best practices and information technology tools to deliver the best available .... and development, so most of them (91 percent) had Bachelor of Science (BS).
Exploring the Contextual Dimensions of Organization from Knowledge Management Perspective Mostafa Jafari, Mohammad Fathian , Alireza Jahani, and Peyman Akhavan Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1718914&show=html). Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Citation: Jafari, Mostafa, Fathian, Mohammad, Jahani, Alireza and Peyman Akhavan (2008), Exploring the contextual dimensions of organization from knowledge management perspective, Vine: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 53 – 71.
Abstract Purpose – The most research of Knowledge Management merely pays attention to it’s relation with dimensions of the organizations especially contextual dimensions. The purpose of this work is to explore the contextual dimensions of organizations for finding the interactions between of these dimensions and Knowledge Management and to identify the critical success factors, drivers and constraints, relevant to the implementation of Knowledge Management in the Tehran business environment. Design/methodology/approach – A new exploration based on research experiences of the Knowledge Management is formalized as an extension of the model by Daft. The present article reports the empirical findings of a survey conducted among managers and experts in Tehran. In this survey we give them a questionnaire that contains some questions related to the mentioned dimensions and asked about relations of them and Knowledge Management critical success factors for better implementation based on Factor Analysis. The questionnaire reflects insights gained from a mix of individual choice models developed by various researchers and Delphi technique. Findings – This research finds seven critical success factors, Collaboration and knowledge workers, Technology Deployment, Learning Culture, Flat Structures, Supply Chain Integration, Comprehensive strategies and Flexible Organizations, which related to the conceptual Dimensions of organizations and also drivers and constraints of Knowledge Management Implementation. Research limitations/implications – This framework reflects the Interactions between contextual dimensions and Knowledge management. It may need further research to be used for structural dimensions of the organizations. Originality/value – Using this research, organizations that interested in implementing Knowledge management may be familiar with the impacts of Knowledge Management implementation and contextual dimensions on each other for achieving the desirable outcomes.
Keywords: Knowledge Management, Contextual dimensions, Organization Factor Analysis.
© Emerald Group Publishing
1
1. Introduction As Peter F. Drucker said, Knowledge is information that changes something or somebody—either by becoming grounds for actions, or by making an individual (or an institution) capable of different or more effective action. In the information era, Knowledge and information are the most significant resources that each enterprise can gather and exploit them for Self Preservation. Thus the active and dynamic implementation and management of knowledge are critical to enabling organizational performance enhancements, problem solving, and decision making, and teaching (Liebowitz, 1999). In any organization, structures, processes, and human dynamics often inhibit the creation of new knowledge and the sharing of knowledge across the organization. Though there are other, positive factors that cause people to naturally Share knowledge and seek innovation, those factors usually cannot overcome the obstacles to knowledge sharing. As a result, the performance of the organization is adversely impacted. Deliberate knowledge management programs attempt to reverse this natural imbalance by decreasing the impediments to knowledge transfer, increasing the natural facilitators, and creating organizational learning, a key to innovation and long-term organizational success (Wirick, 2002). For these purposes, organizations must assess the dimensions of their organizations and interactions of them with knowledge management to realizing and achieving the best solutions for implementing knowledge management systems in their organizations. So in this article we consider those interactions in some of the Iranian companies that implement KM or want to do it, for finding the reality of relations that exist between them in organizations. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Knowledge management Knowledge and KM are rapidly evolving as the starting point for action in all businesses, and over the past 10 years, this understanding has surfaced as a major focus for its role in the enterprise value process. Today, knowledge and the capability to create and utilize knowledge are considered to be the most important source of a firm’s sustainable competitive advantage (Nonaka, 1990, 1991, 1994; Nelson, 1991; Leonard-Barton, 1992, 1995; Quinn, 1992; Drucker, 1993; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Grant, 1996; Sveiby, 1997). Furthermore, the importance of knowledge management is clear to many organizations and the leaders search for the main reasons and factors for being successful in knowledge management system design and implementation through their organizations (Akhavan et al, 2006; Jafari et al, 2007). Knowledge management (KM) defines the processes required to effectively manage knowledge. KM is the systematic, explicit, and deliberate building, renewal, and application of knowledge to maximize an enterprise’s knowledge-related effectiveness and returns from its knowledge assets. As Berra once stated, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you could wind up somewhere else.” KM is essential for enterprises to determine “where they are going,” and for organizational survival, given that knowledge creation is the core competence of any organization. KM applies systematic approaches to find, understand, and use knowledge to create value (O’Dell, 1996). The need for KM and a knowledge growth system is critical in order to transform information and knowledge into a valuable enterprise asset. Nowadays mature governments have understood the importance of knowledge and management of it, so the related activities are led by top levels and ranks in those countries especially in advanced and developed countries (Akhavan and Jafari, 2006). As the basis for enterprise integration, formalizes and distributes experience, knowledge, and expertise that create new capabilities, solves problems, enables superior performance, encourages innovation, and enhances customer value. KM is performing the activities involved in © Emerald Group Publishing
2
discovering, capturing, sharing, and applying knowledge so as to enhance, in a cost-effective fashion, the impact of knowledge on the unit’s goal achievement. (Liebowitz, 1999) A KM System and framework, based on enterprise KM maturity, must be developed and measured over time in terms of: knowledge acquisition, knowledge access, knowledge distribution, shared knowledge, and applied knowledge (Bixler, 2005). The KM enterprise framework and architecture address the critical issues of KM as it relates to organizational adoption, competence, and survival in the face of an increasingly discontinuous business environment change. Effective KM and KM enterprise framework and architecture measurement will be essential to provide a basis for a value-added KM system that promotes growth, enhances enterprise performance, and stimulates innovation. Designing and implementing KM and a KM enterprise framework and architecture can be a complex task due to the potential for unforeseen consequences. What is measured, how it is measured, and the importance (or value) placed on the metric will determine what gets done, how it is accomplished, and just as important, what gets ignored in the KM system. The basis for an enterprise’s KM system should be founded on its ability to resolve enterprise problems. To develop a value-added KM system based on KM enterprise framework and architecture, the framework must be supported by metrics that covers the array of dimensions that measure performance and growth in the new business environment. In sketching a KM enterprise framework a clear definition of the knowledge culture of the enterprise and impact of organizational dimensions must bring to the development process. Thus Knowledge management is a general umbrella concept that covers many processes in organizations. (Ferran-Urdaneta, 1999) 2.2. Contextual Dimensions of Organization The significant step for understanding organizations is to look at dimensions that describe specific organizational design traits. These dimensions describe organizations much the same way that personality and physical traits describe people. Organizational dimensions fall into two types: contextual and structural. Contextual dimensions characterize the whole organization and describe the organizational setting and influences and shapes the structural dimensions. Structural dimensions provide labels to describe the internal characteristics of an organization. They create the basis for measuring and comparing organizations. To understand and evaluate organizations, one must examine both structural and contextual dimensions. These dimensions of organizational design interact with one another and can be adjusted to accomplish the purposes of organization. However, we just discussed about contextual dimensions and their relations with KM. Contextual dimensions consisted organization’s size, technology, environment, goals and strategies, and culture. These five contextual dimensions discussed in this paper are interdependent. For example, large organization size, a routine technology, and a stable environment all tend to create an organization that has greater formalization, specialization, and centralization. These dimensions provide a basis for the measurement and analysis of characteristics that cannot be seen by the casual observer, and they reveal significant information about an organization. Structural and contextual dimensions can thus tell a lot about an organization and about differences among organizations. (Daft, 2001) 3. Conceptual Framework of KM and Contextual Dimensions of organizations In this section we have discussion about interaction between KM and contextual dimensions of organization and define relations of those. Contextual dimensions characterize the whole organization and describe the organizational setting and influences and shapes the structural dimensions. Contextual dimensions can be envisioned as a set of overlapping elements that underline an organization’s structure and work processes. (Daft, 2001)
© Emerald Group Publishing
3
As we think KM and organizational dimensions are most interdependent and we can say they influence and affect each other in organizations. For example five main components of Knowledge Management Infrastructure are Organizational Culture, Organizational Structure, Communities of Practice, Information Technology Infrastructure, and Common Knowledge (Fernandez, 2005). As a shown in Fig. 1 we assume that KM and contextual dimensions of organizations interact with each other, let’s explain these interactions. 3.1. Size Size is the organizations magnitude as reflected in the number of people in the organization. Because organizations are social systems, size is typically measured by the number of employees. Other measures such as total sales or total assets also reflect magnitude, but they do not indicate the size of the human part of the social system. (Daft, 2001) An interesting result of O’Sullivan’s research was the impact that organization size had on the analysis of the utilization of KM technologies in managing intellectual capital. Organizations with more than 10,000 people have success rates for the use of KM technologies that different from those of than smaller organizations (O’Sullivan, 2005). Nevertheless there are few research about size of organization and it is relation with KM; so as a KM has an impact on organizational culture and structure, thereby it must be has an indirect impact on size of organization, and we have survey this relation on the questionnaire with KM experts.
Size
Goals and Strategy
Knowledge Management Environment
Technology
Culture
Fig.1. Conceptual Framework of KM and Contextual Dimensions of organizations
3.2 Organizational technology Organizational technology Refers to the tools, techniques, and action used to transform inputs into outputs. It concerns how the organizations actually produce the products and services it provides for customers and includes such things as computer-aided manufacturing, advanced information systems, and the internet. (Daft, 2001) For over 30 years we have witnessed discussions on the role of computers inside the knowledge process. Herbert Simon (Blackler, 1995) believes that computer may parallel human thought and thus may produce some knowledge in the future. Dreyfus (Dreyfus, 1986), on the contrary, believes otherwise and argues that livings being are the only creators and holders on knowledge. Blackler (Blackler, 1995) adapts and extends collins (Collins, 1993) knowledge types and © Emerald Group Publishing
4
suggests that there exists “embrained”, “embodied”, “encultured”, “embedded”, and “encoded” knowledge. Therefore, he argues, knowledge may reside in humans but also in groups of people, in organizations, in routines, and in software. (Ferran-Urdaneta, 1999) The implementation of a KM system (KMS) enables the effective application of management best practices and information technology tools to deliver the best available knowledge to the right person, at just the right time, to solve a problem, make a decision, capture expertise, and so forth, while performing their work. However the adoption of KM technologies and tools is only a small part of the solution when considering the desired outcome of the enterprise. A successful KMS involves more than just implementing a new technology that can be acquired in a “box”; it requires understanding and integrating its human aspects and the culture in which it operates (Román-Velázquez, 2005). Also traditional methods and technology are thought as ineffective to solve the "knowledge problem" and a "holistic" view is called upon (theories of behavior of largescale systems are often invoked); although it’s the processes that matter, not the technology (Barroso & Gomes, 1998). Some researchers define these critical success factors of KM implementation; Technical and organizational infrastructure, Multiple channels for knowledge transfer [15, 16], Technology (Network) (Trussler, 1999), Knowledge repositories of knowledge (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Bixler Express some of potential impacts of KM on the technological concepts of organizations, like Impact on product/service reliability and maintainability, product/service ease of use (user friendly), product/service quality, product/service compatibility and interoperability, Ability for the enterprise to identify and assimilate new technologies, Integration of related technologies across the organization, and Impact on the ability to create a legacy database of knowledge, in particular working knowledge (Bixler,2005). 3.3. Environment The environment includes all elements outside the boundary of the organization. Key elements include the industry, government, costumers, suppliers, trading partners, competitors and the financial community. Environmental elements that affect an organization the most are often other organizations. (Daft, 2001) The new business enterprise environment is characterized by continuous redefinition of organizational goals, purposes, and the tried and trusted “ways in which things have always been done” and imposes the need for two essential elements in KM; Knowledge growth and maturity, Development of a well-disciplined “systematic and systemic” knowledge maturity system for employees that is continuous, well disciplined, relevant, valueadded, and measurable. It must solve “today’s” problems, and Knowledge innovation, Provide an environment with the physical and procedural methods of generating and introducing challenging ideas and innovation to existing knowledge bases. Introduce ways to stimulate continuous improvement within the enterprise. (Malhorta, 1998) For the environmental concept Knowledge capture is defined as the process of retrieving either explicit or tacit knowledge that resides within people, artifacts, or organizational entities. Knowledge captured might reside outside the organizational boundaries, including consultants, competitors, customers, suppliers, and prior employers of the organization’s new employees. Impact on client satisfaction (repeat business) and supply chain are the most important impact of KM on the organization’s environment. An enterprise must provide an environment that enables knowledge workers to better deal with problem solving in terms of the uncertain and unpredictable future (Bixler, 2005). 3.4 Organizational goals and strategies Goals and strategy define the purpose and competitive techniques that set it apart from other organizations. Goals are often written down as an enduring statement of company intent. A © Emerald Group Publishing
5
strategy is the plan of action that describes resources allocation and activities for dealing with the environment and for reaching the organizations goals. Goals and strategies define the scope of operations and the relationship with employees, customers, and competitors. (Daft, 2001) More enterprises are now starting to realize that “KM deployment is not an overnight installation but a complex shift in business strategy and process, one that requires thorough planning and must involve end users” (Dyer & McDonough, 2001). On the other hand, not only KM has an impact on the enterprise’s strategic direction and organizational processes, but also KM can be affected by clear organizational goals and strategies during the successful implementing of it in the organization. Also some researchers believes that there is some critical success factors for KM implementation, there are Clear purposes and language (Davenport & De Long & Beers, 1998) (Jennex & Olfman, 2004) (Kemp, Pudlatz, Perez, and Ortega, 2001) and Clear and explicit links to business strategy (Skyrme & Amidon, 1999). 3.5. Organizational culture An organization’s culture is the underlying set of key values, beliefs, understandings, and norms shared by employees. These underlying values may pertain to ethical behavior, commitment to employees, efficiency, or customer service, and they provide the glue to hold organization members together. An organization’s culture is unwritten but can be observed in its stories, slogans, ceremonies, dress, and office layout. (Daft, 2001) And as another point of view, organizational culture is a shared values (what is important) and beliefs (how things work) that interact with an organization’s structures and control systems to produce behavioral norms. Eisner emphasizes that the vision and culture of an organization sets the tone for much of what occurs within the organization, influencing most strategic activities (Eisner, 2000). Kotter and Heskett also point out that, although we usually talk about organizational culture in the singular form, all enterprises have multiple cultures associated with different functional groupings or geographic locations (Kotter & James, 1992). These definitions clearly indicate that cultural analysis helps us to understand the interaction of different teams and personnel with different cultures, especially when they must work together particularly for knowledge sharing (RománVelázquez, 2005). For an enterprise to achieve the necessary level of adjustment to attain its optimum performance, it requires the understanding and awareness of the different culture composition (culture types) operating within its boundaries that comprise its overall enterprise culture. This awareness is of paramount importance when designing and implementing effective processes, tools, and technologies across the different culture types. For example, for the Knowledge management system implementation, if that encounters high organizational friction, undermined by the different cultures interactions, it will not be successful (Román-Velázquez, 2005). A good understanding of the enterprise culture and its composition throughout different hierarchic levels of the enterprise is an essential step for the successful implementation of KM efforts. Typically, the most important challenges in KM are no technical in nature and have to do with lack of the above organizational culture characteristics (Dyer & McDonough, 2001). Less than 10% of companies trying to implement KM have succeeded in making it part of their culture estimate by Carla O’Dell (O’Dell, 2002). Also, A survey conducted in 2001 by Knowledge Management Review to gauge the key concerns of KM practitioners revealed that 38% considered “encouraging cultural adoption of KM” as the biggest challenge and 28% considered “encouraging people to share” the next highest challenge, However, because sharing knowledge is part of the organization’s cultural adoption of KM, the combination of the two comprise 66% of the respondents. Also as a Conducted a survey of 250 IT executives from the top 500 companies were asked about the difficulties they experienced in bringing about change in their company’s culture to encourage knowledge sharing and collaboration. Sixty percent of respondents replied that was very difficult or somewhat difficult (Ricadela, 2001). © Emerald Group Publishing
6
Some researchers revealed that no matter how strong is the commitment and approach to KM, the organizational culture is stronger. To break down this barrier, they recommend the creation of a KM strategy that fits the culture and is linked to core culture values (McDermott & Stephanie & Womack, 1999) (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). Another researchers define attributes of a KM-enabling organizational culture include, Understanding of the value and benefits of KM practices, Management support for KM at all levels, including allocation of time and adequate funding resources, Incentives that reward knowledge sharing, and encouragement of interaction for the creation and sharing of knowledge, and Willingness to tackle the inability to directly measure the financial benefits from KM (Barroso & Gomes, 1998). Cameron and Quinn described four clusters or quadrants with each one represent a distinct set of organizational culture types (clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy) and each culture type is related to a set of core values, beliefs, and assumptions that represent the differences within the organization. These core values and beliefs are also found in the KM literature, and are important organizational traits for KM efforts in the government and nonprofit sectors. KMS efforts implemented in organizations with a dominant hierarchy culture have the lowest likelihood of success compared to all other culture types—clan, adhocracy, and market organizations and work units with stronger cultural values have a higher likelihood of implementing successful KMS efforts independently from their dominant culture type in existence (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Results also supported that a personalization approach for the flow of knowledge is better suited for organizations that have dominant clan or dominant adhocracy cultures. Conversely, a codification approach is better suited for organizations that have dominant hierarchy or dominant market cultures. Streamlined organizational structures with strong cultures have higher chance of KM success (Román-Velázquez, 2005). Some researchers define Knowledge friendly culture as a critical success factor for implementing knowledge management. (Davenport & De Long & Beers, 1998) (Jennex & Olfman, 2004) (Skyrme & Amidon, 1999). Bixler Express some of potential impacts of KM on the cultural concepts of organizations, like Impact on corporate culture, employee morale (employer turnover), Enhancement of employee working knowledge, skills, and talents, and have a Impact on user and management attitudes on KM. (Bixler,2005) 4. Research Methodology There are three main strategies available for to study organizational culture: (a) the holistic or qualitative approach, (b) the metaphoric or language approach, (c) the quantitative approach in which the investigator uses a questionnaire to assess particular dimensions of culture. The lack of consensus on the best approach to analysis is based primarily on the debate revolving qualitative versus quantitative research (Román-Velázquez, 2005). This research used two different research tools for data collection and analysis, with occasional use of in-depth interviewing and personal discussions and statistical techniques. In the interviewing part we use Delphi technique and Survey questionnaire. The Delphi technique used a few KM experts to address the research questions, and is aimed at reaching consensus in response to these questions. The Delphi technique uses a group of experts to deliberate a research issue or a problem anonymously (i.e., without having a direct interaction among the group members). Unfortunately, When we are searching for the issues and important points about conceptual dimensions and Knowledge Management implementation, we realize that there is a few research performed about some of those dimensions like size or environment of organizations, in the other hand, those experts that we have counsel with them for enriching our questionnaire, suggest us some significant questions and we use them in our questionnaire. So, these are main reasons for using Delphi technique in our research.
© Emerald Group Publishing
7
4.1. Data collection The research targets were members of the various Iranian organizations including managers, senior experts and effective staff in decision making. In order to understand the viewpoints on KM from all sectors of the government, private companies, and universities, questionnaires were sent to different departments including information, research and development, academic and human resource department. The number of questionnaires sent out was 300; the number returned was 214, which showed a return rate of 71.33 percent. 14 of the returned questionnaires were incomplete and thus discarded; making the number of valid questionnaires returned 66.66 percent of the total sent out.
4.2. Demographic profiles of interviewees The demographic profile of employees who participate in the survey has been summarized in table I. The results showed that 38 percent of the interviewees were from public sector and the others were from Private sector. The subjects of this study were Iranian managers and experts, who are specialized and involved in IT projects design and development, so most of them (91 percent) had Bachelor of Science (BS) or higher educations, the respondents in returned questionnaires are 18 Professors, 10 PhD Students, 90 managers, and 32 knowledge management experts, 26 MS Student in Information Technology fields, and 24 software or Industrial engineers, as shown in Table I. For the job title point of view, 32 percent of the participants were expert, 23 percent were supervisors and the others were managers in different levels. Table I. Demographic profile of the interviewees Number Of Cumulative Percent interviewees (%) Public Sector Organizations 34 17 17 102 51 68 Location Private Sector Organizations Universities 64 32 100 Under B.S. 18 9 9 64 32 41 Educational Bachelor of science(BS) degree Master of science(MS) or higher educations 108 59 100 SUM 200 100 Expert 32 31 31 Supervisors 23 23 54 Job position Managers and senior managers 45 46 100 SUM 100 100 Area
Description
The questionnaire aimed to achieve two goals; First, to identify interactions between KM and contextual dimensions of organizations and Second, to investigate managerial perceptions on possible occupations of the KM implementation in organizations. The questionnaire reflects insights gained from a mix of individual choice models developed by various researchers. Characteristic included in the survey, a number of hypotheses was formulated regarding its likely impact on the implementation of the Knowledge management. Each hypothesis was then tested based on a c2 analysis in the case of a dichotomous variable and on a t-test in the case of a continuous variable. 4.3. Interactions between Contextual Dimensions of Organization and Knowledge management
© Emerald Group Publishing
8
In KM efforts, just like for any other business efforts, reasonable results in a few areas ensure successful performance. They are areas where things must go right for the endeavor to flourish. These areas are defined as critical success factors. Critical success factors are useful for structuring environmental analysis in the enterprise, because there is an important connection between environmental analysis and the factors leading to organizational success. The analysis and evaluation of success factors provides important insight through identification of the core areas that are critical in KM implementations. Therefore, KM efforts need to evaluate these core areas to gauge the potential for KMS success. The findings from leading KM practitioners, researchers, and recent studies are the major sources that can be used to identify the critical success factors for KM (Román-Velázquez, 2005). In this paper we review the others works about KM critical success factors in the areas that we proposed in some hypothesis. Table II compiles a summary of the diverse perspectives of some of the leading authors in the field regarding critical success factors for KM. An evaluation of the literature on the subject revealed that many authors mentioned some of our hypothesis, after careful analysis and applicability toward our research objectives in the Iranian government and nonprofit sectors, we decided to use the critical success factors for KM implementation identified by these authors and propose some questions that we think it can be important issues for KM implementation regarding to contextual dimensions of the organizations. So here are the questions that we asked from interviewees: 4.3.1. Size Question 1: Implementing KM in large organizations is more complicated. Question 2: A distributed and wider organization has a negative impact on KM adoption. Question 3: Implementation of KM will cause employee’s population decrease. Questions 4: KM adoption will cause decentralization in the organization. 4.3.2. Organizational technology Question 5: The more usage of technology in the organization will facilitate KM adoption. Question 6: The more usage of Information Technologies such as, Data Mining, Data Warehouses, and Internet, The easier KM Implementations. Question 7: The more integrated organizational technologies with employees, the more successful KM program. Question 8: KM implementation will cause more dynamic organizational technologies. 4.3.3. Environment Question 9: The more e-Collaboration of organization by its supply chain partners, the easier KM implementation. Question 10: KM will increase the integrity between organization, supply chain, and customers. Question 11: Knowledge workers will bring Success for KM. Question 12: KM implementation improves the relations between organizations and its stakeholders. Question 13: KM affects on Improvement and innovations on processes, products, and services.
4.3.4. Organizational goals and strategies Question 14: Transparent strategies and objectives will facilitate KM implementation. Question 15: Deployment of KM strategies in organizational strategic planning will enhance the value propositions of the company. © Emerald Group Publishing
9
4.3.5. Organizational culture Question 16: Understanding of different cultures in the organizations will affect in better KM establishment. Question 17: The more understanding of employees about KM, the easier KM implementation. Question 18: A learning environment in the organization will help KM adoption. Question 19: Knowledge sharing culture will facilitate KM systems establishment. Question 20: KM establishment in the organization with hierarchical structures is difficult. Question 21: KM implementation in the participatory cultures is easier. Question 22: Knowledge management has violent affects on collaboration, skill development, learning, and culture.
© Emerald Group Publishing
10
Delphi (BoozAllen & Hamilton, 1997) (Allee, 1997) (Wiig, 1997) (Barroso & Gomes, 1998) (Davenport, De long, and beers 1998) (Davenport and Prusak, 1998) (Liebowitz, 1999) (Skyrme & Amidon, 1999) (Manasco, 1999) (Trussler, 1999) (Finneran, 1999) (KPMG, 1999) (Bassi, 1999) (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) (Skyrme, 2000) (Choi, 2000) (McDermott and O’Dell, 2000) (Stankosky & Baldanza, 2001) (Heising, 2001) (BP Amoco, 2001) (Ofek & Sarvary, 2001) (Longbottom et. al, 2001) (Kemp at al., 2001) (Dyer & McDonough, 2001) (Ricadela, 2001) (Perkman, 2002) (Kelley, 2003) (Jennex and olfman, 2004) (Bixler, 2005) (Román-Velázquez, 2005) (Anantatmula, 2005)
H 1
H 2
H 3
H 4
*
*
*
*
© Emerald Group Publishing
Table .II. Last viewpoints about proposed hypothesis H H H H H H H H H 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
*
*
*
*
H 14
* *
*
H 15
H 16
H 17
*
*
*
H 18
H 19
H 20
H 21
*
*
* * *
H 22
* * *
*
*
*
* * * * *
*
* * *
*
* * *
* *
*
*
*
* * * *
* * *
*
* *
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
* *
* *
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
* *
*
*
*
* * * * * * *
*
*
* *
* *
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
* *
* 11
*
* *
5. Discussion Reliability analysis With reliability analysis, you can get an overall index of the repeatability or internal consistency of the measurement scale as a whole, and you can identify problem items that should be excluded from the scale. The Cronbach’s alpha is a model of internal consistency, based on the average inter-item correlation. The Cronbach’s alpha (Likert & Rensis, 1974) calculated from the 22 variables of this research was 0.797, which showed proper reliability for designed measurement scale.
Table III. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.797
22
Identification of critical Factors According to our test results, the p-value of the all questions was less than 0.05, which showed that the distribution of them was not normal. The main technique of this stage is based on "factor analysis". Factor analysis is a technique particularly suitable for analyzing the patterns of complex, multidimensional relationships encountered by researchers. It defines and explains in broad, conceptual terms the fundamental aspects of factor analytic techniques. Factor analysis can be utilized to examine the underlying patterns or relationships for a large number of variables and to determine whether the information can be condensed or summarized in a smaller set of factors or components. To further clarify the methodological concepts, basic guidelines for presenting and interpreting the results of these techniques are also included. Factor analysis provides direct insight into the interrelationships among variables or respondents and empirical support for addressing conceptual issues relating to the underlying structure of the data. It also plays an important complementary role with other multivariate techniques through both data summarization and data reduction (Hair et. al, 1998). An important tool in interpreting factors is factor rotation. The term rotation means exactly what it implies. Specifically, the reference axes of the factors are turned about the origin until some other position has been reached. The unrotated factor solutions extract factors in the order of their importance. The first factor tends to be a general factor with almost every variable loading significantly, and it accounts for the largest amount of variance. The second and subsequent factors are then based on the residual amount of variance. Each accounts for successively smaller portions of variance. The ultimate effect of rotating the factor matrix is to redistribute the variance from earlier factors to later ones to achieve a simpler, theoretically more meaningful factor pattern. The simplest case of rotation is an orthogonal rotation, in which the axes are maintained at 90 degrees (Hair et. al, 1998). In order to determine whether the partial correlation of the variables is small, the authors used the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1958) and Bartlett’s Chi-Square test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1950) before starting the factor analysis. The result was a KMO of 0.804 and less than 0.05 for Bartlett test, which showed good correlation as depicted in table IV.
© Emerald Group Publishing
12
Table IV. KMO and Bartlett test results Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Approx. Chi-Square Bartlett's Test of Df Sphericity Sig.
.680 767.922
231 .000
The Factor analysis method is “Principle Component Analysis (PCA)” in this research, which was developed by Hotteling (1935). The Condition for selecting factors was based on the principle proposed by Kaiser (1958): eigenvalue larger than one, and an absolute value of factor loading greater than 0.5. The 31 variables were grouped into eight factors. The results can be seen in Table V. eight factors had an eigenvalue greater than one and the interpretation variable was 73.361 percent. The factors were rotated according to Varimax. Table V. factor analysis results Component
Initial Eigenvalues Total
% of Variance
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Cumulative %
Total
% of Variance
Cumulative %
1
5.049
22.948
22.948
2.555
11.612
11.612
2
2.446
11.120
34.068
2.380
10.816
22.428
3
1.895
8.612
42.680
2.081
9.460
31.888
4
1.490
6.772
49.452
2.068
9.402
41.290
5
1.336
6.072
55.523
1.936
8.801
50.091
6
1.221
5.549
61.073
1.923
8.739
58.830
7
1.149
5.224
66.297
1.643
7.467
66.297
8
.988
4.489
70.786
9
.917
4.169
74.956
10
.792
3.601
78.557
11
.658
2.989
81.545
12
.639
2.904
84.449
13
.544
2.471
86.920
14
.477
2.169
89.089
15
.421
1.912
91.002
16
.409
1.858
92.859
17
.374
1.699
94.558
18
.346
1.574
96.132
19
.266
1.211
97.343
20
.236
1.073
98.416
21
.198
.900
99.316
.150
.684
100.000
22
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Factor loading of each variable on the resulted seven factors is depicted in table VI. Each variable should have significant factor loading (grater than 0.6) only on one factor. Therefore the variables H12 and H19 Because of factor loading less than 0.6 can be omitted. The content of each factor can be seen in table VII.
© Emerald Group Publishing
13
Factors naming The authors attempted to name the factors compendiously without losing contents of Factors. In this way, the names and content of the eight factors are shown in table VII. Table VI. Rotated component matrix Component H1
1 .166
2 .065
3 .071
4 -.011
H2
-.065
-.047
-.063
H3
-.006
.049
H4
-.058
.115
H5
-.049
H6 H7 H8
5 .011
6 -.061
7
.229
-.046
.134
.694
-.114
.717
.228
.001
.134
.041
.695
.168
-.034
.384
.341
.176
.178
.658
-.003
.097
.314
.687
-.020
-.016
.314
-.092
-.105
-.199
.615
.196
.131
.296
.215
-.216
.057
.828
-.022
.149
.011
.096
.152
H9
.113
.026
-.155
.344
.684
.114
-.150
H10
.214
.103
-.053
.121
.608
.183
-.034
H11
.671
.000
.227
-.042
.159
.104
.034
H12
.123
-.095
.348
-.404
.519
-.091
.288
H13
.338
.621
.089
-.071
-.067
.326
.106
H14
.275
.197
-.144
.042
.141
.769
.045
H15
.341
.089
.246
-.012
.003
.694
-.045
H16
-.184
.051
.310
-.120
.132
.702
.070
H17
.275
.002
.793
-.040
-.017
.226
-.024
H18
.265
.113
.777
.236
-.025
.097
.070
H19
.435
.403
.446
-.196
.220
.038
-.174
H20
.152
.000
.308
.678
.065
-.089
-.094
H21
.696
.246
.248
.271
.056
.140
.188
H22
.819
.122
.122
.007
.066
.097
.000
.835
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. A Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
*Note: Rotation Method was Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
© Emerald Group Publishing
14
Table VII. The name and content of critical factors Factor
Critical factor names
Factor1
Collaboration & Knowledge Workers
Factor2
Technology Deployment
No. H11 H21 H22 H6 H7 H8 H13
Factor3
Learning Culture
Factor4
Flat Structures
Factor5
Supply Chain Integration
Factor6
Comprehensive Strategies
Factor7
Flexible Organizations
H17 H18 H3 H4 H20 H5 H9 H10 H14 H15 H16 H1 H2
Dimension Knowledge Workers Participatory Cultures Collaboration & Skill Development Usage of Information Technologies Integrated Organizational Technologies More Dynamic Organizational Technologies Process Improvement & Innovative Products and Services Knowledge Management Understanding Learning environment Decreasing employee’s population Organization Decentralization Non-Hierarchical Structures Usage of Technologies in organization e-Collaboration with Supply Chain partners Increasing the Integrity of Supply Chain Transparent Strategies and Objectives Deployment of KM strategies in Strategic Planning Considering Different Cultures Small Organizations Undistributed & Narrow Organizations
6. Conclusion The objective of this paper was to researching and asking questions that related to Knowledge Management Critical Success factors based on interactions of it and Contextual Dimensions of Organization. In this regard we had asked some questions related to each of these dimensions- Size, Organizational technology, Environment, Organizational goals and strategies, and Organizational culture- for example we asked about size and kind of organizations , technologies, environment and supply chain, goals and strategies, and different organizational cultures that can be Affect Knowledge management implementation or Affected by it. We consider those interactions in some of the Iranian companies that implement KM or want to do it, for finding the reality of relations that exist between them in these organizations. Our findings indicate seven critical success factors for prosperous KM implementation which respectively are: 1. Collaboration & Knowledge Workers 2. Technology Deployment 3. Learning Culture 4. Flat Structures 5. Supply Chain Integration 6. Comprehensive Strategies 7. Flexible Organizations For future works, it may need further research to be used for structural dimensions of the organizations and their relation with Knowledge Management implementation. References Akhavan, Peyman, Jafari, Mostafa, and Mohammad Fathian (2006), “Critical success factors of knowledge management systems: a multi case analysis”, European business review, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 97-113.
© Emerald Group Publishing
15
Akhavan, Peyman and Mostafa Jafari (2006), “Critical Issues for Knowledge Management Implementation at a National Level”, Vine: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 36, No.1, pp. 52-66. Allee, V. (1997), The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational Intelligence, Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Anantamula, Vittal (2005), “Knowledge management criteria”, Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management, Michael Stankosky, Elsevier Inc. Bassi, Laurie J. (1999), “Measuring knowledge management effectiveness”, In: James W. Cortada and John A. Woods (Eds.) The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999–2000 (USA, Butterworth-Heinemann), pp. 422–427. Bixler, Charles H. (2005), “Developing a Foundation for a Successful Knowledge Management System”, Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management, Michael Stankosky, Elsevier Inc. Blackler, F. (1995), “Knowledge workers and organizations: An Overview and interpretation”, Organizational Studies 16-6. BP Amoco (2001), Available http://bp.com. Cameron, Kim S. and Robert E. Quinn (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational culture. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Carlos de Oliveira Barroso, Antonio, Braz Pereira Gomes, Elisabeth (1998), “Knowledge management: trying to understand”, Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear. Choi, Yong Suk. (2000), “An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Successful Implementation of Knowledge Management.”, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. Collins, H (1993), “The structure of knowledge”, Social Research 60, 95-116. Daft, Richard L. (2001), Organizational Theory and design, 7th Ed, south western publishing, USA. Davenport, Thomas and Larry Prusak (1998), “Working Knowledge”, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA. Davenport, Thomas, David W De Long, and Michael C. Beers (1998), “Successful Knowledge Management Projects”, Sloan Management Review 43–57. Dreyfus, H. a. S. (1986), “Why computers never think like people”, Technology Review 89-20. Drucker P (1993) Post-Capitalist Society. Butterworth Heinemann, London. Dyer, Greg, and Brian McDonough (2001), “The State of KM.”, Knowledge Management Magazine, May. Eisner, Howard (2000), “Reengineering Yourself and Your Company: From Engineer to Manager to Leader”, Artech House Technology Management and Professional Development Library. Fernandez, Becerra, et al. (2005), Knowledge Management 1/e, Prentice Hall, 2004/ Additional material, Dekai Wu. Ferran-Urdaneta, Carlos (1999), “Teams or Communities? Organizational structures for Knowledge Management”, Boston University Systems Research Center, USA. Finneran, Tom. (1999), “A Component-Based Knowledge Management System”, Available htty://www.tdan.com/i009hy04.htm. Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(Winter Special), 109–122. Heising, P. (2001), “Business Process Oriented Knowledge Management”, In: Kai Mertins, Peter Heisig, Jens Vorbeck, Kai Mertens (Eds.) Knowledge Management Best Practices In Europe, Springer. Jafari, Mostafa, Akhavan, Peyman, Jalal Rezaee Nour, and Mehdi N. Fesharaki (2007), Knowledge management in Iran aerospace industries: a study on critical factors, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal, Vol. 79, No. 4, pp. 375-389. Jennex, M. E. and Lorne Olfman (2004), “Assessing Knowledge Management Success/ Effectiveness Models.” Paper read at 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Kelley, J. (2003), “Strategic Premises and Propositions for I-Value Growth.”, Available http://www. transformpartners.com. Kemp, Jeroen, Marc Pudlatz, Philippe Perez, and Aracelli Munoz Ortega (2001), “KM Technologies and Tools.” European KM Forum. Kotter, John P. and James L (1992), “HeskettCorporate Culture and Performance”, New York the Free Press. KPMG International, UK. (1999), Knowledge Management Research Report, United Kingdom: KPMG Consulting. Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal 13(5), 363–380. © Emerald Group Publishing
16
Leonard-Barton D (1995) Wellsprings of Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Liebowitz, Jay (1999), Knowledge Management Handbook, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Longbottom, D. and Chourides, P. (2001), “Knowledge management: a survey of leading UK companies.” Proceedings of the 2nd MAAQE International Conference. “Towards a Sustainable Excellence?” Versailles, France, September 26–28, 113–126. Malhorta, Y (1998), Toward Knowledge Ecology for Organizational White-Waters. Manasco, B. (1999), “The Knowledge Imperative Leverage it or lose it”, Available http://webcom.com/quantera/empires5.html. McDermott, Richard, and Carla O’Dell (2001), “Overcoming the ‘Cultural Barriers’ to Sharing Knowledge”, Available http://www.apqc.org. McDermott, Richard, Stephanie Carlin, and Alexandria Womack (1999), “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture”, American Productivity and Quality Center. Nelson RR (1991) Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal 12(Winter special issue), 61–74. Nonaka I (1990) Chishiki-Souzou no Keiei. (A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation) Nihon Keizai Shimbun-sha, Tokyo (in Japanese). Nonaka I (1991) The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review 96–104. Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5(1), 14–37. Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press, New York. O’Dell, Carla (1996), “A Current Review of Knowledge Management Best Practices.”, Conference on Knowledge Management and the Transfer of Best Practices, London: Business Intelligence. O’Dell, Carla (2002), “Knowledge management Presentation, American Productivity and quality center”, APQC Knowledge Management Conference, Crystal City, Virginia. O’Sullivan, Kevin, D.Sc. (2005), “Leveraging Knowledge Management Technologies to Manage Intellectual Capital”, Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management, Michael Stankosky, Elsevier Inc. Ofek, E. and Sarvary, M. (2001), “Leveraging the Customer Base: Creating Competitive Advantage through Knowledge Management.” Management Science INFORMS; 47(11):1441–1456. Perkmann, M. (2002), “Measuring knowledge value?: Evaluating the impact of knowledge projects”, KIN Brief #7. Warwick Business School, Leicester University, UK. Available http://www.ki-network.org. Quinn JB (1992) Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for Industry. Free Press, New York. Ricadela, Aaron (2001), “Priorities Shift At the Top [Web Page]”, Available http://www.informationweek.com. Román-Velázquez, Juan, D.Sc (2005), “An Empiric Study of Organizational Culture Types and their Relationship with the Success of a Knowledge Management System and the Flow of Knowledge in the U.S. Government and Nonprofit Sectors”, Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management, Michael Stankosky, Elsevier Inc.. Skyrme, David and Debra Amidon (1999), “The knowledge agenda”, In: James W. Cortada and John A. Woods (Eds.) The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999–2000 (USA, Butterworth-Heinemann), pp. 108– 125. Skyrme, David. (2000), “Knowledge Management: Making Sense of an Oxymoron”, Available http://www.skyrme.com/pubs/knwstrat.htm. Stankosky, Michael, and Carolyn Baldanza (2001), “A System Approach to Engineering a Knowledge Management System.”, Knowledge Management: The Catalyst for Electronic Government, edited by R. C. Barquin, A. Bennet and S. G. Remez. Vienna, Virginia: Management Concepts. Sveiby K (1997) The New Organizational Wealth. Berret-Koehler, San Francisco. Trussler (1999), “The rules of the game”. In: James W. Cortada and John A. Woods (Eds.) the Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999–2000 (USA, Butterworth-Heinemann), pp. 280–286. Wiig, K. Fall (1997), “Knowledge Management: Where Did It Come From and Where Will It Go?” Expert Systems with Applications, Pergamon Press/Elsevier, Vol. 14. Wiig, K. M. (1993), Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking About Thinking—How People and Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge, Arlington, TX: Schema Press. Wirick, Dave (2002), “Knowledge Management: A tool for creating effective and adaptive regulatory agencies”, Transformation program director the national regulatory research institute.
© Emerald Group Publishing
17
