collaboration
Knowledge grows from sharing (Sveiby, 1997).
Knowledge sharing is a process through which
knowledge is exchanged among individuals, inside
or between groups or organizations. Knowledge
transformation between individuals is an activity
where knowledge is not divided but multiplied.
219
collaboration engineering
(ce) approach
CE is an approach to designing collaborative
work practices for high-value recurring tasks,
and deploying those as process prescriptions for
practitioners to execute for themselves without
ongoing support from professional facilitators (de
Vreede and Briggs, 2005; Kolfschoten, 2007). The
CE approach makes thus a distinction between
the roles regarding the design and execution of
a collaboration process, both of which are traditionally on the responsibility of the facilitator. In
CE, the tasks are split up: the process design is
the collaboration engineers task, while the recurring process execution is left for the practitioner.
220
221
222
if the GSS technology (tools and embedded structures) is appropriate to the group,
tasks and environmental context;
and if intervening factors are appropriate
(such as adequate training);
and if the groups adaptive structuration of
the tools and procedures provided is faithful, so that the intended process gains are
achieved and process losses avoided;
then GSS will lead to certain desirable outcomes (such as better decisions).
a fraMeworK for
adVancing tHe SucceSS
of tHe collaboration
centered KM StrategY
the framework
As discussed in the previous section the collaboration centered KM strategy is a process-oriented
strategy where the process proceeds from the
inaugural phase to the decision and evaluation
phases. Each of the phases can be performed
better or worse and the quality of those phases is
influenced by a number of input factors. The input
factors may be classified into four categories: task,
technology, group, and facilitator.
It is clear that the task in question has significant
effects on the collaboration process and the quality of its phases. Available data and information,
problem complexity, level of conflict and urgency
are just examples of the task related factors. Moreover, the available technology can place limits or
also give opportunities to the process flow. For
example, web-based collaborative technologies
(including both GSS and videoconferencing see-
223
224
225
Figure 3. Control span of the collaboration centered knowledge strategy (* includes both controllable
and uncontrollable variables)
PreliMinarY eValuation
of tHe fraMeworK
general evaluation
In this section we evaluate the merits and applicability of the framework based on our years
experience on collaboration centered KM, which
has also influenced the frameworks formation.
The framework and its integrated model may
be utilized either implicitly by using subjective
evaluations of the relations and implications of
the different constructs, or it can be utilized to its
full capacity. The latter necessitates gathering data
systematically from various kinds of collaboration
processes, and storing it into a database in order
to be able to detect the underlying relationships
226
between the constructs. This approach would enable the creation of one type of best practices for
the success of collaboration centered KM. Note
that the framework is not purported for simple
2-3 person collaborative situations but for more
complex cases that may include tens or even
hundreds of collaborators.
Although the framework requires historical
data or subjective evaluations regarding the future, the strengths of the framework are manifold.
Among others,
What is the general goal and subgoals for the collaboration? Is there
a need to define more specific objectives regarding the goals?
What is the level of conflict between
the individual and group goals?
Task:
Group:
Have the group members met before? (No, a few times, an established
group).
case example
In this section we demonstrate the application
of the framework by way of an example, based
on Bragge et al. (2007). In that study, an action
research intervention was conducted with a consor-
227
228
concluSion
Knowledge is the capability to make decisions
and the primary resource for all organizational
transformations. Knowledge exists at various
levels, not only at the personal level but also at
group and organizational levels. Although the
means to share information, communicate and
express ourselves have been broadened considerably during the last decades, a lot of relevant
knowledge in organizations remains unmined,
unshared, and underutilized.
Knowledge strategy is a type of resource-based
strategy and it is a scheme to do epistemic work in
organizational context, that is, to create, convert,
share, storage, secure, use, and evaluate knowledge
resources in organizational context. In this chapter,
we have proposed a framework to advance the
success of collaboration centered knowledge management strategy. We have elaborated on previous
research on knowledge management, the closely
related success models, and on the theories of the
collaboration processes. Our framework helps in
understanding the variations of the collaboration
229
referenceS
230
231
Dennis, A. R., Tyran, C. K., Vogel, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1997). Group Support Systems for
Strategic Planning. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(1), 155184.
DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support
Systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589609.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.33.5.589
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001). Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 119140.
doi:10.1023/A:1008710816126
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental
Research: Methodology and Results. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 15(3), 7150.
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2000). Group
Support Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of
Case and Field Studies. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 17(3), 112157.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995).
Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance.
Management Information Systems Quarterly,
19(2), 213236. doi:10.2307/249689
Hansen, M. T., & Nohria, N. (2004). How to Build
Collaborative Advantage? MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 2230.
Kline, T. J. B., & McGrath, J.-L. (1998). Development and validation of five criteria for evaluating
team performance. Organization Development
Journal, 16(3), 1927.
232
233
Murthy, U. S., & Kerr, D. S. (2000). Task/Technology Fit and the Effectiveness of Group Support
Systems: Evidence in the Context of Tasks Requiring Domain Specific Knowledge. In Proceedings
of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Computer Society Press.
Myers, P. (Ed.). (1996). Knowledge management
and organizational design. Boston: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Niederman, F., Beise, C. M., & Beranek, P. M.
(1996). Issues and Concerns about ComputerSupported Meetings: the Facilitators Perpsective.
Management Information Systems Quarterly,
20(1), 122. doi:10.2307/249540
Nissen, M., & Jennex, M. (2007). Toward Multidimensional Conceptualization of Knowledge. In
Jennex, M. E. (Ed.), Knowledge management in
Modern Organizations (pp. 278284). Hershey,
PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Briggs, R. O., & Romano,
N., Jr. (2001). A Framework for Collaboration and
Knowledge Management. In Proceeding of the
34th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://
www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings
/hicss/2001/0981/01/09811060.pdf
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J.
S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work.
Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 4061.
doi:10.1145/105783.105793
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness
Index (TRI). Journal of Service Research, 2(4),
307320. doi:10.1177/109467050024001
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth
of the firm. New York: Wiley and Sons.
234
Tapscott, D. (2006). Winning with the Enterprise 2.0, IT and Collaborative Advantage, New
Paradigm, Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://
newparadigm.com/media/Winning_with_the_
Enterprise_2.0.pdf
Thomas, B. D. (2006). An Empirical Investigation
of Factors Promoting Knowledge Management
System Success. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech
University, Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://
etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-07072006105657/unrestricted/ Thomas_Bobby_Diss.pdf
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is
Organizational Knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973993. doi:10.1111/14676486.00268
Turban, E., Aronson, J. E., Liang, T.-P., & Sharda,
R. (2007). Decision Support and Business Intelligence Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of
business enterprises. Management Science, 35(8),
942962. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.942
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View
of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2),
171180. doi:10.1002/smj.4250050207
Wu, J., & Wang, Y. (2006). Measuring KMS
Success: A respecification of the DeLone and
McLeans model. Information & Management,
43(7), 728739. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.002
Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a Knowledge
Strategy. California Management Review, 41(3),
125145.
Zigurs, I., & Buckland, B. K. (1998). A Theory of
Task/Technology Fit and Groups Support Systems
Effectiveness. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 22(3), 313334. doi:10.2307/249668
235
236
aPPendix:
Figure 4. CE Facilitation Process Model for a multi-organizational strategy development process (modified from Bragge et al. 2007)
237
238
Chapter 13
The Relevance of
Integration for Knowledge
Management Success:
Towards Conceptual and
Empirical Evidence
Alexander Orth
Accenture, Germany
Stefan Smolnik
EBS University of Business and Law, Germany
Murray E. Jennex
San Diego State University, USA
abStract
Many organizations pursue knowledge management (KM) initiatives with different degrees of success.
One key aspect of KM often neglected in practice is following an integrated and holistic approach.
Complementary, KM researchers have increasingly focused on factors that determine KM success and
examined whether the metrics used to measure KM initiatives are reasonable. In this article, the importance of integration issues for successful KM is analyzed by means of a case study of a KM initiative at
an international consulting company. The investigations demonstrate the importance of an integrated
KM approach an integrated view of KM strategy, KM processes, KM technology, and company culture to ensure KM success.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch013
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
2.
3.
239
foundationS on integrated
KMS arcHitectureS
riempps architecture
for integrated KMS
240
2.
Content relates to the management of information objects, its context, and the management of content itself.
Collaboration refers to the identification,
exchange, development, and usage of
knowledge.
3.
4.
The architecture for integrated KMS distinguishes between different dimensions of integration. The elements of the architecture described
above should be integrated along the four key
dimensions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
241
2.
3.
4.
242
System
Content
Process
Pillar
Description
Simple, fast, and flexible execution of content management processes exclusive of unnecessary barriers
Chance to extend the target group over multiple stages in order to protect confidentiality and property rights
Disassociation of active, relevant information objects from non-active, irrelevant information objects
Agile usage of authors so that searching employees can find content easily and get motivated to become authors
themselves
10
Sufficient knowledge of users about the operation and handling of Content Management functions (e.g. by trainings)
11
Adequate selection of users in order to avoid an information overload (e.g. by taxonomy-based classification
and selection
12
Preferably rich context development (e.g by rich text formatting, grouping, linking, etc.)
13
14
information objects are ideally stored in an integrated, datebase-based, information memory, which is applicable
across all platforms
15
16
Comfortable creation and revision of information objects in the daily work environment using familiar tools
(e.g. WYSIWYG)
17
18
243
Figure 3. continued
Layer
System
Competence
Process
Pillar
Description
19
Guard against fears of a glassy employee by a definite authorization system and comprehensive information
20
Sufficient knowledge of process involved persons about the process flows and the handling of competence
management functions
21
Benefit and added value is distinguishable for all involved persons (e.g. by eased contacting or improved development opportunities
22
Clear competence management goals (e.g. improvement of human resources development, creation process
flexibility, promotion of innovation)
23
24
25
Creation and preservation of maintenance processes (e.g. by target agreements and appraisals)
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
An active usage of the competence registry enhances the incentives for maintenance and causes more timely
and applicable entries
33
Sufficient knowledge of users about the operation and handling of competence management functions (e.g. by
trainings)
34
Back-end integration with existing human resources management systems in order to avoid inconsistencies
35
36
37
244
This paper takes the position that KMS success has a direct effect on KM success, making
the terms interchangeable in the rest of the article.
Success factor research explicitly focuses on
analyzing factors that influence success by defining performance metrics to make the influence of
these factors measurable and comparable. The
term success factor traces back to Daniel, who
used the perception for the first time in the IS
context. It was afterwards broadened by Rockert
to business-related aspects:
Critical success factors thus are, for any business, the limited number of areas in which results,
Figure 3. continued
Layer
System
Collaboration
Process
Pillar
Description
38
Continuous engagement of role models (e.g. moderators, team officers, sponsors, etc.)
39
40
Community goals are clearly formulated and consistent with organizational goals
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Active usage by role models and antetypes (e.g. executive managers) in order to have a multiplication effect
50
Seamless integration of community management functions into the daily work environment
51
Sufficient knowledge about the operation and handling of community management functions (e.g. by trainings)
52
Continuous engagement of role models (e.g. moderators, team officers, sponsors, etc.)
53
54
55
56
Automatic adaption of available functions to connected hardware and differing network capacities
245
Figure 3. continued
Layer
System
Orientation
Process
Pillar
Description
57
Adequate compromise between simplicity and clarity of navigation and search vs. depth and breadth orientation
guides
58
Unerring illustration of the established language use including sufficient terminological accuracy
59
Consistent use of taxonomy according to classification, navigation, and creation of search indices
60
61
Glossary and taxonomy are closely restricted to central terms (in order to avoid a technological overload)
62
63
Periodically passing maintenance processes for adopting the dynamical development of language use
64
65
66
67
68
69
Comfortable classification of information objects (as a basis for a attribute-based inducing and search)
70
Appropriate pull-personalization for all users and push-personalization options for advanced users
71
Adequate usage of search engines for dynamically generated navigation structures, topic maps, taxonomy
extracts and taxonomy maintenance
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
2.
3.
254
concluSion, liMitationS,
and furtHer reSearcH
The overall goal of this paper to analyze and
investigate the coherences, connections, and
interdependencies between KM success and an
integrated and holistic perspective on KM has
been achieved. The CSFs of Jennex/Olfmans
model were identified as widely accepted factors
as they are, firstly, based on the cognitions of accredited and valued KM publications and studies
referring to a total of 78 KM initiatives. Secondly,
they can be applied to all elemental KM success
models. The 78 KPIs of Riempps model focus on
different dimensions of integration and evaluate
successful KM in terms of integration success.
In summary, the literature review and comparison of CSFs and KPIs show that it is feasible to
focus on achieving Riempps KPIs, hence concentrating on integration. In the end, this approach
will lead to an achievement of the 12 Jennex/
Olfman CSFs and ensure KM initiatives success.
The results support that in order to achieve KM
success, understood as a multidimensional concept
as defined by Jennex, Smolnik and Croasdell
(section 3.1), all elements of the integrated KMS
architecture need to be addressed in a structured
and integrated approach.
The case study supports these findings. The
KMS are indeed used intensively by the employees. However, due to a lack of transparency
regarding the KM strategy and goals and a lack of
vertical integration, the KMS are not used in the
most efficient way in terms of an improvement of
the companys performance. A broad consideration
of all the integration dimensions is necessary to
execute KM initiatives successfully.
It would be tempting to conclude and not
only to assume that integrated KM determines
KM success. In order to do so, more real-life cases
need to be conducted. This can be regarded as a
limitation of the findings in this article, as well
as an area for further research work.
referenceS
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge
Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and
Benefits, Communications of the AIS, 1.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review:
Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107136.
doi:10.2307/3250961
Anantatmula, V., & Kanungo, S. (2006). Structuring the Underlying Relations among the
Knowledge Management Outcomes. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 2542.
doi:10.1108/13673270610679345
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003).
Managing Knowledge in Organizations An
Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging
Themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571582.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.571.14424
Bals, C., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2007). A
Case for Integrated Knowledge Management. In
Proceedings of the 4th Conference Professional
Knowledge Management: Experiences and Visions. Berlin, Germany: GITO.
Bots, P., & De Bruijn, H. (2002). Effective Knowledge Management in Professional Organizations.
In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer
Society Press.
255
256
257
aPPendix
Table 1. Employee survey
Answer
style
Process Layer
1) Have introdutory courses, measures for further education or other trainings, which addressed content
management process flows, been performed within the last 6 months?
Yes/No
2) Briefly think of how long it usually takes in order to gather an information within the portal. Can you
assess a performance increases compared to the initial situation prior to the merger?
Yes/No
3) Is your content management performance assessed on the basis of target agreements or savored by
means of honors?
Yes/No
Numberbased
4) Assess the feedback opportunities of users on active authors within the portal.
5) Have introdutory courses, measures for further education or other trainings, which addressed the handling of content management functions, been performed within the last 6 months?
System Layer
Content Management
Question
6) Assess the possibilities of a comprehensive content creation in the content management area. Examples
for comprehensive content creation are rich-text formatting, grouping and linking of information objects,
etc.
7) Have you ever been motivated by other employees input in such a way, that yourself became an
author?
Process Layer
System Layer
Numberbased
Yes/No
Numberbased
Competence Management
Yes/No
9) Have introdutory courses, measures for further education or other trainings, which addressed competence management process flows, been performed within the last 6 months?
Yes/No
10) Assess the success of integrating the topic area knowledge management into the overall change management process activated by the merger
Numberbased
11) Have you been adverted to in how far the functionalities of a competence management system (e.g.
expert functions) can deliver a surplus to your work? Assess the quality and degree of communication with
regards to that topic accordant to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
12) Does a definite goal with regards to competence management exist and is this goal clearly communicated by means of appropriate media (e.g. newsletter)?
Yes/No
13) Does a guard against fear of the glassy employee exist by means of a definite authorization system
and comprehensive information?
Numberbased
14) Have introdutory courses, measures for further education or other trainings, which addressed the handling of competence management functions, been performed within the last 6 months?
Yes/No
15) Assess the possibility of contacting and the establishment of contact to important competences accordant to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
16) Assess the usage of the competence directory within the portal. Self-criticaly assess the quality and
quantitiy of your own entries as well as the frequency of use.
Numberbased
17) Assess the comfortability of navigation-, search- and analysis options as well as the effectiveness of
visualization of competence management functions.
Numberbased
258
Table 1. continued
Answer
style
Question
18) Assess the application of information and communication systems in support of existing collaboration
and community functions (e.g. Communities of Practice, virtual team rooms, etc.)
Process Layer
System Layer
Process Layer
System Layer
Management of orientation
Collaboration Management
19) Do definite and clearly communicated goals for Communities and virtual team rooms exist?
Numberbased
Yes/No
20) Assess the proportion of community members and members of virtual team rooms who are experts
accordant to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
21) Assess the IT-solution which is applied for realization and the support of communities and virtual team
rooms.
Numberbased
22) Assess the engagement and the collaboration frequency of role models (e.g. moderator, team officer,
project officer, etc.) in communities and virtual team rooms.
Numberbased
23) Assess the intrinsic motivation of group memebers with regards to the advancement of a community
or virtual team room.
Numberbased
24) Have introdutory courses, measures for further education or other trainings, which addressed the handling of collaboration management functions, been performed within the last 6 months?
Yes/No
25) Is your effort in communities or virtual team rooms pushed through the motivating behaviour of supervisors?
Yes/No
26) Assess the integration of community functions and virtual team room environments into the daily
work environment accordant to your satisfaction.
27) Are you always online while your PC is on power?
Numberbased
Yes/No
Numberbased
29) Assess the integration of orientation functions (search and retrieval, navigation, etc.) into existing
information systems.
Numberbased
30) Assess the adequacy of the compromise between convenience articulateness of navigation and search
versus depth and breadth of orientation functions.
Numberbased
31) Assess the illustration of the established language use in combination with adequate terminological
percision accordant to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
32) Assess the patency of the application of taxonomies in classfication, navigation and building of search
indices.
Numberbased
33) Assess the appropriateness of push- and pull-personalization in knowledge management systems.
Numberbased
34) Assess the composition of layout and navigation with accordance to patency and clearness.
Numberbased
35) Assess the quality of conditioning of search results according to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
36) Assess the speed and accuracy of search functions accordant to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
259
Answer
style
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Content
Management
Competence
Management
Collaboration
Management
System
Layer
Process
Layer
System
Layer
System
Layer
Process
Layer
Management of
orientation
260
System
Layer
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
21) Centralization of different search indices in order to perform comprehensive search processes.
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Given?
Yes/No
Question
a) Do you consider the KM initiative as successful? Please take the following four factors as a standard for your
appraisal:
1) Overall
KM/KMS success
2) Horizontal integration
- Agile usage of authors so that searching employees can find content easily and get motivated to become authors
themselves.
- Active usage of the competence registry
- Feedback opportunities between users and authors
- Free space for formation, collaboration, documentation, and reflection
b) Give examples in how far the introduced measured have been supported by means of horizontal integration.
Also agree to cultural aspects.
The employees who participated at the employee survey assess the key performance indicators below as being
achieved:
3) Integration of
KM processes and
roles in the KMS
4) Vertical integration
- Integration of the topic area KM into the overall change management process.
- Creation and preservation of incentives (e.g. awards)
a) Does a definite KM strategy and KM goal exist?
b) Are KM processes geared towards KM strategy and KM goals?
c) Assess the achievement degree of vertical integration. Do you consider vertical integration activities as being
completed?
d) Do you believe that the above key performance indicators have not been achieved to due to a lapse of a critical
integration degree?
5) Decisiveness of
integration
6) Measurement
system
a) Do you consider an overall and holistic view on KM (i.e. a consideration of all central dimensions of integration) as being material to KM/KMS success?
a) How do you measure the usage of knowledge management systems as well as the benefit of knowledge use?
b) How do you ensure that the correct knowledge (i.e. current, helpful, relevant, and reliable knowledge) is collected?
261
262
Chapter 14
abStract
Research has identified enabling factors and inhibitors for implementing knowledge management successfully and to accomplish its strategic objectives. However, it is important to understand how these
factors interact with each other to improve or inhibit the performance. With this in mind, this chapter
presents a model, based on a research study, to determine underlying relations among these factors and
develop strategies implementing KM initiatives.
introduction
Knowledge accumulated over centuries is often
manifested in the form of ethics, culture, as well
as technological, social, and economic developments of a society. At the organizational level, its
growth in terms of wealth, collaborative working
culture, business processes, and productivity are
true reflections of its accumulated knowledge. In
short, knowledge is linked to progress in practically every aspect of our lives. In the current
economy, advances in information technology
and communication systems have encouraged,
and in some instances, compelled organizations
what is Knowledge?
Before we define knowledge, it is important to
understand the most commonly used terms - data,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch014
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
uncertainty in data, some uncertainty in information, and even more uncertainty in knowledge.
As a resource, knowledge increases its value
with the use. Ironically, knowledge tends to remain
dormant, and not very useful, until it is reflected
in action (Rad & Anantatmula 2005).
Therefore, managing knowledge in organizations is a challenge not only because it is hard to
identify but also because it is even more difficult
to value and deploy relevant knowledge to gain
a competitive advantage in the market place
(Dutta, 1997).
Knowledge Management
Though not a new concept, knowledge management (KM) has gained prominence due to advances
in information technology and its extensive use in
organizations. Obviously, KM is often perceived
as information management by many organizations; it is often associated with technological
solutions such as intranets and databases (Marr,
2003). Early research on KM, however, suggested
that importance of technological factors is far less
compared to people and organizational factors
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998). People are instrumental in creating knowledge as it is derived from
thinking. Furthermore, a majority of personal or
organizational knowledge remains tacit.
It is imperative to understand that KM is a
broader concept than simply the use of technology and tools. The primary focus of KM is to
utilize information technology and tools, business
processes, best practices, and the organizational
culture to develop and share knowledge within an
organization so as to connect those who possess
knowledge to those who need the knowledge
(Anantatmula, 2005). Ultimately, the purpose of
KM is to leverage the knowledge for productive
purposes. It is in this process that IT plays a supporting role for effective KM implementation.
Research has shown that the nature of causes
and effects in the context of evaluating the IT ef-
263
264
literature reView
Past studies have shown that it is difficult to assess
return on investment of knowledge management
systems (KMS). Contending that the impact of
KMS on the organization depends on the evolutionary stage of the KMS, Cooper (2006) suggests
at the system level, completion is considered success. Likewise, effectiveness/efficiency of tasks,
cost savings through process improvements and
competitive advantage are considered indicators
of success at task, process, and organizational
levels respectively (Cooper, 2006). However, these
results can be obtained only through successful
KM implementation.
The complexity associated with KM is not only
due to the multiplicity of the enablers of KM but
also due to the intertwined nature of how these
enablers interact amongst each other. The following discussion helps highlight the proliferation
of factors that have been identified as important
determinants of KM success.
KM Success factors
Technology and IT are used interchangeably in
this section based on as and how they are referred
to in different research studies.
Culture and technology are commonly found
in several studies as enablers of KM since organization culture plays a pivotal role in knowledge
creation, sharing, collaboration, and leverage
whereas technology facilitates easy and effective
knowledge transfer. Elliott and ODell (1999)
considered culture, technology, infrastructure,
and measurement as four key enablers of KM
and maintained that each is essential and they
work together to yield sustainable success of
KM. Culture promotes collaboration and sharing
of knowledge; technology speeds up the knowledge transfer but creates information overload;
infrastructure includes organization structure,
technology, processes, and people networks to
ensure knowledge flow; and measurement should
KM enabler
Organizational characteristics
- learning orientation
- communication
- knowledge sharing
- flexibility
IT
- KMS quality
- KMS functionality
Managerial support
Another research study (Hariharan 2005) - acknowledging that KM would help share knowledge and eliminate reinvention - proposed seven
enablers of KM. They are:
Strategic focus
Alignment with objectives
KM organization and roles
Standard KM processes
Culture and people engagement
Content under scrutiny
Between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge, the former represents a lions share of total
knowledge. Based on the contention that much
of the tacit knowledge - a greater component of
organizational knowledge - is found in social interactions, and different social contexts facilitate
different modes of knowledge integration, Lang
(2004) suggested that social capital and social
265
KM enablers Summary
of literature review
Based on the literature reviewed thus far, we
summarize the following KM enablers, which
are listed as KM factors in Table 2 along with
sources of reference.
The literature review has helped us to develop
a list of the main factors that past research has
266
reSearcH MetHodologY
To accomplish our research goal of understanding
interactions and influences among the enablers
of KM to develop successful KM strategies, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) developed
by Warfield (1973) is employed. In general, ISM
involves structuring of goals and objectives into
a hierarchical framework. However, we adopted
this method to develop an understanding of the
shared underlying mental model in which these
factors (Table 2) operate. ISM is considered the appropriate research method because human brains
have limits in coping with complex problems
associated with significant number of elements
and relations among elements (Waller, 1975);
also, ISM uses interactive discussion method to
collect data, which forces the participant in the
research study to carefully analyze links between
these factors.
ISM is a process that helps groups of people
in structuring their collective knowledge and
modeling interrelationships in a way to enhance
the ability of understanding complexity. In other
words, it helps to identify structure within a system
of related elements and provides opportunity to
analyze it from different perspectives.
Figure 1 was presented to the respondents and
they were asked to fill out the white cells of the
matrix shown in the figure with the following
instructions:
Reference
Strategic focus
Leadership
Top management support
Measurement of results
Elliott & ODell (1999),Okunoye & Karsten (2002),Ward & Aurum (2004),Hariharan (2005),Koh,
Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
Elliott & ODell (1999),Alavi & Leidner (2001),Okunoye & Karsten (2002),Ward & Aurum (2004),Yu,
Kim, & Kim (2004),Jennex & Olfman (2004),Hariharan (2005),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
Elliott & ODell (1999),Hariharan (2005)
Lee & Choi (2003),Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004),Hariharan (2005),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004),Hariharan (2005)
Collaboration
Elliott & ODell (1999),Gold, Malhotra, & Segars (2001),Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004),Lang (2004),Robbins (2005)
Formalization
Communication
Budgetary support
Lee & Choi (2003),Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004),Hariharan (2005),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
Elliott & ODell (1999),Gold, Malhotra, & Segars (2001),Okunoye & Karsten (2002),Lee & Choi
(2003),Lang (2004),Ward & Aurum (2004),Hariharan (2005), Sarker,Sarker, Nicholson, & Joshi
(2005),Edwards & Kidd (2003)
Standard KM processes
Okunoye & Karsten (2002),Ward & Aurum (2004),Jennex & Olfman (2004),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok,
(2005)
Culture
Technology infrastructure
Okunoye & Karsten (2002),Hariharan (2005),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005),Edwards & Kidd (2003)
Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004), Sarker,Sarker, Nicholson, & Joshi (2005)
Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
For example, the cell (1, 2) represents the question, Does strategic focus lead to KM leadership
or vice-versa? and the response (1, 2, 3 or 4) is
entered in the cell (1, 2). The contextual relation
is established based on a pair-wise assessment of
all the thirteen factors as shown in Figure 1 and
majority of the respondents agreeing to a specific
relation between any two elements. With the use
of this methodology, one can (a) identify the direct
and indirect relationships between attributes of
project performance and (b) show how to include
softer variables in the analysis.
We have interviewed using the survey instrument shown in Figure 1 to collect the data from
267
268
elements and the resultant model might be different for business organizations. Nevertheless,
generic insights are relevant.
generic insights
Results shown in Figure 2 suggest that top management involvement, KM leadership, and the culture
of the organization are the factors that serve as
driving forces to build a successful KM effort.
With the top management involvement, KM initiatives will gain support and active participation
of the senior executives of the organization and a
greater commitment from rest of the organization.
Top management involvement would also ensure
inductive approach
From an organizational standpoint, importance of
these results lies in the emergence of the logical
flow of causal influences. This flow is not only
logically consistent but is also a view that is
shared by the authors of this chapter. The contextual relevance of this approach has significant
implications for practice and in this case, it is an
educational institution setting.
Our results show that two factors - the competent leadership of KM initiative combined with
the support from the top management should be
present that would lead to budgetary support for
269
270
future direction
As participants represented academic institutions,
results are not easily generalizable across all types
of organizations as purpose of KM investments
is dependent on the type of organization. For
instance, KM investments in academic institutions are likely to focus added value to academic
research, teaching, and effective administration
whereas in a for-profit commercial organization,
KM investments are assessed from the standpoint
of increasing revenue; return on investment is
likely to assume greater importance. Consequently, these results should be viewed from that
perspective and we must understand that these
discussions and conclusions would be appropriate
to universities.
Due to the limited number of participants in the
research effort, future efforts should involve more
stakeholders from different types of organization
to improve the validity of these results. Such an
approach would provide a robust shared mental
model that would generally applicable. Further, in
order to add more value, we intend to incorporate
the strength of the relationships between elements
by allowing for user to provide a weight for each
relationship.
concluSion
Our approach to understand how various enablers
can act as either enabler or barrier to the KM effort
using ISM based on whether they are present or
absent in an organization. Further, we have shown
that a qualitative approach not only allows us to
retain the richness of the complexity associated
with the interactions among elements, but also
allowed us to identify elements that can act as
the givens, means and goals in the KM effort.
referenceS
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge
management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues.
Management Information Systems Quarterly,
25(1), 107136. doi:10.2307/3250961
Anantatmula, V. (2005, April-June). Outcomes of
Knowledge Management Initiatives. International
Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 5067.
Anantatmula, V., & Kanungo, S. (2006).
Structuring the Underlying Relations among
the Knowledge Management Outcomes.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4).
doi:10.1108/13673270610679345
Bertzsis, A. T. (2001). Dimensions of the Knowledge Management Process. IEEE Computer
Society, 1529-4188/01, 432-441.
Bro, R. F. (1974). Interpretive Structural Modeling
as Technology for Social Learning. Conference on
Decision and Control, November 20-22. Phoenix,
AZ: IEEE.
Chourides, P., Longbottom, D., & Murphy, W.
(2003). Excellence in Knowledge Management: An Empirical Study to Identify Critical
Factors and Performance Measures. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(2), 2945.
doi:10.1108/13683040310477977
Conradi, R., & Dyba, T. (2001). An Empirical
Study on the Utility of Formal Routines to Transfer
Knowledge and Experience. ESEC/FSE. Vienna:
ACM.
Cooper, L. (2006). An Evalutionary Model for
KMS Success. HICSS39. IEEE Computer Society.
271
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Dutta, S. (1997). Strategies for Implementing
Knowledge-based Systems. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 44(1), 7990.
doi:10.1109/17.552810
Edwards, J. S., & Kidd, J. B. (2003, February).
Knowledge Management Sans Frontiers. The
Journal of Operational Research Society. Special
Issue on Knowledge Management and Intellectual
Capital, 54(2), 130139.
Elliott, S., & ODell, C. (1999). Sharing knowledge & best practices: The hows and whys of
tapping your organizations hidden reservoirs of
knowledge. Health Forum Journal, 42(3), 3437.
Fernandes, A. A. (2000). Combining inductive
and deductive inference in knowledge management tasks. In Eleventh International Workshop
on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pp.
1109-1 114, IEEE Computer Society Press, 2000.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001).
Knowledge Management: An Organizational
Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18(1), 185214.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F.,
Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of
innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank
Quarterly, 82(4), 581629. doi:10.1111/j.0887378X.2004.00325.x
Hariharan, A. (2005). Implementing seven KM
enablers at Bharti. Knowledge Management Review, 8(3), 89.
Hart, W. L., & Malone, D. (1974). Goal Setting
for a State Environmental Agency. Conference on
Decision and Control, November 20-22. Phoenix,
AZ: IEEE.
272
273
274
Identification of Elements: The elements of the system are identified and listed. This may be
achieved through research, brain storming, etc.
Contextual Relationship: A contextual relationship between elements is established, depending
upon the objective of the modeling exercise.
Structural Self Interaction Matrix (SSIM): This matrix represents the respondents perception
of element to element directed relationship. Four Symbols are used to represent the type of the
type of relationship that can exist between two elements of the system under consideration. These
are:
1. for the relation from element Ei to Ej, but not in the reverse direction;
2. for the relation from Ej to Ei, but not in the reverse direction;
3. for an interrelation between Ei and Ej (both directions);
4. to represent that Ei and Ej are unrelated.
Reachability Matrix (RM): A Reachability Matrix is then prepared that converts the symbolic
SSIM Matrix into a binary matrix. The following conversion rules apply:
Interpretive Structural Model: The ISM is generated by replacing all element numbers with the
actual element description. The ISM therefore, gives a very clear picture of the system of elements
and their flow of relationships.
275
Canonical matrix
Element 01: Level 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 05: Level 1: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 09: Level 1: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 10: Level 1: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 06: Level 2: 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 07: Level 2: 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 12: Level 2: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 04: Level 3: 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Element 11: Level 3: 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Element 13: Level 3: 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Element 02: Level 4: 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Element 03: Level 4: 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Element 08: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
Element Level
1 1, 5, 9, 10,
2 6, 7, 12,
3 4, 11, 13,
4 2, 3,
5 8,
276
277
Chapter 15
DYONIPOS:
abStract
Traditional knowledge management is often combined with extra work to recollect information which
is already electronically available. Another obstacle to overcome is to make the content of the collected
information easily accessible to enquiries, as conventional searching tools provide only documents and
not the content meaning. They are often based on the search for character strings, usually resulting in
many unnecessary hits and no or less context information. The research project DYONIPOS focuses on
detecting the knowledge needs of knowledge users and automatically providing the required knowledge
just in time, while avoiding additional work and violations of the knowledge workers privacy, proposing a new way of support. This knowledge is made available through semantic linkage of the relevant
information out of existing artifacts. In addition DYONIPOS creates an individual and an organizational
knowledge base just in time.
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
DYONIPOS
knowledge identification,
knowledge acquisition,
knowledge development,
knowledge distribution,
knowledge storage and
knowledge application.
278
DYONIPOS
While handling knowledge management processes, a knowledge worker needs a certain level
of freedom to perform his tasks. Common systems
often face obstacles by action-taking or decisionmaking. The unnecessary work concerning the
search and collection of knowledge which includes
also paperwork, makes the knowledge management processes slower and more difficult. The
implementation of user-unfriendly applications
can be reduced through integration of important
stakeholders in the development process (Makolm,
Wei, Reisinger, 2007). According to Probst, the
knowledge workers do not know, where they can
find the knowledge they need or which person
they can contact (Probst, Romhardt, n.d.). The
model implies a lot of effort because all phases in
the system have to be executed. Not all of these
proposed steps seem to be equally important to
collect knowledge. In addition it is not ensured that
a knowledge worker hands over his knowledge to
further persons or organizational levels. In sum
it can be said that the best management system
is not useful if the employees do not support the
system by providing their know-how and using
the system.
The self-acting system DYONIPOS Dynamic
Ontology based Integrated Process Optimisation
is based on a totally new approach. DYONIPOS
produces no additional work because the knowledge is delivered automatically, in a proactive
way and just in time considering the knowledge
needs of the users. Furthermore the DYONIPOS
project ensures innovative results through the
integration of all important stakeholders in the
development process by means of a joint venture
of research, economy and public administration. A
premise of DYONIPOS is that no additional work
should be generated for the knowledge workers.
Knowledge is extracted out of existing artifacts
as produced by its users and the structuring is
carried out automatically.
This article is structured as follows: section
1 provides a short introduction into the topic of
knowledge management by describing and pon-
Knowledge ManageMent
and e-goVernMent
Knowledge is relevant information in context;
this is the short underlying definition of knowledge
within the research project DYONIPOS. Public
sector knowledge has always played a central
role because of its economical importance and
supplying of public services without knowledge is
not possible at all. Fact is that knowledge workers
need more and more knowledge to perform their
daily work and even more knowledge is needed
for the execution of several tasks and the ad-hoc
part of processes increases constantly. In addition
knowledge acquisition becomes more complex
because the amount of information rises steadily
and heterogeneous systems are in use. Furthermore
the multitude of located information hinders the
selection of the knowledge really needed. This
yields thereto that existing knowledge gaps always
grow correspondently and that existing information which supports a task is not used. Often the
knowledge workers are not aware of knowledge
gaps as well as of existing information. It is also
very time-consuming to search for information in
the amount of different sources and to formulate
and propose enquiries to conventional searching
tools. These searching tools often deliver not the
279
DYONIPOS
wished results displaying unimportant information and missing those necessary. The unwished
information can only be deleted after reviewing
and considering as not important. In e-Government
scenarios, specifically, the use of information and
communication technologies to improve and exchange services is critical, as it implies in better
quality work to the people and economy.
Knowledge Management
as done until now?
A typical knowledge worker task would be to
shortly process a topic which is very important
and interesting for him. He neither knows where
the corresponding information about this topic
is stored nor which colleagues he can ask in this
regard. To get an overview about the required
information, a knowledge worker usually searches
in different sources (e.g. several server devices,
the own hard drive, on the internet, e-mail archive,
specific applications for example the electronic
record system (ELAK1), etc.) by using different
searching tools. Thereby he has to dispose each
search enquiry separately. Knowledge workers
dedicate much time and effort with search for
and analysis of information. A questioning within
the project DYONIPOS had the following result:
key-users spend daily between 2.1% and 60%
of their working time with enquiries (average
value: 16.1%). This search and analysis time can
be reduced significantly (Makolm, Wei, 2007).
280
DYONIPOS
PreMiSeS
DYONIPOS follows the premise to produce no
extra work for the knowledge workers and to generate knowledge out of existing artifacts (e.g. texts)
so that no additional post-capture of knowledge is
necessary. A further premise is that DYONIPOS
proactively provides knowledge workers with
detected and context-sensitive knowledge. This
means that DYONIPOS recognizes changes of
the users context and provides automatically
that knowledge required in the actual context.
Furthermore DYONIPOS builds up on the fly
an individual and an organizational knowledge
base which relies on the artifacts produced by
the users and on websites released by users to
the organizational knowledge base. DYONIPOS
supports the knowledge workers in a manner that
they can autonomously perform their work. The
information which is necessary for the fulfillment
of their work is offered proactively and contextsensitively. The information contains on the one
hand individual knowledge which has been generated from the knowledge workers themselves and
on the other hand organizational knowledge which
has been generated by other knowledge workers. Organizational knowledge is the knowledge
which is explicitly released in the organizational
knowledge base or the knowledge which lies in the
by DYONIPOS integrated repositories. Through
the proactive and context-sensitive knowledge
provision, the quality of services that is delivered
is increasingly optimal because the knowledge
workers are provided adequately with knowledge
available in the organization.
281
DYONIPOS
282
tHe deVeloPMent
ProceSS of dYoniPoS
The prototype DYONIPOS was developed in a
joint venture of research, economy and public
administration. The development occurred in two
projects, the research project and the use-case
project DYONIPOS. These projects complete each
other through knowledge transfer and cooperation.
The DYONIPOS research consortium consists of
the m2n consulting and development gmbh2, the
Know-Center Graz3, the Institute for Information
Systems and Computer Media (IICM) of the Graz
University of Technology4 as well as HPAustria5.
The objective of the research project was to design
and to develop the pilot software DYONIPOS. The
research project started on January 2nd, 2006 and
was completed by the first quarter of 2008. It was
funded by the semantic systems program within
FIT-IT, an Austrian research program provided by
the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and
Technology (BMVIT)6.
At the beginning the major objective was to
design and to develop the first prototype DYONIPOS. After this, the first prototype was tested
within the first step of the parallel implemented
DYONIPOS
283
DYONIPOS
284
DYONIPOS
next Steps
Finally the third test phase was scheduled to start
in Mai 2009. The implemented user requirements
as well as research results from the first and the
second test phase were successfully implemented
in the system, becoming available for this phase.
In the third testing phase, the key-users also will
test the whole functionalities of DYONIPOS, ending with an evaluation and documentation of the
use-case results in a final project report. Parallel
to the final test, first preparations for the refinement of the prototype DYONIPOS into productive
software will be made. The roll-out including
e.g. the set-up of an adequate infrastructure will
start on the first of June 2009.
This paper reflects the status of the DYONIPOS
project per February 2009. In the meanwhile the
project was finished successfully and DYONIPOS
is productively used in the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance. Further usage in other organizations is in discussion.
285
DYONIPOS
286
referenceS
Krll, M., Rath, A., Granitzer, M., Lindstaedt, S.,
& Tochtermann, K. (2006). Contextual Retrieval
in Knowledge Intensive Business Environments.
GI-Workshop Information Retrieval.
Krll, M., Rath, A., Weber, N., Lindstaedt, S., &
Granitzer, M. (2007). Task Instance Classification
via Graph Kernels, Mining and Learning with
Graphs. Italy: ICDM Workshop.
Makolm, J., & Orthofer, G. (2007). Holistic
Approach, Stakeholder Integration and Transorganizational Processes: Success Factors of FinanzOnline. In E-Taxation: State & Perspectives,
E-Government in the Field of Taxation: Scientific
Basis, Implementation Strategies, Good Practice
Examples. Series Informatics, 21, 389-402.
DYONIPOS
endnoteS
1
2
3
4
287
288
Compilation of References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems: Emerging Views and Practices from the
Field. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, USA: IEEE
Computer Society Press.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits,
Communications of the AIS, 1.
Almashari, M., Zairi, M., & Alathari, A. (2002). An Empirical Study of the Impact of Knowledge Management
on Organizational Performance. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 42(5), 7482.
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Amabile, T. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do.
California Management Review, 40(1), 3958.
Amar, A. (2002). Managing Knowledge Workers. Westport: Quorum Books.
Anantatmula, V. S. (2005). Outcomes of Knowledge
Initiatives. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 5067.
Anantatmula, V., & Kanungo, S. (2006). Structuring the
Underlying Relations among the Knowledge Management
Outcomes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4),
2542. doi:10.1108/13673270610679345
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Compilation of References
Asoh, D. A., Belardo, S., & Crnkovic, J. (2005). Computing the Knowledge Management Index: Validation of
the instrument. Paper presented at the 16th Information
Resources Management Association Conference (IRMA
2005), San Diego, California.
Asoh, D., Belardo, S., & Crnkovic, J. (2002). Modeling
and constructing the Knowledge Management Index of
organizations. Paper presented at the 6th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics
(SCI 2002), Orlando, FL.
Asoh, D., Belardo, S., & Crnkovic, J. (2004). The relationship between the Knowledge Management Index and
organizational performance: A preliminary empirical
analysis. Paper presented at the 15th International Information Resource Management Association Conference
(IRMA 2004), New Orleans, Louisiana.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing
Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421458.
Bahmanziari, T., Pearson, J. M., & Crosby, L. (2003). Is
trust important in technology adoption? A policy capturing approach. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
43(4), 4654.
Bajwa, D. S., Lewis, L. F., & Pervan, G. (2003). Adoption of Collaboration Information Technologies in
Australian and US Organizations: A Comparative Study,
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved April 17, 2009 from
http://www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings/
hicss/2003/1874/01/187410017c
Bakker, M., Leenders, R. T. A. J., Gabbay, S. M., Kratzer,
J., & Van Engelen, J. M. L. (2006). Is trust really social
capital? Knowledge sharing in product development
projects. The Learning Organization, 13(6), 594605.
doi:10.1108/09696470610705479
Bals, C., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2007). A Case for
Integrated Knowledge Management. In Proceedings of
the 4th Conference Professional Knowledge Management: Experiences and Visions. Berlin, Germany: GITO.
289
Compilation of References
290
Compilation of References
291
Compilation of References
292
Chilton, M. A., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2008). The dimensions of tacit & explicit knowledge: A description and
measure. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 7591.
Chilton, M. A., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2007). The dimensions of tacit & explicit knowledge: A description and
measure. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS
2007), Hawaii, USA.
Chin, W. W. (2005). PLS Graph. Soft Modeling, Inc.
Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention
in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs. The Data Base
for Advances in Information Systems, 26(2&3), 4263.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to
structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed.),
Modern Methods for Business Research (pp. 295336).
Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation
modeling analysis with small samples using Partial Least
Squares. In Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed.), Modern Methods
for Business Research (pp. 307341).
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2002). An empirical investigation
of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance.
Information & Management, 40(5), 403417. doi:10.1016/
S0378-7206(02)00060-5
Chong, S., & Choi, Y. S. (2005). Critical Factors in the
Successful Implementation of Knowledge Management.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice In the
Knowledge Garden, 6.
Choo, C. W. (1998). The Knowing Organization. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (2002). Strategic management
of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Chourides, P., Longbottom, D., & Murphy, W. (2003).
Excellence in Knowledge Management: An Empirical Study to Identify Critical Factors and Performance
Measures. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(2), 2945.
doi:10.1108/13683040310477977
Compilation of References
293
Compilation of References
294
Compilation of References
den Hengst, M., & Adkins, M. (2007). Which collaboration patterns are most challenging: A global survey of
facilitators. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved
May 4, 2009 from csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/
hicss/2007 /2755/00/27550017b.pdf
den Hengst, M., Dean, D., Kolfchoten, G., & Chakrapani,
A. (2006). Assessing the Quality of Collaborative Processes. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Retrieved April 17, 2009
from http://www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/ proceedings/hicss/2006/2507/01/250710016b.pdf
den Hengst, M., van de Kar, E., & Appelman, J. (2004).
Designing mobile information services: user requirements
elicitation with GSS design and application of a repeatable process. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Retrieved
April 17, 2009 from http://www2.computer.org/plugins/
dl/pdf/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/01/205610018c.pdf
Denning, S. (1998). What is knowledge management? from
http://www.stevedenning.com/Find_what_is_km.html
295
Compilation of References
Dutta, S. (1997). Strategies for Implementing Knowledgebased Systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(1), 7990. doi:10.1109/17.552810
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies:
Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1), 215234.
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001). Group Decision and
Negotiation in Strategy Making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 119140. doi:10.1023/A:1008710816126
296
Compilation of References
GAO. (2004). GAO Strategic Plan for 2004-2009, Document # GAO-04-5334SP. Retrieved December 20, 2005,
from http://www.gao.gov/sp.html
297
Compilation of References
Ginsberg, M., & Kambil, A. (1999). Annotate: A Webbased Knowledge Management Support System for
Document Collections. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE
Computer Society Press.
Glazer, R. (1991). Marketing in an Information-Intensive
Environment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an
Asset. Journal of Marketing, 55, 119.
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing Effective Knowledge
Transfer: An Integrative Framework and Some Practice
Implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1),
2330. doi:10.1108/13673270210417664
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001).
Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities
Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(1), 185214.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). TaskTechnology Fit and Individual Performance. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19(2), 213236.
doi:10.2307/249689
Gopal, A., Bostrom, R. P., & Chin, W. W. (1992). Applying
adaptive structuration theory to investigate the process
of group support systems use. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 9(3), 4569.
Grant, G. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge
integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375387.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory
of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Special
Issue), 109122.
Grant, R. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). The impact of
computerized performance monitoring on service work:
Testing a casual model. Information Systems Research,
2(2), 116142. doi:10.1287/isre.2.2.116
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implication for strategy. California
Management Review, 22, 114135.
298
Compilation of References
299
Compilation of References
Holsapple, C., & Wu, J. (2008). Does Knowledge Management Pay Off? Paper presented at the HICSS-41.
Huber, G. P. (1984). Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Sytems. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 8(3), 195204. doi:10.2307/248666
Ionescu, L. M., Burstein, F., & Zyngier, S. (2006). Knowledge Management Strategies in Australia (No. 2006/01).
Caulfield East: Knowledge Management Research Program, Monash University. Document Number.
300
Compilation of References
301
Compilation of References
302
Compilation of References
Kong, E. (2008). The Development of Strategic Management in the Non-Profit Context: Intellectual Capital
in Social Service Non-Profit Organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 281299.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00224.x
Koskinen, K. U. (2003). Evaluation of Tacit Knowledge
Utilization in Work Units. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 6781. doi:10.1108/13673270310505395
Koskinen, K. U. (2001). Tacit Knowledge as a Promoter
of Success in Technology Firms. 34th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society.
KPMG. (2002/2003). Insights from KPMGs European
Knowledge management Survey 2002/2003. KPMG
Knowledge Advisory Services, The Netherlanders.
KPMG Consulting (2000). Knowledge Management
Research Report.
Kramer, R. M. (2007). Organizational Trust: A Reader.
USA: Oxford University Press.
Krll, M., Rath, A., Granitzer, M., Lindstaedt, S., &
Tochtermann, K. (2006). Contextual Retrieval in Knowledge Intensive Business Environments. GI-Workshop
Information Retrieval.
Krll, M., Rath, A., Weber, N., Lindstaedt, S., & Granitzer, M. (2007). Task Instance Classification via Graph
Kernels, Mining and Learning with Graphs. Italy: ICDM
Workshop.
Kulkarni, U., Ravindran, S., & Freeze, R. (2006). A
Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Development and Empirical Validation. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 23(3), 309347.
doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222230311
Kulkarni, U., & Freeze, R. D. (2004). Development and
Validation of a Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Model. In Proceedings on the Twenty-Fifth
International Conference on Information Systems,
Washington DC
303
Compilation of References
304
Compilation of References
Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M. (1958). A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance
and individual performance, 1920-1957. Psychological
Bulletin, 55(6), 337372. doi:10.1037/h0042344
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York: John
Wiley.
MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct
conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323326. doi:10.1177/0092070303031003011
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005).
The problem of measurement model misspecification in
behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(4), 710730. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.710
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002).
Theres no place like home? The contributions of work
and nonwork creativity support to employees creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4),
757768. doi:10.2307/3069309
Maier, R. (2002). Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge
Management. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Mki, E. (2008). Exploring and Exploiting Knowledge.
Research on Knowledge Processes in KnowledgeIntensive Organizations, (Doctoral Dissertation). Helsinki
University of Technology.
Makolm, J., & Wei, S. (2007). Forschung und Praxis
Hand in Hand. In Zeitschrift des Telematik-IngenieurVerbandes TIV, Telematik 1/2007 TELEkommunikation
& InforMATIK, Knowledge Worker Productivity, Web2.0
und Semantic Web: Was bringt`s fr Unternehmen? (p.
12). Use Case DYONIPOS.
Makolm, J., & Orthofer, G. (2007). Holistic Approach,
Stakeholder Integration and Transorganizational Processes: Success Factors of FinanzOnline. In E-Taxation:
State & Perspectives, E-Government in the Field of
Taxation: Scientific Basis, Implementation Strategies,
Good Practice Examples. Series Informatics, 21, 389-402.
305
Compilation of References
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
306
Compilation of References
Nissen, M., & Jennex, M. (2007). Toward Multidimensional Conceptualization of Knowledge. In Jennex, M. E.
(Ed.), Knowledge management in Modern Organizations
(pp. 278284). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Ncker, R. (1999). Erfolg von Unternehmen aus Betriebswirtschaflicher Sicht. Unternehmerisch erfolgreiches
Handeln,(pp. 53-66).
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 1437.
doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1997). The knowledgecreating company. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The KnowledgeCreating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 1437.
doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D.
R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic Meeting Systems
to Support Group Work. Communications of the ACM,
34(7), 4061. doi:10.1145/105783.105793
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Briggs, R. O., & Romano, N., Jr.
(2001). A Framework for Collaboration and Knowledge
Management. In Proceeding of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Retrieved April
17, 2009 from http://www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/
proceedings /hicss/2001/0981/01/09811060.pdf
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw Hill.
ODell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew what
we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review, 40(3), 154174.
ODell, C. (2004). The executive role in knowledge
management: American Productivity and Quality Center.
APQC.
307
Compilation of References
308
Pike, S., Gran, R., & Marr, B. (2005). Strategic Management of Intangible Asset and Value Drivers in R &
D Organizations. R & D Management, 35(2), 111124.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00377.x
Ping, R. A. Jr. (2004). On assuring valid measures for
theoretical models using survey data. Journal of Business Research, 2004, 125141. doi:10.1016/S01482963(01)00297-1
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L. (1989). The Impact
of Technological Support on Groups: An Assessment of
the Empirical Research. Decision Support Systems, 5(2),
197216. doi:10.1016/0167-9236(89)90007-9
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(5), 879903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Compilation of References
309
Compilation of References
310
Compilation of References
Sethi, V., & King, W. R. (1991). Construct measurement in information systems research: An illustration in
strategic systems. Decision Sciences, 22(3), 455464.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb01274.x
Shaw, R. B. (1997). Trust in the Balance. Building Successful Organizations on Results, Integrity, and Concern.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sher, P. J., & Lee, V. C. (2004). Information technology
as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic capabilities through
knowledge management. Information & Management,
41(8), 933945. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.06.004
Sheskin, D. J. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. (3 ed.). Boca Raton,
FL: Chapman & Hall/CRS.
Shevlin, M., Miles, J. N. V., Davies, M. N. O., & Walker,
S. (2000). Coefficient alpha: A useful indicator of reliability? Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 229237.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00093-8
Shin, M. (2004). A framework for evaluating economics of knowledge management systems. Information &
Management, 42, 179196.
Simon, H., & Kaplan, C. (1989). Foundations in Cognitive
Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sistare, H. (2004). Government Reorganization: Strategies
and Tools to Get it Done, 2004 Presidential Transition
Series. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business
of Government.
Skyrme (1998). Measuring the Value of Knowledge.
Metrics for the Knowledge-Based Business. London:
Business Intelligence.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market OrientationPerformance
Relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(January), 4655.
311
Compilation of References
Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing Organizational Memory With Information Systems. Information
Systems Research, 6(2), 85117. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.85
312
Compilation of References
313
Compilation of References
Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises. Management Science, 35(8), 942962.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.942
Weill, P., & Ross, J. (2004). IT governance: how top performers manage IT decision rights for superior results.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Verhoef, P. C., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2009). Understanding the marketing departments influence within the firm.
Journal of Marketing, 73, 1437.
von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133153.
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). Review: The ResourceBased View and Information Systems Research: Review,
Extension, and Suggestions for Future Research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28(1), 107142.
314
Compilation of References
Wiig, K. M. (2004). People-focused Knowledge Management: How Effective Decision Making Leads to Corporate Success. Burlington, MA: Elesevier Butterworth
Heinemann.
Wiig, K., & Jooste, A. (2004). Chapter 45: Exploiting
knowledge for productivity gains. In C. W. Holsapple
(Eds.), Handbook on knowledge management vol.2:
Knowledge directions, 289-308. New York: Springer
Science and Business Media.
Williams, S. (2004). Building and repairing trust Retrieved
October, 2008, from http://www.wright.edu/~scott.williams/LeaderLetter/trust.htm
Zack, M. H., & Michael, S. (1998). Knowledge Management and Collaboration Technologies, from http://www.
lotus.com/services/institute.nsf/550137bfe37d25a18525
653a005e8462/000021ca
Workman, J. P., Homburg, C., & Gruner, K. (1998). Marketing organization: an integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62, 2141.
Zack, M. H., McKeen, J. D., & Singh, S. (2006). Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance: An
Exploratory Survey. Paper presented at the Thirty-Ninth
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Hawaii.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does Trust
Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and
Interpersonal Trust on Performance. Organization Science,
9(2), 141159. doi:10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
Zand, D. E. (1997). The leadership Triad - Knowledge,
Trust, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Zhu, K. (2004). The complementarity of information
technology infrastructure and e-commerce capability: A
resource-based assessment of their business value. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 21(1), 167202.
315
Compilation of References
Zyngier, S., & Burstein, F. (2009). Knowledge management governance as a mechanism for sustainable organizational knowledge creation and transfer. International
Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 6.
316
317
Murray E. Jennex is an associate professor at San Diego State University, editor in chief of the
International Journal of Knowledge Management, co-editor in chief of the International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, and president of the Foundation for Knowledge
Management (LLC). Dr. Jennex specializes in knowledge management, system analysis and design, IS
security, e-commerce, and organizational effectiveness. Dr. Jennex serves as the Knowledge Management
Systems Track co-chair at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. He is the author
of over 100 journal articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings on knowledge management,
end user computing, international information systems, organizational memory systems, ecommerce,
cyber security, and software outsourcing. Dr. Jennex conducts research for the National Center for Border Security Issues on risk management and technology integration. Dr. Jennex is a former US Navy
Nuclear Power Propulsion officer and holds a BA in chemistry and physics from William Jewell College,
an MBA and an MS in software engineering from National University, an M.S. in telecommunications
management and a PhD in information systems from the Claremont Graduate University. Dr. Jennex is
also a registered professional mechanical engineer in the state of California and a Certified Information
Systems Security Professional (CISSP) and a Certified Secure Software Lifecycle Professional (CSSLP).
Stefan Smolnik is an assistant professor of information and knowledge management at EBS University of Business and Law, Germany. He holds a doctoral degree from University of Paderborn/Germany.
Before joining EBS, he worked as a research and teaching assistant at this universitys Groupware
Competence Center. Stefan Smolnik has done research on the success and performance measurement
of information and knowledge management systems, which has included several benchmarking studies. In addition, he is interested in the successful organizational implementation of social software.
His work has been published in well reputed international journals and conference proceedings such
as the Business & Information Systems Engineering journal, the International Journal of Knowledge
Management, the Business Process Management Journal, the Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, and the Proceedings of the Annual International Conference
on Information Systems.
***
Derek Ajesam Asoh, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Information Systems and Applied Technologies, College of Applied Sciences and Arts, Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He
holds a PhD in Information Science (inter-disciplinary) from the University at Albany (SUNY) New
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
York. His research interests include data mining, educational technologies, entrepreneurship, health
informatics, knowledge management, systems management technologies, and statistical modeling.
His publications have appeared in Health Care Management Review and Methods of Information in
Medicine. His research has also been presented at several conferences including Hawaii International
Conference on Systems Sciences, Information Resources Management Association, Organizational
Systems Research Association, and Systemic, Cybernetics and Informatics. Dr. Asoh currently teaches
application development environments, computing in business administration, and database processing. His industry experiences include working as consultant and project coordinator for a number of
international organizations, including the United Nations Office for Project Services, United Nations
Development Program, and United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
Vittal S. Anantatmulas research is focused on integrating knowledge management and project management, knowledge management effectiveness, project management performance, and leadership. Dr.
Anantatmula is an Associate Professor and the Director of Graduate Programs in Project Management
in the College of Business, Western Carolina University. Dr. Anantatmula has more than ten publications
in journals such as Journal of Knowledge Management, International Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems (VINE), International Journal of
Knowledge and Learning, and Project Management Journal. He has co-authored two books on project
management. Dr. Anantatmula has presented more than 20 papers in prestigious and international conferences. Prior to joining Western Carolina University, he was with the George Washington University
teaching and directing a graduate degree program. Dr. Anantatmula has worked in the petroleum and
power industries for several years as an electrical engineer and project manager. As a consultant, he
worked with the World Bank, Arthur Andersen, and other international consulting firms. Dr. Anantatmula holds B.E. (Electrical Engineering) from Andhra University, MBA from IIM-MDI, MS and
D.Sc. in Engineering Management from the George Washington University. He is a certified Project
Management Professional and Certified Cost Engineer.
Salvatore Belardo, PhD is Associate Professor of Management Science and Information Systems
at the University at Albany. He holds a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering and MBA, Masters, and PhD in Management Information Systems. Professor Belardo has been a visiting professor at
the Copenhagen School of Business, the University of Passau (Germany), University of Del Salvador
(Argentina), DUXX Graduate School of Business Leadership (Mexico), and Zurich Graduate School of
Business Administration (Switzerland). He has published in Management Science, Decision Sciences,
IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, and the Journal of Management Information Systems; and has been recognized as one of the most prolific authors of decision support systems-related
research. Interfaces Journal has recognized him as one of the top ten most cited authors. Dr. Belardo
edited Simulation in Business and Management, and is co-author of Trust: The Key to Change in the
Information Age, and Innovation Through Learning: What Leaders Need to Know in the 21st Century.
Johanna Bragge holds a PhD in Management Science from the Helsinki School of Economics, and
currently acts there as a professor of Information Systems Science. In her dissertation she applied decision and negotiation analytic methods while pre-mediating an escalated dispute regarding energy taxation in Finland. Dr. Bragge is the coordinator and main facilitator of HSEs Electronic Decision-making
and Groupwork Environment. Her current research interests include themes related to e-collaboration,
318
digital marketing, and text mining. She has published, among others, in Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Group Decision and Negotiation, and European Journal of Operational Research.
Rodrigo Baroni de Carvalho is a professor in the Master in Business Administration of Fumec
University, Minas Gerais, Brazil. He has a PhD in Information Science from the Federal University of
Minas Gerais (UFMG). Part of his PhD was done at the Faculty of Information Studies, University of
Toronto, Canada with the supervision of professor Chun Wei Choo. His master degree was in Information
Science and the bachelor degree was in Computer Science both from UFMG. Before being a full-time
professor, he has worked for 16 years as system analyst and IT project manager mainly in the financial
industry. His main research interests are knowledge management, KM software, ERPs, portals, technology acceptance, software engineering and information science.
Gregorio Martn de Castro is Assistant Professor of Business Administration at University Complutense de Madrid, Spain. He is also a Research Associate at the CIC Spanish Knowledge Society
Research Centre. Professor Martn de Castro holds an expert Diploma in Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management from IUEE and Insead, France, and he was a Fellow at Real Colegio ComplutenseHarvard University from 2004 to 2005, and he was also a Fellow at Manchester Institute of Innovation
Research (University of Manchester) in 2009. He is author and co-author of several papers and books
on the Resource-Based View, Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management.
Jakov (Yasha) Crnkovic, PhD is an Associate Professor and Chair of the ITM Department, University
at Albany (SUNY), New York. He completed his education at the University at Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
His post-doc activities were in CERN (Geneva, Switzerland) and Middlesex University (London, GB).
Prior to joining SUNY, he was professor at the University of Miami, Florida, University at Belgrade
(Yugoslavia), College of Saint Rose (Albany, New York). He was leading project manager and team
member in many projects for The Traffic Research Institute and the Faculty of Economics Research
Institute (Belgrade, Yugoslavia.) His research interests: DSS, OR/OM, Knowledge Management, BPM,
and IT education. He has published over 30 journal papers, authored and co-authored 18 textbooks (in
Serbian and English languages), published 15 chapters in various IS/IT books, and presented over 40
refereed conference papers. He is visiting professor, he participated in research projects and consulting
activities in many countries.
David T. Croasdell is an Associate Professor of Management Information Systems in the Accounting and Computer Information Systems Department at the University of Nevada, Reno. He has a
Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology, a Master of Science degree in Business Computing Science and
a Doctorate of Philosophy in Management Information Systems. Dr. Croasdells research interests are
in Distributed Knowledge Systems, Knowledge Networks, Knowledge Management, Organizational
Memory, and Inquiring Organizations. He has over 40 publications in a wide variety of outlets. Before
embarking on his academic career, Dr. Croasdell worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory where he
managed a computer based training laboratory and supervised computer assisted software engineering
efforts across multiple local area networks. While at Los Alamos he held a number of positions. Among
his posts were two positions in the Environment and Earth Sciences Division where he developed
training programs for safety and environmental protection.Xiaodong Deng is an Associate Professor
319
320
Doris Ipsmiller is CEO of m2n consulting and development gmbh. She founded the company
in 1999 while being staff member of the Johannes Kepler University in Linz. Apart from widespread
project experience, primarily in the public and industry sector, Doris Ipsmiller has lectured on topics
of knowledge management and knowledge organisation in academic institutions like the Johannes Kepler University Linz and the University of Applied Sciences, Berlin. She has held speeches at various
events and conferences, has co-organized special tracks and tutorials at diverse conferences and has
published titles on topics concerning agile business process development, applied ontology management
and ontology based application development.
George Leal Jamil is a professor in the Master in Business Administration of Fumec University,
Minas Gerais, Brazil. He has a PhD in Information Science from the Federal University of Minas Gerais
(UFMG). His master degree was in Computer Science (UFMG) and his graduate area was Electric Engineering (UFMG). He wrote 13 books in the information technology and strategic management areas.
Yearly, he manages the doctoral consortium of the International Conference on Information Systems
and Technology Management at the University of Sao Paulo (USP). His main research interests are
information systems management, strategy, knowledge management, software engineering, marketing
and IT adoption in business contexts.
Shivraj Kanungos research focuses on evaluating and assessing IT value in organizations, software
process improvement, and the relationship between organizational culture and IT value. He is presently
Associate Professor of Management Science at the George Washington University. Previously, he held
the Dalmia Chair in Management of Information Technology at the Indian Institute of Technology at
Delhi. He consults extensively with industry and has published his research in leading journals. His
books include CMMI Implementation: Embarking on High Maturity Practices (Tata-McGrawHill, with
A. Goyal), Making Information Technology Work (Sage), Computer and Network Technologies and
Applications, (Tata-McGrawHill, with B. N. Jain) and Information Technology at Work: A Collection
of Managerial Experiences (HPC). Journals that have published his research include System Dynamics
Review, Decision Support Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, Strategic Information
Systems, International Journal of Information Management, International Journal of Information Systems, Software Process: Improvement and Practice, Information Technology and People, Computers
in Human Behavior, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, and International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction. Dr. Kanungo earned his integrated bachelors and masters degree (Master of
Management Studies, 1986) from Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India, the M.S.
degree (1988) in Management Information Systems from Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville,
IL and the Ph.D. degree (1993) in Information and Decision Systems from The George Washington
University, Washington DC.
Hannu Kivijrvi is a professor in Information Systems Science at the Helsinki School of Economics.
He received his PhD in Management Science. His research interests include knowledge management,
business IT alignment, decision support systems in financial, production and marketing planning, IT
Governance, and investments in information systems. His publications have appeared in a number of
journals, including European Journal of Information Systems, European Journal of Operational Research, Journal of Decision Systems, Decision Support Systems, Managerial and Decision Economics,
International Journal of Production Economics, and Interfaces.
321
322
and Knowledge Management and as associate editor of VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems.
Lorne Olfman is Dean of the School of Information Systems and Technology at Claremont Graduate University, Fletcher Jones Chair in Technology Management, and Co-Director (with Terry Ryan)
of the Social Learning Software Lab (SL2). His research interests are in designing effective collaboration, learning and knowledge management technologies. To this end, Lorne and his SL2 colleagues
are conducting research on a variety of topics including the design of an intelligent online discussion
board, the development of an integrated set of tools to facilitate The Claremont Conversation for the
21st Century, and the design of a virtual dialogue system. Lorne has been integrating the use of wiki
technology into his research and teaching for the past couple of years.
Alexander Orth works as a consultant with Accenture focusing on the Financial Services industry.
His areas of expertise cover among others Business & IT Strategy, IT Transformation, Post-Merger
Integration, Organizational and Human Performance, Performance Measurement as well as IS & IT
Success. He holds a Master degree in Business Administration from European Business School (EBS),
Wiesbaden/Oestrich-Winkel, Germany. Mr. Orth has been working within the research field of Knowledge Management throughout his studies; he has particularly focused on Knowledge Management Success and Success Measurement. His work has been published in the Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences 2009.
Elsa Rhoads, D.Sc., is the Knowledge and Performance Architect for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a civilian federal agency in Washington, DC. Prior to her appointment in
2000, Rhoads was a Branch Chief in the Information Resources Management Department. Rhoads is
a Board member of the Knowledge Management Working Group of the Federal CIO Council. Before
joining PBGC in 1993, Rhoads enjoyed a career in management and information technology consulting
in Chicago. She was also the founder and president of Rhoads Group, an IT consulting and software
development organization. Rhoads holds an M.P.A. degree, and served as an adjunct professor in the
Public Administration program at Roosevelt University, Chicago.
Vincent M. Ribire, After teaching for the past 10 years at American University (Washington, DC)
and later on at the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) in New York and in the Kingdom of Bahrain,
Vincent is now the Managing Director of the South Asian branch of the Institute for Knowledge and
Innovation (IKI) of Thailand hosted by Bangkok University (http://iki.bu.ac.th) as well as an Assistant
Professor at the Graduate School of Bangkok University. Vincent received his Doctorate of Science in
Knowledge Management from the George Washington University, and a PhD in Management Sciences
from the Paul Czanne University, in Aix en Provence, France. Vincent teaches, conducts research and
consults in the area of knowledge management, innovation management and information systems. Over
the past years, he presented various research papers at different international conferences on knowledge
management, organizational culture, information systems and quality as well as publishing in various
refereed journals and books.
Pedro Lpez Sez is Assistant Professor of Business Administration at University Complutense de
Madrid, Spain, and he was a Fellow at Real Colegio Complutense-Harvard University from 2004 to
323
2005. Professor Lpez Sez is also a Research Associate at the CIC Spanish Knowledge Society Research Centre and he is author and co-author of several papers and books on the Resource-Based View,
Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management.
Michael Stankosky, DSc, is Professor of Systems Engineering, Lead Professor of Knowledge Management, and co-founder and co-director of the Institute of Knowledge and Innovation at the George
Washington University. In those capacities, he oversees the research and education of all academic
activites relating to Knowledge Management and Innovation. He collaborates with 12 adjunct faculty,
25 doctoral researchers, as well as with numerous scholars and practitioners from around the world.
His latest book, Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management, summarizes some of these efforts.
Miriam Delgado Verde is Assistant Professor of Business Administration at University Complutense
de Madrid, Spain. She was a Fellow at Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (University of
Manchester) from 2008 to 2009. She is author and co-author of several papers on the Resource-Based
View, Intellectual Capital and Technological Innovation.
Silke Wei is project assistant at the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance. She is responsible for the
analysis of information, communication and transaction processes as well as participative stakeholder
integration on the basis of web 2.0 technologies for the development of new e-Government structures.
She is assistant leader of the workgroup organization in the Forum e-Government of the Austrian
Computer Society.
Suzanne Zyngier PhD is a Senior Lecturer and is the Executive Director Masters of Business Information Management & Systems in the School of Business, Latrobe University, Australia. She has held
academic appointments at Monash University and Swinburne University of Technology. Her research
centers on the governance of knowledge management strategies. This has resulted in the development
of a KM governance framework detailing the relationship of governance to the effective implementation
of KM processes, and in defining the roles and tasks involved at each point of governance: planning and
development of the KM strategy and the implementation of that strategy. Prior to joining academia her
previous career was as an experienced knowledge management and information services analyst where
she conducted her own business as a consultant to the professional, corporate and not-for profit sectors.
Since 2001 her research has been concerned with knowledge management understandings and practices
in the corporate and government sectors, and includes comparative study of knowledge management
status between Australian and European financial services institutions. Suzanne has published her work
in Information Systems Frontiers, the International Journal of Knowledge Management and in
Information and Knowledge Management. She has also published several technical reports, several
book chapters and has presented papers on her research at international conferences and to industry.
324
325
Index
A
allowing for mutual influences (AI) 201
assimilative knowledge 216
authority 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,
65, 68, 71, 72
B
balanced scorecard metric 153
Belardos matrix 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 169
business capital 181, 187
business environment 32, 33
business processes 262, 263
business strategy 52, 53, 56
C
clarifying mutual expectations (CE) 201
codification 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199,
200, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207
cognitive components 15
cognizant enterprise maturity model (CEMM)
129, 148
collaboration 213, 214, 215, 219, 220, 221,
222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229,
230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236
collaboration centered strategy 213, 215, 223
collaboration engineering (CE) 213, 215, 220,
222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 231,
233, 235, 237
collaboration engineers 235
collaboration processes 230, 231, 235
collaborative working culture 262
company valuation 14
competitiveness 32, 33, 48
competitor knowledge management 32, 35
D
data 130, 132, 134, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142,
144, 149, 262, 263, 265, 266, 267, 268
declarative knowledge 216
DeLone and McLean (D&M) IS success model
3, 17
descriptive knowledge 216
DYONIPOS (Dynamic Ontology based Integrated Process Optimisation) research
project 277, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283,
284, 285, 286, 287
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Index
E
economic value added metric 153
ELAK (electronic records) 284, 285
emergent strategy 53, 55
evaluation 55, 68
expertise 130, 132, 133, 136, 138, 140, 142,
143, 146, 147, 149
exploitation 33
exploration 33
F
facilitators 230, 231, 234, 235
firm performance measures 5
G
governance 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65,
66, 67, 68, 72
group support systems (GSS) 214, 215, 221,
222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230,
231, 235
H
Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS 2006) 1, 2, 14
Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS 2007) 1, 12, 13
Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS 2008) 1
HICSS knowledge management foundations
workshop 14
holistic KM view 238, 257
human capital 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,
146, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 186, 188
I
index values (IV) 242
individual innovativeness 106, 110, 112, 113,
114, 115, 120, 123
individual knowledge 107, 109, 110, 113, 121,
216
individual performance 107, 108, 112, 122
information quality 17, 18
infrastructure 264, 265, 267, 269, 270
326
innovation 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,
44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 106, 107, 109, 110,
112, 113, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124,
125
intangible asset monitor metric 153
intangible assets 128, 129, 131
integrated KMS architecture 257
integrated KMS perspective 257
integrated measurement system 257
intellectual assets 58, 70
intellectual capital 91, 93, 179, 180, 181, 182,
183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 216
intellectual capital-based view (ICV) 179, 180,
187, 189
intellectual capital, resource-based view (RBV)
of 179, 180, 181
Intellectus Model 181, 182
International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM) 4, 16, 30
interpretive structural modeling (ISM) 264,
266, 267, 268, 271, 274, 275
IT effectiveness 263
J
Jennex and Olfman KM Success Model 3, 11
Jennex and Olfman's success assessment framework 239, 245, 246, 248, 249, 251
Journal of Management Information Systems
(JMIS) 192
K
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index 184, 185
key performance indicators (KPI) 242, 243,
247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 255
KM academics 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10
KM capability 128, 129, 130, 134, 135, 146
KM capability improvement 128
KM, enablers of 264, 265, 266
KM governance 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 64
KM initiatives 238, 239, 240, 243, 244, 245,
246, 252, 254, 255, 261, 262, 264, 268,
269, 270
KM initiative success 192, 194, 196, 197, 198,
199, 200, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208,
212
Index
327
Index
328
L
latent descriptor factors 130, 134
leadership culture 8
learning orientation 265
lessons learned 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138,
139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146
linguistic knowledge 216
M
management support 21, 22, 26, 27
market intelligence 34, 47
market knowledge 32, 33, 34, 35, 42, 47
market knowledge management 32, 34, 47
market knowledge models 32
market orientation 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49
market orientation, behavioral perspective 34
market orientation, cultural perspective 34
market share 33, 34
market value added metric 153
measurement 53, 55, 66, 68, 264, 265, 270
meeting expectations (ME) 201
N
new product performance 32, 38
O
operational knowledge 106, 107, 109, 111,
112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121,
122, 123, 125
organizational culture 184, 192, 193, 194, 195,
207, 238
organizational knowledge 33, 38, 48, 91, 94,
104, 107, 216, 217
Index
P
partial least squares (PLS) 161, 162, 165, 166,
169, 171, 172, 173
performance 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113,
115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123,
125, 127
personalization 192, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199,
200, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207
presentation knowledge 216
procedural knowledge 216
profitability 33, 49
Q
quantum mechanical thinking 91, 93, 94, 95
quantum organizations 91, 94, 95, 96, 103, 105
quantum-relativistic paradigm 94, 95
R
reasoning knowledge 216
reducing controls (RC) 201
relational capital 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185,
186, 187, 188
resource-based view of the firm 216
resource description framework (RDF) 281,
282
return on investment (ROI) 33, 51, 56, 68, 69
Riempps integrated KMS architecture 239,
240, 241, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255
Riempps performance measurement system
239
risk management 55, 65, 68, 69
sales 33, 34
self-transcending knowledge 216
semantic linkage 277
service quality dimension 17, 21
sharing relevant information (SI) 201
Skandia navigator metric 153
small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) 91,
101, 102, 103, 105
social capital 181, 195, 197, 207, 208, 265, 272
social context 265, 266
social network analysis (SNA) 7, 8
strategic alliances 185, 187
strategic resources 179
structural capital 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186,
187, 188
structural equation modeling (SEM) 32, 49,
106, 115, 150, 153, 159, 160, 161, 162,
163, 164, 165, 168, 169
T
tacit embodied knowledge 216
task knowledge 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112,
113, 114, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123
taxonomies 131
technical components 15, 16
technology 262, 263, 264, 265, 269, 270
technology broker metric 153
technology knowledge management 32
ThinkLet technique 213, 230, 231, 233, 236
trustworthiness 192, 194, 195, 197, 198, 200,
201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210,
211, 212
V
virtual project teams 266
W
Web ontology language (OWL) 281
329