International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning (ICICKM 2011), Bangkok 27 – 28 October 2011, Bangkok University, Thailand, Thomson Reuters ISI Index (ISSHP) (ISBN: 978-1-908272-21-8 CD)
Knowledge Management Process and Audit Firm’s Performance: An Empirical Evidence 1
2
Kalsom Salleh and Fathiah Hashim 1 Accountancy Research Institute & Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia 2 Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia
[email protected] or
[email protected] [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This empirical research examines the relationship between knowledge management process and audit firm’s performance. The auditor’s knowledge in the audit firm is essentially considered as the company’s intellectual capital. Thus, it is essential to see the impact of KM process which includes knowledge creation and acquisition, knowledge transfer and sharing, knowledge storage and retrieval, knowledge application and knowledge protection as the main contributor to audit firm performances. This study investigated the impact of KM process in audit firms in Malaysia through the survey questionnaires which were distributed to the audit firms located in the major cities. The statistical results revealed that only two out of five types of KM process have positive and significant relationships to the audit firm’s performance. The process for (1) knowledge creation and acquisition and (2) knowledge storage and retrieval have emerged as the highly significant and moderately significant factor respectively for the KM performance of the audit firm. Keywords: KM Process, Auditors, Audit Firm’s Performances
1
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge is the main capital for all organizations especially for knowledge-intensive firms such as the professional accounting and auditing firms, legal firms, engineering and computer consultancy firms and research centres (Ditillo, 2004). Knowledge capital is considered as the most valuable asset and it is used as the main driver to the organizational performance particularly in knowledge intensive firms (Dunford, 2000). For knowledge intensive firms, knowledge itself is the core product that the firms can sell to solve their customer’s problems by providing intangible solutions using their knowledge capital (Ditillo, 2004). Knowledge can be categorized broadly as either explicit or tacit knowledge (Wyatt,2001). Explicit knowledge consists of data or information repositories that can be obtained and shared easily. On the other hand, tacit knowledge belongs to knowledge, expertise, ideas, skills and experience of the firm’s employees (Salleh,2010; Wyatt,2001). Thus, the tacit knowledge in the form of intangible asset is found to be more valuable for the knowledge intensive firms. Although knowledge is the most important asset to the knowledge intensive firms, however, without the focus on knowledge management (KM), the knowledge will become worthless to these firms. Many organizations fail to take notice on the importance of having a systematic process of managing knowledge via KM practices. This may be due to their lack of understanding on the benefits they may gain from their investment in knowledge management process (KM process)(Fong & Choi,2009).
According to O’Leary (2000), KM is defined as the process to (1) capture knowledge, (2) convert personal knowledge to group-available knowledge, (3) to connect people to people, people to knowledge, knowledge to people, and knowledge to knowledge and (4) measure that knowledge to facilitate management of resources and help understand its evolution. KM is also defined in term of the process of acquisition, transfer, sharing and retention of knowledge of an organization (Edwards, 2005). With an effective KM process, it can help the organization toward achieving its goals as well as gaining competitive advantages (Massa & Testa, 2009; Daud & Yussoff, 2010). This research paper will therefore discuss the KM concept in the perspective of KM process that will create value towards the organization’s performance (Daud & Yussoff, 2010). KM process is defined as those processes which include knowledge acquisition, knowledge conversion and knowledge application, knowledge storage and retrievals (Argote, 2000; Arsenijevi, J. et al., 2009; Daud & Yusuf, 2008; Fong & Choi, 2009 and Massa & Testa, 2009). Various previous studies had also identified the factors in the KM process such as (1) knowledge creation and acquisition, (2) knowledge storage and retrieval, (3) knowledge transfer and sharing, (4) knowledge application (Massa & Testa, 2009) and (5) knowledge protections (Daud & Yusuf, 2008; Fong & Choi, 2009). Through the implementation of KM, the organization will enhance its firm’s performance by ensuring the effectiveness of the KM process in the organization. Subsequently, many studies have focused on the KM and the KM process in various industries such as higher education organization (Hoveida et al., 2008; Krishnasamy, 2008), telecommunications industry (Chong, et al., 2007), construction industry (Chen, 2007; Fong & Choi, 2009; Rasli, 2006; Wei & Mohammed, 2005); small medium industry (Daud & Yusuf, 2008; Wong, 2005); aerospace industry (Tat, 2007), health industry (Wyatt,2001) and food sector industries (Massa & Testa, 2009). Most of the findings in prior studies reveal that KM process will significantly contribute to the successful performance of the organizations. However, there are limited empirical studies that have discussed on the KM process in the perspective of accounting and auditing firms and how this professional services organization manages its knowledge capital particularly in Malaysia. According to Empson (2001), accountants and professional consulting firms have usually been propelled into the forefront as exemplars of best practice in the field of KM. This is because majority accounting and auditing firms have now become aware that they need to deliver excellent type of professional services to their clients in order to be the best provider/supplier(Kluwer, 2010). Hence, the KM and KM process in the audit firms may help to facilitate the ability to access and share knowledge among the audit professionals who are then able to effectively solve their clients’ problems. Hence, this study purports to investigate the relationship between KM process and the audit firm’s performance based on the five (5) types of KM process which include (1) knowledge creation, (2) knowledge transfer and sharing, (3) knowledge storage and retrieval, (4) knowledge application and (5) knowledge protection for the accounting and audit services firms in Malaysia.
1.1 Problem Statement In Malaysia, the implementation of KM began in the late 1990s by the multinational companies such as Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard (Daud & Yusoff, 2010). These companies brought their KM practices, processes and applications to be adopted and nurtured by the Malaysian business environment. However, the main issue here is there are different types of KM process to be applied for the different type of business environment and its people (Arsenijevi, et al., 2009). Thus, there is a critical KM implementation issue to be addressed by the knowledge based company such as audit firms in respect to the adoption of the most suitable KM process (Liebowitz, 1999) in their firms. For professional services firms, their business operations are in a fast moving environment that required them to compete with large competitors in the market (Ezingeard, et al. 2000) besides helping their clients to gain a competitive advantage. Therefore, many of the Big Four Audit Firms had spent huge
amount of their revenues on KM process and systems (Ngah, et al., 2009; Akhavan et al., 2006). Similarly, the Malaysian Big Four Audit Firms which are already exposed to KM practices have followed what have been practiced by their international networks in others countries (Shaw & Pant, 2006). However, it is very important to have a clear understanding on the type of KM processes that audit firms should adopt and how to encourage the members in the firms to contribute to a better firm performance (Salleh, 2010, Chen, 2007, Du, et al., 2007 and Zhi-hong & Da-wei, 2009). The effectiveness and efficiency of the internal flow of the information among auditors can be best achieved through the appropriate adoption of KM processes (Yang, 2010). It is very crucial for audit firms to ensure that the knowledge bases of explicit knowledge and the transfer and sharing process of tacit knowledge among auditors can be captured in order to support the stability of the client services and organisational performance (Salleh,2010 & Yang, 2010). Little attention has been given to the auditing and professional services firm in relation to KM practices (O’Leary, 2000; Whitmore & Albers, 2006). For such reason, this study aims to explore and investigate on how the KM process will significantly influence on the audit firm’s performance in Malaysia. 1.2 Research Objectives With various significant findings on previous studies on the KM process and firm performances, this study takes a narrow slice of the overall body of KM process literature as it is most applicable on the accounting and professional services environment (O’Leary, 2000). Therefore, this study aims to examine the relationship between KM processes and audit firm’s performance by using the survey method among the Big Four and Non-Big Four audit firms in Malaysia. Many of the explored research findings on KM process show a significant impact on the KM process to the successful performance of the company (Chourides et al., 2003, Du, et al., 2007 and Yu, et al., 2004). Thus, it is vital to ensure that the KM process which include (1) knowledge creation, (2) knowledge storage and retrieval, (3) knowledge transfer and sharing, (4) knowledge application and (5) knowledge protections are properly put into place in the audit firm to ensure their service and performance will be performed effectively as well as to ensure long term high performance standing. This paper, therefore, examines how Malaysian audit firms can apply the KM process in order to enhance the firm’s performance. In audit firms, knowledge and management are core service products where they provide and sell their expertise to provide solutions to their customers. The expertise and solutions are not anything more than knowledge. Thus, the main objective of this study is to investigate how the KM process will have the significant effects on the audit firm’s performance with the following specific objectives: 1. To investigate the relationship between knowledge creation and acquisition and audit firm’s performance. 2. To investigate the relationship between knowledge transfer and sharing and audit firm’s performance. 3. To investigate the relationship between knowledge storage and retrieval and audit firm’s performance. 4. To investigate the relationship between knowledge applications and audit firm’s performance. 5. To investigate the relationship between knowledge protections and audit firm’s performance.
1.3 Scope and Limitations of the Study The scope of the study on the KM process and knowledge intensive firm’s performance may be limited to this investigation on the professional audit firms in Malaysia. This study will use the survey method by sending questionnaires to audit firms around Malaysia which cover both Big Four and Non-Big Four firms. This study focuses on the five processes of KM that include knowledge creation and acquisitions,
knowledge storage and retrieval, knowledge transfer and sharing, knowledge application as well as knowledge protection toward firm performance. Since this study focuses on professional audit firms, therefore, the results of this study cannot be generalized to other knowledge intensive organization and may not be appropriate especially to the professional accountants in other organizations (Chong, et al. 2007 & Taylor, et al., 2001). 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Knowledge Management Until today, there is no collective and standard definition that can describe what is KM. Basically, KM can be defined as the process of managing the knowledge that an individual possesses (Ngah, et al. 2009) and the sharing of information throughout the organization. According to Murray & Zakharova (2005), KM is defined as an effective and efficient process to create, acquire and share knowledge and skills to be used to enhance the firm’s performance. It has also been stated that KM is a process of accumulating knowledge, rational capabilities and experiences of organization’s people and the organization’s ability to retrieve them as the organizational assets (Monavvarian & Zahra, 2010). Moreover, KM is also known as a process of enhancing firm performance by creating and acquiring, sharing, storing and applying knowledge wherever it resides as well as protecting the knowledge in the firm from being lost (Ngah et al. 2009). 2.2 Knowledge Management Process It is crucial to implement KM process in the business environment especially to the knowledge based firms or professional firms which are knowledge - intensive firms where the firm can utilize and capitalize the knowledge in all their transactions (Davis, 2000; Ngah, et al., 2009). Based on the study conducted by Newman (1992), a basic model for the KM process has been formulated. This model is parallel with the study by Massa & Testa (2009) where this model consists of four main elements in the KM process which are knowledge creation, storage, transfer and application. However the terms used in these two models are slightly different. By realizing the importance of knowledge as a key tool for firm performance, knowledge protection will now become the additional essential element in the KM process (Ngah, et al., 2009; Zhi-hong & Da-wei, 2009) as there is some important information that needs to be protected from loss. 2.3 Knowledge Management Performance KM is the long-term operation strategy of knowledge based firms which can bring in the following benefits: 1) to create new competitiveness for the firm, 2) to increase its profits, 3) to reduce its costs, 4) to improve its efficiency and 5) to construct its new culture (Zhi-hong & Da-wei,2009). Moreover, by implementing KM process in the firms, it will add value to the firms and may gain the competitive advantage (Massa & Testa, 2009). In order to achieve the objective of KM process, the firms have to face challenges in terms of finance, time, culture and to maintain the momentum of KM practice in firms (Ezingeard, et al., 2000). Thus, this requires a commitment and cooperation from the entire individuals in the firms from the top line to bottom line staffs. The ability to face those challenges will lead the firm to gain the benefit of KM such as enhancing staff productivity, improve productivity, create a positive working environment throughout the knowledge sharing practice and a better team work to enhance employee learning (Daud & Yusoff, 2010; Zhi-hong & Da-wei,2009). Furthermore, the firms may benefit throughout the KM process that will assist them to make better decisions (Salleh, 2009). Therefore, the overall process of KM will significantly contribute to the healthier performance of the firms in the long term. Thus, the success of KM process in the knowledge based firms such as the professional audit firm will highlight the future direction of the subsequent KM projects which ultimately make firms improve their KM performances (Zhi-hong & Da-wei,2009).
Therefore, the independent variables for this study are the five KM processes which are 1) the knowledge creation and acquisitions (KCA), 2) knowledge transfer and sharing (KTS), 3) knowledge storage and retrieval (KSR), 4) knowledge application (KA), 5) the knowledge protections (KP) whereas the audit firm’s performance (AFP) is considered as the only dependent variable. Thus, Figure 1 below demonstrates the proposed conceptual framework of this study with some elements of KM process to measure audit firm’s performances.
Independent Variables
Dependent Variable
Knowledge creation and acquisition Knowledge transfer and sharing Knowledge storage and retrieval
Audit firm’s performance
Knowledge application Knowledge protection
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of KM Process and Audit Firm’s Performance 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The conceptual framework for this study is adapted from the research framework developed by Massa & Testa (2009) which was modified and adjusted by the study performed by Daud & Yusuf (2008) and Ngah, et al.,(2009). For this study, the audit firm’s performance is considered as the dependent variable (Daud & Yusuf 2008; Ngah, et al.,2009) whilst the independent variables are the KM process (Arsenijevi, et al., 2009) which include the knowledge creation and acquisition, knowledge transfer and sharing, knowledge storage and retrieval, knowledge application as well as knowledge protection. The empirical research was carried out based on the quantitative method using a survey questionnaire ( Salleh, 2010; Salleh, 2009) to review the relationship between KM processes and audit firm’s performance. The questionnaire was adapted based on five KM processes and KM performance. To accomplish the purpose of this study, a list of auditors in Malaysia was obtained from the Malaysian st Institute of Accountants Member Firms Directory on the 21 January 2011. In this study, the multiple question items in the questionnaire were adapted based on the literature review and previous studies of KM processes and firm’s performances (Salleh, 2009; Salleh, et.al, 2009; Daud & Yusoff, 2010; Ismail & Abidin, 2009; Fong & Choi, 2009; Massa & Testa, 2009). The respondents were asked to indicate which validated measures of the five components of the KM process contribute towards the audit firm’s performance on a scale from ‘1’ to ‘5’, where ‘1’ represents strongly disagree, ‘3’ represents neutral and ‘5’ represents strongly agree. For this research paper, the summary of study variables with the validated measures and the sources of literature review are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Valid Measurements of KM Process and Firm’s Performance Study Variables
Validated Measures
Authors
Knowledge creation and acquisition
5 question items are used to measure the training, communication and technology
Massa & Testa (2009); Su & Wu (2000)
Knowledge transfer and sharing
6 question items are used to measure on the disseminating information either from tacit or explicit knowledge
Salleh (2010); Ismail & Yusof (2010)
Knowledge storage and retrieval
5 question items are used to measure on the connectivity system from people to knowledge and easy accessibility using KMS
Chong, et al.(2007); Child & Shumate (2007)
Knowledge application
5 question items are used to measure the application of knowledge in practice for better business operation
Salleh (2010); Ibrahim & Reid (2009); Tat (2007)
Knowledge protection
5 question items are used to measure the protection of intellectual capital from losses
Daud & Yusoff, 2010; Ngah et al., 2009
KM performance
15 question items of KM benefits are used to measure KM performance of the organization such as the competitive advantage, the increase in productivity, improved product/services, improved process, better decision making, teamwork, employee learning, cost saving, etc.
Massa & Testa, (2009), Salleh et al. (2009), Salleh (2009), Daud & Yusoff (2010), Carrillo, et al. (2003), Fugate, et al. (2009), Ho(2009)
Table 2 shows that only 82 out of 169 questionnaires distributed or 49% of the response rate were obtained for data analysis after many reminders had been made through phone calls and emails. Table 2: Summary of Distribution and Collection of Questionnaires Type of Audit Firms Big 4 Non-Big 4 Total
Numbers of Audit Firms contributed
Numbers of questionnaires distributed
Numbers of questionnaires returned and analyzed
10 36 46
40 129 169
27 (33%) 55 (67%) 82 (100%)
4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
In this study, the demographic questions for this study consists of the gender of the respondents, race, age levels of educations and qualification, division and type of audit firms as well as the years of working experience in audit firms. For the gender of the respondents, it showed that females dominate the respond about 73.2% or 60 respondents while only 26.8% are males. This result is contradicted with the study by Ismail & Abidin (2009) where the respondents from the audit profession in Malaysia is being dominated by male auditors. About 56 (68%) of the respondents are 26 years old and above, while the remaining respondents are below the age of 26 (32%). Majority (60%) of the respondents are holding degree qualification while 15% of them are having master degree and 16% holding professional accounting qualifications (ACCA, MACPA, CIMA, and CPA) and diploma holders of 9%. The highest level of education of the respondents is the Doctorate (PhD) qualification (2%). The respondents in this study are made of people who have accounting qualifications and work at an audit firm either in the Big 4 and Non-Big 4 audit firms. There are 55 respondents (67%) from the non-Big 4 and 27 respondents (33%) are from the Big 4 audit firms. It is found that 78% of of the respondents are working in the audit and assurance division at different level of job positions i.e. audit assistant (30%), junior auditors (20%), and senior auditor (22%) and audit manager (6%). However, the remaining respondents of 22% are working in non-audit positions tax assistants and management executives. In terms of working experience in the audit firms, majority of the respondents (87%) have working experience ranging from 1 to 5 years. However, only 12 % of the respondents working for 5 to 10 year and 1 percent having an experience between 11-15 years. The Cronbach's Alpha procedure is used to verify the reliability of the data and study variables of this empirical research. The closer the Cronbach's Alpha to 1, the higher the internal consistency reliability (Sekaran, 2000). The Cronbach′s Alpha coefficient for each study variable is presented in Table 3. Table 3: Coefficient of Cronbach′s Alpha Variables Knowledge creations and acquisition (KCA) Knowledge Transfer and Sharing (KTS) Knowledge Storage and Retrieval (KSR) Knowledge Application (KA) Knowledge Protection (KP) Audit Firm Performance (AFP)
Number of Items
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients
5
0.755
6
0.762
5
0.792
5
0.775
5
0.773
15
0.914
Factor Analysis is used to confirm that all of the five KM processes are valid and are in conformity to the literature review and prior empirical evidences. A principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation is used on the 26 questions related to KM processes and KM performance. The value of KaiserMeyer-Olkin measure of sampling Adequacy (KMO = 0.807) which is above the acceptable limit 0.5 (Field, 2009) and the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity χ² (325) = 1111.176, p < .0001 is significant to indicate that the correlation between the items were sufficiently large and therefore factor analysis is considered appropriate. Those study variables with factor loadings greater than 0.5 are included for further statistical analysis such as correlations test and multiple regression analysis.
Correlations between independent variables are observed as one of the assumptions for the primary use of the multiple regression analysis. Correlation analysis in Table 4 is performed to explain the strong point and trend (positive or negative) of the linear relationship between the two variables. The result of Pearson Correlations reveals the strong correlations between all of KM Processes and the audit firm performance without the existence of multicollinearity (Arsenijevi, et al., 2009).
Table 4: Correlations of KM Process and Audit Firm Performance Knowledge Creation & acquisition
Knowledge Transfer & sharing
Knowledge storage & retrieval
Knowledge Application
Knowledge Protection
Knowledge Creation and Acquisition
1.000 .533**
1.000
.564**
.569**
1.000
4
Knowledge Transfer and sharing Knowledge Storage and Retrieval Knowledge Application
.650**
.589**
.649**
1.000
5
Knowledge Protection
.454**
.456**
.668**
.399**
1.000
6
Audit Firm Performance
.717**
.466**
.602**
.519**
.451**
1 2 3
Audit Firm Performance
1.000
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The relationship between KM Process and audit firm’s performance is analyzed by using the standard multiple regression. The regression model for this study as follow:AFPi = β + β1 KCA + β2 KTS + β3 KSD + β4 KA+ β5 KP + ε i 0
Where, AFPi = Audit Firm Performance KCA = Knowledge creations and acquisition KTS = Knowledge Transfer and Sharing KSR = Knowledge Storage and Retrieval KA = Knowledge Application KP = Knowledge Protection In the standard multiple regression analysis, the audit firm’s performance is considered as the dependent variable where the independent variables i.e. 5 types of KM process i.e. 1) knowledge creation and acquisition, 2) knowledge transfer and sharing, 3) knowledge storage and retrieval, 4) knowledge application and 5) knowledge protection. As a result, the five of KM processes explained 54.6% of the total variances in the audit firm’s performance (dependent variable) on the KM process with adjusted RSquare of 0.546. Thus, the regression model explained that 54.6% of the variations in the audit firm’s performance have been significantly explained by the five independent variables or KM processes. This model has a significant F-statistic of 20.447 and a significant p-value of 0.00. Thus, there is a relationship between the five of KM processes on the audit firm performance.
Table 5: Summary of Standard Multiple Regression Analysis KM Process
B
Beta
Significance
Knowledge Creation and acquisition
.548
.575
.000**
Knowledge Transfer and sharing
.020
.024
.809
Knowledge storage and retrieval
.245
.308
.015*
Knowledge Application
-.057
-.069
.552
Knowledge Protection
.000
.000
.998
Adjusted R-Square
.546
Dependent Variable: Audit Firm Performance: * significant p < 0.050 and ** significant p < 0.000
To compare the contribution of each of five KM process in measuring audit firm’s performance, this study used the Standardize Beta Coefficient. By looking at the standardized beta coefficients as shown in table 5, the largest beta value is 0.575 (p-value = 0.000), which is for knowledge creation and acquisition and then followed by knowledge storage and retrieval with beta value 0.308 (p-value 0.015). This indicates that 1) knowledge creation and acquisition and 2) knowledge storage and retrieval have the strongest relationship with audit firms performance at 1% and 5% test of significance respectively. Therefore, two KM processes namely 1) knowledge creation and acquisition and 2) knowledge storage and retrieval have emerged as highly significant and moderately significant factors in explaining the overall KM process on audit firm’s performance in Malaysia. Knowledge creation and acquisition process is reported as highly, positively and significantly related to the audit firm’s performance (dependant variable) at 1% level of significance. However, knowledge storage and retrieval with p-value of 0.015 is moderately significant and positively associated with KM process on the audit firm’s performance at 5% level of significant test. The regression result also implies the importance of KM process such as knowledge creation and acquisition and knowledge storage and retrieval towards better audit firm’s performance.
5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH This study discovered that only two (2) out of the five (5) KM processes are found to be valid KM process to enhance the audit’s firm performance i.e. 1) knowledge creation and acquisition and 2) knowledge storage and retrieval. Thus, these identified two of KM process in the audit firm are the main contributory factors and have significant impacts to the audit firm’s performance. It also indicates that the audit firm is essentially required to create and acquire more knowledge to serve their clients better as well as to have many types of knowledge bases for knowledge storage for greater firm performance. The findings also provide empirical evidence to highlight that knowledge is dynamic and constantly changing that may require the audit staff and expertise to update their knowledge through many sources of knowledge bases. Since the information and knowledge in the audit firms is considered valuable and confidential, it is therefore equally important for the audit firms to have a good design of knowledge bases for knowledge storage and retrieval process of their internal expertise knowledge bases and for their client company’s information. For future research, it is strongly recommended for the increasing number of respondents in the sample population in order to provide more reliable data analysis for significant findings. Secondly, the future study should also focus on the senior auditors or more experienced staff in the audit firms in order to have more accurate and reliable findings.
REFERENCES Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., & Fathian, M. (2006).”Critical success factors of knowledge management systems: a multi-case analysis”. European Business Review, Vol 18, .No. 2, pp 97-113. Argote, L. (2000). “Knowledge Transfer in Organizations:Learning from the Experience of Others”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol 82, No. 1, pp 1- 8.
Arsenijevi, J., Tot, V., Nešic, L. G., Andevski, M., & Arsenijevic, D. (2009). “Correlation of experimenting culture and process of knowledge management in the university environment”. African Journal of Business Management Vol 3 No. 10, pp 521-532. Child, J. T., & Shumate, M. (2007). “The Impact of Communal Knowledge Repositories and People-Based Knowledge Management on Perceptions of Team Effectiveness”. Management Communication Quarterly, Vol 21 No. 1, pp 29-54. Chong, C. W., Chong, S. C., & Wong, K. Y. (2007). “Implementation of KM strategies in the Malaysian telecommunication industry:An empirical analysis”. The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol 37, No 4, pp 452-470. Chourides, P., Longbottom, D., & Murphy, W. (2003). “Excellence In Knowledge Management: An Empirical Study To Identify Critical Factors And Performance Measures”. Journal of Measuring Business Excellence, Vol 7 No. 2, pp 22-45. Daud, S., & Yusoff, W. F. W. (2010). “Knowledge Management And Firm Performance In SMEs: The Role Of Social Capital As A Mediating Variable”. Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol 15 No. 2 pp 135 - 155. Daud, S., & Yusuf, W. F. W. (2008). An Empirical Study of Knowledge Management Processes in Small and Medium Enterprises Paper presented at the IBIMA Davis, T. C. (2000). Knowledge Management In a CPA Firm – Your Firm’s Future Depends On It . InfoTech Partners North America, Inc, 706-1728. Ditillo, A. (2004). “Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive firms:The role of management control systems as knowledge integration mechanisms”. Accounting,Organizations and Society Vol 29, pp 401– 421. Du, R., Ai, S., & Ren, Y. (2007). “Relationship between knowledge sharing and performance:A survey in Xi’an, China”. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol 32, pp 38–46. Dunford, R. (2000). “Key challenges in the search for the effective management of knowledge in management consulting firms”. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 4. No. 4. Edwards, J. S., Collier, P. M. & Shaw, D.(2005.Knowledge Management and Its Impact on the Management Accountant, The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), London, U.K. London, United Kingdom. Empson, L. (2001). “Introduction: Knowledge management in professional service firms”. Human Relations, Vol 54 No 811. Ezingeard, J.-N., Leigh, S., & Chandler-Wilde, R. (2000). Knowledge Management At Ernst & Young Uk: Getting Value Through Knowledge Flows. Fong, P. S. W., & Choi, S. K. Y. (2009). “The processes of knowledge management in professional services firms in the construction industry: a critical assessment of both theory and practice”. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 13 No. 2 pp 110-126. Hoveida, R., Shams, G., & Hooshmand, A. (2008). Knowledge Management Practices in Higher Education Institutes: a different Approach. IEEE Xplore. Ibrahim, F., & Reid, V. (2009). What is the Value of Knowledge Management Practices? Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(5), PP567 – 574
Ismail, M. B., & Yusof, Z. M. (2010). “The Impact of Individual Factors on Knowledge Sharing Quality”. Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management. Ismail, N. A., & Abidin, A. Z. (2009). An Investigation Of The Malaysian Auditors Selfperceived Information Technologies Knowledge Level: An Empirical Assessment. Malaysia: Malaysian Accountancy Research And Education Foundation. Kluwer, A. W. (2010). Accounting Firms Get Serious About Knowledge Management. Knowledge Connect Krishnasamy, R. (2008). Case Studies Of Knowledge Management Implementation In Higher Educations in Malaysia. Multimedia University, Malaysia. Liebowitz, J. (1999). “Key Ingredients to the Success of an Organization’s Knowledge Management Strategy” Knowledge and Process Management, 6(1), pp 37- 40. Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2009).”A knowledge management approach to organizational competitive advantage: Evidence from the food sector”. European Management Journal, Vol 27 pp 129 – 141. Monavvarian, A., & Zahra, K. (2010). Towards successful knowledge management: people development approach. Business Strategy Series, 11. Murray, E. J., & Zakharova, I. ( 2005). Knowledge Management Success/Effectiveness Models. Newman, B. (1992). “An open discussion of knowledge management”. Harvard Business Review, Vol 70 No. 1 pp 71-79. Ngah, R., Hoo, C. H., & Ibrahim, A. R. (2009). “The Relationship between Knowledge Management and Trust: Malaysian Perspective”. International Journal of Management Innovation Systems, Vol 1 No. 1. O’Leary, D. E. (2000). Knowledge Management in Accounting and Professional Services. Rasli, A. M. (2006). Knowledge Management Framework for the Malaysian Construction Consulting Companies. Unpublished IRPA Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Salleh, K. (2009 ). Accountants And Technologies: Knowledge Management Model. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Environmental and Computer Science. Salleh, K. (2010). Tacit Knowledge And Accountants: Knowledge Sharing Model. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications. Salleh, K., Ahmad, S. N. S., & Ikhsan, S. O. S. S. (2009). ”Knowledge Management In Electronic Government: The Organizational Readiness Of Local Authorities in Malaysia”. Public Sector ICT Management Review, Vol 3 No 1. Shaw, L., & Pant, L. (2006). An Exploratory Study of Public Accountants’ Perceived Technological Competency and Cognitive Style In a Knowledge-Based Industry., Suffolk University, Boston. Su, P.-C., & Wu, C.-H. (2000). Examining The Effect Of Knowledge Creation Mode On Knowledge Performance: Goal-Free Vs. Goal-Driven. Kaohsiung University Rd., Kaohsiung, Tat, L. W. (2007). “Knowledge management in the Malaysian aerospace industry”. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 11 No 1, pp 143-115. Taylor, D. W., Yamamura, J., Stedham, Y., & Nelson, M. (2001). “Managing Knowledge-Workers In Accounting Firms:The Role Of Nutrient Information And Organisational Information Consciousness”. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice.
Wei, L. L. S., & Mohammed, A. H. (2005). The Development Of Knowledge Sharing Culture In Construction Industry. Department of Property Management,Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Whitmore, B., & Albers, J. A. (2006). “Knowledge Management In An Accounting Organization”. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol 7 No. 4. Wong, K. Y. (2005). “Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and medium enterprises”. Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol 105 No 3, pp 261-279. Wyatt, J. C. (2001). “Management Explicit and Tacit Knowledge”, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol 94. Yang, J.-T. (2010). “Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing in international tourist hotels”. International Journal of Hospitality Management. Vol 29, pp 42–52. Yu, S.-H., Kim, Y.-G., & Kim, M.-Y. (2004). Linking Organizational Knowledge Management Drivers to Knowledge management Performance:An Exploratory Study. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Zhi-hong, Z., & Da-wei, X. (2009). Fuzzy Evaluation Model of Accounting Firm Knowledge Management Performance Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering.
