Knowledge Management Research Paper 3y4h3f

Knowledge Management A Research Methodology Project By Ammar Abdullah Omar Balfaqih

Acknowledgment

I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who have been involved, in any way, in the process of doing this research. I would like to give special thanks to Madam Kamariah, lecturer of Research Methodology, to whom I will always be grateful: grateful for her extensive efforts in bringing the practicality of learning such subject in a professional, yet comprehensible, fashion to us students; grateful for her modesty in helping us students by providing guidance and consultation; and lastly, grateful for her instrumental role in making this research possible.

Chapter 1: Overview 1.1 Introduction In this research we analyze the reasons for which knowledge management has gained a dubious reputation among business executives and explain why the only way to leveraging knowledge is through attention to the best source of tacit knowledge –people. Finally we provide some insights about the role of the human component in funneling knowledge to a level where actual work is performed.

1.2

Problem Statement The prevailing misconceptions surrounding knowledge management had

been the cause of much confusion, and many subsequent failures for knowledge management in the field of economics.

1.3

Research Questions The research is intended to investigate three major questions: 1. Is the knowledge management contribution to businesses significant? 2. Does the organizational culture affect the success of knowledge management? 3. Do people‟s behaviors and attitudes have an influence on the implementation of knowledge management?

1.4

Research Objectives The objectives of this research are to: 1. Studying the impact of knowledge management on companies‟ processes. 2. Examining the form of contribution - whether tangible or intangible made by knowledge management to the business outcome. 3. Analyzing the results expected from knowledge management, by business executives, against actual results.

1.5

Significance of the Study 1. Clearing the uncertainty about knowledge management. 2. Providing an insight into the practices needed to manage knowledge successfully. 3. Providing empirical data regarding the actual role of knowledge management.

1.6

Scope of Study The study is to perform a systematic empirical investigation and evaluations of knowledge management in a few selected cases of wellknown

local

companies

implementing

knowledge

management.

Furthermore, related data will also be gathered from people who have worked with knowledge management.

1.7

Research Limitations 1. Managing knowledge occurs within a complex structured social context, and it is difficult to cover every aspect of it. 2. Budget constraint can affect the extent of the research. 3. The availability of resource from which empirical data can be collected.

1.8

Key 1. Knowledge Management 2. Tacit Knowledge 3. Shareability 4. Human Element 5. Social Factor

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1

Topics and Subtopics The main topic of this research is Knowledge Management. However, the research is concerned with three particular issues about Knowledge Management. These subtopics are: 1. The impact of knowledge management on the performance of business processes. 2. The gap between the knowledge management models. 3. The future of knowledge management.

2.2

Similarities and Differences between the Selected Journals In this section, the similarities and differences in the citations found in each selected journal will be listed one by one. Later on, an overall comparison will be given discussing the similarities and differences between the three journals altogether.

2.2.1 First Journal: Knowledge Management System: A Business Value Model a) On the issue concerning the role and impact of knowledge on business performance, there were several citations that were optimistic about the role of knowledge management, as well as, other ones that had opposing view. The similar citations include: 1. “Knowledge is believed to be a strategic resource, a source of competitive advantage”, according to Cole 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Spender 1996a; Spender 1996; Barney 1991; Conner 1991; Schulze 1992; and Wernerfelt 1984. 2. A research note from the Gartner Research Group predicts that organizations will recognize even more the positive and enhanced role of knowledge work and knowledge workers (Harris and Flint 2003).

As for the citations with an opposing view include: 1. “Many organizations have invested substantially in projects involving KMS‟s assuming they will contribute to improved performance. However, not all organizations are obtaining the expected bottom line results” according to Shin 2004. 2. “There is no conclusive evidence demonstrating the contribution of KM initiatives to organizational performance.” According to Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001).

b) Several citations found expressed a quite similar definition of what a business process, such citations as: 1. A business process is “a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcome" according to Davenport and Short 1990. 2. A more recent definition describes a business process as “the complete and dynamically coordinated set of collaborative and transactional activities that deliver value to customers” according to Smith and Fingar. 3. Additionally, “a business process, as a collection of interrelated tasks, is outcome oriented, is intended for a customer, has stakeholders, and is triggered by some specific event” according to Sharp and McDermott 2001.

c) On how the organizational culture affects the success of knowledge management, different citations were similar, as such there positive about the impact. Such citations as: 1. From Barney (1991) asserted the impact of organizational culture, and it stated that “Perhaps the most significant hurdle to effective knowledge management is organizational culture”.

2. Another citation from (De Long and Fahey 2000) was more detailed and descriptive about the impact. It stated that “Aspects of organizational culture that influence Knowledge Management success include norms and beliefs about the importance of knowledge and its management. Leadership of the organization can play a pivotal role by recognizing that knowledge management needs to be taken into at the strategic level by setting goals at the highest level. This may be facilitated by appointing a senior official (such as a Chief Knowledge Officer) in a position of authority and providing appropriate resources (financial and structural) to plan and carry out the KM functions in the long term. Such a top-down approach establishes a high level of commitment and helps the leaders of the organization create an environment of trust needed for knowledge sharing”. 3. Another from (MacCormack et al. 2002) further discussed the aspects, and stated “middle management can establish incentives and reward systems that formally encourage participation by coworkers to collaborate with each-other and motivate contribution to and reuse of knowledge in the organization‟s knowledge repositories”. 4. Additionally, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) explained the role of knowledge workers in the organizational culture. They said “Another aspect of culture is the way knowledge workers perceive knowledge – as a depletable resource that needs to be hoarded or as an asset whose value increases with sharing. When knowledge workers recognize that sharing knowledge improves their own tasks and those of their team, they develop a positive attitude to knowledge sharing. Managers and supervisors can accomplish this by setting up appropriate working conditions for sharing – informal settings for socialization which influences the sharing and transfer of tacit knowledge and arrange formal periodic meetings where ideas are shared and key learnings are captured for reuse”. On the other hand, one citation from (Gold et al. 2001) questioned that impact, and stated “There is no conclusive research on what aspects of organizational culture and how exactly they affect the use of knowledge management”.

2.2.2 Second Journal: Knowledge Management Model: A Gap Analysis a) On the classification of knowledge management model, there were differing approaches to classifying the models. 1. According to (Earl, 2001; and Kakabadse et al., 2003), km models were classified based on the modeler‟s approach to analyzing knowledge. 2. According to (Gebert et al., 2003, Herder et al., 2003), km models were based on the modeler‟s approach to working with knowledge.

b) On the subject of how knowledge is viewed, apparently there are two opposing schools of modelers: epistemological modelers perceive knowledge as an entity with defined (or at least definable) characteristics, overlooking interconnections among knowledge entities and with their environment. The main differentiating characteristic of knowledge, from the epistemological perspective, is the difficulty of its articulation: knowledge that can be easily articulated is labeled explicit knowledge, while knowledge that is difficult to articulate, and therefore difficult to communicate to others, is labeled tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966). In contrast, ontological modelers perceive knowledge in of its relationships with its environment regardless of its inherent characteristics. They view knowledge as taxonomy of interconnected entities that exist in a bounded environment, overlooking the nature of these knowledge elements. The main differentiating feature of knowledge, from the ontological perspective, is the relationships that link them. c) There were citations that similarly discussed the failures of knowledge management. 1. Malhotra (2005) argues that “the gap is widening between technology inputs, knowledge processes, and business performance. This is leading to failures of KM technology implementations”.

2. Moffett et al., (2003) assert that “tensions are often found between knowledge-orientated applications and the progress of organisational change in implementing KM programmes. Therefore, more systematic empirical research addressing the relationship between cultural and technological aspects of KM is required role of tacit knowledge and cultural aspects in KM. Technology alone will not lead to a KM culture”. d) On the issue of the future of knowledge management, there were two similar citations: 1. “There will be a continual relationship among economic, industrial, social, and cultural transformations and evolution in managing knowledge” according to (Wiig, 1997; Drucker, 2002).

2. “The more developed world is evolving into a knowledge-based economy” according to (e.g. Beijerse, 1999; Laszlo 2002; Wiig 1997). e) Another important issue is the application of knowledge and the process in knowledge management, for which there were different citations - some were similar, such as: 1. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) focus on informal and tacit knowledge in their KM lifecycle. Rather than „knowledge management‟ they identify the main processes in a KM lifecycle as knowledge creation, dissemination, and embodiment. Moreover, they emphasize knowledge exploration for creating new knowledge, over exploitation of existing knowledge.” 2. Additionally, Beijerse (1999) provides a more analytical approach to KM lifecycles. For example, he breaks down the term „knowledge management‟ and analyses different definitions of each component to derive his own resulting in the following: Knowledge management is achieving organizational goals through the strategy-driven motivation and facilitation of (knowledge-) workers to develop, enhance and use their capability to interpret data and information (by using available sources of information, experience, skills, culture, character, personality, feelings, etc.) through a process of giving meaning to these data and information. Beijerse identifies main processes in a KM lifecycle as knowledge developing, enhancing and using. In line with Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), he emphasizes

the role tacit knowledge, viewing it as the added value to these processes. And the opposing citations, such as: 1. On the other hand Wiig (1997) focuses on procedural and explicit knowledge more than informal and tacit knowledge in his definition: KM is to understand, focus on, and manage systematic, explicit, and deliberate knowledge building, renewal, and application – that is, manage effective knowledge processes. Wiig identifies main processes in a KM lifecycle as knowledge building, renewal, and application and stresses a more methodical approach to KM by associating processes with the systematic, explicit, and deliberate knowledge.

2. Meanwhile, Davenport and Prusak (1998) provide a pragmatic approach to describing processes in a KM lifecycle. Despite the lack of an explicit definition of KM, they describe the main processes knowledge generation, codification and coordination, and transfer.

f)

Several citations discussed the concepts of data, information and knowledge – definitions, relations and differences. These citations were for the most part similar and shared the same basis. 1. According to many scholars, the are defined in relations to each other.  Data is usually defined distinctively as facts: Raw facts (Bhatt, 2001; Pe‟rez et al., 2002; Beveren, 2002; BSI, 2003), or Discrete facts (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Herder et al., 2003).  But information is usually in relation to data: Processed data (Bollinger and Smith 2001), organized data (Bhatt, 2001; Pe´rez et al., 2002), Collected data (BSI, 2003), or Messages (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). 

Similarly, knowledge is usually defined in of information: Meaningful information (Bhatt, 2001; Herder et al., 2003; Pe´rez et al., 2002), or Commitments and beliefs created from messages (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

2. A similar view by Alavi (1999) see knowledge as “personalized or subjective information related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations and judgments (which may or may not be unique, useful, accurate, or structurable)”. 3. Additionally, Leidner, stating that while knowledge is not equated to information, there is no barrier built between them. Information is data represented in a different format due to an action performed on it: processing, organizing, collecting, etc. Similarly, knowledge is information represented in a different format due to an action on it.

2.2.3 Third Journal: the Future of Knowledge Management a) On the definition of Knowledge Management, citations were technically different but actually similar in context. 1. “KM deals with capturing knowledge gained by individuals and spreading it to others in the organisation.” According to Eppler, M.J., Seifried, P.M., and Röpnack. 2. "The systematic management of the processes by which knowledge is created, identified, gathered, shared and applied" according to Chen, E.T., Feng, T.K., and Liou, W.

b) On how the organizational culture affects the success of knowledge management, the citations were equally similarly positive. 1. “Knowledge management is more than getting the right information to the right person at the right time. Managing knowledge occurs within a complex structured social context. That is, there must be social and human factors in the creation and exchange of knowledge” according to Davenport, T.H. 2. Dueck did a major study when he found that a person‟s temperament is a major influence on how that person views knowledge management.

c) About how knowledge management is perceived, the citations were also similar: 1. “Although, KM should not be considered as another IT application, it is still perceived as such. Consequently, KM practitioners had to abandon most of their projects. KM became a luxury that cannot be afforded in difficult economic times” according to Kelly, K., (1996). 2. “Much of the confusion concerning how to do business in the knowledge era would be eliminated if we had a better understanding of the difference between information and knowledge. Failing to understand this difference will lead companies to major strategic mistakes” according to Malhotra Yogesh.

2.2.4 Conclusion of the similarities and differences between the selected journal All three journals presented citations that were for the most part similar in most of the important topics covered by the journals. Below is a list of the instances where the similarities between the journals occurred. 1. The three journals had citations that gave similar definitions - mostly similar in context - of what knowledge management is. 2. The majority of cited views in the journals were confident about the impact of knowledge management on the performance of business processes. 3. Additionally, they were sure that the organizational culture has a deep effect on the success of knowledge management. 4. Lastly, the journals‟ cited views were for the most part optimistic about the future of knowledge management.

On the other hand, the journals have also instances of differences in the cited views. Such as: 1. In discussing the processes in knowledge management and their classifications, each journal presented a different approach with conflicting views of its own. The first journal discussed the processes in relation with the traditional business processes. Meanwhile, the second journal presented an in-depth view on the different knowledge management models, and cited different schools of modellers on how knowledge is created or captured, stored and disseminated. On the other end of the spectrum, the third journal cited similar views that focused on the KM processes with association to different major components and factors, such as the human element and technology.

2. Another topic that had very different views in the three journals was how knowledge Management is currently perceived by organizations. For instance, the first journal presented very positive citations on the current success of KM. In the second journal, however, the cited views affirmed that organizations do not thoroughly understand the concept of knowledge management. Additionally, the third journal had some citations that expressed the organizations doubts about the role of KM, as well as others that expressed the dubious reputation of knowledge management.

2.3

The Selected journals Contribution to The Research: The three journals were selected on of their different approaches to study some of the knowledge management related issues which, in turn, provide this research the means to shed light on knowledge management from different angles. Hence, a research on the knowledge management topics discussed earlier is sure to be thoroughly conducted.

2.4

Definition of Variables a) Knowledge Management Contribution: is the value, whether tangible or intangible, added by knowledge management to the business outcome. b) Business Outcome: is defined as an observable result or change in business performance. c) Organizational Culture: is the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization. d) Human Factor: defines the social properties unique to or characteristic of humans, which influence the functionality of technological systems as well as human-environment equilibriums. e) Tacit Knowledge: knowledge that has not yet been codified, but remains embodied in researchers and in companies' owner-managers and key employees. f) Knowledge Shareability: describes the extent to which knowledge is being shared and reused.

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Type of Research The research to be implemented is quantitative, which follows a deductive research process and involves the collection and analysis of quantitative (i.e., numerical) data to identify statistical relations of variables.

3.2 Research Design The research was planned for gathering data pertaining to knowledge management, by conducting a medium-scale survey among business people working or had worked with knowledge management.

3.3

Hypotheses RQ1: on the relation between knowledge management and business performance. H1: There is an observable contribution by knowledge management to the enhancement of business outcomes of organizations. H0: There is no observable contribution by knowledge management to the enhancement of business outcomes of organizations.

RQ2: on the relation between the organizational culture and the success of knowledge management. H1: The norms and disciplines of an organization play a pivotal role in the success of the knowledge management practices. H0: The norms and disciplines of an organization have little to do with the success of the knowledge management practices.

RQ3: on the relation between the human factor and knowledge shareabiltiy. H1: People‟s adequate comprehension and attitudes towards knowledge management, are sufficient enough for knowledge to be shared and reused effectively. H0: People‟s adequate comprehension and attitudes towards knowledge management, are not sufficient enough for knowledge to be shared and reused effectively.

3.4

Population and Sampling Technique The survey conducted for the research focuses only on employees of major local organizations, which have been around in the business for a long time but have recently implemented knowledge management. The survey uses systematic sampling that relies on arranging the target population according to some ordering scheme, in which the order starts with oldest organization and most recent knowledge management implementation.

3.5

Data Collection Primary data are collected from the survey; a secondary set of ive data is collected from literature review of the selected journals.

3.6

Samples: A sample of the questionnaires used is included in the appendix.

3.7

Size of Samples: 30 samples

3.8

Research Instruments  

3.9

Questionnaires are used in the survey to collect to data SPSS, a computer program, is used to analyze the collected data.

Type of Analysis Three methods are used to analyze the respondents‟ answers to the questionnaire questions - regarding the knowledge management contribution, organizational culture and knowledge shareability – in respect to their gender, age group, education level and years of experience.

Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis

RQ 1: Knowledge Management Contribution vs. Business Performance

RQ 2: Organizational Culture vs. Knowledge Management Contribution

RQ 3: Knowledge Shareability vs. Human Factor

Chapter 5: Conclusion It is fairly evident from the analysis results that; there is an observable contribution by knowledge management to the enhancement of business outcomes of organizations, and that contribution is influenced heavily by the norms and disciplines of an organization. Furthermore, the extent to which knowledge is shared and reused is influenced by the social properties and characteristics of humans, which are partially shaped by the organization culture. For instance, from the findings, we could deduct that the existence of proper organizational guidelines for sharing information leads to an improved level of shareability and communication between employees from the same department, and also

between

organizational departments.

Thereby,

the

implementation of

knowledge management can be more integral to the business processes, which leads to an observable contribution by knowledge management.

References

Journal of Information Technology Management, ISSN #1042-1319 A Publication of the Association of Management Is There a Future for Knowledge Management? By Hassan Ghaziri, American University of Beirut Elias Awad, University of Virginia Knowledge Management Systems: A Business Value Model By José Antonio Robles-Flores, Arizona State University / ESAN University Uday Kulkarni, Dept of Information Systems / Arizona State University Notions of Knowledge Management Systems: A Gap Analysis By Aboubakr A. Moteleb and Mark Woodman School of Computing Science, Middlesex University e-Centre, UK

Appendix A: SPSS Template (Variable View)

Appendix B: SPSS Template (Data View)