Comparative study of knowledge management success.ABSTRACT Knowledge management (KM) is emerging as a significant organizational and management challenge. KM can help shape an organization's technological and organizational innovations for a more effective operation. However, there exist different views among practitioners and even researchers on how a knowledge management program can be successfully designed and implemented in organizations. Thus, this study objective is empirically examining differences between the perceived per·ceive tr.v. per·ceived, per·ceiv·ing, per·ceives 1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing. 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. and the actual success variables for KM. From the results of statistical analysis, the differences between the perceived and the actual success variables for KM are analyzed an·a·lyze tr.v. an·a·lyzed, an·a·lyz·ing, an·a·lyz·es 1. To examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations. 2. Chemistry To make a chemical analysis of. 3. . The greatest differences exist in benchmarking
Benchmarking (also "best practice benchmarking" or "process benchmarking") is a process used in management and particularly strategic and knowledge sharing capability while the least differences are in KM supportive culture and top management leadership and commitment. Key Word: knowledge management, innovation, KM success 1. INTRODUCTION The knowledge-based economy in the intelligence age is moving forward at a very rapid pace, especially with the role played by information technology which acts as a catalyst catalyst, substance that can cause a change in the rate of a chemical reaction without itself being consumed in the reaction; the changing of the reaction rate by use of a catalyst is called catalysis. to the development of knowledge. It has become a business phenomenon for the knowledge management (KM) paradigm Pronounced "pah-ruh-dime." A model, example or pattern. See paradigm shift. to play a vital role in the success of an organization in the global market. However, KM is a very difficult mechanism to define as academicians and practitioners tend to perceive per·ceive v. 1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing. 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. differently about organizational knowledge based on their interests and disciplines. Researchers in the Management Information Systems (MIS (1) (Management Information System) An information system that integrates data from all the departments it serves and provides operations and management with the information they require. ) discipline tend to define information technology (IT) enabled KM as a system component that can be stored and utilized, while those in Strategy and Management disciplines view KM as a collection of processes that can be created and managed based on individual and organizational core competencies A core competency is something that a firm can do well and that meets the following three conditions specified by Hamel and Prahalad (1990):
n. The knowledge and skill required to do something correctly. See Synonyms at art1. know-how Noun Informal the ability to do something that is difficult or technical . Even though there has been a set of widely recognized criteria useful for evaluating the success of KM. There has been no investigation as to how organizations that have not been engaged in KM perceive success factors of KM differently than organizations that have implemented KM in terms of success factors. Thus, the objective of this study is to identify differences between the perceived success (organizations without KM) and the actual success variables for KM program (organizations with KM). 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Various KM studies have identified several key variables for the success of KM. The findings by leading KM researchers are major sources that can be used to identify the success variables of KM. First of all, creating and sharing knowledge are intangible activities that cannot be forced. Only when a culture of trust and openness is formed and felt by organizational members, KM can give birth to core competencies. Thus, the participation, cooperation, coordination, and empowered teamwork (product, software, tool) Teamwork - A SASD tool from Sterling Software, formerly CADRE Technologies, which supports the Shlaer/Mellor Object-Oriented method and the Yourdon-DeMarco, Hatley-Pirbhai, Constantine and Buhr notations. of employees should be supported as standard attitudes in the KM environment. Secondly, successful knowledge creation and sharing activities and processes would be impossible without appropriate education. Timely and appropriate KM education is one of the key ingredients for the KM success. Thirdly, knowledge should be measured because an organization's intellectual capital includes the brains of its employees, their know-how, and the processes and customer knowledge that they create. Fourthly Fourth´ly adv. 1. In the fourth place. Adv. 1. fourthly - in the fourth place; "fourthly, you must pay the rent on the first of the month" fourth , it is impossible to make satisfactory progress without strong top-management leadership and commitment. Thus, the visible leadership and commitment of top management must be sustained throughout a KM effort so that organizational constraints CONSTRAINTS - A language for solving constraints using value inference. ["CONSTRAINTS: A Language for Expressing Almost-Hierarchical Descriptions", G.J. Sussman et al, Artif Intell 14(1):1-39 (Aug 1980)]. for the KM success can be minimized. Fifthly, the distinct difference between organizational learning Organizational learning is an area of knowledge within organizational theory that studies models and theories about the way an organization learns and adapts. In Organizational development (OD), learning is a characteristic of an adaptive organization, i.e. and KM is that KM utilizes information systems (IS) as an enabling tool while organizational learning views information systems as a technical tool. To develop an effective KM program, information systems must be reliable, user-friendly user-friendly - Programmer-hostile. Generally used by hackers in a critical tone, to describe systems that hold the user's hand so obsessively that they make it painful for the more experienced and knowledgeable to get any work done. , compatible with other platforms, and accurate. Sixthly, benchmarking determines how leading organizations achieve their performance levels and uses the information as a basis for establishing the organization's targets, strategies, and processes. Thus, benchmarking can be one of the most effective tools for developing and improving KM and measuring organizational KM performance. Once an organization has benchmarked best practices, it becomes easier to apply the useful knowledge in the organization. Finally, reliable, useful, up-to-date, and timely knowledge can be created and shared not only internally but also externally. Specifically, useful knowledge can be captured and created by sharing knowledge with other members of work groups, suppliers, and customers. In other words Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke" put differently , there should be a strong knowledge sharing capability in an organization, which includes knowledge about internal and external customers, suppliers as well as organizational work groups in order to implement KM successfully (Buckman Buckman may refer to: People
3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 217 responses out of 1000 questionnaires were used for the data analysis. The questionnaire consists of 39 attributes (questions). Attributes were developed based on literature review. The executives and managers were the primary respondents In the context of marketing research, a representative sample drawn from a larger population of people from whom information is collected and used to develop or confirm marketing strategy. . Organizations that were not engaged in any KM arrangement did not complete the actual importance section of the questionnaire. As the table 1 shows, approximately 40% of respondents indicated that their organizations plan to make a significant investment in KM within the next 2 years. A third of the organizations (29.8%) have already invested significantly in KM while 13 organizations (6.6%) have no plan to invest in KM. This means that most of these organizations (93.4%) are interested in committing organizational resources for KM. Descriptive statistics descriptive statistics see statistics. were calculated for all variables. Paired t-tests were used to identify significant differences between the perceived and the actual success of KM. 3.1 Perceived and Actual Success of KM Table 2 illustrates the mean scores of both perceived success attributes and actual success attributes. The perceived success attributes held by respondents for all attributes of KM ranged from 2.26 to 5.00 with a group mean rating of 4.20 [+ or -] 0.50 (5 = very important, 3 = moderately important, 1 = not important). The highest rated attribute (1) In relational database management, a field within a record. (2) In object technology, a single element of data. See instance attribute and static attribute. of KM was "A spirit of cooperation and teamwork," with a mean rating of 4.71. Other attributes that received higher perception of importance by managers included "Sharing knowledge with other members of a work group" and "Promote employee ownership and workmanship," with both mean ratings of 4.53. The lowest rated attribute was "Sharing knowledge with suppliers," with a mean rating of 3.57; however, this still lies between moderately important and important. Other attributes receiving lower ratings were "Knowledge management awareness training to non-supervisory employees (M = 3.72)," "Supporting utilization utilization, n 1. the extent to which a given group uses a particular service in a specified period. Although usually expressed as the number of services used per year per 100 or per 1000 persons eligible for the service, utilization rates may be of a knowledge-related measurement mechanism (M = 3.77)," and "Encouraging knowledge creating teams such as knowledge task force, the future group, or learning group (M = 3.78)." All 39 attributes scored higher than 3.50 out of a five-point Likert-type scale; that is, all attributes were perceived as important or very important for KM. On the other hand, the actual success attributes of KM for 39 attributes ranged from 1.28 to 4.95 with a group mean rating of 2.78 [+ or -] 0.68 (5 = extensively implemented, 3 = moderately implemented, 1 = not implemented). The attribute that was mostly implemented was "Top management encouragement toward utilization of the knowledge management system," a mean rating of 3.40. "Encouraging employees to participate in internal and external new learning opportunities (M = 3.34)" and "A spirit of cooperation and teamwork (M = 3.33)" followed. The attribute "A sprit of cooperation and teamwork" received higher perception scores in both importance and implementation. The least implemented attribute was "Supporting utilization of a knowledge-related measurement mechanism," with a mean rating of 2.15. Other attributes that were less implemented were "Providing guidelines guidelines, n.pl a set of standards, criteria, or specifications to be used or followed in the performance of certain tasks. to operate a benchmarking" and "Encouraging knowledge creating teams," both with mean ratings of 2.30. The attribute "Supporting utilization of a knowledge-related measurement mechanism" not only received lower perception toward the degree of importance but was also implemented the least frequently. Thirty attributes out of 39 ranged between 2.51 and 3.50; this means that attributes were implemented moderately while the rest were little implemented. 3.2 Comparison of Perceived and Actual Success of KM Paired t-test t-test, n an inferential statistic used to test for differences between two means (groups) only. This statistic is used for small samples (e.g., N < 30). Also called t-ratio, stu-dent's t. was used to compare the perceived success and the actual success attributes. Results of paired t-test in differences are shown in Table 3. There were significant differences between the perceived success and the actual success for all attributes (p < 0,001). The perceived success was much higher than the actual success indicating the extent to which KM has actually been implemented in respondents' organizations. The most differences in means between two were shown in attributes related to information systems: "User friendliness of information systems ([M.sub.d] = 1.87)," "Efficiency of information systems ([M.sub.d] = 1.84)," and "Usability How easy something is to use. Both software and Web sites can be tested for usability. Considering how difficult applications are to use and Web sites are to navigate, one would wish that more designers took this seriously. See user interface and usability lab. and understandability of output ([M.sub.d] = 1.81)." These attributes were not actually implemented to the extent of that they were perceived as important. The attribute that showed the least difference was "Analysis of job performance data and information ([M.sub.d] = 1.01)." This attribute was actually implemented as much as it was perceived as important, even significantly different at p = 0.001. 4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION First of all, information systems related attributes ("user friendliness of information systems," "efficiency of information systems," "usability and understandability of output," "data sharing The ability to share the same data resource with multiple applications or users. It implies that the data are stored in one or more servers in the network and that there is some software locking mechanism that prevents the same set of data from being changed by two people at the same time. among different applications," and "effectiveness of information systems") were not implemented to the degree that they were perceived as important. This implies two things. One is that it may be difficult to recognize the impact of information systems on KM unless the respondent's job is related to information technology. The other is, according to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians. 2. In keeping with: according to instructions. 3. Table 1, only a third of respondents' organizations (29.8%) are either starting to develop KM or beginning to implement KM. That is, information systems cannot play a vital role unless organizations are finally ready to implement KM. After all, information technology favors the diffusion diffusion, in chemistry, the spontaneous migration of substances from regions where their concentration is high to regions where their concentration is low. Diffusion is important in many life processes. at lower levels of codification The collection and systematic arrangement, usually by subject, of the laws of a state or country, or the statutory provisions, rules, and regulations that govern a specific area or subject of law or practice. and abstraction In object technology, determining the essential characteristics of an object. Abstraction is one of the basic principles of object-oriented design, which allows for creating user-defined data types, known as objects. See object-oriented programming and encapsulation. 1. . Secondly, the attributes that are associated with benchmarking ("encouraging employees to benchmark A performance test of hardware and/or software. There are various programs that very accurately test the raw power of a single machine, the interaction in a single client/server system (one server/multiple clients) and the transactions per second in a transaction processing system. other organization's best practices," "providing guidelines to operate a benchmarking," and "supporting utilization of a knowledge-related measurement mechanism") were also not implemented to the degree that they were perceived as important. This is also inevitable because, like information systems, benchmarking is not applicable unless an organization begins to establish a KM program. Likewise, the other attribute, "access to the majority of knowledge within my organization," is possible only after the implementation of a KM program. Thus, it is logical to conclude most respondents did not seem to understand the gap between perceived success and actual success of KM because most organizations have not yet started to establish or implement KM. On the other hand, five attributes (such as, "policies to improve worklife," "organizational support to seek human values Human Values is the universal concept that preserves and enhances Homo Sapiens as a species, this applies to every human being on the present universe, anything against this values brings the consequence of a Self Species Extermination Event (SSEE) like hate, racism or war. of employees," "encouraging employees to participate in internal and external new learning opportunities," "supporting team-based approaches to problem solving problem solving Process involved in finding a solution to a problem. Many animals routinely solve problems of locomotion, food finding, and shelter through trial and error. ," and "top management encouragement toward formal/informal communication") that are related to KM friendly organizational culture  This article or section is written like an .Please help [ rewrite this article] from a neutral point of view. Mark blatant advertising for , using . , human resource activity support, and top management commitment were implemented to the degree that they were perceived as important. Many empirical studies Empirical studies in social sciences are when the research ends are based on evidence and not just theory. This is done to comply with the scientific method that asserts the objective discovery of knowledge based on verifiable facts of evidence. about innovations like, BPR (Business Process Reengineering) See reengineering. BPR - Business Process Re-engineering (Business Process Reengineering See reengineering. ) and TQM (Total Quality Management) An organizational undertaking to improve the quality of manufacturing and service. It focuses on obtaining continuous feedback for making improvements and refining existing processes over the long term. See ISO 9000. (Total Quality Management) have confirmed that cultural and top management support with appropriate training and teamwork promotion are the most common formulas to succeed from the initiation initiation, the transition and attendant ceremonies, such as ordeals and rites, involved in passing from one state or status to another, often from childhood to adulthood. It was among the most important social institutions of early humans. to implementation. KM is another emerging innovation, and it shares very similar success variables with BPR and TQM in terms of the perspectives of cultural support, top management support, appropriate training, and teamwork promotion. It seems respondents' viewpoints (programming) ViewPoints - A framework for distributed and concurrent software engineering which provides an alternative approach to traditional centralised software development environments. are also consistent with the results of much other research, which, since most respondents are executives familiar with the research in their fields, is hardly surprising. In addition, these same executives are fully aware that a KM program needs fundamental organizational commitment In the study of organizational behavior and Industrial/Organizational Psychology, organizational commitment is, in a general sense, the employee's psychological attachment to the organization. like innovations such as BPR and TQM. Especially, It is interesting to observe that respondents are deeply aware of importance of knowledge sharing with supplier. This phenomenon implies that the spectrum of KM should not be limited to within an organization. REFERENCES: Buckman, R., "Knowledge sharing at Buckman Labs", Journal of Business Strategy, 1998, 11-15. Davenport, T. and Grover, V., "Special issue: Knowledge management", Journal of Management Information Systems The Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS) is an academic journal that publishes original peer-reviewed research articles in the areas of Information Systems and Information Technology. , Vol.31(1), 2001, 7-10. Dess, G. and Picken, J., "Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century", Organizational Dynamics, Vol.28(3), 2000, 18-34. Hung, Y.C., Huang Huang (Chinese: 黃) is a Chinese surname. While Huang is the pinyin romanisation of the word, it may also be romanised as Wong, Vong, Bong, Ng, Uy, Wee, Oi, Oei or Ooi, Ong, Hwang, or Ung due to pronunciations of the word in , S.M., Lin Lin , Maya Ying Born 1959. American sculptor and architect whose public works include the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. (1982). Noun 1. , Q.P., & Tsai, M.L., "Critical factors in adopting a knowledge management system for the pharmaceutical industry". Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(2), 2005, 164-183. Moffett, S., McAdam McAdam (also McAdams or MacAdam) is a surname with origins in the Ayrshire and Galloway regions of Scotland. People
British physician who gave (1817) a comprehensive description of paralysis agitans, or Parkinson's disease, and was the first to recognize (1812) perforation of the appendix as a cause of death in appendicitis. , S., "An empirical analysis of knowledge management applications." Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 2003, 6-26. Salleh, Y.. & Goh, W.K., "Managing human resources The fancy word for "people." The human resources department within an organization, years ago known as the "personnel department," manages the administrative aspects of the employees. toward achieving knowledge management". Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 2002, 457-468. Yong S
“Yung” redirects here. For other uses, see Yung (disambiguation). . Choi Choi may refer to:
Chandra
In Hinduism, Chandra (lit. "shining)[1] is a lunar deity and a Graha. Chandra is also identified with the Vedic Lunar deity Soma (lit. Commuri, California State University, Bakersfield, California, USA Ben B. Kim Kim orphan wanders streets of India with lama. [Br. Lit.: Kim] See : Adventurousness , Seattle University History Seattle University was founded by Father Victor Garrand and Father Adrian Sweere in downtown Seattle, and has served as both a high school and college. In 1893, construction started on the First Hill campus. , Seattle, Washington  This page is protected from moves until disputes have been resolved on the .The reason for its protection is listed on the protection policy page. , USA Dr. Yong S. Choi earned his Ph.D. at the University of Nebraska--Lincoln in 2000. Currently he is an assistant professor of MIS at California State University, Bakersfield. Dr. Chandra Doctor Sivasubramanian Chandrasegarampillai (ofen abbreviated to Dr. Chandra) is a fictional character from Arthur C. Clarke's Space Odyssey Series of novels. Commuri earned his Ph.D. at University of Southern California The U.S. News & World Report ranked USC 27th among all universities in the United States in its 2008 ranking of "America's Best Colleges", also designating it as one of the "most selective universities" for admitting 8,634 of the almost 34,000 who applied for freshman admission . Currently he is an assistant professor of Public Administration at California State University, Bakersfield. Dr. Ben Kim is an associate professor of MIS at Seattle University and Director of Center for E-Commerce e-commerce, commerce conducted over the Internet, most often via the World Wide Web. E-commerce can apply to purchases made through the Web or to business-to-business activities such as inventory transfers. and Information Systems
TABLE 1 KM INVESTMENT TIME
Investment Time Frequency (a) Percent (%)
Have already 59 29.8
Within the next 2 years 82 41.4
More than 2 years from now 44 22.2
Never 13 6.6
(a) N = 217
TABLE 2 MEAN SCORES OF PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL ATTRIBUTES
Attributes Perceived
Mean [+ or ] SD
A formal system that allows 4.24 [+ or -] 0.83
for contribution of every
employee's opinions
or suggestions
A spirit of cooperation 4.71 [+ or -] 0.54
and teamwork
Access to the majority of 4.30 [+ or -] 0.74
knowledge within
my organization
Actively encourage 4.41 [+ or -] 0.73
employee involvement
in decision processes
Adequate budgeting or 3.95 [+ or -] 0.92
funding to support
knowledge management
projects
Analysis of job 4.08 [+ or -] 0.84
performance data
and information
Current corporate 4.20 [+ or -] 0.72
hardware and operating
systems rules and
standards to support
future computer platform
compatibility
Data sharing among 4.20 [+ or -] 0.79
different applications
Documentation of the most 3.79 [+ or -] 0.92
operating rules, policies,
and procedures for
knowledge management
implementation processes
Effectiveness of 4.47 [+ or -] 0.68
information systems
Effectiveness of 4.26 [+ or -] 0.77
performance measurement
Efficiency of 4.47 [+ or -] 0.69
information systems
Encouraging employees 3.98 [+ or -] 0.93
to benchmark other
organizations' best
practices
Encouraging employees to 4.26 [+ or -] 0.77
participate in internal
and external new learning
opportunities such as
conferences, training
seminar, university
courses, etc.
Encouraging knowledge 3.78 [+ or -] 0.99
creating teams such as
knowledge task force,
the future group,
or learning group
Fairness of individual 4.29 [+ or -] 0.84
or team-based performance
measurement
Gaining knowledge about 4.34 [+ or -] 0.80
customers, own competencies
and capabilities
Knowledge management 3.72 [+ or -] 0.93
awareness training to
non-supervisory employees
Minimization of 4.02 [+ or -] 0.93
hierarchical and
bureaucratic procedures for
effective knowledge
management
Organizational commitment 4.46 [+ or -] 0.73
to empower people
Organizational support to 4.17 [+ or -] 0.85
seek human values
of employees
Policies to improve the 4.36 [+ or -] 0.77
quality of work life
Promote employee 4.53 [+ or -] 0.72
ownership and workmanship
Promote ongoing employee 4.30 [+ or -] 0.71
contributions
Providing guidelines to 3.85 [+ or -] 0.90
operate a benchmarking
Providing the employees 3.85 [+ or -] 0.94
with adequate information
of knowledge management
related principles
through training
Reformulation of any rules 3.79 [+ or -] 0.95
(i.e., personnel policies)
that obstruct the
implementation of
knowledge management
Reward and recognition 4.47 [+ or -] 0.75
for actual performance
improvement
Sharing knowledge with 4.36 [+ or -] 0.71
members of other work
groups within my
organization
Sharing knowledge with 4.53 [+ or -] 0.65
other members of a
work group
Sharing knowledge 3.57 [+ or -] 1.05
with suppliers
Supporting team-based 4.41 [+ or -] 0.70
approaches to
problem solving
Supporting utilization 3.77 [+ or -] 0.95
of a knowledge-related
measurement mechanism
The complexity and 3.86 [+ or -] 0.88
limitation of current
applications software to
develop interactive
knowledge management
applications
Top management 4.49 [+ or -] 0.66
encouragement toward
formal/informal
communication
Top management 4.12 [+ or -] 0.84
encouragement toward
utilization of the
knowledge management system
Top management leadership 4.36 [+ or -] 0.80
and commitment toward
knowledge management
Usability and 4.47 [+ or -] 0.68
understandability
of output
User friendliness of 4.46 [+ or -] 0.69
information systems
Attributes Actual
Mean [+ or ] SD
A formal system that allows 3.00 [+ or -] 1.07
for contribution of every
employee's opinions
or suggestions
A spirit of cooperation 3.33 [+ or -] 0.99
and teamwork
Access to the majority of 2.77 [+ or -] 0.99
knowledge within
my organization
Actively encourage 2.93 [+ or -] 1.03
employee involvement
in decision processes
Adequate budgeting or 2.54 [+ or -] 0.97
funding to support
knowledge management
projects
Analysis of job 3.07 [+ or -] 1.08
performance data
and information
Current corporate 2.79 [+ or -] 1.04
hardware and operating
systems rules and
standards to support
future computer platform
compatibility
Data sharing among 2.56 [+ or -] 0.92
different applications
Documentation of the most 2.54 [+ or -] 1.04
operating rules, policies,
and procedures for
knowledge management
implementation processes
Effectiveness of 2.91 [+ or -] 0.91
information systems
Effectiveness of 2.98 [+ or -] 1.09
performance measurement
Efficiency of 2.77 [+ or -] 0.93
information systems
Encouraging employees 2.38 [+ or -] 1.06
to benchmark other
organizations' best
practices
Encouraging employees to 3.34 [+ or -] 1.01
participate in internal
and external new learning
opportunities such as
conferences, training
seminar, university
courses, etc.
Encouraging knowledge 2.30 [+ or -] 1.12
creating teams such as
knowledge task force,
the future group,
or learning group
Fairness of individual 2.87 [+ or -] 1.15
or team-based performance
measurement
Gaining knowledge about 2.88 [+ or -] 0.99
customers, own competencies
and capabilities
Knowledge management 2.35 [+ or -] 1.09
awareness training to
non-supervisory employees
Minimization of 2.51 [+ or -] 1.18
hierarchical and
bureaucratic procedures for
effective knowledge
management
Organizational commitment 3.03 [+ or -] 1.16
to empower people
Organizational support to 2.88 [+ or -] 1.05
seek human values
of employees
Policies to improve the 2.99 [+ or -] 1.09
quality of work life
Promote employee 3.08 [+ or -] 1.13
ownership and workmanship
Promote ongoing employee 2.84 [+ or -] 1.04
contributions
Providing guidelines to 2.30 [+ or -] 0.98
operate a benchmarking
Providing the employees 2.35 [+ or -] 1.02
with adequate information
of knowledge management
related principles
through training
Reformulation of any rules 2.37 [+ or -] 1.01
(i.e., personnel policies)
that obstruct the
implementation of
knowledge management
Reward and recognition 3.11 [+ or -] 1.17
for actual performance
improvement
Sharing knowledge with 2.92 [+ or -] 0.98
members of other work
groups within my
organization
Sharing knowledge with 3.17 [+ or -] 0.96
other members of a
work group
Sharing knowledge 2.38 [+ or -] 0.97
with suppliers
Supporting team-based 3.20 [+ or -] 1.03
approaches to
problem solving
Supporting utilization 2.15 [+ or -] 0.98
of a knowledge-related
measurement mechanism
The complexity and 2.41 [+ or -] 0.90
limitation of current
applications software to
develop interactive
knowledge management
applications
Top management 3.40 [+ or -] 0.97
encouragement toward
formal/informal
communication
Top management 2.59 [+ or -] 1.08
encouragement toward
utilization of the
knowledge management system
Top management leadership 2.82 [+ or -] 1.03
and commitment toward
knowledge management
Usability and 2.81 [+ or -] 0.92
understandability
of output
User friendliness of 2.74 [+ or -] 0.95
information systems
TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL ATTRIBUTES
Attributes Difference t-value
Mean
User friendliness of information systems 1.87 22.289 *
Efficiency of information systems 1.84 22.194 *
Usability and understandability of output 1.81 22.459 *
Data sharing among different applications 1.79 21.111 *
Supporting utilization of a 1.78 20.342 *
knowledge-related measurement mechanism
Encouraging employees to benchmark other 1.76 19.897 *
organizations' best practices
Effectiveness of information systems 1.71 21.163 *
Providing guidelines to 1.71 18.973 *
operate a benchmarking
Access to the majority of knowledge 1.68 20.193 *
within my organization
Providing the employees with adequate 1.66 18.727 *
information of knowledge management
related principles through training
Encouraging knowledge creating teams 1.64 17.427 *
such as knowledge task force, the
future group, or learning group
Actively encourage employee 1.63 19.178 *
involvement in decision processes
The complexity and limitation of 1.61 18.586 *
current applications software to
develop interactive knowledge
management applications
Promote ongoing employee contributions 1.61 19.063 *
Promote employee ownership and workmanship 1.61 18.107 *
Gaining knowledge about customers, 1.60 19.661 *
own competencies and capabilities
Organizational commitment to empower people 1.60 17.375 *
Sharing knowledge with members of other 1.58 18.924 *
work groups within my organization
Current corporate hardware and operating 1.57 18.110 *
systems rules and standards to support
future computer platform compatibility
Top management leadership and commitment 1.54 20.052 *
toward knowledge management
Top management encouragement toward 1.53 18.573 *
utilization of the knowledge
management system
A spirit of cooperation and teamwork 1.52 19.043 *
Reward and recognition for actual 1.52 16.100 *
performance improvement
Knowledge management awareness 1.51 17.944 *
training to non-supervisory employees
Minimization of hierarchical and 1.51 17.285 *
bureaucratic procedures for effective
knowledge management
Sharing knowledge with other 1.49 19.819 *
members of a work group
Reformulation of any rules (i.e., 1.42 17.867 *
personnel policies) that obstruct
the implementation of
knowledge management
Fairness of individual or 1.42 17.434 *
team-based performance measurement
Adequate budgeting or funding to 1.41 17.920 *
support knowledge management projects
Policies to improve the 1.37 17.960 *
quality of work life
Supporting team-based 1.36 15.842 *
approaches to problem solving
Sharing knowledge with suppliers 1.34 15.683 *
Organizational support to seek 1.29 16.858 *
human values of employees
Effectiveness of 1.28 16.244 *
performance measurement
Documentation of the most operating 1.26 16.071 *
rules, policies, and procedures for
knowledge management
implementation processes
A formal system that allows for 1.24 16.242 *
contribution of every employee's
opinions or suggestions
Top management encouragement 1.09 17.351 *
toward formal/informal
communication
Encouraging employees to 1.05 13.229 *
participate in internal and
external new learning
opportunities such as conferences,
training seminar, university
courses, etc.
Analysis of job performance 1.01 12.713 *
data and information
* p < 0.001
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion