Strategies For Knowledge Management Success

Strategies for Knowledge
Management Success:
Exploring Organizational Efficacy

Murray E. Jennex
San Diego State University, USA
Stefan Smolnik
EBS University of Business and Law, Germany
InformatIon scIence reference

Hershey New York
Director of Editorial Content:

Director of Book Publications:
Acquisitions Editor:
Development Editor:
Publishing Assistant:
Typesetter:
Production Editor:
Cover Design:
Kristin Klinger
Julia Mosemann
Lindsay Johnston
Christine Bufton
Milan Vracarich
Michael Brehm
Jamie Snavely
Lisa Tosheff
Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright 2011 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Strategies for knowledge management success : exploring organizational efficacy / Murray Jennex and Stefan Smolnik, editors.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: "This chapter presents results of a survey looking at how KM practitioners, researchers, KM students, and others
interested in KM view what constitutes KM success, including background on KM success and then a series of perspectives
on KM/KMS success"--Provided by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-60566-709-6 (hbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-710-2 (ebook) 1.
Knowledge management. I. Jennex, Murray E., 1956- II. Smolnik, Stefan, 1970HD30.2.S796 2010
658.4'038--dc22
2009052394
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
List of Reviewers
Rodrigo Baroni de Carvalho, FUMEC University, Brazil
Vittal S. Anantatmula, Western Carolina University, USA
Kerstin Fink, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Hannu Kivijrvi, Helsinki School of Economics, Finland
P. Lpez Sez, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Shahnawaz Muhammed, Fayetteville State University, USA
Alexander Orth, Accenture, Germany
Vincent M. Ribire, Bangkok University, Thailand
Silke Wei, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Suzanne Zyngier, LaTrobe University, Australia
Thomas Menkhoff, Singapore Management University, Singapore
Table of Contents
Preface ................................................................................................................................................. xiv

Section 1
Knowledge Management Success
Chapter 1
Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition ...................................................... 1
Murray E. Jennex, San Diego State University, USA
Stefan Smolnik, EBS University of Business and Law, Germany
David T. Croasdell, University of Nevada, Reno, USA
Chapter 2
A Model of Knowledge Management Success ..................................................................................... 14
Lorne Olfman, Claremont Graduate University, USA
Chapter 3
Market Knowledge Management, Innovation and Product Performance: Survey in Medium
and Large Brazilian Industrial Firms .................................................................................................... 32
Cid Gonalves Filho, FUMEC University, Brazil
George Leal Jamil, FUMEC University, Brazil
Chapter 4
Does KM Governance = KM Success? Insights from a Global KM Survey........................................ 51
Suzanne Zyngier, La Trobe University, Australia
Chapter 5
An Evaluation of Factors that Influence the Success of Knowledge Management Practices
in US Federal Agencies ........................................................................................................................ 74
Elsa Rhoads, The George Washington University, Institute of Knowledge & Innovation, USA
Kevin J. OSullivan, New York Institute of Technology, USA
Michael Stankosky, The George Washington University, USA
Section 2
KM Measurements
Chapter 6
Process Model for Knowledge Potential Measurement in SMEs ......................................................... 91
Chapter 7
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge
Management Success .......................................................................................................................... 106
Shahnawaz Muhammed, American University of Middle East, Kuwait
William J. Doll, University of Toledo, USA
Xiaodong Deng, Oakland University, USA
Chapter 8
Validating Distinct Knowledge Assets: A Capability Perspective ...................................................... 128
Ron Freeze, Emporia State University, USA
Uday Kulkarni, Arizona State University, USA
Chapter 9
Assessing Knowledge Management: Refining and Cross-Validating the Knowledge
Management Index (KMI) using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Techniques ......................... 150
Derek Ajesam Asoh, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA
& National Polytechnic, University of Yaounde, Cameroon
Salvatore Belardo, University at Albany, USA
Jakov (Yasha) Crnkovic, University at Albany, USA
Chapter 10
A Relational Based-View of Intellectual Capital in High-Tech Firms................................................ 179
G. Martn De Castro, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
J.E. Navas Lpez, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
M. Delgado-Verde, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Section 3
KM Strategies in Practice
Chapter 11
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization
KM Approaches .................................................................................................................................. 192
Chapter 12
Advancing the Success of Collaboration Centered KM Strategy ...................................................... 213
Johanna Bragge, Aalto University School of Economics, Finland
Hannu Kivijrvi, Aalto University School of Economics, Finland
Chapter 13
The Relevance of Integration for Knowledge Management Success:
Towards Conceptual and Empirical Evidence .................................................................................... 238
Murray Jennex, San Diego State University, USA
Chapter 14
Strategies for Successful Implementation of KM in a University Setting .......................................... 262
Shivraj Kanungo, George Washington University, USA
Chapter 15
DYONIPOS: Proactive Knowledge Supply ....................................................................................... 277
Josef Makolm, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Doris Ipsmiller, m2n development and consulting gmbh, Austria
Natalie Egger, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 288
About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 317
Index ................................................................................................................................................... 325
Detailed Table of Contents
Preface ................................................................................................................................................. xiv

Section 1
Knowledge Management Success
Chapter 1
Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition ...................................................... 1
David T. Croasdell, University of Nevada, Reno, USA
This chapter explores knowledge management, KM, and knowledge management system, KMS, success. The inspiration for this chapter is the KM Success and Measurement minitracks held at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences in January of 2007 and 2008. KM and KMS success are
issues needing to be explored. The Knowledge Management Foundations workshop held at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39) in January 2006 discussed this issue and
reached agreement that it is important for the credibility of the KM discipline that we be able to define
KM success. Additionally, from the perspective of KM academics and practitioners, identifying the factors, constructs, and variables that define KM success is crucial to understanding how these initiatives
and systems should be designed and implemented. This chapter presents results of a survey looking at
how KM practitioners, researchers, KM students, and others interested in KM view what constitutes
KM success. The chapter presents some background on KM success and then a series of perspectives
on KM/KMS success. These perspectives were derived by looking at responses to questions asking
academics and practitioners how they defined KM/KMS success. The chapter concludes by presenting
the results of an exploratory survey on KM/KMS success beliefs and attitudes.
Chapter 2
A Model of Knowledge Management Success ..................................................................................... 14
Lorne Olfman, Claremont Graduate University, USA
This chapter describes a knowledge management, KM, Success Model that is derived from observations generated through a longitudinal study of KM in an engineering organization, KM success factors
found in the literature, and modified by the application of these observations and success factors in
various projects. The DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) IS Success Model was used as a framework
for the model as it was found to fit the observed success criteria and it provided an accepted theoretical
basis for the proposed model.
Chapter 3
Market Knowledge Management, Innovation and Product Performance: Survey in Medium
and Large Brazilian Industrial Firms .................................................................................................... 32
Cid Gonalves Filho, FUMEC University, Brazil
George Leal Jamil, FUMEC University, Brazil
In a business environment characterized by a high level of competitiveness, the impact of new products
on an organizations revenue is an important factor. This research was developed with the objective
of examining empirically the relationships between market knowledge management, innovation and
the performance of new products in the market. This chapter analyzes KM (Knowledge Management)
success trough a market-oriented perspective because, at the end of the day, KM success must lead to
better organizational performance. The research model was generated by the combination of market
knowledge models and KM success and maturity models. By means of a survey, based on 387 medium
and large industrial firms, and the use of structural equation modeling, the supremacy of the competitor
knowledge management process over other constructs was verified, as the most important antecedent
of new product performance in the market. The results also revealed that innovation was strongly impacted from technology knowledge management and customer knowledge management.
Chapter 4
Does KM Governance = KM Success? Insights from a Global KM Survey........................................ 51
Suzanne Zyngier, LaTrobe University, Australia
This chapter examines factors that contribute to KM success by differentiating between KM leadership through management and through governance. We look at governance as a structural mechanism
that both embeds KM into organizational activity, and lifts it from a series of initiatives to a structured
program of activities that are subject to authority, policy, risk management, financial fiduciary duty, and
evaluation. Using evidence from 214 respondents to a global internet based KM survey; we find that
having a recognized and defined authority for KM that is well-resourced leads to strategically aligned
benefits realized from investment in KM. We demonstrate that governance through assigned authority
strongly contributes to strategic KM success.
Chapter 5
in US Federal Agencies ........................................................................................................................ 74
Elsa Rhoads, The George Washington University, Institute of Knowledge & Innovation, USA
Kevin J. OSullivan, New York Institute of Technology, USA
Michael Stankosky, The George Washington University, USA
This research chapter investigates the status of knowledge management practices implemented across
federal agencies of the U.S. government. It analyzes the extent to which this status is influenced by the
size of the agency, whether or not the agency type is a Cabinet-level Department or Independent Agency, the longevity of KM Practices implemented in the agency, whether or not the agency has adopted a
written KM policy or strategy, and whether the primary responsibility for KM Practices in the agency
is directed by a CKO or KM unit versus other functional locations in the agency. The research also
tests for possible KM practitioner bias, since the survey was directed to members of the Knowledge
Management Working Group of the Federal CIO Council who are KM practitioners in federal agencies.
Section 2
KM Measurements
Chapter 6
Process Model for Knowledge Potential Measurement in SMEs ......................................................... 91
Knowledge measurement is developing into a new research field in the area of knowledge management.
To ensure that a company is successful, business, technology, and human elements must be integrated
and balanced into a knowledge measurement system. The introduction of a knowledge audit with the
objective to uncovering the tacit knowledge in an organization and of identifying the existing management practices is needed. This chapter uses the quantum mechanical thinking as a reference model for
the development of a knowledge potential measurement system. This system is influenced by three
measurement components: (1) Person-dependent variables, (2) System-dependent variables and (3)
knowledge velocity. Based on several case studies conducted in small and medium-sized enterprises,
a process model for the implementation of the knowledge potential framework is discussed and introduced. Future research and limitations of the model are discussed in the final part.
Chapter 7
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge
Management Success .......................................................................................................................... 106
Shahnawaz Muhammed, American University of Middle East, Kuwait
William J. Doll, University of Toledo, USA
Xiaodong Deng, Oakland University, USA
Success of organizational level knowledge management initiatives depends on how effectively individuals implementing these initiatives use their knowledge to bring about outcomes that add value
in their work. To facilitate assessment of individual level outcomes in the knowledge management
context, this research provides a model of interrelationships among individual level knowledge management success measures which include conceptual knowledge, contextual knowledge, operational
knowledge, innovation, and performance. The model was tested using structural equation modeling
based on data collected from managerial and professional knowledge workers. The results suggest
that conceptual knowledge enhances operational and contextual knowledge. Contextual knowledge
improves operational knowledge and is also a key predictor of innovations. The innovativeness of an
individuals work along with operational knowledge enhances work performance. The results support
the proposed model. This model can potentially be used for measuring knowledge management success
at the individual level.
Chapter 8
Validating Distinct Knowledge Assets: A Capability Perspective ...................................................... 128
Ron Freeze, Emporia State University, USA
Uday Kulkarni, Arizona State University, USA
Identification and measurement of organizational Knowledge Management capabilities is necessary to
determine the extent to which an organization utilizes its knowledge assets. We developed and operationalized a set of constructs to measure capabilities associated with management of knowledge assets
identified as distinct Knowledge Capabilities (KCs) comprising the overall Knowledge Management
(KM) capability of an organizational unit. Each KC represents a distinct kind of knowledge that requires different organizational process and technological support. This delineation of knowledge allows targeted improvement to a specific KC. We present validation of these capability constructs with
empirical evidence from two separate business units in a large semi-conductor manufacturing company,
providing the basis of measurement standardization for KM Capability improvement. Confirmatory
factor analysis affirmed four KCs, each identified as an overall factor influencing a set of latent descriptor variables. Second Order and General-Specific Structural Equation Models of each capability provide evidence as to the validity of measurement of these knowledge assets. A standardized instrument
for measuring knowledge capabilities would not only allow benchmarking, but also allow tracking
capabilities over time and linking them to those performance metrics that are deemed appropriate by
the organization.
Chapter 9
Assessing Knowledge Management: Refining and Cross-Validating the Knowledge
Management Index (KMI) using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Techniques ......................... 150
Derek Ajesam Asoh, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA
& National Polytechnic, University of Yaounde, Cameroon
Salvatore Belardo, University at Albany, USA
Jakov (Yasha) Crnkovic, University at Albany, USA
With growing interest in KM-related assessments and calls for rigorous assessment tools, the objective of this study was to apply SEM techniques to refine and cross-validate the KMI, a metric to assess
the degree to which organizations are engaged in knowledge management (KM). Unlike previous KM
metrics research that has focused on scales, we modeled the KMI as a formative latent variable, thereby
extending knowledge on formative measures and index creation from other fields into the KM field.
The refined KMI metric was tested in a nomological network and found to be robust and stable when
cross-validated; thereby demonstrating consistent prediction results across independent data sets. The
study also verified the hypothesis that the KMI is positively correlated with organizational performance
(OP). Research contributions, managerial implications, limitations of the study, and direction for further research are discussed.
Chapter 10
A Relational Based-View of Intellectual Capital in High-Tech Firms................................................ 179
G. Martn De Castro, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
J.E. Navas Lpez, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
M. Delgado-Verde, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
The Resource-Based Theory (RBT) has tried to test the role of strategic resources on sustained competitive advantage and superior performance. Although this theory has found several flaws in order to
reach its objective effectively (Priem & Butler, 2001; Foss & Knudsen), recent proposals have suggested that these problems can be overcome (Peteraf & Barney, 2003). This solution requires paying a
greater attention to the analysis of knowledge stocks, developing a mid-range theory: the Intellectual
Capital-Based View (Reed, Lubatkin & Srinivasan, 2006). This mid-range and pragmatic theory allows
the hypotheses development and empirical testing in a more effective way than the Resource Based
View (RBV). There is a certain degree of general agreement about the presence of human capital and
organizational capital as the main components of intellectual capital, as well as about the fact that the
configuration of knowledge stocks will vary from one industry and firm to another one. Taking these
assumptions as a starting point, this chapter explores the configuration of intellectual capital that can
be empirically found on a sample of high-technology firms. Our findings highlight the importance of
relational capital, which must be divided in business and alliance capital, so the strategic alliances play
a relevance role in the type of firms that have been included in our research.
Section 3
Chapter 11
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization
KM Approaches .................................................................................................................................. 192
Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives are expanding across all types of organizations worldwide.
However, not all of them are necessarily successful mainly due to an unfriendly organizational culture.
Organizational trust is often mentioned as a critical factor facilitating knowledge sharing. For this
research we took an empirical approach to validate this assumption. The purpose of this research is
to explore the relationships between organizational trust, a knowledge management strategy (codification vs. personalization) and its level of success. This study was conducted among 97 US companies
involved in knowledge management. A survey tool was developed and validated to assess the level
of trust, the level of success and the dominant KM strategy deployed by an organization. Six main
research hypotheses and a conceptual model were tested. The findings show the impact of trust on the
choice of the KM strategy as well as on the level of success.
Chapter 12
Advancing the Success of Collaboration Centered KM Strategy ...................................................... 213
Johanna Bragge, Aalto University School of Economics, Finland
Hannu Kivijrvi, Aalto University School of Economics, Finland
Knowledge is today more than ever the most critical resource of organizations. At the same time it is,
however, also the least-accessible resource that is difficult to share, imitate, buy, sell, store, or evaluate.
Organizations should thus have an explicit strategy for the management of their knowledge resources.
In this chapter we pay special attention to a KM strategy called collaboration centered strategy. This
strategy builds on the assumption that a significant part of personal knowledge can be captured and
transferred, and new knowledge created through deep collaboration between the organizations members. A critical element in the collaboration centered KM strategy is the facilitation process that involves managing relationships between people, tasks and technology. We describe how the Collaboration Engineering approach with packaged facilitation techniques called ThinkLets is able to contribute
to this endeavour.
Chapter 13
The Relevance of Integration for Knowledge Management Success:
Towards Conceptual and Empirical Evidence .................................................................................... 238
Murray Jennex, San Diego State University, USA
Many organizations pursue knowledge management (KM) initiatives, with different degrees of success.
One key aspect of KM often neglected in practice is following an integrated and holistic approach.
Complementary, KM researchers have increasingly focused on factors that determine KM success and
examined whether the metrics used to measure KM initiatives are reasonable. In this chapter, the importance of integration issues for successful KM is analyzed by means of a case study of a KM initiative
at an international consulting company. The investigations demonstrate the importance of an integrated
KM approach an integrated view of KM strategy, KM processes, KM technology, and company culture to ensure KM success.
Chapter 14
Strategies for Successful Implementation of KM in a University Setting .......................................... 262
Shivraj Kanungo, George Washington University, USA
Research has identified enabling factors and inhibitors for implementing knowledge management successfully and to accomplish its strategic objectives. However, it is important to understand how these
factors interact with each other to improve or inhibit the performance. With this in mind, this chapter
presents a model, based on a research study, to determine underlying relations among these factors and
develop strategies implementing KM initiatives.
Chapter 15
DYONIPOS: Proactive Knowledge Supply ....................................................................................... 277
Josef Makolm, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Doris Ipsmiller, m2n development and consulting gmbh, Austria
Natalie Egger, Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Traditional knowledge management is often combined with extra work to recollect information which
is already electronically available. Another obstacle to overcome is to make the content of the collected
information easily accessible to enquiries, as conventional searching tools provide only documents and
not the content meaning. They are often based on the search for character strings, usually resulting in
many unnecessary hits and no or less context information. The research project DYONIPOS focuses
on detecting the knowledge needs of knowledge users and automatically providing the required knowledge just in time, while avoiding additional work and violations of the knowledge workers privacy,
proposing a new way of support. This knowledge is made available through semantic linkage of the
relevant information out of existing artifacts. In addition DYONIPOS creates an individual and an organizational knowledge base just in time.
Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 288
About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 317
Index ................................................................................................................................................... 325
xiv
Preface
Organizations use KM (Knowledge Management), because it makes sense. KM, when done successfully,
has an impact on the organization and its members. How do organizations define and measure success or
its impact on the organization? Also, while knowing that KM improves an organization may be enough
to encourage organizations to pursue a KM initiative, many organizations still need to quantitatively
justify an investment in KM. Calculating Return on Investment (ROI), is a popular approach, but how
is this done? There are some commonly accepted first steps:
Find a need or an opportunity that KM satisfies, supports, or resolves.

Identify the costs with the need or the benefits of the opportunity.
Identify the savings or potential earnings that implementing KM will provide.
Identify the costs of implementing KM.
Easily stated but not easily done and the resulting financial numbers are often questionable. Do the
numbers present the full story for KM? Many think they do not, and that stories and anecdotes about
KM need to be included to make KM real to management (Moore, 2008). However, is this enough
measurement for an organization?
This book is about how to implement successful KM initiatives. What is required for KM to be successful? Jennex and Olfman (2005) summarized and synthesized the literature on KM/KMSs critical
success factors (CSF) into an ordered set of twelve KM CSFs identified from 17 studies of more than
200 KM projects. These CSFs were thereafter sequentially ordered according to the number of studies
identifying them:
A knowledge strategy that identifies users, sources, processes, storage strategy, knowledge, and
links to knowledge for the KMS;
Motivation and commitment of users, including incentives and training;
Integrated technical infrastructure, including networks, databases/repositories, computers, software,
and KMS experts;
An organizational culture and structure that supports learning and the sharing and use of knowledge;
A common enterprise-wide knowledge structure that is clearly articulated and easily understood;
Senior management support, including allocation of resources, leadership, and training;
Learning organization;
The KMS has a clear goal and purpose;
Measures are established to assess the impacts of the KMS and the use of knowledge, as well as
verification that the right knowledge is being captured;
xv
The search, retrieval, and visualization functions of the KMS support facilitated use of knowledge;
Work processes are designed that incorporate knowledge capture and use; and
Knowledge is secured/protected.
While the above CSFs are useful for determining if the antecedents for KM success exist in an
organization, they do not state what success is or how to assess it. This book attempts to answer these
questions. Three sections are provided: Section 1 discusses KM success. It defines what KM success
is, provides a model of KM success, and discusses KM success in a variety of contexts. Section 2 addresses the issue of measuring KM. It is proposed that organizations cannot manage what they cannot
measure. This section provides a variety of studies that provide KM measures based on various theoretical perspectives. Finally, knowing how to define KM success and how to measure KM is important, but
without a strategy for implementing the KM initiative the organization is not likely to succeed. Section
3 presents several KM strategies as implemented in a variety of contexts. The following paragraphs
provide further description of the chapters.
Section 1: Knowledge ManageMent SucceSS

Chapter 1: Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition by Murray E. Jennex,
Stefan Smolnik, David T. Croasdell, explores knowledge management, KM, and knowledge management system, KMS, success. Identifying the factors, constructs, and variables that define KM success is
crucial to understanding how these initiatives and systems should be designed and implemented. This
chapter presents results of a survey looking at how KM practitioners, researchers, KM students, and
others interested in KM view what constitutes KM success. The chapter presents some background on
KM success and then a series of perspectives on KM/KMS success. These perspectives were derived
by looking at responses to questions asking academics and practitioners how they defined KM/KMS
success. The chapter concludes by presenting the results of an exploratory survey on KM/KMS success
beliefs and attitudes.
Chapter 2: A Model of Knowledge Management Success by Murray E. Jennex, Lorne Olfman,
describes a knowledge management, KM, Success Model that is derived from observations generated through a longitudinal study of KM in an engineering organization, KM success factors found
in the literature, and modified by the application of these observations and success factors in various
projects. The DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) IS Success Model was used as a framework for the
model as it was found to fit the observed success criteria and it provided an accepted theoretical basis
for the proposed model.
Chapter 3: Market Knowledge Management, Innovation and Product Performance: Survey in
Medium and Large Brazilian Industrial Firms by Cid Gonalves Filho, Rodrigo Baroni de Carvalho,
George Leal Jamil. In a business environment characterized by a high level of competitiveness, the
impact of new products on an organizations revenue is an important factor. This research was developed with the objective of examining empirically the relationships between market knowledge
management, innovation and the performance of new products in the market. This chapter analyzes
KM (Knowledge Management) success through a market-oriented perspective because, at the end of
the day, KM success must lead to better organizational performance. The research model was generated by the combination of market knowledge models and KM success and maturity models. By
xvi
means of a survey, based on 387 medium and large industrial firms, and the use of structural equation
modeling, the supremacy of the competitor knowledge management process over other constructs
was verified, as the most important antecedent of new product performance in the market. The results
also revealed that innovation was strongly impacted from technology knowledge management and
customer knowledge management.
Chapter 4: Does KM Governance = KM Success? Insights from a Global KM Survey by Suzanne
Zyngier, examines factors that contribute to KM success by differentiating between KM leadership
through management and through governance. We look at governance as a structural mechanism that
both embeds KM into organizational activity, and lifts it from a series of initiatives to a structured program of activities that are subject to authority, policy, risk management, financial fiduciary duty, and
Chapter 5: An Evaluation of Factors that Influence the Success of Knowledge Management Practices in US Federal Agencies, by Elsa Rhoads, Kevin J. OSullivan, Michael Stankosky, investigates
the status of knowledge management practices implemented across federal agencies of the U.S. government. It analyzes the extent to which this status is influenced by the size of the agency, whether
or not the agency type is a Cabinet-level Department or Independent Agency, the longevity of KM
Practices implemented in the agency, whether or not the agency has adopted a written KM policy or
strategy, and whether the primary responsibility for KM Practices in the agency is directed by a CKO
or KM unit versus other functional locations in the agency. The research also tests for possible KM
practitioner bias, since the survey was directed to members of the Knowledge Management Working
Group of the Federal CIO Council who are KM practitioners in federal agencies.
Section 2: KM MeaSureMentS
Chapter 6: Process Model for Knowledge Potential Measurement in SMEs by Kerstin Fink, shows that
knowledge measurement is developing into a new research field in the area of knowledge management.
objective to uncovering the tacit knowledge in an organization and of identifying the existing management practices is needed. This chapter uses the quantum mechanical thinking as a reference model for
the development of a knowledge potential measurement system. This system is influenced by three
knowledge velocity. Based on several case studies conducted in small and medium-sized enterprises, a
process model for the implementation of the knowledge potential framework is discussed and introduced.
Future research and limitations of the model are discussed in the final part.
Chapter 7: Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success by Shahnawaz Muhammed, William J. Doll, Xiaodong Deng, Show how success
of organizational level knowledge management initiatives depends on how effectively individuals
implementing these initiatives use their knowledge to bring about outcomes that add value in their
work. To facilitate assessment of individual level outcomes in the knowledge management context,
xvii
this research provides a model of interrelationships among individual level knowledge management success measures which include conceptual knowledge, contextual knowledge, operational
knowledge, innovation, and performance. The model was tested using structural equation modeling
based on data collected from managerial and professional knowledge workers. The results suggest
that conceptual knowledge enhances operational and contextual knowledge. Contextual knowledge
improves operational knowledge and is also a key predictor of innovations. The innovativeness of an
individuals work along with operational knowledge enhances work performance. The results support the proposed model. This model can potentially be used for measuring knowledge management
success at the individual level.
Chapter 8: Validating Distinct Knowledge Assets: A Capability Perspective, by Ron Freeze, Uday
Kulkarni, explain how identification and measurement of organizational Knowledge Management capabilities is necessary to determine the extent to which an organization utilizes its knowledge assets.
We developed and operationalized a set of constructs to measure capabilities associated with management of knowledge assets identified as distinct Knowledge Capabilities (KCs) comprising the overall
Knowledge Management (KM) capability of an organizational unit. Each KC represents a distinct kind
of knowledge that requires different organizational process and technological support. This delineation
of knowledge allows targeted improvement to a specific KC. We present validation of these capability
constructs with empirical evidence from two separate business units in a large semi-conductor manufacturing company, providing the basis of measurement standardization for KM Capability improvement.
Confirmatory factor analysis affirmed four KCs, each identified as an overall factor influencing a set
of latent descriptor variables. Second Order and General-Specific Structural Equation Models of each
capability provide evidence as to the validity of measurement of these knowledge assets. A standardized instrument for measuring knowledge capabilities would not only allow benchmarking, but also
allow tracking capabilities over time and linking them to those performance metrics that are deemed
appropriate by the organization.
Chapter 9: Assessing Knowledge Management: Refining and Cross-Validating the Knowledge
Management Index (KMI) using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Techniques, by Derek Ajesam
Asoh, Salvatore Belardo, Jakov (Yasha) Crnkovic, show how with growing interest in KM-related
assessments and calls for rigorous assessment tools, the objective of this study was to apply SEM
techniques to refine and cross-validate the KMI, a metric to assess the degree to which organizations
are engaged in knowledge management (KM). Unlike previous KM metrics research that has focused
on scales, we modeled the KMI as a formative latent variable, thereby extending knowledge on formative measures and index creation from other fields into the KM field.
(OP). Research contributions, managerial implications, limitations of the study, and direction for further
research are discussed.
Chapter 10: A Relational Based-View of Intellectual Capital in High-Tech Firms by G. Martn De
Castro, P. Lpez Sez, J.E. Navas Lpez, M. Delgado-Verde. The Resource-Based Theory (RBT) has
tried to test the role of strategic resources on sustained competitive advantage and superior performance.
Although this theory has found several flaws in order to reach its objective effectively (Priem & Butler,
2001; Foss & Knudsen), recent proposals have suggested that these problems can be overcome (Peteraf
& Barney, 2003). This solution requires paying a greater attention to the analysis of knowledge stocks,
xviii
developing a mid-range theory: the Intellectual Capital-Based View (Reed, Lubatkin & Srinivasan, 2006).
This mid-range and pragmatic theory allows the hypotheses development and empirical testing in a more
effective way than the Resource Based View (RBV). There is a certain degree of general agreement about
the presence of human capital and organizational capital as the main components of intellectual capital,
as well as about the fact that the configuration of knowledge stocks will vary from one industry and
firm to another one. Taking these assumptions as a starting point, this paper explores the configuration
of intellectual capital that can be empirically found on a sample of high-technology firms. Our findings
highlight the importance of relational capital, which must be divided in business and alliance capital, so
the strategic alliances play a relevance role in the type of firms that have been included in our research.
Section 3: KM StrategieS in Practice

Chapter 11: The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization
KM approaches by Vincent M. Ribire, explains how Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives are
expanding across all types of organizations worldwide. However, not all of them are necessarily successful mainly due to an unfriendly organizational culture. Organizational trust is often mentioned
as a critical factor facilitating knowledge sharing. For this research we took an empirical approach
to validate this assumption. The purpose of this research is to explore the relationships between organizational trust, a knowledge management strategy (codification vs. personalization) and its level
of success. This study was conducted among 97 US companies involved in knowledge management.
A survey tool was developed and validated to assess the level of trust, the level of success and the
dominant KM strategy deployed by an organization. Six main research hypotheses and a conceptual
model were tested. The findings show the impact of trust on the choice of the KM strategy as well as
on the level of success.
Chapter 12: Advancing the Success of Collaboration Centered KM Strategy by Johanna Bragge,
Hannu Kivijrvi, shows that Knowledge is the most critical resource of organizations. At the same
time it is, however, also the least-accessible resource that is difficult to share, imitate, buy, sell,
store, or evaluate. Organizations should thus have an explicit strategy for the management of their
knowledge resources. In this chapter we pay special attention to a KM strategy called collaboration
centered strategy. This strategy builds on the assumption that a significant part of personal knowledge
can be captured and transferred, and new knowledge created through deep collaboration between the
organizations members. A critical element in the collaboration centered KM strategy is the facilitation process that involves managing relationships between people, tasks and technology. We describe
how the Collaboration Engineering approach with packaged facilitation techniques called ThinkLets
is able to contribute to this endeavour.
Chapter 13: The Relevance of Integration for Knowledge Management Success: Towards Conceptual and Empirical Evidence by Alexander Orth, Stefan Smolnik, Murray Jennex. Many organizations
pursue knowledge management (KM) initiatives, with different degrees of success. One key aspect
of KM often neglected in practice is following an integrated and holistic approach. Complementary,
KM researchers have increasingly focused on factors that determine KM success and examined
whether the metrics used to measure KM initiatives are reasonable. In this chapter, the importance
of integration issues for successful KM is analyzed by means of a case study of a KM initiative at
an international consulting company. The investigations demonstrate the importance of an integrated
xix
KM approach an integrated view of KM strategy, KM processes, KM technology, and company

culture to ensure KM success.
Chapter 14: Strategies for Successful Implementation of KM in a University Setting by Vittal S.
Anantatmula, Shivraj Kanungo. Research has identified enabling factors and inhibitors for implementing
knowledge management successfully and to accomplish its strategic objectives. However, it is important
to understand how these factors interact with each other to improve or inhibit the performance. With
this in mind, this chapter presents a model, based on a research study, to determine underlying relations
among these factors and develop strategies implementing KM initiatives.
Chapter 15: DYONIPOS: Proactive Knowledge Supply by Josef Makolm, Silke Wei, Doris Ipsmiller,
Natalie Egger. Traditional knowledge management is often combined with extra work to recollect information which is already electronically available. Another obstacle to overcome is to make the content
of the collected information easily accessible to enquiries, as conventional searching tools provide only
documents and not the content meaning. They are often based on the search for character strings, usually
resulting in many unnecessary hits and no or less context information. The research project DYONIPOS
focuses on detecting the knowledge needs of knowledge users and automatically providing the required
knowledge just in time, while avoiding additional work and violations of the knowledge workers privacy, proposing a new way of support. This knowledge is made available through semantic linkage of
the relevant information out of existing artifacts. In addition DYONIPOS creates an individual and an
organizational knowledge base just in time.
These chapters come from several sources: some were submitted just to this book, some are expansions
of conference/journal articles, and some are taken directly from the International Journal of Knowledge
Management (IJKM). Taken together, we believe this book provides researchers, students, and practitioners with an excellent overview of how to implement and measure successful KM and/or knowledge
initiatives.
We hope you enjoy the book.
Murray E. Jennex
Stefan Smolnik
referenceS
Jennex, M.E., & Olfman, L. (2005). Assessing Knowledge Management Success. International Journal
of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 33-49.
Moore, M. (2008). Justifying Your Knowledge Management Programme. White Paper retrieved on
March 30, 2009 from http://innotecture.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/justifying_your_km_prog3.pdf
Section 1
Knowledge Management
Success
Chapter 1
Towards a Consensus
Success Definition
Murray E. Jennex
Stefan Smolnik
David T. Croasdell
University of Nevada, Reno, USA
abStract
This chapter explores knowledge management (KM), and knowledge management system (KMS), success. The inspiration for this chapter is the KM Success and Measurement minitracks held at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences in January of 2007 and 2008. KM and KMS success are
issues needing to be explored. The Knowledge Management Foundations workshop held at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39) in January 2006 discussed this issue and
reached agreement that it is important for the credibility of the KM discipline that we be able to define
KM success. Additionally, from the perspective of KM academics and practitioners, identifying the factors, constructs, and variables that define KM success is crucial to understanding how these initiatives
and systems should be designed and implemented. This chapter presents the results of a survey looking
at how KM practitioners, researchers, KM students, and others interested in KM view what constitutes
KM success. This chapter presents some background on KM success and then a series of perspectives
on KM/KMS success. These perspectives were derived by looking at responses to questions asking academics and practitioners how they defined KM/KMS success. The chapter concludes by presenting the
results of an exploratory survey on KM/KMS success beliefs and attitudes.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch001
Copyright 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition
bacKground on KM SucceSS
Jennex summarized various definitions of KM to
propose that KM success be defined as reusing
knowledge to improve organizational effectiveness by providing the appropriate knowledge
to those that need it when it is needed (Jennex,
2005). KM is expected to have a positive impact
on the organization that improves organizational
effectiveness. DeLone and McLean use the terms
success and effectiveness interchangeably and
one of the perspectives proposed in this chapter
does the same for KM (DeLone and McLean,
1992 and 2003).
Jennex and Olfman (2005) summarized and
synthesized the literature on KM/KMS critical
success factors, CSFs, into an ordered set of 12
KM CSFs. CSFs were ordered based on the number of studies identifying the CSF. The following
CSFs were identified from 17 studies looking at
78 KM projects:
A knowledge strategy that identifies users, sources, processes, storage strategy,

knowledge, and links to knowledge for the
KMS;
Motivation and commitment of users including incentives and training;
Integrated technical infrastructure including networks, databases/repositories, computers, software, KMS experts;
An organizational culture and structure
that supports learning and the sharing and
use of knowledge;
A common enterprise wide knowledge
structure that is clearly articulated and easily understood;
Senior management support including allocation of resources, leadership, and providing training;
Learning organization;
There is a clear goal and purpose for the
KMS;
Measures are established to assess the impacts of the KMS and the use of knowledge as well as verifying that the right
knowledge is being captured;
The search, retrieval, and visualization
functions of the KMS support easy knowledge use;
Work processes are designed that incorporate knowledge capture and use;
Security/protection of knowledge.
However, these CSFs do not define KM/KMS

success; they just say what is needed to be successful. Without a definition of KM/KMS success
it is difficult to measure actual success.
Measuring KM/KMS success is important
To provide a basis for company valuation,

To stimulate management to focus on what
is important, and
To justify investments in KM activities
(Jennex and Olfman, 2005) (Turban and
Aronson, 2001).
Besides these reasons from an organizational

perspective, the measurement of KM and KMS
success is important for building and implementing efficient KM initiatives and systems from the
perspective of KM academics and practitioners
(Jennex and Olfman, 2005).
PerSPectiVeS on
KM/KMS SucceSS
The KM workshop at the 2006 HICSS-39 found
that there were several perspectives on KM
success. This section briefly summarizes these
perspectives.
KM Success and effectiveness

One perspective on KM success is that KM success and KM effectiveness are interchangeable
and imply the same construct or variable. This is

based on the view that effectiveness is a manifestation of success. An example would be increasing decision-making effectiveness to generate a
positive impact on the organization resulting in
successful KM. This perspective uses both process
and outcome measures.
the value that these systems and processes provide

to an organization. KM focuses therefore more
on the outcome, while KMS focus more on the
process. These perspectives are introduced in the
following sections.
KM and KMS Success

as interchangeable
This perspective views KM success as a process

measure. KM success can be described in terms
of the efficient achievement of well defined organizational and process goals by means of the
systematic employment of both organizational
instruments and information and communication
technologies for a targeted creation and utilization
of knowledge as well as for making knowledge
available. KM is a support function to improve
knowledge-intensive business processes. An
example would be supporting the technologyforecasting process in an IT consulting firm by
technical components of a KMS (Henselewski, et
al., 2006). Complementary, the effective implementation of knowledge processes (i.e. acquisition, creation, sharing, and codification) is seen
as a part of KM success. This perspective focuses
therefore on measuring how much KM contributes
to improving the effectiveness of business and
knowledge processes.
Another perspective is that KM and KMS success

are interchangeable. KMS success can be defined
as making KMS components more effective by
improving search speed, accuracy, etc. As an example, a KMS that enhances search and retrieval
functions enhances decision-making effectiveness
by improving the ability of the decision maker to
find and retrieve appropriate knowledge in a timelier manner. The implication is that by increasing
KMS effectiveness, KMS success is enhanced and
decision making capability is enhanced leading to
positive impacts on the organization. This is how
KM success is defined and it is concluded that
enhancing KMS effectiveness makes the KMS
more successful as well as being a reflection of
KM success. The Jennex and Olfman KM Success
Model (Jennex and Olfman, 2006), based on the
DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) IS Success
Model, combines KM and KMS success and
utilizes this perspective.
KM and KMS Success as Separate

As opposed to the previous section, this perspective views KM and KMS success as separate
measures. It is based on a narrow system view
that allows for KMS success that does not translate into KM success. KMS are often seen as a
sub-function of KM comprising technical and
organizational instruments to implement KM.
Thus, KMS success addresses implementation and
operation factors in terms of system or process
metrics whereas KM success is an assessment of
KM Success as a Process Measure
KM Success as an outcome Measure

In contrast, KM success can be viewed as an outcome measure. KM success is therefore seen as
a measure of the various outcomes of knowledge
process capabilities existing within an organization
as a result of undertaken KM initiatives. Typical
outcomes in terms of organizational performance
are the enhancement of:
Product and service quality,

Productivity,
Innovative ability and activity,
Competitive capacity and position in the
market,
Proximity to customers and customer

satisfaction,
Employee satisfaction,
Communication and knowledge sharing,
and
Knowledge transparency and retention.
KM Success as combined Process

and outcome Measures
The last perspective views KM success as a
combination of process and outcome measures.
Respective descriptions of KM success focus
on improved process effectiveness as well as on
achieving actionable outcomes. The first and third
perspectives contain examples for this combined
approach.
MetHodologY
This chapter is exploratory research with the goal
of guiding the KM community towards a consensus
definition of KM success. The chapter builds on
the results of an exploratory and a confirmatory
survey (discussed below) reported in Jennex,
et al., (2007). These survey results included a
definition of KM success and identification of a
set of dimensions and measures. As part of the
confirmatory survey, respondents were asked
what dimensions/measures they would add or
delete from a list of those presented. This chapter
analyzes these comments by tallying them and
then putting them into context by comparing the
KM success definition dimensions and measures
to the Jennex Olfman (2006) KM Success Model.
The exploratory survey was generated through
an expert panel approach. The 30 members of the
editorial review board of the International Journal
of Knowledge Management, IJKM, were asked to
provide their definitions of KM success. Thirteen
responses were received. These responses were
used to generate an exploratory survey of KM
success, which used 5-point Likert scale items to
solicit agreement on various perspectives and proposed KM success definitions. The perspectives
were generated through an analysis of the expert
board responses that distinguished two groups.
The first grouping examined the measures used
to determine KM success. Three subgroups were
then observed: process-based measures, outcomebased measures, and a combination of process
and outcome based measures. The second grouping of responses provided two subgroups: those
that combined KM and KMS success measures
and those that viewed KM and KMS success as
separate measures. A final observation was that
many proposed definitions used success and effectiveness interchangeably.
The exploratory survey also collected data on
the KM expertise and focus of the respondents.
Furthermore, the survey offered text boxes that allowed for free form input of additional KM success
factors or measures, KM success definitions, and
thoughts on the differences between KM and KMS
success. The exploratory survey was administered
using a web form with data collected and stored
automatically. Survey respondents were solicited
via broadcast emails to the ISWorld and DSI email
list servers, to lists of KM researchers maintained
by the authors, and to the editorial review board
and list of authors for the International Journal
of Knowledge Management, IJKM. An initial
request was sent followed by a second request
approximately one week later.
One hundred and three usable survey responses
were received. Thirteen were from KM practitioners, 70 were from KM researchers, 6 were from
KM students, and 14 were from others including
academics interested in KM but not active KM
researchers. Likert items were analyzed using
means and standard deviations as no hypotheses
have been proposed and need testing.
The results of the exploratory survey were used
to generate a second survey. This survey presented
a composite definition of KM success and a set of
measures for each of the indicated dimensions. A
7-point Likert scale was used to solicit agreement
Table 1. Opinions on KM success perspectives, mean (std dev) (5-point Likert scale)
Definition
Overall
Research
Practice
Other
Student
Success = Effectiveness
3.1 (1.4)
3 (1.4)
3.3 (1.3)
3.2 (1.5)
3.7 (0.5)
KM = KMS Success
2.6 (1.5)
2.5 (1.4)
3.2 (1.6)
3.4 (1.5)
2.2 (1)
KM = KMS Measures
2.6 (1.4)
2.4 (1.4)
3.2 (1.6)
3 (1.4)
2.4 (0.9)
KM Success = Process
2 (1)
1.9 (0.9)
2.2 (1.1)
1.9 (0.8)
3 (1.3)
2 (1)
2 (1)
2.2 (1.4)
1.7 (0.8)
2.3 (1)
4 (0.9)
3.9 (1)
3.8 (1)
4.3 (0.6)
4.2 (0.8)
KM Success = Outcomes
KM Success = Process & Outcomes
on the composite definition and each set of measures. Additionally, as in the exploratory survey
items were provided for collecting data on KM
expertise and respondent focus. Also, each set
of measures had boxes where respondents could
indicate measures they would add or remove from
each set of measures.
The second survey was also administered
using a web form with respondents solicited in
the same manner as the exploratory survey. One
hundred and ninety-four usable survey responses
were received. Sixteen were from KM practitioners, 114 were from KM researchers, 23 from
KM students, and 41 were from others including
academics interested in KM but not active KM
researchers. Likert items were analyzed using
means and standard deviations as no hypotheses
have been proposed and need testing.
reSultS
There was little consensus on KM success perspective or definition from the first survey while we
did find agreement on a definition of KM success
and measures of success in the second survey.
The results of the first survey are summarized in
Tables 1-3 while the results of the second survey
are presented in Table 4.
Table 1 presents opinions with respect to the
perspectives on KM success. The only perspective
that tends to have any consensus agreement is
that KM success is a combination of process and
outcome measures and is NOT just process or just

outcomes. We are undecided if success and effectiveness are equivalent measures and tend to
be undecided to slightly against the idea that KM
and KMS success are equivalent.
Overall n = 103, researcher n = 70, practitioner
n=13, academics n=14, and student n=6, Values
are rounded to 2 significant digits
Table 2 summarizes opinions on five suggested components of KM and KMS success
definitions. There appears to be consensus on
using organization-specific subjective measures
derived for KM process capabilities. Examples
of these capabilities include knowledge reuse,
quality, relevance, effectiveness of acquisition,
search, and application of knowledge, etc. There
also appears to be consensus that any KM success
definition should include providing the appropriate
knowledge when needed. Additionally, there is
consensus that use is not a good measure of KMS
success. It is interesting to note that practitioners
and students support the use of firm performance
measures as indicators of KM success while there
is less support for these measures from researchers
and academics. It is also interesting to note that
academics and students tend to support the use
of measures reflecting direct returns from organizational and individual learning and application
of knowledge while researchers and practitioners
are less favorable to them.
Table 2. Opinions on KM and KMS success definition components, mean (std dev) (5-point Likert scale)
Overall
Research
Practice
Other
Student
Subjective measure of various outcomes of KM processes capabilities should be included in a definition of KM success
4.1 (0.8)
4 (0.9)
4.3 (0.8)
4.2 (0.9)
4.5 (0.8)
Achieving direct returns from learning and projection should be included in a definition of KM success
3.8 (1)
3.7 (1)
4 (1)
3.6 (1)
4.3 (0.5)
Success of KMS should be measured in terms of pure usage statistics should be included in a definition of KM success
2.5 (1.2)
2.5 (1.2)
2.2 (1.1)
2.6 (1.2)
2.8 (1.2)
Success of KMS should be measured in terms of firm performance should be included in a definition of KM success
3.7 (1)
4.1 (1)
3.6 (1.1)
3.5 (0.8)
4 (0.9)
Providing the appropriate knowledge when needed should be included in a definition of KM success
4.2 (0.9)
4.2 (0.9)
4.3 (0.9)
4.4 (0.6)
4.3 (0.5)
Table 3. Opinions on KM and KMS success definitions; mean (std dev) (5-point Likert scale)
Overall
Research
Practice
Other
Students
KMS success can be defined as making KMS components more effective by improving search speed, accuracy, etc.
3 (1.2)
2.8 (1.1)
3.6 (1.2)
3.1 (1.1)
3.2 (1)
KM success is the ability to leverage knowledge resources to achieve actionable outcomes.

4 (1)
4 (1)
4.3 (0.9)
3.9 (0.9)
3.7 (1)
KM success is reusing knowledge to improve organizational effectiveness by providing the appropriate knowledge to those that need it
when it is needed.
3.9 (1)
3.8 (1.1)
4.4 (0.91)
4.1 (0.7)
3.8 (0.4)
KM success is knowledge tacit and explicit alike circulates freely throughout the organization, with no debilitating clumping, clotting, or hemorrhaging.
3 (1.2)
2.8 (1.2)
3.2 (1.5)
3.4 (0.8)
2.7 (1)
KM success is the efficient achievement of well defined organizational and process goals by means of the systematic employment of both
organizational instruments and information and communication technologies for a targeted creation and utilization of knowledge as well
as for making knowledge available.
3.7 (1.2)
3.5 (1.3)
4.2 (1.1)
Table 3 summarizes opinions on five suggested

definitions of KM and KMS success. There appears to be little consensus on these definitions
other than a general neutrality on KM success
as the flow of knowledge and KMS success as
improving effectiveness of the KMS components.
However, there are some interesting observations. KM success as the ability to leverage knowledge resources to achieve actionable outcomes
is overall supported with the strongest support
3.8 (0.9)
3.8 (1.2)
coming from practitioners. This is interesting

but not surprising as practitioners tend to favor
definitions and measures that are objective, readily measurable, and have an obvious impact on
the organization.
This is also why practitioners favor KM success
as reusing knowledge to improve organizational
effectiveness and KM success as the efficient
achievement of well defined organizational goals
for targeted creation and utilization of knowledge.
Table 4. Opinions on KM and KMS success definition and sets of measures, mean (std dev) (5-point
Likert scale)
Overall
Research
Practice
Other
Student
KM success is a multidimensional concept. It is defined by capturing the right knowledge, getting the right knowledge to the right user,
and using this knowledge to improve organizational and/or individual performance. KM success is measured using the dimensions of
impact on business processes, strategy, leadership, efficiency and effectiveness of KM processes, efficiency and effectiveness of the KM
system, organizational culture, and knowledge content.
5.4 (1.4)
5.3 (1.5)
6.1 (1.4)
5.6 (1.4)
5.5 (1.2)
5.7 (1.2)
5.7 (1.0)
5.3 (1.4)
5.7 (1.0)
5.3 (1.3)
5.4 (1.6)
Impact on business process measures

5.5 (1.3)
5.3 (1.4)
5.8 (1.4)
Strategy measures
5.3 (1.4)
5.1 (1.6)
5.2 (1.5)
5.1 (1.5)
6.1 (0.6)
Leadership measures
5.3 (1.5)
KM process effectiveness and efficiency measures

5.7 (1.3)
5.5 (1.4)
6.2 (0.8)
5.8 (1.3)
5.7 (1.4)
KM system effectiveness and efficiency measures

5.6 (1.3)
5.5 (1.4)
6.0 (0.7)
5.8 (1.2)
5.4 (1.3)
5.7 (1.1)
5.6 (1.2)
5.7 (1.2)
5.5 (1.3)
Learning culture measures

5.6 (1.2)
5.5 (1.4)
5.4 (1.4)
5.2 (1.5)
6.0 (0.8)
Knowledge content measures
6.0 (1.0)

Table 4 summarizes opinions from the second
survey on a proposed success definition generated
from the first survey and sets of measures for
the dimensions listed in the proposed definition.
There appears to be some level of consensus on
the proposed definition and measures. However,
we do not consider it strong consensus given that
the mean response is between agree and somewhat
agree. Still, this is considered a strong beginning
to establishing a common definition and set of
success measures.
n=16, others n=41, and student n=23, Values are
rounded to 2 significant digits
The comments were used to adjust the measures
identified in the survey. However, a simple tallying
of the comments and adjusting the measures based

on this tally was not useful. Instead, the comments
suggested that the entire list of dimensions and
measures in the context of a KM success model
and CSFs had to be reviewed. These findings are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
The impact on business processes dimension.
The comments suggested adding innovation and
agility as measures. They also supported removing
labor-saving measures, refining learning through
mistakes or insights, and clarifying the differences
between action and outcome measures.
The strategy dimension. In this study, strategy
refers to KM that is designed to support organization-wide strategic systems and initiatives.
The comments first questioned the meaning of
strategy. They also suggested that social network
analysis, SNA, measures should be added to provide indicators of cohesiveness, centrality, and the
strength of ties. Additional issues were raised with

respect to strategy or alignment to strategy also
impacting employee performance, and the way in
which social capital and knowledge integration
measure strategy.
The leadership dimension. The comments
suggested adding social network analysis, SNA,
measures that provide indicators of cohesiveness,
centrality, and the strength of ties.
The KM process efficiency and effectiveness
dimension. The comments questioned whether
the measures should be lifecycle-based rather
than process-based. Additionally, they suggested
considering scalability, changing safe and effective storage of knowledge to secure, private,
and reliable storage of knowledge. However,
these terms have conceptual definitions that differ
from safe2, while effective in terms of storage
is difficult to define. The comments furthermore
questioned whether increased collaboration is a
true measure for this dimension.
The KMS effectiveness and efficiency dimension. The comments queried the synonymous
use of usability and adaptability, questioned
whether this dimension does in fact differ from
KM process, and suggested that measures like
maintenance costs and system measures such as
maintainability and availability should be added.
The learning culture dimension. The comments questioned change in leadership culture as
a leadership measure, and suggested adding organizational learning as well as incentive measures.
The knowledge content dimension. The comments questioned whether retrieval does in fact
differ from KMS retrieval and suggested adding
integrity, temporal, lifecycle, visualization, and
multifacetness measures. They furthermore suggested that knowledge creation measures should
be part of the KM process dimension.
The questions raised by the comments suggest that there may be issues with the dimensions. This drove the analysis of the dimensions
with the CSFs and the Jennex Olfman (2006)
KM Success Model. An inspection of the list of
CSFs reveals conflicts that can affect the success

dimensions. CSFs such as organizational culture,
learning organization, and senior management
support are regarded as necessary for KM to
succeed. This in turn raises the question whether
a dimension can be a CSF and, simultaneously,
a reflection of success. We conclude that this is
not likely, that CSFs are indeed necessary for
KM success to occur, but are not reflections of
KM success in and of themselves. This is borne
out by the Jennex Olfman (2006) KM Success
Model, as it is a causal model. This suggests that
the success dimensions leadership and learning
organization should be removed. Moreover, the
success dimensions in the Jennex Olfman (2006)
KM Success Model leads us to question whether
a KMS effectiveness and efficiency dimension
and perhaps even a KM process efficiency and
effectiveness dimension are required as reflections
of KM success. The following section provides a
discussion that leads to the final definition of the
dimensions of KM success.
diScuSSion
This was exploratory research so few conclusions
can be drawn. However, using two surveys has
allowed us to reach some consensus on a KM
success definition and set of success measures.
The consensus KM success definition is:
KM success is a multidimensional concept. It is
defined by capturing the right knowledge, getting
the right knowledge to the right user, and using
this knowledge to improve organizational and/
or individual performance. KM success is measured using the dimensions of impact on business
processes, strategy, leadership, efficiency and
effectiveness of KM processes, efficiency and
effectiveness of the KM system, organizational
culture, and knowledge content.
Also, there are a few points of consensus that

can be identified from the initial survey:
KM success and KMS success may not be

the same thing.
Usage is not a good measure of KM or
KMS success.
Additionally, it is possible that there is a different focus on KM success between practitioners

and researchers. Researchers do not seem to have
a clear idea of KM success while practitioners
appear focused on KM success as being tied to
its impact on organizational performance and effectiveness. This cannot be stated conclusively,
the number of practitioner responses are too low
(n=13) making this supposition. However, it is
not unexpected that practitioners would have
a focus on organizational impact as a measure
of KM and KMS success. Given that KM is an
action discipline, researchers should accept this
focus and incorporate it into their investigations.
The preliminary set of success dimensions
must be examined critically, though, as previous
discussions have shown that there is conflict
between what is regarded as an antecedent and
thus necessary for success, and what is regarded
as a reflection of success. This is made more
complex as factors that are antecedents to KM
need to remain to sustain continued KM success.
We therefore start this discussion by examining
the research behind the CSF of organizational and
learning cultures.
In an executive development program, Alavi
and Leidner (1999) surveyed executive participants with respect to what was required for a successful KMS. They found that organizational and
cultural issues associated with user motivation to
share and use knowledge are the most significant.
Yu et al. find that KM drivers such as a learning
culture, knowledge sharing intention, KMS quality, rewards, and KM team activity significantly
affect KM performance (Yu, et al., 2004). These
conclusions were deduced from a survey of 66
Korean firms. Cross and Baird propose that KM

will not improve business performance by simply
using technology to capture and share the lessons of
experience Cross and Baird (2000). They postulate
that for KM to improve business performance, it
had to increase organizational learning through the
creation of organizational memory. Subsequently,
22 projects were examined to investigate this. The
conclusion is that improving organizational learning improves the likelihood of KM success. Chan
and Chau (2005) deduce lessons learned from a
failed case of KM in a Hong Kong organization
and find a need for a knowledge-sharing culture.
In their study of KM abandonment in four KM
projects, Lam and Chua (2005) identify CSFs for
KM from the literature, including a learning culture. Other studies identifying a learning culture
as a CSF include Goh (2002), McDermott and
ODell (2001), Zolingen, et al. (2001).
The above research examined successful and
failed KM and, on the whole, concludes that an
appropriate organizational culture and learning
culture are necessary antecedents to KM success,
but are not an outcome of KM success although.
Nevertheless, it can also be concluded that successful KM should lead to the strengthening of
organizational and learning cultures. However, it
is difficult to quantify measurements of change
in culture, which leads to the decision that organizational and learning cultural measures of KM
success should be dropped and used only as CSFs.
Leadership is an interesting concept. The CSF
of senior management support can be considered
leadership and it has been found to be necessary
for KM to succeed, but can leadership also be a reflection of KM success? In their above-mentioned
study, one of Chan and Chaus (2005) key findings
is the need for continued top management support
and involvement. Davenport et al. (1998) studied
31 projects in 24 companies (18 were successful,
five were considered failures, and eight were too
new to be rated). Eight CSFs, including senior
management support, were common in successful
KM projects. Jennex and Olfman (2000) studied
three KM projects and also observed senior

management support as a CSF. In their abovementioned study, Lam and Chua (2005) also identify continuous top management support (as also
identified by Storey and Barnett, 2000) as a CSF.
Holsapple and Joshi (2000) investigated factors
that influenced the management of knowledge in
organizations by using a Delphi panel consisting
of 31 recognized KM researchers and practitioners
and find leadership and top management commitment/support to be crucial. This finding is also
supported by Bals et al.s (2007) study on key
success factors for a successful KM initiative in
a global bank. Furthermore, several researchers
have demonstrated the need to create incentives
and motivation within the organization to create
and reuse knowledge (Davenport, et al. (1998),
Ginsberg and Kambil (1999), Jennex and Olfman
(2000), Lam and Chua (2005), Sage and Rouse
(1999), Yu, et al. (2004)). Finally, Malhotra and
Galletta (2003) identify the critical importance
of user commitment and motivation through a
survey study of users of a KMS implemented in
a health care organization.
The above research found that continuous
senior management support is a CSF and also
necessary for sustaining KM success. Leadership
indicates support for KM, providing the management environment that encourages KM through
knowledge creation and reuse by members of the
organization, and providing adequate resources for
the KM/KMS initiative. This is an antecedent to
KM success and also an outcome of KM success as
successful KM reinforces knowledge leadership.
Why do we argue that culture is a CSF but
not an output of KM success, while leadership is
argued to be both? It is our opinion that culture
is not changed quickly, that it takes much time to
effect cultural changes but that individuals can be
changed quickly, and that success breeds success,
i.e. that successful KM will encourage senior
management to push KM even more.
Strategy as a dimension can be discussed briefly
as the only point of contention is what it actually
10
refers to. This dimension refers to the impact of

KM on organizational strategy. This can occur
through impacts on organizational and/or strategic
systems, on strategic intelligence gathering, or
merely on fulfilling strategy. This dimension differentiates between impacts on business systems
and strategic systems; it examines organizational
impacts instead of localized impacts. The decision
is therefore that this dimension needs to be renamed
and is thus changed to impacts on strategy.
The next dimensions needing discussion
are KM and KMS efficiency and effectiveness.
Since this chapter takes the perspective that KM
and KMS success are essentially similar, it follows that as success dimensions they should be
similar. However, should they even be success
dimensions? It is clear that they are antecedents to
KM success, but are improvements in efficiency
and effectiveness resultants and measures of KM
success? Using the Jennex Olfman (2006) KM
Success Model, we determine that these two dimensions are not measures of KM success. While
it is agreed that improving KM/KMS effectiveness
and efficiency will enhance KM and knowledge
reuse in an organization, we reject the notion
that simply being more effective or efficient in
KM/KMS is a reflection of KM success.
The final dimension needing discussion is
knowledge content. At first, it seems as if this
dimension should be treated the same as KM/KMS
effectiveness and efficiency. This is, however,
rejected. Instead, we accept that knowledge content is a reflection and measure of KM success,
as well as being an antecedent to KM success.
The Jennex Olfman (2006) KM Success Model
is the basis for this determination. The knowledge
quality dimension is an antecedent to KM success;
however, there is also a feedback process from
the impact of KM use to guide further knowledge
content and quality. Much like leadership, it is
anticipated that KM success will be reflected in
the increased quantity and quality of knowledge
content; and that a lack of KM success will also be
reflected in a decrease in the quantity and quality

of knowledge content.
There are some limitations to this research. It is
quite possible that the reason little consensus has
been observed is because KM and KMS success
are complex constructs that are multidimensional.
It may be that KM and KMS success includes
outcome measures, quality of knowledge, how
well the KM processes function, organizational
culture measures, usability measures, and strategy
measures. This is consistent with the DeLone and
McLean model of Information Systems success
(DeLone and McLean, 1992 and 2003) and there
is much empirical evidence to support the correctness of this model. This model is also the basis of
the Jennex and Olfman KM Success Model (Jennex and Olfman, 2006). It is quite likely that the
exploratory survey used for this research, while
generated using an expert panel, probably did not
capture the multidimensional nature of the provided KM success definitions and therefore made
it difficult for respondents to find statements they
fully agreed with. This limitation was considered
when generating the second survey and it appears
that this has improved consensus with the KM
success definition generated from the first survey.
concluSion
It is difficult to reach any conclusions with this
research; no hypotheses were proposed or tested.
This is okay as the purpose of this chapter is to
propose a definition of KMS success. Before doing
this it is important to identify areas of consensus
and areas of disagreement. The following points
are areas of agreement:
KM and KMS success are likely different

definitions (note that at least one of the authors greatly disagrees with this point).
Use is a poor measure of KM and KMS
success.
KM success is likely a multidimensional

construct that will include process and outcome measures.
A base definition of KM success is: KM
success is reusing knowledge to improve
organizational effectiveness by providing
the appropriate knowledge to those that
need it when it is needed.
Additionally, a base definition of KM success

can be established:
this knowledge to improve organizational and/or
individual performance. KM success is measured
by means of the dimensions: impact on business
processes, impact on strategy, leadership, and
knowledge content.
Some areas of disagreement are in further need
of discussion:
KM success and effectiveness are likely

the same and will be able to use the same
measures.
KM and KMS success are essentially the
same (in deference to the authors and consistent with a Churchman view of a KMS
and DeLone and McLean (DeLone and
McLean, 1992 and 2003)).
The role of learning and firm performance
in KM success.
The role of outcome measures such as
speed, accuracy, amount of knowledge
stored and used, etc. in KM and KMS
success.
It is expected that it will take a great deal of

research before consensus is reached on what KM
and KMS success is. It is concluded that these
findings from an exploratory survey are a good
starting point for this discussion.
11
referenceS
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge
Management Systems: Emerging Views and
Practices from the Field. In Proceedings of the
32nd Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences. Hawaii, USA: IEEE Computer Society
Press.
Bals, C., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2007). Assessing User Acceptance of a Knowledge Management System in a Global Bank: Process Analysis
and Concept Development. In Proceedings of
the 40th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences. Hawaii, USA: IEEE Computer
Society Press.
Chan, I., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2005). Getting Knowledge Management Right: Lessons from Failure.
International Journal of Knowledge Management,
1(3), 4054.
Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach
(revised and updated). New York: Dell Publishing.
Cross, R., & Baird, L. (2000). Technology Is
Not Enough: Improving Performance by Building Organizational Memory. Sloan Management
Review, 41(3), 4154.
Davenport, T. H., DeLong, D. W., & Beers, M. C.
(1998). Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 4357.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent
Variable. Information Systems Research, 3, 6095.
doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The
DeLone and McLean Model of Information
Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 19(4), 930.
12
Ginsberg, M., & Kambil, A. (1999). Annotate:

A Web-based Knowledge Management Support
System for Document Collections. In Proceedings
of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences. Hawaii, USA: IEEE Computer
Society Press.
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing Effective Knowledge Transfer: An Integrative Framework
and Some Practice Implications. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 2330.
doi:10.1108/13673270210417664
Henselewski, M., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G.
(2006). Evaluation of Knowledge Management
Technologies for the Support of Technology
Forecasting. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
Hawaii, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2000). An Investigation of Factors that Influence the Management of Knowledge in Organizations. The Journal
of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 235261.
doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00046-9
Jennex, M. E. (2005). What is Knowledge Management? International Journal of Knowledge
Management, 1(4), 15.
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2000). Development
Recommendations for Knowledge Management/
Organizational Memory Systems. In Proceedings
of Information Systems Development Conference.
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2005). Assessing
Knowledge Management Success. International
Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 3349.
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2006). A Model of
Jennex, M. E., Smolnik, S., & Croasdell, D.

(2007). Towards Defining Knowledge Management Success. In Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii
Lam, W., & Chua, A. (2005). Knowledge Management Project Abandonment: An Explanatory
Examination of Root Causes. Communications
of the Association for Information Systems, 16,
723743.
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. (2003). Role of
Commitment and Motivation as Antecedents of
Knowledge Management Systems Implementation. In Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii,
USA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
McDermott, R., & ODell, C. (2001). Overcoming Cultural Barriers to sharing Knowledge.
doi:10.1108/13673270110384428
Storey, J., & Barnett, E. (2000). Knowledge management Initiatives: Learning from Failure. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(4), 145156.
doi:10.1108/13673270010372279
Turban, E., & Aronson, J. E. (2001). Decision
Support Systems and Intelligent Systems (6th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yu, S.-H., Kim, Y.-G., & Kim, M.-Y. (2004).
Linking Organizational Knowledge Management
Drivers to Knowledge Management Performance:
An Exploratory Study. In Proceedings of the 37th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, USA: IEEE Computer Society
Press.
Zolingen, S. J., Van, Streumer, J. N., & Stooker,
M. (2001). Problems in Knowledge Management: A Case-Study of a Knowledge-Intensive
Company. International Journal of Training and
Development, 5(3), 168184. doi:10.1111/14682419.00130
Sage, A. P., & Rouse, W. B. (1999). Information

Systems Frontiers in Knowledge Management.
Information Systems Frontiers, 1(3), 205219.
doi:10.1023/A:1010046210832
13
14
Chapter 2
A Model of Knowledge
Management Success
Murray E. Jennex
Lorne Olfman
Claremont Graduate University, USA
abStract
This chapter describes a knowledge management (KM), Success Model that is derived from observations
generated through a longitudinal study of KM in an engineering organization, KM success factors found
in the literature, and modified by the application of these observations and success factors in various
projects. The DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) IS Success Model was used as a framework for the
model as it was found to fit the observed success criteria and it provided an accepted theoretical basis
for the proposed model.
introduction
Knowledge Management, KM, and Knowledge
Management System, KMS, success is an issue
needing to be explored. The Knowledge Management Foundations workshop held at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences in
January 2006 discussed this issue and reached
agreement that it is important for the credibility
of the KM discipline that we be able to define
KM success. Also, Turban and Aronson (2001)
list three reasons for measuring the success of
KM and a KMS:
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch002
To provide a basis for company valuation

To stimulate management to focus on what
is important
To justify investments in KM activities.
All are good reasons from an organizational

perspective. Additionally, from the perspective
of KM academics and practitioners, identifying
the factors/constructs/variables that define KM
success is crucial to understanding how these
initiatives and systems should be designed and
implemented. It is the purpose of this paper to
present a model that specifies and describes the
antecedents of KM/KMS success so that researchers and practitioners can predict if a specific
A Model of Knowledge Management Success
KM/KMS initiative will be successful. The paper

assumes that KM and KMS success cannot be
separated; this is based on a broad, Churchman
view of what constitutes a KMS and a definition
of success that is not reliant solely on technical
effectiveness. The other basic assumption for this
paper is that success and effectiveness, as used
in the KM literature, are synonymous terms. The
remainder of the paper uses the term KM to refer
to KM and KMS and success to refer to success
and effectiveness. The reasoning for these assumptions is discussed later in the paper.
The proposed KM Success Model is an explication of the widely accepted DeLone and McLean IS
Success Model, which was used as it was able to be
modified to fit the observations and data collected
in a longitudinal study of Organizational Memory,
OM, and KM, it fit success factors found in the KM
literature, and the resulting KM Success Model
was useful in predicting success when applied to
the design and implementation of a KM initiative
and/or a KMS. Additionally, the stated purpose of
the DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) IS Success
Model is to be a generalized framework describing
success dimensions that researchers can adapt and
define specific contexts of success (DeLone and
McLean, 2003). Before presenting the KM Success
Model we will discuss the concepts of knowledge,
KM, KMS, and KM/KMS success. We will then
briefly discuss the DeLone and McLean (1992,
2003) IS Success Model, present the KM Success Model, and discuss the differences. We will
conclude by summarizing studies that support the
KM Success Model and present operationalizations
that can be used to evaluate the constructs used to
define the KM Success Model dimensions.
Knowledge, oM, and KM

Alavi and Leidner (2001) summarize and extend
the significant literature relating to knowledge,
knowledge management, and knowledge management systems. They view organizational knowl-
edge and OM as synonymous labels as do Jennex

and Olfman (2002). This is useful as it allows for
the combination of research results from OM and
KM. It is also born out in the literature. Huber,
Davenport, and King (1998) summarize OM as the
set of repositories of information and knowledge
that the organization has acquired and retains.
Stein and Zwass (1995) define OM as the means
by which knowledge from the past is brought to
bear on present activities resulting in higher or
lower levels of organizational effectiveness, and
Walsh and Ungson (1991) define OM as stored
information from an organizations history that
can be brought to bear on present decisions.
Davenport and Prusak (1998) define knowledge as an evolving mix of framed experience,
values, contextual information and expert insight
that provides a framework for evaluating and
incorporating new experiences and information. Knowledge often becomes embedded in
documents or repositories and in organizational
routines, processes, practices, and norms. Knowledge is also about meaning in the sense that it is
context-specific (Huber, Davenport, and King,
1998). Jennex (2006) extends the concepts of
context to also include associated culture that
provides frameworks for understanding and using
knowledge. Ultimately we conclude that knowledge contains information, but information is not
necessarily knowledge. Also, we conclude that
OM contains knowledge. However, for the sake
of simplicity, we will use the term knowledge to
refer to OM and knowledge throughout this paper.
Various knowledge taxonomies exist. Alavi and
Leidner (2001) and Jennex and Croasdell (2005)
found that the most commonly used taxonomy is
Polyanis (1964 and 1967) and Nonakas (1994)
dimensions of tacit and explicit knowledge. This
paper uses this taxonomy for knowledge. Tacit
knowledge is that which is understood within
a knowers mind. It consists of cognitive and
technical components. Cognitive components
are the mental models used by the knower and
which cannot be directly expressed by data or
15
knowledge representations. Technical components are concrete concepts that can be readily
expressed. Explicit knowledge also consists of
these technical components that can be directly
expressed by knowledge representations. Knowledge management, KM, in an organization occurs
when members of an organization pass tacit and
explicit knowledge to each other. Information
Technology, IT, assists KM by providing knowledge repositories and methods for capturing and
retrieving knowledge. The extent of the dimension of the knowledge being captured limits the
effectiveness of IT in assisting KM. IT works best
with knowledge that is primarily in the explicit
dimension. Knowledge that is primarily in the tacit
dimension requires that more context be captured
with the knowledge where context is the information used to explain what the knowledge means
and how it is used. Managing tacit knowledge is
more difficult to support using IT solutions.
Jennex (2005) looked at what KM is and
found no consensus definition. However, using
the review board of the International Journal of
Knowledge Management as an expert panel and
soliciting definitions of KM that were used by the
board members, the following working definition
is used to define KM for this paper:
KM is the practice of selectively applying
knowledge from previous experiences of decision
making to current and future decision making
activities with the express purpose of improving
the organizations effectiveness.(Jennex, 2005)
KM is an action discipline; knowledge needs
to be used and applied for KM to have an impact.
We also need measurable impacts from knowledge
reuse for KM to be successful. Decision making
is something that can be measured and judged.
Organizations can tell if they are making the same
decisions over and over and if they are using
past knowledge to make these decisions quicker
and better. Also, decision making is the ultimate
application of knowledge. This working defini-
16
tion provides this direction for KM and leads to

a description of success for KM as being able to
provide the appropriate knowledge for decision
making when it is needed to those that need it.
Knowledge Management Systems

Alavi and Leidner (2001, p. 114) defined a KMS
as IT (Information Technology)-based systems
developed to support and enhance the organizational processes of knowledge creation, storage/
retrieval, transfer, and application. They observed
that not all KM initiatives will implement an IT
solution, but they support IT as an enabler of KM.
Maier (2002) expanded on the IT concept for the
KMS by calling it an ICT (Information and Communication Technology) system that supported the
functions of knowledge creation, construction,
identification, capturing, acquisition, selection,
valuation, organization, linking, structuring, formalization, visualization, distribution, retention,
maintenance, refinement, evolution, accessing,
search, and application. Stein and Zwass (1995)
define an Organizational Memory Information
System (OMS) as the processes and IT components
necessary to capture, store, and apply knowledge
created in the past on decisions currently being
made. Jennex and Olfman (2004) expanded this
definition by incorporating the OMS into the KMS
and adding strategy and service components to the
KMS. We expand the boundaries of a KMS by
taking a Churchman view of a system. Churchman (1979, p. 29) defines a system as a set of
parts coordinated to accomplish a set of goals;
and that there are five basic considerations for
determining the meaning of a system:
System objectives, including performance

measures
System environment
System resources
System components, their activities, goals
and measures of performance
System management.
Churchman (1979) also noted that systems

are always part of a larger system and that the
environment surrounding the system is outside the
systems control, but influences how the system
performs. The final view of a KMS is as a system
that includes IT/ICT components, repositories, users, processes that use and/or generate knowledge,
knowledge, knowledge use culture, and the KM
initiative with its associated goals and measures.
This final definition is important as it makes the
KMS an embodiment of the KM initiative and
making it possible to associate KM success with
KMS success.
KM Success
The above paragraphs define KM success as
reusing knowledge to improve organizational
effectiveness by providing the appropriate knowledge to those that need it when it is needed. KM is
expected to have a positive impact on the organization that improves organizational effectiveness.
DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) use the terms
success and effectiveness interchangeably. This
paper uses KM success and KM effectiveness
interchangeably by implying that increasing decision making effectiveness has a positive impact on
the organization resulting in successful KM. KM
and KMS success is also used interchangeably.
KMS success can be defined as making KMS
components more effective by improving search
speed, accuracy, etc. As an example, a KMS that
enhances search and retrieval functions enhances
decision making effectiveness by improving the
ability of the decision maker to find and retrieve
appropriate knowledge in a more timely manner. The implication is that by increasing KMS
effectiveness, KMS success is enhanced and
decision making capability is enhanced leading
to positive impacts on the organization. This is
how KM success is defined and it is concluded
that enhancing KMS effectiveness makes the KMS
more successful as well as being a reflection of
KM success.
delone and Mclean iS

Success Model
In 1992 DeLone and McLean published their
seminal work proposing a taxonomy and interactive model for conceptualizing and operationalizing IS Success (DeLone and McLean 1992).
The DeLone and McLean (D&M) IS Success
Model is based on a review and integration of
180 research studies that used some form of system success as a dependent variable. The model
identifies six interrelated dimensions of success
as shown in Figure 1. Each dimension can have
measures for determining their impact on success and each other. Jennex, et al. (1998) adopted
the generic framework of the D&M IS Success
Model and customized the dimensions to reflect
the System Quality and Use constructs needed for
an organizational memory information system,
OMS. Jennex and Olfman (2002) expanded this
OMS Success Model to include constructs for
Information Quality.
DeLone and McLean (2003) revisited the D&M
IS Success Model by incorporating subsequent
IS Success research and addressing criticisms of
the original model. 144 articles from refereed
journals and 15 papers from the International
Conference on Information Systems, ICIS, citing
the D&M IS Success Model were reviewed with
14 of these articles reporting on studies that attempted to empirically investigate the model. The
result of the article is the modified D&M IS Success Model shown in Figure 2. Major changes
include the additions of a Service Quality dimension for the service provided by the IS group, the
modification of the Use dimension into a Intent
to Use dimension, the combination of the Individual and Organizational Impact dimensions into
an overall Net Benefits dimension, and the addition of a feedback loop from Net Benefits to Intent
to Use and User Satisfaction. This paper modifies
the Jennex and Olfman OMS Success Model into
a KM Success Model by applying KM research
and the modified D&M IS Success Model.
17
Figure 1. DeLone and McLeans IS Success Model (1992)
Figure 2. DeLone and McLeans Revisited IS Success Model (2003)
KM Success Model
The model developed in this paper was initially
proposed by Jennex, et al. (1998) after an ethnographic case study of KM in an engineering organization. The model was modified by Jennex and
Olfman (2002) following a five year longitudinal
study of knowledge management in an engineering organization and is based on the DeLone and
McLean (2003) revised IS Success Model. This
final model was developed to incorporate experience in using the model to design KMS and
for incorporating other KM/KMS success factor
research from the literature. Figure 3 shows the
KM Success Model. The KM Success Model is
based on DeLone and McLean (2003). Since the
KM Success Model is assessing the use of orga-
18
nizational knowledge, the Information Quality

dimension is renamed the Knowledge Quality
dimension. Also, because use of a KMS is usually
voluntary, the KM Success Model expanded the
Intention to Use dimension to include a Perceived
Benefit dimension based on Thompson, Higgins,
and Howells (1991) Perceived Benefit model used
to predict system usage when usage is voluntary.
Finally, since KM strategy/process is key to having
the right knowledge, the feedback loop is extended
back to this dimension. Dimension descriptions
of the model follow.
System Quality
Jennex and Olfman (2000, 2002) found infrastructure issues such as using a common network
Figure 3. KM Success Model
structure, adding KM skills to the technology

support skill set, using high end personal computers, integrated databases; and standardizing
hardware and software across the organization key
to building KM. The System Quality dimension
incorporates these findings and defines system
quality by how well KM performs the functions
of knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer,
and application; how much of the knowledge is
represented in the computerized portion of the OM,
and the KM infrastructure. Three constructs: the
technological resources of the organization, KM
form, and KM level are identified. Technological
resources define the capability of an organization
to develop, operate, and maintain KM. These

include aspects such as amount of experience
available for developing and maintaining KM,
the type of hardware, networks, interfaces, and
databases used to hold and manipulate knowledge, capacities and speeds associated with KM
infrastructure, and the competence of the users
to use KM tools. Technical resources enable the
KM form and KM level constructs.
KM form refers to the extent to which the
knowledge and KM processes are computerized
and integrated. This includes how much of the
accessible knowledge is on line and available
through a single interface and how integrated
19
the processes of knowledge creation, storage/

retrieval, transfer, and application are automated
and integrated into the routine organizational
processes. This construct incorporates concerns
from the integrative and adaptive effectiveness
clusters proposed for KMS effectiveness use by
Stein and Zwass (1995). This construct along with
the technological resources construct influences
the KM level construct.
KM level refers to the ability to bring knowledge to bear upon current activities. This refers
explicitly to the KM mnemonic functions such
as search, retrieval, manipulation, and abstraction; and how well they are implemented. The
technological resources and form of the KMS
influence this construct in that the stronger the
technical resources and the more integrated and
computerized knowledge is, the more important
this construct is and the more effective it can be.
Additional support for these constructs come
from Alavi and Leidner (1999) who found it
important to have an integrated and integrative
technology architecture that supports database,
communication, and search and retrieval functions. Davenport, et al. (1998) who found technical
infrastructure to be crucial to effective KM. Ginsberg and Kambil (1999) who found knowledge
representation, storage, search, retrieval, visualization, and quality control to be key technical
issues. Mandviwalla, et al. (1998) who described
technical issues affecting KMS design include
knowledge storage/repository considerations, how
information and knowledge is organized so that it
can be searched and linked to appropriate events
and use, and processes for integrating the various
repositories and for re-integrating information
and knowledge extracted from specific events,
and access locations as users rarely access the
KMS from a single location (leads to network
needs and security concerns). Sage and Rouse
(1999) who identified infrastructure for capturing,
searching, retrieving, and displaying knowledge
and an understood enterprise knowledge structure
as important. Finally, several of the KMS classifi-
20
cations focus on KM support tools, architecture,

or life cycle, all requiring strong system quality.
Ultimately, given the effectiveness of information technology to provide search, storage,
retrieval, and visualization capabilities rapidly,
it is expected that a more fully computerized
system utilizing network, semantic web, and data
warehouse technologies will result in the highest
levels of system quality.
Knowledge Quality
Jennex and Olfman (2000, 2002) identified that
having a KM process and an enterprise wide
knowledge infrastructure, incorporating KM
processes into regular work practices, and that
knowledge needs were different for users of different levels were key issues to determining and
implementing what is the right knowledge for KM
to capture. Additionally it was found that KM users have formal and/or informal drivers that guide
them in selecting information and knowledge to be
retained by KM and formal and informal processes
for reviewing and modifying stored information
and knowledge. The Knowledge Quality dimension incorporates this and ensures that the right
knowledge with sufficient context is captured and
available for the right users at the right time. Three
constructs: the KM strategy/process, knowledge
richness, and linkages between knowledge components are identified. The KM strategy/process
construct looks at the organizational processes for
identifying knowledge users and knowledge for
capture and reuse, the formality of these processes
including process planning, and the format and
context of the knowledge to be stored. This construct determines the contents and effectiveness
of the other two constructs. Richness reflects the
accuracy and timeliness of the stored knowledge
as well as having sufficient knowledge context and
cultural context to make the knowledge useful.
Linkages reflect the knowledge and topic maps
and/or listings of expertise available to identify
sources of knowledge to users in the organization.
Hansen et al (1999) describes two types of

knowledge strategy, personification and codification and warns of trying to follow both strategies
equally at the same time. These strategies refer
to how knowledge is captured, represented, retrieved, and used. However, KM strategy/process
also needs to reflect that the knowledge needs of
the users change over time as found by the longitudinal study (Jennex and Olfman, 2002) and
that new users have a hard time understanding
codified tacit knowledge (Koskinen, 2001). As
an example new users will follow personification until they understand the context in which
knowledge is captured and used, and then they
are willing to switch to a codification strategy.
Personification corresponds to linkages in the
model shown in Figure 3, and refers to the situation
where new users initially feel more comfortable
seeking knowledge contexts from recognized
human experts on a particular subject. Following
this phase, these users tend to switch to codified
knowledge; thus, codification corresponds to
richness in the model. Additionally, Brown, et
al. (2006) found that as the procedural complexity and teachability of knowledge increased the
tendency of users to rely on linkages (person to
person knowledge transfer) also increased. Jennex (2006) discuses the impact of context and
culture on knowledge reuse and the conclusion is
that as knowledge complexity grows, the ability
to capture the context and culture information
needed to ensure the knowledge is usable and used
correctly becomes more difficult and the richness
of the stored knowledge is less able to meet this
need resulting in users shifting to using linkages
and personification. This model disagrees with
Hansen et als (1999) finding that organizations
need to select a single strategy to concentrate on
while using the other strategy in a support role
by recognizing that both strategies will exist and
that they may be equal in importance.
Additional support for these constructs
comes from Barna (2003) who identified creating a standard knowledge submission process,
methodologies and processes for the codification, documentation, and storage of knowledge,
processes for capturing and converting individual
tacit knowledge into organizational knowledge as
important. Cross and Baird (2000) who found that
for KM to improve business performance it had
to increase organizational learning by supporting personal relationships between experts and
knowledge users, providing distributed databases
to store knowledge and pointers to knowledge,
providing work processes for users to convert
personal experience into organizational learning,
and providing direction to what knowledge the
organization needs to capture and learn from.
Davenport, et al. (1998) who identified three key
success factors for KM strategy/process as clearly
communicated purpose/goals, multiple channels
for knowledge transfer, and a standard, flexible
knowledge structure. Mandviwalla, et al. (1998)
who described several strategy issues affecting
KM design. These include the KM focus (who
are the users), the quantity of knowledge to be
captured and in what formats; who filters what
is captured, what reliance and/or limitations are
placed on the use of individual memories, how
long the knowledge is useful, and the work activities and processes that utilize KM. Sage and
Rouse (1999) who identified modeling processes
to identify knowledge needs and sources, KM
strategy for the identification of knowledge to
capture and use and who will use it, an understood
enterprise knowledge structure, and clear KM
goals as important.
Service Quality
The Service Quality dimension ensures that KM
has adequate support for users to utilize KM effectively. Three constructs, management support,
user KM service quality, and IS KM service quality, are identified. Management support refers to
the direction and support an organization needs
to provide to ensure that adequate resources are
allocated to the creation and maintenance of KM,
21
a knowledge sharing and using organizational

culture is developed, encouragement, incentives,
and direction is provided to the work force to encourage KM use, knowledge reuse, and knowledge
sharing; and that sufficient control structures are
created in the organization to monitor knowledge
and KM use. This construct enables the other
two constructs. User KM service quality refers
to the support provided by user organizations
to help their personnel utilize KM. This support
consists of providing training to their users on
how to use KM, how to query KM, and guidance and support for making knowledge capture,
knowledge reuse, and KM use part of routine
business processes. IS KM service quality refers
to the support provided by the IS organization to
KM users and to maintaining KM. This support
consists of building and maintaining KM tools and
infrastructure, maintaining the knowledge base,
building and providing knowledge maps of the
databases, and ensuring the reliability, security,
and availability of KM.
Our previous KM success model versions included the above constructs as part of the system
quality and knowledge quality dimensions. These
constructs were extracted from these dimensions
in order to generate the constructs for the service
quality dimension and to ensure the final KM
success model was consistent with DeLone and
McLean (2003).
Additional support for these constructs come
from Alavi and Leidner (1999) who found organizational and cultural issues associated with user
motivation to share and use knowledge to be the
most significant. Barna (2003) who identified the
main managerial success factor as creating and
promoting a culture of knowledge sharing within
the organization by articulating a corporate KM
vision, rewarding employees for knowledge sharing and creating communities of practice. Other
managerial success factors include obtaining
senior management support, creating a learning
organization, providing KM training; precisely
defining KM project objectives, and creating
22
relevant and easily accessible knowledge-sharing

databases and knowledge maps. Cross and Baird
(2000) who found that for KM to improve business performance it had to increase organizational
learning by supporting personal relationships
between experts and knowledge users, and providing incentives to motivate users to learn from
experience and to use KM. Davenport, et al. (1998)
who found senior management support, motivational incentives for KM users, and a knowledge
friendly culture critical issues. Ginsberg and
Kambil (1999) who found incentives to share
and use knowledge to be the key organizational
issues. Holsapple and Joshi (2000) who found
leadership and top management commitment/
support to be crucial. Resource influences such
as having sufficient financial support and skill
level of employees were also important. Malhotra
and Galletta (2003) who identified the critical
importance of user commitment and motivation
but found that using incentives did not guarantee
a successful KMS. Sage and Rouse (1999) who
identified incentives and motivation to use KM,
clear KM goals, and measuring and evaluating
the effectiveness of KM as important. Yu, et al.
(2004) who determined that KM drivers such as
a learning culture, knowledge sharing intention,
rewards, and KM team activity significantly affected KM performance
User Satisfaction
The User Satisfaction dimension is a construct
that measures satisfaction with KM by users. It
is considered a good complementary measure of
KM use as desire to use KM depends on users
being satisfied with KM. User satisfaction is considered a better measure for this dimension then
actual KM use as KM may not be used constantly
yet still be considered effective. Jennex (2005)
found that some KM repositories or knowledge
processes, such as email, may be used daily while
others may be used once a year or less. However,
it was also found that the importance of the once
a year use might be greater than that of the daily

use. This makes actual use a weak measure for
this dimension given that the amount of actual use
may have little impact on KM success, as long
as KM is used when appropriate, and supports
DeLone and McLean (2003) in dropping amount
of use as a measurement of success.
Intent to Use/Perceived Benefit

The Intent to Use/Perceived Benefit dimension
is a construct that measures perceptions of the
benefits of KM by users. It is good for predicting
continued KM use when KM use is voluntary, and
amount and/or effectiveness of KM use depends
on meeting current and future user needs. Jennex and Olfman (2002) used a perceived benefit
instrument adapted from Thompson, Higgins,
and Howell (1991) to measure user satisfaction
and predict continued intent to use KM when
KM use was voluntary. Thompson, Higgins, and
Howells (1991) perceived benefit model utilizes
Triandis (1980) theory that perceptions on future
consequences predict future actions. This construct
adapts the model to measure the relationships
between social factors concerning knowledge use,
perceived KM complexity, perceived near-term
job fit and benefits of knowledge use, perceived
long-term benefits of knowledge use, and fear of
job loss with respect to willingness to contribute
knowledge. Malhotra and Galletta (2003) created
an instrument for measuring user commitment and
motivation that is similar to Thompson, Higgins,
and Howells (1991) perceived benefit model but
based on self-determination theory that uses the
Perceived Locus of Causality that may also be
useful for predicting intent to use. Additionally,
Yu, et al. (2004) found that KM drivers such as
knowledge sharing intention significantly affected
KM performance.
Net Impact
An individuals use of KM will produce an impact
on that persons performance in the workplace. In
addition, DeLone and McLean (1992) note that
an individual impact could also be an indication
that an information system has given the user a
better understanding of the decision context, has
improved his or her decision-making productivity, has produced a change in user activity, or has
changed the decision makers perception of the
importance or usefulness of the information system. Each individual impact should have an effect
on the performance of the whole organization.
Organizational impacts usually are not the summation of individual impacts, so the association
between individual and organizational impacts
is often difficult to draw. DeLone and McLean
(2003) recognized this difficulty and combined
all impacts into a single dimension. Davenport,
et al. (1998) overcame this by looking for the establishment of linkages to economic performance.
Alavi and Leidner (1999) also found it important
to measure the benefits of KM as did Jennex and
Olfman (2000).
We agree with combining all impacts into
one dimension and the addition of the feedback
loop to the User Satisfaction and Intent to Use/
Perceived Benefit dimensions but take it a step
further and extend the feedback loop to include
the KM Strategy/Process construct. Jennex and
Olfman (2002) showed this feedback in their
model relating KM, OM, organizational learning,
and effectiveness shown in Figure 4. This model
recognizes that the use of knowledge may have
good or bad benefits. It is feedback from these
benefits that drives the organization to either use
more of the same type of knowledge or to forget
the knowledge and which also provides users with
feedback on the benefit of the KMS. Alavi and
Leidner (2001) also agree that KM should allow
for forgetting of some knowledge when it has no
or detrimental benefits. To ensure this is done
23
Figure 4. The OM/KM Model
feedback on the value of stored knowledge needs

to be fed into the KM Strategy/Process construct.
operationalization of the Success

Model
Jennex and Olfman (2002) performed a longitudinal study of KM in an engineering organization
that identified a link between knowledge use and
improved organizational effectiveness. Although
a great deal of quantitative data was taken, it was
not possible to quantify productivity gains as a
function of knowledge use. KM was found to be
effective and to have improved in effectiveness
over a five-year period. Additionally, the engineers
were found to be more productive.
Jennex (2000) applied an early version of this
model to the construction and implementation of
a knowledge management website for assisting
a virtual project team. It was found that applying
the model to the design of the site resulted in the
project going from lagging to a leading project
in just a few months.
24
Hatami et al. (2003) used the KM Success

Model to analyze knowledge reuse and the effectiveness of decision-making. They found the
model useful in explaining the effects of culture
and knowledge needs on the overall KM success.
Jennex, Olfman, and Addo (2003) investigated
the need for having an organizational KM strategy
to ensure that knowledge benefits gained from
projects are captured for use in the organization.
They found that benefits from Y2K projects were
not being captured because the parent organizations did not have a KM strategy/process. Their
conclusion was that KM in projects can exist and
can assist projects in utilizing knowledge during
the project. However, it also led to the conclusion
that the parent organization will not benefit from
project based KM unless the organization has an
overall KM strategy/process.
The following discussion combines these
studies to provide methods of operationalizing the
constructs proposed previously. Table 1 summarizes the various measures applied in these studies.
Table 1. KMS success model data collection methods

Construct
Data Collection Method
Technical Resources
User competency survey, observation and document research of IS capabilities, interview with
IS Manager on infrastructure
Form of KMS
Interviews and survey of knowledge sources and form
Level of KMS
Survey of satisfaction with retrieval times, usability testing on KMS functions
KM Strategy/Process
Survey on drivers for putting knowledge into the KMS and for satisfaction with the knowledge
in the KMS, check on if a formal strategy/process exists
Richness
Usability test on adequacy of stored knowledge and associated context, interviews and satisfaction survey on adequacy of knowledge in KMS
Linkages
Usability test on adequacy of stored linkages, interviews and satisfaction surveys on satisfaction with linkages stored in KMS
Management Support
Interviews and Social Factors construct of Thompson, Higgins, and Howells survey on perceived benefit
IS KM Service Quality
Interview with IS Manager on IS capabilities. Interviews with users on needs and capabilities.
Suggest adding user satisfaction survey on service issues
User Organization KM Service Quality
Interview with user organization KM team on capabilities and responsibilities, and needs from
IS. Interview with users on needs and capabilities. Suggest adding user satisfaction survey on
service issues
User Satisfaction
Intent to Use/ Perceived Benefit
Net Impacts
Doll and. Torkzadeh (1988) End User Satisfaction Measure, any other user satisfaction measure
Thompson, Higgins, and Howells (1991) survey on perceived benefit
Determine Individual and Organizational productivity models through interviews, observation,
tend to be specific to organizations
System Quality
Three constructs were proposed for the system
quality dimension: technical resources, KM
form, and KM level. Jennex and Olfman (2002)
found that the capabilities of the IS organization
and the users can impact the success of KM. IS
infrastructure and organizational capabilities that
enhanced KM effectiveness included a fast, high
capacity infrastructure, strong application development skills, network skills, and awareness of
the user organizations knowledge requirements.
Users capabilities that enhanced KM effectiveness included a high degree of computer literacy
and high-end personal computers. Given the
importance of these technical resources, operationalization of the technical resources construct
can be accomplished by focusing on the overall
experience of the development group in building
and maintaining networked systems that support
KM, the computer capabilities of KM end-users,

and the quality of hardware, network, application,
and operating system capabilities of workstations
supporting KM.
KM level was defined as the ability to bring
past information to bear upon current activities.
This can be measured in terms of Stein and Zwasss
(1995) mnemonic functions including knowledge
acquisition, retention, maintenance, search, and
retrieval. It is expected that more effective KM
will include more sophisticated levels of these
functions. For example, more sophisticated KM
should contain the ability to do filtering, guided
exploration, and to grow memory. Usability testing
of these functions can serve as measure of how
effective they are implemented.
KM form refers to the extent to which knowledge is computerized and integrated. In essence,
the more computerized the memory (personification and codification approaches), the more inte-
25
grated it can be. That is, if all knowledge sources

are available in computer-based form, then it will
be possible to more effectively search and retrieve
knowledge. Integration also speaks to the external
consistency of the various KM tools. Jennex and
Olfman (2002) found that although much of the
KM used by the engineering organization was
computerized, there were many different KMS
components, each with varying kinds of storage
mechanisms and interfaces. These components
were poorly integrated, relying mainly on the
copy and paste features of the Windows interface,
and therefore limited the ability of workers to
utilize KM effectively. It was evident that more
sophisticated technical resources could produce
a more integrated set of components. Surveys of
actual knowledge repositories used for KM can
determine how much knowledge is stored in computerized forms. It is desired, but not practical, to
have all knowledge in a computer. Assessment of
this construct should focus on how much of the
knowledge that is practical for computer storage
is computerized.
Knowledge Quality
Knowledge quality has three constructs, KM strategy/process, richness, and linkages. Jennex and
Olfman (2002) used surveys of users to determine
drivers for putting knowledge into KM repositories
and user satisfaction with the knowledge that was
in these repositories. Jennex, Olfman, and Addo
(2003) surveyed organizations to determine if they
had a KM strategy and how formal it was. Jennex
and Olfman (2002) used interviews of KM users
to determine their satisfaction with the accuracy,
timeliness, and adequacy of available knowledge.
The need for linkages and personification of
knowledge was found through interviews with
users on where they went to retrieve knowledge.
Additionally, it was found that users KM needs
vary depending on their experience level in the
organization. Context of the knowledge is critical.
New members did not have this context and the
26
knowledge repositories did not store sufficient

context for a new member to understand and
use the stored knowledge. It was found that new
members need linkages to the human sources of
knowledge. It is not expected that KM will ever
be able to do an adequate job of storing context
so it is recommended that KM store linkages to
knowledge.
Service Quality
Service quality was defined previously as how well
the organization supports KM. Three constructs
are proposed: management support, IS KM service
quality, and user KM service quality. Jennex and
Olfman (2002) identified these constructs through
interviews that found evidence to show that the
service quality of the IS and user organizations
can impact KM success and that service quality
was determined by the organizations possessing
certain capabilities. IS KM service consisted of IS
being able to build and maintain KM components
and to map the knowledge base. IS organizational
capabilities that enhanced this service effectiveness included data integration skills, knowledge
representation skills, and awareness of the user
organizations knowledge requirements. User organization KM service consisted of incorporating
knowledge capture into work processes and being
able to identify key knowledge requirements.
User organization KM capabilities that enhanced
this service effectiveness included understanding and being able to implement KM techniques
such as knowledge taxonomies, ontologies, and
knowledge maps; and process analysis capabilities. Additionally, service was enhanced by either
the IS or the user organization providing training
on how to construct knowledge searches, where
the knowledge was located, and how to use KM.
The key construct, management support, was
measured using interviews and the social factors
measure of Thompson, Higgins, and Howells
survey on perceived benefit. The social factors
measure uses a likert scale survey to determine
perceptions of support from peers, supervisors, and

managers and gives a good view as to the ability
of the organizational culture to support KM and
management support for doing KM. Additionally,
individual and organizational productivity models
were generated using interviews with managers that provide an assessment of the impact of
knowledge use on individuals and organizations
and what incentives are being used to encourage
KM participation.
IS organization KM support was measured by
determining the overall experience of the development group in building and maintaining networked
systems that support KM and the satisfaction of
the KM end-users with this support. User organization KM support was measured by determining
what support was provided and how satisfied the
users were with it. Measures assessing specific
areas of capability can be used should less than
acceptable service satisfaction be found.
User Satisfaction
User satisfaction is a construct that measures perceptions of KM by users. This is one of the most
frequently measured aspects of IS Success, and
it is also a construct with a multitude of measurement instruments. User satisfaction can relate to
both product and service. As noted above, product
satisfaction is often used to measure knowledge
quality. Product satisfaction can be measured
using the 12-item instrument developed by Doll
and Tordzadeh (1988). This measure addresses
satisfaction with content, accuracy, format, ease
of use, and timeliness. Additionally, measures
addressing satisfaction with interfaces should
be used. Other user satisfaction measures can be
used to assess the specific quality constructs as
discussed in previous paragraphs.
Intent to Use/Perceived Benefit

Jennex, et al. (1998) used Thompson, Higgins,
and Howells (1991) Perceived Benefit Model
to predict continued voluntary usage of KM by

the engineering organization. Four factors from
the model plus one added by Jennex and Olfman
were in the survey:
Job fit of KM, near term consequences of

using KM
Job fit of KM, long term consequences of
using KM
Social factors in support of using KM
Complexity of KM tools and processes.
Fear of job loss for contributing knowledge to KM
All five factors were found to support continued KM use during the initial measurements.
Jennex and Olfman (2002) found continued KM
use throughout the five years of observing KM
usage and concluded that the Perceived Benefit
model was useful for predicting continued use.
Jennex (2000) used these factors to design the
site, work processes, and management processes
for a virtual project team using web based KM
to perform a utility Year 2000 project. Promoting
the Social factors and providing near term job fit
were critical in ensuring the virtual project team
utilized KM. KM use was considered highly successful as the project went from performing in the
bottom third of utility projects to performing in
the top third of all utility projects.
Net Benefits
The net benefits dimension looks for any benefits
attributed to use of the KMS. We attempted to
measure benefits associated with individual and
organizational use of KM through the generation
of productivity models which identified where
knowledge use impacted productivity. KM benefits for an individual are found in their work
processes. Jennex and Olfman (2002) queried
supervisors and managers to determine what they
believed were the nature of individual productivity in the context of the station-engineering work
27
process. The interviews revealed a complex set

of factors. Those benefiting from KM include:
Timeliness in completing assignments and

doing them right the first time
Number of assignments completed
Identification and completion of high priority assignments
Completeness of solutions
Quality of solutions (thoroughness and
accuracy)
Complexity of the work that can be assigned to an engineer
Client satisfaction.
While many of these factors are measured

quantitatively, it was not possible to directly
attribute changes in performance solely to KM
use although improvements in performance were
qualitatively attributed to KM use. Additionally,
Jennex and Olfman (2002) asked 20 engineers to
indicate whether they were more productive now
than 5 or 10 years ago, and all but one thought they
were. This improvement was primarily attributed
to KM use but was also a qualitative assessment.
Organizational impacts relate to the effectiveness of the organization as a whole. For a nuclear
power plant, specific measures of effectiveness
were available. These measures relate to assessments performed by external organizations, as
well as those performed internally. External assessments were found to be the most influenced
by KM use. Jennex and Olfman (2002) found
measures such as the SALP, Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance, Reports issued
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and site
evaluations performed by the Institute of Nuclear
Power Operations, INPO. Review of SALP scores
issued since 1988 showed an increase from a rating of 2 to a rating of 1 in 1996. This rating was
maintained through the 5 years of the study. An
INPO evaluation was conducted during the spring
of 1996 and resulted in a 1 rating. This rating
28
was also maintained throughout the 5 years of

the study. These assessments identified several
strengths directly related to engineer productivity
using KM. These include decision-making, root
cause analysis, problem resolution, timeliness,
and Operability Assessment documentation.
This demonstrates a direct link between engineer
productivity and organization productivity. Also,
since organization productivity is rated highly, it
can be inferred that engineer productivity is high.
Two internal indicators were linked to KM use:
unit capacity and unplanned automatic scrams.
Unit capacity and unplanned scrams are influenced
by how well the engineers evaluate and correct
problems. Both indicators improved over time.
These two indicators plus unplanned outages and
duration of outages became the standard measure
during the Jennex and Olfman (2002) study and
reporting and monitoring of these factors significantly improved during the study.
The conclusion is that net benefits should be
measured using measures that are specific to the
organization and are influenced by the use of KM.
Suitable measures were found in all the studies
used for this paper and it is believed they can be
found for any organization.
concluSion
The DeLone and McLean IS Success Model is a
generally accepted model for assessing success
of an IS. Adapting the model to KM is a viable
approach to assessing KM success. The model
presented in this paper meets the spirit and intent of
DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003). Additionally,
Jennex (2000) used an earlier version of the KM
Success Model to design, build, and implement
Intranet based KM that was found to be very
effective and successful. The conclusion of this
paper is that the KM Success Model is a useful
model for predicting KM success. It is also useful
for designing effective KM.
areaS for future reSearcH

DeLone & McLean (1992, pp. 87-88) stated that
Researchers should systematically combine individual measures from the IS success categories to
create a comprehensive measurement instrument.
This is the major area for future KM success
research. Jennex and Olfman (2002) provided a
basis for exploring a quantitative analysis and test
of the KM Success Model. To extend this work, it
is suggested that a survey instrument to assess the
effectiveness of KM within other nuclear power
plant engineering organizations in the United
States be developed and administered. Since
these organizations have similar characteristics
and goals, they provide an opportunity to gain
a homogeneous set of data to use for testing the
model and to ultimately generate a generic set of
KM success measures.
Additionally, other measures need to be assessed for applicability to the model. In particular,
the Technology Acceptance Model, Perceived
Usefulness (Davis, 1989) should be investigated
as a possible measure for Intent to Use/Perceived
Benefit.
referenceS
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review:
Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107136.
doi:10.2307/3250961
Barna, Z. (2003). Knowledge Management: A Critical E-Business Strategic Factor (Unpublished
Masters Thesis). San Diego State University.
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Gant, D. B. (2006).
Understanding the Factors Influencing the Value
of Person-to-Person Knowledge Sharing. 39th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society.
Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach

(revised and updated). New York: Dell Publishing.
Review, 41(3), 4154.
Davenport, T. H., DeLong, D. W., & Beers, M. C.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13, 319340. doi:10.2307/249008
doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60
DeLone and McLean Model of Information
Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of
Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12,
259275. doi:10.2307/248851
Ginsberg, M., & Kambil, A. (1999). Annotate:
A Web-based Knowledge Management Support
System for Document Collections. In Proceedings
of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999).
Whats Your Strategy For Managing Knowledge? Harvard Business Review, (March-April):
106116.
29
Hatami, A., Galliers, R. D., & Huang, J. (2003).

Exploring the Impacts of Knowledge (Re) Use and
Organizational Memory on the Effectiveness of
Strategic Decisions: A Longitudinal Case Study.
36th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, IEEE Computer Society.
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2000). An Investigation of Factors that Influence the Management of Knowledge in Organizations. The Journal
of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 235261.
doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00046-9
Huber, G. P., Davenport, T. H., & King, D. (1998).
Some Perspectives on Organizational Memory,
Unpublished Working Paper for the Task Force
on Organizational Memory, In F. Burstein, G.
Huber, M. Mandviwalla, J. Morrison, and L. Olfman, (eds.), Presented at the 31st Annual Hawaii
Jennex, M. E. (2000). Using an Intranet to Manage
Knowledge for a Virtual Project Team, InternetBased Organizational Memory and Knowledge
Management (Schwartz, D. G., Divitini, M., &
Brasethvik, T., Eds.). Idea Group Publishing.
Jennex, M. E. (2005). What is Knowledge Management? International Journal of Knowledge
Jennex, M. E. (2006). Culture, Context, and
Knowledge Management. International Journal
Jennex, M. E., & Croasdell, D. (2005). Knowledge
Management: Are We A Discipline? International
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. Pituma, P., and
Yong-Tae, P., (1998). An Organizational Memory
Information Systems Success Model: An Extension of DeLone and McLeans I/S Success Model.
In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE
Computer Society.
30
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2000). Development

Recommendations for Knowledge Management/
Organizational Memory Systems. In Proceedings of the Information Systems Development
Conference.
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2002). Organizational Memory/Knowledge Effects on Productivity, A Longitudinal Study. In Proceedings of the
35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society.
Jennex, M. E., Olfman, L., & Addo, T. B. A. (2003).
The Need for an Organizational Knowledge
Management Strategy, 36th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, HICSS36, IEEE
Computer Society.
Koskinen, K. U. (2001). Tacit Knowledge as a
Promoter of Success in Technology Firms. 34th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society.
Maier, R. (2002). Knowledge Management
Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. (2003). Role of
Commitment and Motivation as Antecedents of
Knowledge Management Systems Implementation.
Sciences, IEEE Computer Society.
Mandviwalla, M., Eulgem, S., Mould, C., & Rao,
S. V. (1998). Organizational Memory Systems
Design. Unpublished Working Paper for the Task
Force on Organizational Memory, Burstein, F.,
Huber, G., Mandviwalla, M., Morrison, J., and
Olfman, L. (eds.), Presented at the 31st Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), 1437. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Polanyi, M. (1964). Personal Knowledge: Toward

a Post-Critical Philosophy. New York: Harper
Torch Books.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. London:
Routledge.
Sage, A. P., & Rouse, W. B. (1999). Information
Systems Frontiers in Knowledge Management.
Information Systems Frontiers, 1(3), 205219.
doi:10.1023/A:1010046210832
Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing Organizational Memory With Information Systems.
Information Systems Research, 6(2), 85117.
doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.85
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M.
(1991). Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual
Model of Utilization. Management Information
Systems Quarterly, 125143. doi:10.2307/249443
Triandis, H. C. (1980). Beliefs, Attitudes, and

Values. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Turban, E., & Aronson, J. E. (2001). Decision
Support Systems and Intelligent Systems (6th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational Memory. Academy of Management Review,
16(1), 5791. doi:10.2307/258607
Yu, S.-H., Kim, Y.-G., & Kim, M.-Y. (2004).
Linking Organizational Knowledge Management
Drivers to Knowledge Management Performance:
An Exploratory Study. 37th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, HICSS36, IEEE
Computer Society.
31
32
Chapter 3
Market Knowledge
Management, Innovation
and Product Performance:
Survey in Medium and Large
Brazilian Industrial Firms
Cid Gonalves Filho
FUMEC University, Brazil
Rodrigo Baroni de Carvalho
George Leal Jamil
abStract
In a business environment characterized by a high level of competitiveness, the impact of new products
on an organizations revenue is an important factor. This research was developed with the objective
of examining empirically the relationships between market knowledge management, innovation and
the performance of new products in the market. This chapter analyzes KM (Knowledge Management)
success trough a market-oriented perspective because, at the end of the day, KM success must lead to
better organizational performance. The research model was generated by the combination of market
knowledge models and KM success and maturity models. By means of a survey, based on 387 medium
and large industrial firms, and the use of structural equation modeling, the supremacy of the competitor
knowledge management process over other constructs was verified, as the most important antecedent of
new product performance in the market. The results also revealed that innovation was strongly impacted
from technology knowledge management and customer knowledge management.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch003
Market Knowledge Management, Innovation and Product Performance
introduction
In a business environment characterized by a high
level of competitiveness, the impact of new products on revenues is an important factor. Innovation
consequences include firms innovativeness, their
ability to create and implement new ideas, products and processes, and new product performance
defined as the success of new products in terms
of market share, sales, return on investment, and
profitability (Im and Workman, 2004; Hult and
Ketchen, 2001; Kirca et al., 2005). Innovation
is usually described as a knowledge-intensive
activity, involving the discovery, experimentation,
and development of new technologies, services,
production processes and organizational structures (Carneiro, 2000; Khalifa et al., 2008). In
a post-industrial society, the growing perception
of the strategic role of knowledge in innovation
processes has contributed to the development of
Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives.
KM refers to identifying and leveraging the
collective knowledge in an organization to help
it compete (von Krogh, 1998). KM intends to be
an area of research and practice that deepens the
understanding of knowledge processes in organizations, and develops procedures and instruments
to support the transformation of knowledge into
economic and social progress (Carvalho and
Ferreira, 2001). In fact, different aspects of these
issues have been studied for decades in many different disciplines, and one of the most important
contributions of the KM concept is creating a space
(in academic and business world) where practitioners and scholars from different backgrounds
may discuss and work together.
KM is closely related to the organizations
capabilities of collecting, filtering, organizing and
disseminating existing information and knowledge. The organizational knowledge strategy
is usually a mix of exploitation and exploration
(Choo and Bontis, 2002). Exploitation emphasizes
knowledge codification and the reuse of existing
knowledge. When exploitation is overemphasized,
the organization may diminish its capacity to innovate, resulting in obsolescence. On the other
hand, exploration stimulates the creation of new
knowledge, applying it to the development of
products and services. When exploration is overemphasized, the organization reduces its ability
to externalize knowledge and to convert it into
organizational memory. Despite the quicker return
on investment (ROI) of exploitation approach, the
dynamic balance between exploration and exploitation seems to produce better results in a longer
term, because innovation demands exploration.
Furthermore, the collaborative development of
strategy leverages a firms collective knowledge
and capabilities, leading to more creative and
realistic strategies (Gebhardt et al., 2006). This
collaborative process also leads to higher commitment to the firm, which again increases the
likelihood of success.
Internal sources of organizational knowledge
include business processes, databases and employees, while external sources consist of interorganizational processes, customers, business
partners, market and competitive intelligence
(Khalifa et al., 2008). Many of the existing studies
in the KM field place more emphasis on organizational internal knowledge and its exploitation.
This survey intended to discuss the exploration
perspective that is related to market and customer
knowledge, pushing the KM approach out of the
boundaries of the firm.
This complimentary orientation is justified
because it was observed that the financial results
of some firms have improved more than others in
the same market segment. As a result of efficient
market orientation and creative management of
market knowledge, it is possible that consecutive
releases of new products and services with a high
level of market acceptance have contributed to this
advantageous position. According to Martin et al.
(2009), a market orientation is a strong source of
sustainable competitive advantage because it is
difficult to imitate, focuses the firm on finding
33
oportunitties for growth, and reduces the time lag

for responding to those opportunities.
This chapter analyzes KM success trough a
market-oriented perspective because, at the end
of the day, KM success must lead to better organizational performance which is closely related
to market results. Furthermore, competitive capacity and position in the market (sales, market
share, brand equity), proximity to customers and
customer satisfaction, and innovative ability and
activity are considered typical outcomes of organizational performance (Jennex, Smolnik, and
Croasdell, 2008). KM success includes the ability
of obtaining knowledge about the environment and
if a firm is not able to obtain market information,
it will not be able to set strategies with efficiency
and leverage performance. In a research developed
by Jennex et al., (2007), it was observed that
practitioners support the use of firm performance
measures as indicators of KM success because
they tend to favor definitions and measures that
are objective and have an obvious impact on the
organization, such as the new product performance
discussed in this chapter.
Nevertheless, some doubts arise whether the
KM initiatives are successful or if KM is just
another management fad. According to Verhoef
and Leeflang (2009), short-term financial measures still dominate management functions to the
detriment of strategic thinking and this pressure
increases as the the economy suffers and global
competition grows. To answer these questions,
both researchers and practitioners have developed
different approaches to understand and measure
the impact of KM (Paulzen and Perc, 2002; Berztis,
2002; Anantatmula and Kanungo, 2005; Khalifa
et al., 2008; Jennex et al., 2008). Some of these
approaches will be detailed further in this chapter.
Additionally, the marketing strategy literature
posits that market orientation provides a firm
with the market-sensing and customer-linking
capabilities that lead to a superior organizational
performance (Hult and Ketchen, 2001;Kirca et
al. 2005). These points raised a fundamental
34
question: What is the impact of the processes of

market knowledge management on innovation
and market results of new products?
The following section was organized to introduce the concept of market KM and to present
some KM success measurement models.
bacKground
Market orientation and Market KM
At the beginning of the 1950s, the concept of
marketing and the philosophical foundations of
the marketing orientation were introduced. Glazer
(1991) considers market knowledge a companys
strategic resource. Aaker (1998), Aaker et al.
(1998), Capon et al.(1992), Day (1999) and Geus
(1997) observed that the competencies in associated with market knowledge can be the elements
that generate competitive advantages in new
products (Porter, 1995).
Market orientation has been conceptualized
from both behavioral and cultural perspectives
(Kirca et al., 2005). The behavioral perspective
concentrates on organizational activities that are
associated to the generation, distribuition and
responsiveness to market intelligence (Kohli and
Jaworski, 1990). On the other hand, the cultural
perspective places focus on organizational norms
and values that encourage behaviors that are
consistent with market orientation (Narver and
Slater, 1990). Market orientation is a fundamental
aspect of an organizations culture that defines
competitive value, norms, artifacts and behaviors
that collectively create the opportunity for competitive advantage (Martin et al., 2009). Verhoef
and Leeflang (2009) defines market orientation
as a business culture that (1) places the highest
priority on the profitable creation and maintenance
of superior values for customers while considering
the interest of other stakeholders and (2) provides
norms of behaviors regarding market information.
The cultural perspective is also present in some KM
success models such as Lindsey (2002) and Ehms

and Lagen (2002). Jennex and Olfman (2005) also
included organizational culture and structure for
learning, sharing and use of knowledge in a set
of 12 KM critical success factors (CSF).
Narver and Slater (1990) observed that a business should be capable of maintaining a culture
able to generate behaviors oriented to the market
in order to create superior value for the customers
and to obtain sustained competitive advantage. In
this connection, they defined market orientation
as an organizational culture that aims to create
and put into practice, in an efficient way, behaviors that generate value for the customers and
consequently (Slywotzky, 1996), better results
in the marketplace. Narver and Slater (1990)
confirmed the hypothesis that market orientation
has a significant impact on business performance.
It therefore makes sense to hold that the orientation to customers, orientation to competitors and
inter function coordination produce results for
companies.
Based on marketing orientation theory, Li and
Calantone (1998) defined marketing knowledge
as organized and structured information about the
market. In this definition, organized means it is
the result of systematic processing (as opposed
to random picking) and structured implies that it
is endowed with useful meaning (as opposed to
discrete items of irrelevant data).
The authors defined Competence of Market
Knowledge as three processes that integrate and
generate market knowledge. The three following
processes are implemented as a series of activities
that generate and integrate knowledge: management of customer knowledge; management of
competitor knowledge; and marketing-Research
& Development (R&D) interface. Although many
organizations perceive the importance of market
knowledge, there is a trend among managers to
overemphasize one process while ignoring the
others (Day and Wesley, 1988). Li and Calantone
(1998) stated that such imbalanced practice might
result in fragmentary knowledge and weaken the

effectiveness of a market KM system.
The process of customer knowledge management refers to the group of activities and behaviors
that generate knowledge about the current and
potential needs of customers concerning new
products. The process of competitor knowledge
management involves behavioral activities that
generate knowledge about competitors strategies
and actions. The interface between marketing and
R&D refers to the process by which the marketing and R&D areas communicate and cooperate
with one another. Li and Calantone (1998) applied
multivariate techniques to evaluate the following
model (Figure 1):
This study considered processes of knowledge
management that were mainly focused on knowledge available in the market, so it did not consider new knowledge generated inside the organization from innovation. Li and Calantone (1998)
also checked the influence of the processes of
customer and competitor knowledge management
on the competitive advantage of new products.
However, the weights obtained (standardized
betas) were 0.23 and 0.20 respectively, and, although relatively low, were significant. The findings also indicated that the perceived importance
of market knowledge by top management had the
largest impact on the process of market knowledge
competence. One of the interesting results of Li
and Calantones work (1998) was the evidence
that the most innovative firms, called by them as
first-movers due their short time to market, would
be able to achieve better performance because
they would have better and earlier access to customer information.
Hurley and Hult (1998) carried out important
research looking for causal relationships and
antecedents of competitive advantage, with a
special focus on innovation. In this research,
characteristics of the organization concerning
structures, processes and culture were proposed
as antecedents of innovation and performance in
the market (Figure 2).
35
Figure 1. Li and Calantones (1998) research model
Figure 2. Hurley and Hults (1998) research model
36
Hurley and Hults (1998) research, as well as

that carried out by Li and Calantone (1998),
demonstrated strong relations with the work of
Narver and Slater (1990) and the marketing orientation.
KM Success and KM Maturity Models

The knowledge-based view (KBV) highlights
knowledge-intensive capabilities as the main drivers of organizational performance (Grant, 1996;
Khalifa et al., 2008). Compared to a subject such
as software engineering however, the domain of
KM consists more of soft subjects to be considered. However, the existence of open standards
and common approaches for KM will allow future
work to start from a higher level, and the most
arguments which are brought against standardization of KM can be classified as general concern
against standardization (Weber et al., 2002).
In a maturity model, the levels are characterized
by specific requirements that have to be achieved
on that level, and it is highly improbable to skip a
level in an evolutionary process. An assumption of
a maturity model is that more mature organizations
have higher chances of obtaining success in their
projects. For an immature organization, success
might be a matter of trial and error, luck or as a
result of a heroic effort. In other words, it is hard
to expect clean water (organizational success) from
rusty pipes (inefficient and immature processes).
Two widely known approaches among KM
practitioners are the APQC (American Productivity & Quality Center) Road Map to KM results, and
the KMMM (KM Maturity Model) developed by
Siemens. The APQC Road Map is a methodology
to guide organizations through the five stages of
KM implementation, with relevant advice concerning processes, structures, and enablers (Hubert
and ODell, 2004). The APQC Road Map provides
a qualitative evaluation of KM practices in their
five following stages: getting started; explore and
experiment; pilots and KM initiatives; expand and
support; and institutionalize KM.
The KMMM provides qualitative and quantitative results, allowing a comprehensive assessment of the KM activities which covers eight key
areas: strategy and knowledge goals; environment
and partnerships; people and competencies; collaboration and culture; leadership and support;
knowledge structures and knowledge forms;
technology and infrastructure; processes, roles,
and organization (Ehms and Langen, 2002).
The KMMM received a strong influence of
the CMM (Capability Maturity Model) of the
Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie
Mellon University. Although the CMM (Paulk et
al., 1995) is applied to the software development
context, the KMMM adopts the same name for its
five levels, and adapts the maturity concept to the
KM domain. The five levels are: initial, repeatable,
defined, managed, and optimizing. The maturity
level is assessed for the individual topics and condensed into one maturity level for each key area.
Berztiss (2002) also proposed a capability
maturity model for KM based on CMM. The following requirements, defined by CMM as KPA
(key process areas), were suggested for each KM
maturity level:
Level 1: absence of structured KM

practices;
Level 2: knowledge requirements management, internal knowledge acquisition, uncertainty awareness and training;
Level 3: knowledge representation, user
access and profiling;
Level 4: integrated KM process, external
knowledge acquisition, cost-benefit qualitative analysis;
Level 5: technical change management
and quantitative cost/benefit analysis.
In order to establish a more consistent link

between market orientation and KM, the research
model proposed in this chapter will also have the
Knowing Organization Model (Choo, 1998) as a
theoretical background. This framework describes
37
organizations as systems where the processes of

sensemaking, knowledge creating and decisionmaking are continuously interacting and combining external and internal knowledge. Sensemaking
is closely related to market orientation as it is
defined as how the organization interprets and
makes sense of its changing environment which
leads to shared meanings and intent. Knowledge
creation is accomplished through the conversion
and sharing of different forms of organizational
knowledge, resulting in new capabilities, new
products and innovation. Finally, the organization
processes and analyzes information through the
use of rules and routines that reduce complexity
and uncertainty (Choo, 1998).
Smith and Farquhar (2000) proposed four
success statements for KM: (1) The organization
knows what it knows and uses it and knows what
it needs to know and learns it; (2) For any project,
for any customer, the project team delivers the
knowledge of the overall organization; (3) The
organization delivers the right information, to
the right people, at the right time with the tools
they need to use it; (4) The perspective of the
employees is aligned with that of the customers.
Lindsey (2002) proposed a KM effectiveness
model with two constructs: knowledge infrastructure capability and knowledge process capability.
The first construct represents social capital (relationships between knowledge sources and users)
and is operationalized by technology, structure,
and cultural context. Knowledge process capability represents the integration of KM processes
into the organization and is operationalized by
acquisition, conversion, application, and protection of knowledge (Lindsey, 2002; Jennex, 2005).
Massey et al. (2002) presented a KM success model with the following key components:
strategy (knowledge processes, users, technology
infrastructure), key managerial influences (top
management support, KM leadership, KM metrics), key resources influences (mainly financial
resources), and key environmental influences
defined as the external forces that drive the orga-
38
nization to exploit its knowledge to maintain its

competitive position. This chapter places more
focus on the key environmental influences that
are critical not only to KM success, but also to
organizational success.
On the other hand, after studying 147 organizations in 21 countries, Anantatmula and Kanungo
(2005) stated that widely accepted criteria and
performance measures have not been developed
for KM. Their research questions were: what are
the criteria for measuring KM success?; and how
do managers use and understand these criteria to
leverage their KM assets? Their research results
implied that managers must consciously explore
and establish the ambiguous relationships between
KM results and bottom-line business measures.
The authors also said that future research should
focus on translating the soft measures of KM into
detailed metrics.
After conducting a panel with 30 KM experts and a survey with 103 members within a
KM community, Jennex, Smolnik and Croasdell
(2007) were able to establish the following base
definition of KM success:
processes, strategy, leadership, efficiency and
effectiveness of KM processes, efficiency and
effectiveness of the KM system, organizational
culture and knowledge content.
Indeed, KM success and KM itself are very
broad concepts. For instance, Dalkir (2005) was
able to produce a list with 72 very consistent KM
definitions. Within the scope of this research, KM
success was associated with innovation and the
performance of new products in the market. This
association was a way of translating a soft KM
measure into bottom-line business measures, as
suggested by Anantatmula and Kanungo (2005).

We also think that this external and market-oriented
perspective of KM success provides a better connection between KM and the strategy of the firm.
Main focuS of tHe cHaPter

research Model
This section explains the development process of
the research model by connecting literature review
with research constructs definitions. Most of the
previous studies consider processes of KM that
are mainly focused on pre-existent knowledge, or
knowledge available in the market, so they usually do not consider new knowledge generated
inside the organization, which has come from
innovation. In this research, characteristics of the
organization concerning structures, processes and
culture are proposed as antecedents of innovation
and performance in the market.
In a way that is similar to Li and Calantones
(1998) research framework, the model proposed
in this research consists of three dimensions:
external and internal antecedents, contributory
factors and results. However, it differs from their
model because the construct marketing-R&D
interface was replaced by the technological KM
construct. Thus, the three main processes of KM
operate in a more homogeneous way with the
aim of improving on the model proposed (Li and
Calantone, 1998) more specifically, in regard to
the market KM. The research model also adds
the construct innovation as an antecedent of
new products market performance, acting as a
mediator variable between marketing KM and
performance, in a similar way to that described
by Hurley and Hult (1998). Figure 3 illustrates
the general conceptual model of the research.
The theoretical sources of the explanatory
model are introduced next, classified by the construct involved in the model and its respective
hypothetical relations.
Process of Customer
Market orientation proposes to enhance customerperceived quality of products and services by
helping maintain superior customer value (Brady
and Cronin, 2001; Kirca et al., 2005). Market
orientation enhances customer loyalty and satisfaction because market-oriented companies
anticipate customer needs and offer products and
services to satisfy those needs (Slater and Narver,
1994). According to Verhoef and Leeflang (2009),
several studies have revealed that marketing activies, such as creating satisfied customers and
corporate advertising are positively related to
shareholder value and greater customer lifetime
value. By responding rapidly to changes in customer demand, a company can enhance customer
satisfaction and loyalty, leverage the knowledge
embedded in customers and take the advantage
of the windows of opportunities that appear in the
market from time to time (Khalifa et al., 2008).
Consistent with the theories of organizational
learning (Hair et al., 1998), the process of customer
KM can be approached using Davenport and Prusaks model (1998), which consists in generating,
codifying and distributing the knowledge. The
customer KM process would involve marketing
research, regular meetings and interactions with
customers, personal interviews and focus groups
(Capon et al., 1992) and problem-solving sessions.
Choo (1998) considered sensemaking as a
dimension of the Knowing Organization model,
Berztiss (2002) listed external knowledge acquisition as one of key indicators of KM maturity, and
Ehms and Langen (2002) included environment
and partnerships as a key area of the KMMM,
giving support to two constructs in our research
model: customer KM and competitor KM. Han,
Kim and Srivastava in Narver and Slater (1995),
Li and Calantone (1998), Jaworski and Kohli
(1990), Hurley and Hult (1998), are some of the
authors that have performed empirical research
on customer orientation, innovation, market KM
39
Figure 3. Research Model
and management of customer-intelligence, and

their role as antecedents of results and market
orientation. Based in this analysis, hypotheses
H1 and H2 were elaborated:
H1:The more intense the process of customer KM
is, the greater will be the intensity of innovation.
H2:The more intense the process of customer
KM is, the greater will be the intensity of the
performance of the new products in the market.
Process of Competitor
Truly market-oriented firms identify competitive
advantages based on satisfying both the current
needs of customers and doing this better than
competitors (Martin et al., 2009). Narver and
40
Slater (1990) have defined customer and competitor orientation as information acquisition
and dissemination activities that are necessary to
understand what buyers value and the strategies
used by competitors in serving target buyers. This
knowledge provides a framework to create superior value for customers relative to competitors.
The process of competitor KM involves obtaining, codifying, storing and distributing information
as a continuous activity of competitive intelligence
gathering. Knowledge of competitors exercises a
fundamental role in the competitive positioning
of organizations (Day, 1999; Aaker, 1998; Geus,
1997). Geus (1997) affirmed: the only source
of competitive advantage in the future will be to
learn (about the competition) faster than your
competitors.
Previous empirical research analyzed the influence of competitors regarding intensity of market
orientation (Narver and Slater, 1995). This fact

confirmed that the proposed model lacked important data and led to the formulation of hypotheses
H3 and H4 as follows:
H3:The more intense the process of competitor KM
is, the greater will be the intensity of innovation.
H4:The more intense the process of competitor
KM is, the greater will be the intensity of the
performance of the new products in the market.
Process of Technological
Narver and Slater (1995), along with Jaworski
and Kohli (1990), aimed to verify the empirical
connections between technological change and
the results achieved in the marketplace. Ehms and
Langen (2002) included technology and infrastructure as a key area of the KMMM. However,
Jennex (2005) proposes that for KM systems it is
not the amount of use that is important, but rather,
the quality of use and the intention to use.
In their research, Li and Calantone (1998)
failed to directly consider the management of
technological knowledge. In view of this omission and because of the importance of verifying
the influence of the management of technological knowledge on the innovation process and the
results obtained in the market, hypotheses H5 and
H6 were formulated:
H5:The greater the intensity of the process of
technological knowledge management is, the
greater will be the intensity of innovation.
H6:The greater the intensity of the process of
technological knowledge management, the greater
will be the intensity of the performance of the new
products in the market.
Innovation and Performance of

New Product in the Market
Market orientation should improve a firms inovativeness and new product performance because
it drives a continuous and proactive disposition
toward meeting customer needs (Kirca et al.,
2005). On the other hand, excessive formalization (definition of roles, procedures and authority through rules) is usually inversely related to
market orientation because it may inhibit the
development of effective responses to changes
in marketplace (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Kirca
et al., 2005). Furthermore, a short-term emphasis
blocks innovation and reduces investments in
brands, customers, and new business development
(Verhoef and Leeflang, 2009).
Ashok (1999) and Peters (1998) defended the
idea that innovation is perhaps the most important
element in generating competitive advantage.
Workman et al. (1998) observed a correlation
between the capacity of a company to innovate
and its competitive advantage, considering both
as just one construct. Verhoef and Leeflang (2009)
defined innovativeness of the firm as the extent to
which there is a strong emphasis on R&D, technological leadership, and innovations within the
firm. According to Khalifa et al. (2008), agility
refers to the ability to detect and seize continually
and unpredictably changing market opportunities
by assembling requisite assets, knowledge, and
relationship with speed and surprise; while innovativeness depicts the ability of the organization
to initiate and implement innovations at a faster
rate (Hurley and Hult, 1998).
Li and Calantone (1998) observed a positive
correlation between the competitive advantage
of a new product and the performance of a new
product. Hurley and Hult (1998) observed positive
relations between innovation, competitive advantage and performance, leading to the proposition
of the following hypothesis:
41
H7:The greater the intensity of innovation, the

more significant will be the performance of the
new product in the market.
The concept of Market Knowledge Competence was introduced by Li and Calantone (1998)
to cover the group of processes that generate and
integrate market knowledge. But the authors
made no attempt to verify reciprocal relations
among these constructs, to check if they make
up a broader conceptual framework. To test these
possibilities empirically, the following hypotheses
were formulated:
H8:The process of customer KM influences and
is influenced by technological KM.
H9:The process of competitor KM influences and
is influenced by customer KM.
H10:The process of technological KM influences
and is influenced by competitor KM.
Methodology
First of all, a literature review was carried out.
Some classic and seminal works on marketing
knowledge, market orientation, KM, innovation
and strategic marketing were analyzed (Treacy
and Wiersema, 1995), as well as a series of previous pieces of empirical research that preceded
this article. Based on the defined constructs, the
measurement items were obtained from previous
researches and the existing literature, focus groups
with managers and specialist panels. A pre-test
involving 46 respondents was made and analyzed.
An 11-point Likert-type scale was adopted, so that
they could be processed as continuous variables
and possibly achieved a better measurement.
The research constructs were generated by the
following procedures:
42
Customers KM
Operational definition: the items were obtained
from Li and Calantones (1998) research, Jaworski and Kohli (1993), Ehms and Lagen (2002),
Berztiss (2002), Choo (1998), focus groups and
specialist panels.
Competitor KM
The items were obtained from Li and Calantone
(1998), Jaworski and Kohli (1993), Ehms and
Lagen (2002), Choo (1998), focus groups and
specialist panel.
Technological KM
initially from research made by Cooper (1984),
Davenport (1998), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1997),
Ehms and Lagen (2002), Clark and Wheelwright
(1995), Day (1999) and Ashok (1999)
Innovation of New Products
from Hurley and Hult (1998), focus groups and
specialist panel.
Performance of New Product in the Market
from Li and Calantone (1998), focus groups and
specialist panel.
data analysis
It was decided to carry out a survey using mail as
the principal mean of contacting the respondents.
The sample consisted of 1,870 medium and large
Brazilian industrial firms that are members of
FIEMG (Confederation of Industries of the State
of Minas Gerais, the 3rd largest state in Brazil).
Most of the industries sampled are in very competitive markets, as clothing, packing, furniture
and automotive industries.
The companies in the sample had more than
30 employees. This cross section was selected
because, in a pre-test, it was confirmed that the
marketing structure in small organizations does not
allow them to answer the questionnaire correctly.
The questionnaires were answered by marketing
managers in these companies. After making the
Figure 4. Sample profile by industry
required calculations concerning sampling, it

was concluded that, there should be at least 258
observations for a 5% of error in a confidence
level of 95%. At the end of the survey, 387 valid
answers were obtained.
The operational part of the research began in
January 2008 and ended in May 2008. The types of
industries in the sample are exhibited in Figure 4:
construct Validity
The returned questionnaires were checked for
incomplete or blank data, since this is a very
common occurrence in self-administered questionnaires. After this, a check was carried out for
univariate and multivariate outliers. It was verified
that the Mardia statistic -LISREL (Jreskog and
Dag, 1998) output -, designated PK, based on
kurtosis and asymmetry functions, should have
a value smaller than 3, which, on the basis of
this practical criterion, would lead to acceptance
of the hypothesis which states that multivariate
normality was reached.
All the constructs presented Cronbachs Alpha
values in conformance with the acceptance strip,
that is, above or equal to 0.70. In order to examine the reliability more deeply, an analysis of the
composite reliability was made. It was observed
that the composite validity of the constructs was

above 0.5, which, according to Hair et al. (1998),
is appropriate. An exploratory factorial analysis
of the items by construct was carried out in order
to verify unidimensionality (Germain; Droge
and Daugherty, 1994). After the withdrawal of
some items, based on the researchers judgment,
compliance with the unidimensionality premise
was obtained.
To verify the convergent validity of the constructs, each construct was subjected to a factorial
confirmatory analysis, in order to observe the
significance of the weight of each item in their
respective constructs. Bagozzi, Yi and Phillips
(1991), as well as Im, Grover and Sharma (1998)
indicate the need for such a procedure.
The discriminant validity was obtained by
a procedure recommended by Bagozzi, Yi and
Phillips (1991). In the case of the sample, all the
constructs presented discriminant validity.
explanatory Phase
The authors opted for the process of direct estimation, using the co-variance matrix as an entrance
matrix (Hair et al., 1998). The chosen estimation
method for this research was GLS (Generalized
Least Squares), which, according to Hair et al.
43
Table 1. Fit indexes of the research model

2 (Chi-Square)
DF1
2 / DF
RMSEA2
GFI3
AGFI4
PNFI5
NFI6
91.01
75
1.34
0.029
0.975
0.954
0.583
0.895
0.101
Notes:
1 DF (Degrees of Freedom)
2 RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation)
3 GFI (Goodness of Fit Index)
4 AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index)
5 PNFI (Parsimony Normed Fit Index)
6 NFI (Normed Fit Index)
Figure 5. Path indexes of the research model
(1998), is an appropriate method of estimation

when, taking into account the possible size of
the sample, the data is moderately non-normal.
The structural relationships for validation of
hypotheses and models were obtained through
the AMOS 4.0 program from SPSS. In a test of a
model, the objective is to verify relations between
KM processes (customer, competitor and technology), innovation and new product performance
44
in the market. The model fits well, as we can see

in Table 1:
The model is shown in Figure 5.
According to Table 2, the critical t value at the
5% level is superior to 1.96, showing that the
weights are statistically significant, except for the
path between competitor KM and new product
innovation.
The research model considered innovation as
a mediation construct between market KM and
Table 2. Path analysis: non standardized weights and significance

Paths
Estimated values
Standard error
Statistic t
P Value
Competitor KM Innovation
0.105
0.065
1.619
>0.10
Customer KM Innovation
0.094
0.048
1.978
<0.05
Technology KM Innovation
0.294
0.049
5.981
<0.01
Customer KM Competitor KM
6.945
<0.01
Customer KM Technology KM
7.317
<0.01
CompetitorKM Technology KM
6.549
<0.01
Technology KM Product Performance
0.131
0.043
3.049
<0.01
Customer KM Product Performance
0.086
0.043
2.006
<0.05
Competitor KM Product Performance
0.259
0.065
3.964
<0.01
Innovation Product Performance
0.246
0.049
4.966
<0.01
Table 3. Evaluation of hypothetical relationships

Hypothesis
Hypothetical
relation
Results obtained
H1: Management of Customers Knowledge Innovation
Positive
Confirmed2
H2: Management of Customers Knowledge New Product Performance
Positive
Confirmed2
H3:Management of Competitors Knowledge Innovation
Positive
Not Confirmed3
H4: Management of Competitors Knowledge New Product Performance
Positive
Confirmed1
H5:Management of Technological Knowledge Innovation
Positive
Confirmed1
H6: Management of Technological Knowledge New Product Performance
Positive
Confirmed1
H7: Innovation New Product Performance
Positive
Confirmed1
H8: Management of Customers Knowledge Management of Technological Knowledge
Positive
Confirmed1
H9:Management of Customers Knowledge Management of Competitors Knowledge
Positive
Confirmed1
H10:Management of Competitors Knowledge Management of Technological Knowledge
Positive
Confirmed1
Notes:
1 Estimate is positive and significant (p < 0.01)
2 Estimate is positive and significant (p < 0.05)
3 Estimate is not significant (p > 0.05)
the performance of a new product in the market.

Innovation, as we might expect, had a strong
influence on performance, as well as on technological KM. The process of customer KM had
less influence on performance than on competitors
or technology an interesting result.
In the organizations sampled, new products
with representative success in the market were
generated by a stronger focus on competitors
(=0.31), innovation (=0.29) and technologi-
cal (=0.21) aspects, compared to customer KM

(=0.13). It seems that in this particular industrial
market, organizations that obtain more expressive
results establish their product strategies by applying a process that is based mainly on a careful
analysis of competitors actions and tactics.
An analysis of the influence of market KM
constructs in innovation revealed that innovation
came mainly from technological KM (=0,40) and
from customer KM (=0,12). It was ascertained
45
that a focus on technology was the most important

source of innovation in the model analyzed.
Table 3 allows evaluation of the hypothetical
relationships proposed.
Main findingS
Market KM has been seen as an important area
of research from the point of view of managerial
efficiency. However, our current understanding of
that phenomenon is restricted, since market KM
in organizations is a complex area that presents
difficulties of conceptualization and measurement.
Menon and Rajan (1992) stated that organizations
have become more market oriented and, as a result
of that emphasis, the application of the marketing intelligence concepts, as well as the use of
information generated by research, has acquired
strong relevance.
The first aspect to be considered is that the three
processes of KM considered in this research are
elements that enhance the results of new products.
Such results are, as a whole, consistent with those
obtained by Li and Calantone (1998). However,
certain differences about those results have to be
considered. In the results of our research, the order
of importance of the three processes as antecedents
of performance was the following: competitor
knowledge ( = 0.31), technological knowledge
( = 0.21) and customer knowledge ( = 0.12).
According to this model, a greater improvement in the management of competitor knowledge
was the process that generated more results with
new products. This probably occurred because of
the process of product strategy planning, which
seemed to be essentially a comparative process
between competitors products ( = 0.31). Such
empirical verification raised questions about the
statement found in some marketing texts that the
customer is the main focus. Regarding this point,
it was noted that the process of creation of successful products (with actual results reflected in the
market) is a process that is much more based on
46
competing products (Hamel and Prahalad, 1995)

and on technology, than on actual knowledge of
customers wishes. From the Knowing Organization model perspective (Choo, 1998), it was
found that our sample of organizations is giving
priority to make sense of their competitors rather
than understanding customer needs.
The processes of KM had important bilateral
connections, demonstrating that they perhaps may
be considered to be a wider conceptual element.
Jaworski and Kohli (1993) observed in their
research that there is a low correlation between
market orientation and the results obtained. In this
research, and if we consider that the more intense
processes of market KM become, the greater the
degree of market orientation, one can infer that
these correlations may be more significant than
the ones obtained by the above-mentioned authors.
According to this research, it can be concluded
that the processes of market KM positively influenced the results of new products in the market
and that the degree of influence varied depending on the modality of knowledge (customers,
competitors and technology).
The process of customer KM had less influence
on performance than on competitors or technology,
an interesting result. In the organizations sampled,
new products with representative success in the
market were generated by a stronger focus on
competitors (=0.31), innovation (=0.29) and
technological (=0.21) aspects, compared to customer KM (=0.13). An analysis of the influence
of market KM constructs in innovation revealed
that innovation came mainly from technological
KM (=0.40) and from customer KM (=0.12).
It was ascertained that focus on technology was
the most important source of innovation in the
model analyzed.
concluSion
This study brings to light the importance of the
processes of market KM in obtaining innovation
and performance in new product development (Olson et al., 1995). Li and Calantone (1998) pointed
out that organizations need to manage the three
processes of Marketing Knowledge (customers,
competitors and technology) in the process of
development of new products. Day and Wesley
(1988) argued that companies should manage
marketing knowledge and be market oriented in
a balanced way, since it is important for focus on
customers and competitors. However, the research
presented in this paper revealed that this might
not be the best approach.
The data obtained in this research suggested
investment in management of knowledge of competitors, innovation and management of technology knowledge, in this order. It was observed that
the focus on the customer or the orientation to
the customer, elements mentioned in significant
number of marketing books, is not the main driving factor of performance in new products in the
industries investigated. It seems that the focus on
the comparative advantage of products is more
important than focus on the customers desires,
because the purchase decision is a comparative
process of value. Thus the following questions
could be formulated: Is customer orientation a
profitable choice? What is the best balance among
competitors, customers and technology? Do
such factors vary according to industry, trade or
services? Some of these topics can be important
elements for future research opportunities.
On the other hand, innovative companies present processes of KM that focus more closely on
technology and customer knowledge. This fact
leads to the following possibility: the focus on
technological knowledge is the main factor in
innovation, and it should receive greater investment and attention than the others. This procedure
should be guided by customer knowledge, in the
manner proposed by Ashok (1999). However, at
present this does not happen.
The processes of market knowledge management also stood out as important generators
of results regarding new products. This fact is
connected to the strategic decisions made by the

organizations that have valid market information
obtained through the processes of market KM,
emphasizing the importance of managing them
in a structured, systematized and pragmatic way.
Market-oriented firms fundamentally are
learning organizations because through time
members of the firm share common experiences
that become shared process and market schemas
(Gebhardt et al., 2006). According to the authors,
theses schemas enable organization members to
communicate and collaborate effectively in the
process of gathering, disseminating, and reacting
to market intelligence. Finally, Gebhardt et al.
(2006) state that the importance of organizational
learning for market orientation extends beyond
simply encoding the lessons of history, because
organizations also develop the capacity to evolve.
The field of KM success is making gradual
progress. It is necessary to face the challenge of
both carrying out studies such as this one, which
focuses on specific areas of organization, such
as marketing, and also of identifying and investigating the links between KM and organizational
performance.
referenceS
Aaker, D. A. (1998). Strategic marketing management. New York: John Wiley.
Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & Day, G. S. (1998).
Marketing research. New York: John Wiley.
Anantatmula, V., & Kanungo, S. (2005). Establishing and Structuring Criteria for Measuring
Knowledge Management Efforts. In Proceedings
of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.
Ashok, G. (1999). Business driven research &
development: managing knowledge to create
wealth. West Lafayette: Ichor Business.
47
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991).

Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational
Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36,
421458.
Berztiss, A. T. (2002). Capability Maturity for
Knowledge Management. In Proceedings of the
13th International Workshop on Database and
Expert Systems Applications (DEXA02)
Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. (2001). Effects on
Customer Service Perceptions and Outcome
Behaviors. Journal of Service Research, 3(February), 241251.
Capon, (1992). Profiles of Product Innovators
among large U.S. Manufacturers. Management
Science, 38, 157169.
Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influences innovation and competitiveness? Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2),
8798.
Carvalho, R. B., & Ferreira, M. A. T. (2001). Using information technology to support knowledge
conversion processes. Information Research, 7(1).
Retrieved May 10th, 2009 from http://informationr.
net/ir/7-1/paper118.html
Choo, C. W. (1998). The Knowing Organization.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (2002). Strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational
knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Clark, K. B., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1995). The
product development challenge. Boston: Harvard
Business Review.
Cooper, R. G. (1984). The impact of new product
strategies: what distinguishes top performers?
Journal of Product Innovation Management,
1(2), 151164.
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in
theory and practice. Boston: Elsevier.
48
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working

knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Day, G. S. (1999). Market Driven Strategy. New
York: The Free Press.
Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988, April). Assessing
advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52, 120.
Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry, J. F.
Jr. (2006). Creating a market orientation: a longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural
transformation. Journal of Marketing, 70, 3755.
Germain, R., Droge, C., & Daugherty, P. J. (1994).
The Effect of Just-in-time selling on organizational
structure: an empirical investigation. JMR, Journal
of Marketing Research, 31, 471483.
Geus, A. (1997). The Living Company. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Glazer, R. (1991). Marketing in an InformationIntensive Environment: Strategic Implications of
Knowledge as an Asset. Journal of Marketing,
55, 119.
Grant, G. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamicallycompetitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization
Science, 7(4), 375387.
Hair, J. F. A., Rolph, E., Tathan, R. L., & Black,
W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). Competindo
pelo futuro. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Campus.
Hult, T. G., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does Market
Orientation Matter? A Test of the Relationship
Between Positional Advantage and Performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 22(September),
899906.
Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation,

Marketing Orientation and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination.
Journal of Marketing, 62, 4254.
Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W.

(2005). Market orientation: a meta-analytic review
and assessment of its antecedents and impact on
performance. Journal of Marketing, 69, 2441.
Im, S., & Workman, J. P. (2004). Market Orientation, Creativity, and New Product Performance in
High-Technology Firms. Journal of Marketing,
68, 114132.
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Marketing

Orientation: The Construct, Research Proposition
and Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing, 30, 118.
Im, S. K., Grover, V., & Sharma, S. (1998). The

use of structural equation modeling in research.
(Report). Columbia: University of South Carolina.
Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The Impact of

Market Knowledge Competence on New Product
Advantage: Conceptualization and Empirical
Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 1329.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market

Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences.
Jennex, M. (2005). The issue of system use in
knowledge management systems. In Proceedings
System Sciences (HICSS).
Jennex, M., & Olfman, L. (2005). Assessing
knowledge knowledge management success. International Journal of Knowledge Management,
1(2), 3349.
Jennex, M., Smolnik, S., & Croasdell, D. (2007).
Towards defining knowledge management success. In Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
Jennex, M., Smolnik, S., & Croasdell, D. (2008).
Towards measuring knowledge management success. In Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (1998). Lisrel 8:
Users reference guide. Chicago: SSI.
Khalifa, M., Yu, A. Y., & Shen, K. N. (2008).
Knowledge management system success: a
contingency perspective. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 12(1), 119132.
Lindsey, K. (2002). Measuring Knowledge Management Effectiveness: a task-contingent organizational capabilities perspective. In Proceedings
of the 8th Americas Conference on Information
System (AMCIS), 2085-2090.
Martin, J. H., Martin, B. A., & Minnillo, P. R.
(2009). Implementing a market orientation in
small manufacturing firms: from cognitive model
to action. Journal of Small Business Management,
47(1), 92115.
Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., &
ODriscoll, T. M. (2002). Knowledge in the pursuit
of performance: insights from Nortel Networks.
Management Information Systems Quarterly,
26(3), 269289.
Menon, A., & Rajan, P. V. (1992). A model of
marketing knowledge use within firms. Journal
of Marketing, 56, 53.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect
of market orientation on business profitability.
Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 2035.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. Journal
of Marketing, 59(3), 6374.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1997). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
49
Olson, E. (1995). Organization for Effective New

Product Development: The Moderating Role of
Product Innovativeness. Journal of Marketing,
59, 4862.
Paulzen, O., & Perc, P. (2002). A maturity model
for quality improvment in knowledge management. In Proceedings of the 13th Australasian
Conference on Information Systems (ACSIS),
243-253.
Peters, T. (1998). O Crculo da inovao. So
Paulo, Brazil: Harbra.
Porter, M. (1995). Vantagem Competitiva. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil: Campus.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market OrientationPerformance Relationship? Journal of
Marketing, 58(January), 4655.
Slywotzky, A. (1996). Value Migration. Boston:
50
Smith, R. G., & Farquhar, A. (2000). The road

ahead for knowledge management, an AI perspective. AI Magazine, 21(4), 1740.
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1995). The Discipline
Of Market Leaders. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Verhoef, P. C., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2009). Understanding the marketing departments influence
within the firm. Journal of Marketing, 73, 1437.
Von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation.
California Management Review, 40(3), 133153.
Weber, F., Wunram, M., Kemp, J., Pudlatz, M.,
& Bredehorst, B. (2002). Towards a common
KM framework in Europe. In Proceedings of
Unicom Seminar. Standardization in Knowledge
Management.
Workman, J. P., Homburg, C., & Gruner, K. (1998).
Marketing organization: an integrative framework
of dimensions and determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62, 2141.
51
Chapter 4
Does KM Governance
= KM Success?
Insights from a Global KM Survey

Suzanne Zyngier
La Trobe University, Australia
abStract
This chapter examines factors that contribute to KM success by differentiating between KM leadership
through management and through governance. We look at governance as a structural mechanism that
both embeds KM into organizational activity, and lifts it from a series of initiatives to a structured program of activities that are subject to authority, policy, risk management, financial fiduciary duty, and
introduction
The implementation of knowledge management
(KM) programs continues to be contentious because it is frequently difficult to establish the return
on investment. KM practitioners and theoreticians
understand and undertake to create a sustainable
program of strategies to leverage knowledge to
fulfill organizational aims and objectives and to
realize benefits from them. However, many KM
strategies implementations fail to realize the
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch004
expected benefits or the return on investment

sought by their organizations (Kulkarni, Ravindran, & Freeze, 2006). This in turn impacts on the
sustainability of those strategies (Zyngier, 2005).
In information-based economies, knowledge is
one of the key organizational resources and a
competitive differentiator (Spender, 1996). The
management of organizational knowledge is a
complex imperative that is taken up by forwardlooking strategic leadership. Therefore, we asked
does KM Governance contribute to KM success?
In answering this question we differentiate
between management and governance in look-
Does KM Governance = KM Success?
ing at governance as a structural mechanism that

both embeds KM into organizational activity, and
lifts it from a series of initiatives to a structured
program of activities that are subject to authority,
policy, risk management, financial fiduciary duty,
and evaluation. These are delivered in a structured
manner in order to achieve the strategic aims and
objectives of the organization.
KM governance is defined as the exercise of
authority over strategies to manage organizational
knowledge for the realization of anticipated benefits (Weill & Ross, 2004). This chapter will present the facets of governance as authority, policy
development, measurement, risk management and
financial responsibility. We describe how these
activities are delegated and amplified into the
development and implementation of KM strategy.
Previous research into patterns of governance of
knowledge management has focused on individual
cases. This work presents a furtherance of this
discussion by presenting new global research by
web-based survey.
We report on the results of 214 respondents
to a global survey on KM governance data collected from mid-March to the end of May 2008.
Respondents came from 34 countries across every
continent indicating that KM is truly a widely
practiced business activity. The survey respondents identify the structures of KM governance
in their organizations, and the roles and tasks of
KM governance activities.
Against this background of clear KM governance, coupled with indicators such as increased
funding of KM and longevity of KM programs of
activity, and the perceived realization of the strategic benefits of KM, we show those structures that
can be deemed successful. Analysis and discussion leads the reader to understand when, where
and how through the structural support of KM
governance, success will more readily realized.
Conclusions about the utility of this statistical
data collection and analysis suggest that outputs
of research such as this as a continuum of mixed
methodology are valid and strengthen Informa-
52
tion Systems research. It concludes that leveraging knowledge through programs of activities
is a global phenomenon. KM governance as the
exercise of authority over the development and
implementation of strategies to manage organizational knowledge enables the long-term realization
of anticipated benefits therefore, KM governance
leads to KM success.
The sections are arranged as follows. The concept of KM success is introduced in the context
of the alignment of KM with business strategy to
support the aims and objectives of the organization.
We propose that this is clearly achieved through
the effective governance of KM. KM governance
activities are examined and contextualized. Following the reader is presented with the design and
the results of the survey and conclusions are drawn.
underStanding KM SucceSS
This examination of the literature focuses on understanding the realization of KM success as the
effective leveraging of organizational knowledge
resources to achieve the aim and objectives of the
organization. Leveraging knowledge resources
includes harnessing both tacit and explicit forms
as appropriate to the industry sector and the
specific needs of that organization. We suggest
that by making the alignment of KM strategy
and business strategy explicit through authorized
direction at executive level of the organization
it facilitates KM success. It does this in several
ways: it transparently permits policy development
to align KM, it allows management of risk to
KM strategy, it gives direct to the fiscal security
of KM activity, and finally it creates a frame for
the evaluation or measurement of KM outcomes
against the strategic aims and objectives initially
developed. This enables the review and revision
of policy and direction against any changes in
strategic intent within the organization. How then
can we understand indicators of KM success?
business Strategy and

KM alignment
The mission and values that underpin business
strategy correlate with the ontology of the organization. A business strategy is a formed plan that
puts together in a coherent form, the substantive
goals, policies and activity of the organization
into a logical and articulated series of statements
(McKay & Marshall, 2004). The association of
KM with business strategy and alignment is linked
to the mission and values of the organization (De
Tienne, Dyer, Hoopes, & Harris, 2004; Henderson
& Venkatraman, 1999; Zack, Mc Keen, & Singh,
2006). Measurement and evaluation support and
clarify alignment of the outcomes of business
strategy implementation with the KM strategy
development and implementation.
Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, (1998)
suggest that developing a plan requires us to
look ahead, yet commonly strategy is more of
an organizational pattern decided on the basis of
past behaviors. Therefore, a pattern or strategy
that is realized but was not devised or intended
can consequently be described as emergent
(Mintzberg, 1994). The term emergent implies
no control over the development of the strategy.
It would be unrealistic to expect to be able to
predict all of the consequences or outcomes of a
strategy. Some outcomes will be expected while
others are consequential on the human context
and both internal and external factors that impact
the organization.
Strategic leadership leverages all classes of
organizational assets: human, financial, physical,
IP, informational, technological and relationship
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Schultze & Stabell,
2004; Spender, 1996). KM is understood as a broad
concept that addresses the full range of processes
by which the organization deploys knowledge.
These processes involve the acquisition, distribution and use of knowledge in the organization - the
processes include interpersonal, social-technical
and technical modes. Knowledge exists in both
explicit and tacit forms and therefore differing

strategies are required to leverage and deploy
it effectively (ActKM discussion forum, 2006;
Dalkir, 2005; Lavergne & Earl, 2006; Tanudjojo
& Braganza, 2005; Tiwana, 2002). There are a
broad variety of tools and techniques that are canvassed in the literature, discussed at conferences,
and on KM list-servs (Riege, 2005; Sun & Scott,
2005). These are implemented with various levels
of organizational utility and of user acceptance
(Foss, Husted, Michailova, & Pedersen, 2003;
Schroeder & Pauleen, 2007; Stehr, 2003; Wiig,
1997b, 1999).
A strategic outcome of the development and
implementation of a KM strategy should be the
creation of value to the organization. There are
multiple dimensions of value in leveraging organizational knowledge resources. Aligned to the
business strategy, they can be understood from
the multiple perspectives of finance, innovation,
business processes, customer value and human
value to organization. (Kelleher & Courtney,
2003; Smits & de Moor, 2004).
governance of Knowledge
Management
KM governance is still mentioned infrequently
in the extant literature (Jennex & Zyngier, 2008)
and within that spectrum, the roles and tasks of
KM governance were not fully explored until
first developed by Zyngier, Burstein, & McKay
(2004) then finally defined by Zyngier (2005). KM
governance demands purposeful consideration
of knowledge strategies in place in the long and
medium term. KM governance uses measurement
of the effectiveness and efficiency of all aspects
of KM as a tool to ensure that KM objectives and
benefits are realized.
A governance framework operates across key
domains: principles, infrastructure strategies,
architecture and investment, and prioritization.
Governance provides check and balance mechanisms that enable the decision-making processes
53
and resulting processes add valuable function in

delivering service to the enterprise. Emphasis on
strategy, risk-management, delivering financial
value and performance measurement indicates
the ongoing management of best practice. Applied to organizational IT, it is suggested that
at the heart of the governance responsibilities
of setting strategy, managing risks, delivering
value and measuring performance, are the stakeholders values, which drive the enterprise and IT
strategy (IT Governance Institute, 2001, p. 10).
This mechanism feeds back both the positive and
negative aspects of performance to moderate and
improve practice.
Governance of KM guides strategic thinking
about policies and strategies implemented - both in
the long term and in the medium term. KM strategies are therefore never static. Governance provides a mechanism for feedback, allowing for the
dynamic modification and development of existing
processes and practices. Through development of
policy, KM governance determines how decisions
are made and how solutions are developed for
resolving obstacles, strategic alignment of strategy
and corporate strategy, risk management, access to
knowledge resources and under what conditions,
quality maintenance. Similar to IT Governance
the development of policy to guide strategy, the
management of risks, the delivery of value and
measurement of performance, while reflecting the
stakeholders needs and values, drives the KM
strategy. (IT Governance Institute, 2001). How
this function is fulfilled can be measured in the
timeliness of service delivery and the satisfaction
levels of the internal and external stakeholders.
Linked to the strategic goals, the mission and
the values of the organization, then the KM strategy
must support the work and transfer of knowledge
in the organization. This should be reflected in the
policies that underpin KM strategy development
and implementation. It is the role of governance
to establish policies for this purpose. We conclude that authority, financial responsibility, risk
54
management, measurement and evaluation, and

benefits realization are all aspects of governance.
Governance therefore comprises the following elements to varying degrees according to the
scope defined by each organization: development
of policy to define KM for the organization;
transparency of terms of reference; authorization
of strategy; oversight of risk management; oversight of financial management and allocation of
resources; review and revision of policy; and the
prioritization of strategic knowledge needs. In the
next section of this chapter develop the attribute
of KM governance and strategic outcomes.
Authority
Authority is different to power. The exercise
of power has organizational costs and benefits.
ODell and Leavitt (2004) suggest that the exercise
of power may require trade offs against interpersonal relationships. The exercise of legitimated
power is expected within organizational context.
This is authority rather than power as authority is
provided by rank or position within an organization. The position of the individual is endowed
with power - that is the position has authority
regardless of the charisma or personal power of
the holder of that office (Weber, 2005). The exercise of authority may strengthen the authority
base from which it derives and serves. Individuals with authority are expected to exercise that
authority and may be viewed as negligent, lax or
inattentive to their responsibilities when they fail
to do so (Pfeffer, 2005).
KM governance formalizes decision-making
authority that exercises financial responsibility,
evaluation, measurement, and risk management
in service delivery. KM governance ensures that
these processes meet organizational needs and
expectations or to resolve problems arising by
setting the rules of the game (Braganza, Hackney,
& Tanudjojo, 2007, p. 12). The development of
KM policy enables the satisfaction of each of
these elements through the clear identification
the view of what the firm and its stakeholders

need and envision from KM that in turn gives a
context for the development and implementation
of KM strategies.
(Chua & Lam, 2005; De Long & Fahey, 2000;

Wiig, 2004; Zyngier, 2002)
Risk management
Organizations frequently cite financial constraints as an obstacle to the development of a

KM strategy (Chua & Lam 2005). KM activity
as with other IS investments is seen as a cost
centre or service activity. It is funded either by
cross-business-unit investments or from central
head office funds (Swart & Kinnie, 2003). Such
expenditure or internal investment is seen as
supporting cross-business-unit, inter-businessunit or intra-business-unit activity. Governance
processes seek accountability for expenditure on
KM strategy based on a rationale for the financial
allocation that is required (Van Grembergen, De
Haes, & Van Brempt, 2007; Weill & Ross, 2004).
The governing authority is informed and able
to effectively approve or reject a major financial
request, although smaller financial decisions are
often delegated to management at below governing entity level (Kaen, 1995). Measurement
activities support financial responsibilities in that
they provide the evaluation measures required for
effective ongoing financial responsibility. These
activities ensure that a KM strategy can also be
fiscally viable through its alignment with the policies and goals of the organization (Zyngier, 2007)
By engaging with and understanding the risks to

KM strategy development and implementation it
becomes possible to develop a means of risk resolution. Risk management is a proactive strategy of
analysis and anticipation of risks to an information
systems strategy before they arise (International
Standards Organization, 2006; Standards Australia, 2005). The resolution of such risks may require
organizational change management, the provision
of additional financial or infrastructural support,
or a realignment of the original strategy in light
of unforeseen or emergent activity within the
organization. Risk management requires regular
evaluation of the strategy and the organization
that it serves.
Governance processes manage the risks of KM
to acknowledge and challenge the cultural issues,
structural obstacles and other relevant issues as
they arise during the implementation and ongoing operation of the strategy. The management
of these risks assisting in their resolution and
strengthens strategies to manage knowledge within
the organization. The need for risk management
in KM was formally indicated in 2005 (Standards
Australia) with the need to identify assets, the risks
and controls associated with the implementation
of strategy. The literature suggests that obstacles
to the effective management of organizational
knowledge include a management culture in the
organization that hinders KM, with concomitant
change management issues. Additionally the
philosophy of knowledge management is often
understood inadequately in the organization and
conflicts of organizational priorities are problematic for the development and initiation of a KM
strategy. For many organizations, the development
of criterion for knowledge collection is difficult.
Financial Fiduciary Duty
Measurement and Evaluation

KM governance processes incorporate evaluation
and measurement in order to prove the value, to
progress and to develop existing practices. Evaluation looks at both successes of and obstacles to the
implementation of a KM strategy. Evaluation of
successes must take into account the contribution
made to the aims and objectives of the organization (Zyngier, 2007). Where the successes make a
contribution then they should be continued. Where
they do not make a contribution then consideration
should be given to their continuance.
55
There are a number of criteria used to establish

the return on investment for KM strategies. Simple
measures include staff retention or in improvement of product to market delivered on time, in
quantity and quality (Kelleher & Courtney, 2003;
Smits & de Moor, 2004) These include look at
human capital growth (Liebowitz & Suen, 2000),
intangible assets (Sveiby, 2001), the Balanced
Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 2001) examination
of the normative, operational and strategic goals
of the strategy to see if they are being met (Probst,
Raub, & Romhardt, 2000).
establishing KM Success
Deliberate strategies are usually articulated as a
plan. Mintzberg (1994) suggested that strategic
planning processes fail when they are not constructed to understand, internalize and synthesize,
that is to learn from the successes or failures of the
strategic process as it is implemented. It can be suggested that some approaches to KM are vulnerable
unless the strategy is conceived of as a learning
process. The step of articulating a suitable KM
strategy or series of programs for an organization
is only part of the challenge. Ensuring effective
implementation and ongoing development and
redevelopment are vital to the success of a KM
strategy that is capable of response and change.
Devising appropriate KM processes, structures,
policies or principles and mechanisms to ensure
sound decision making over time are required and
these are all indicative that knowledge management governance is required.
KM governance acts to support organizational
governance through transparent activity. It provides a mechanism for managing the identified
risks to knowledge assets in a planned and fiscally
responsible manner. Organizational governance
controls, directs and supports KM governance
through the establishment of the organizational
aims and objective of the business strategy. KM
governance should enable the strategic alignment
of KM strategy development and implementation
56
in the same way that corporate governance enables

strategic alignment of organizational activity
through policy creation.
There is some evidence of research that mentions the appropriateness of governance activity for
KM development and implementation (Foss, 2007;
Foss et al., 2003; Schroeder & Pauleen, 2005;
Wiig, 1997a, 1999). However, until 2004 there
was little indication of a link between theoretical
attributes of governance of KM in the roles and
tasks required of it, nor of the flow of authority
and communication within it until described and
defined by Zyngier (2005, 2007).
KM governance systematizes and schematizes
the following elements as follows (Zyngier, 2005,
2006; Zyngier, Burstein, & McKay, 2005, 2006):
KM governance body authorizes activity of

and is given evidence of outcomes by those
responsible for KM strategy development.
KM is implemented according to defined
and developed strategy. Outcomes of the
strategy are reported back via the KM
strategy development to the KM governance body for reflective action.
KM governance positively contributes to
the realization of strategic benefits from
managing organizational knowledge.
The approach to governance is supported by the

KM maturity models of Ehms & Langen (2002)
and Weerdmeester, Pocaterra, & Hefke (2003) that
describe the stages of maturity as initial, aware,
established, quantitatively managed and optimizing. Initial is similar to those who are curious
and exploring KM or are tentatively taking their
first steps in implementation. At this stage there
is little current level of knowledge, control and
no recognized connection between the success
of the organization and its knowledge resources.
The second stage of the maturity model is where
KM is repeated. There is a recognized connection
between the success of the organization and its
knowledge resources, with some pilot KM proj-
ects in place. The next stage in maturity is called

defined where there are KM activities in place, a
technical infrastructure and KM roles are defined
filled by staff. This equates to this researchs stage
that the organization has implemented several KM
initiatives. It is suggested that when KM is operating organization wide then it can be considered
managed with KM solutions manifest and standard
organization wide and that activities are secured
in the long term by organization-wide roles and
compatible socio-technical KM systems. (Ehms
& Langen, 2002, p. 3) in this situation KM measurement can be implemented meaningfully. The
final stage of maturity is described as optimizing
where the organization is able to adapt its KM
strategies to meet new requirements and to adapt
to changes in the organization or in the industry.
In the following sections we present the reader
with research methodology and then the survey
results that demonstrate the supportive impact of
KM governance on the development and implementation of knowledge management initiatives.
reSearcH deSign
This research aimed to investigate patterns of
governance and outcomes in strategies to leverage
organizational knowledge the phenomena of governance over KM. The research design describes
a questionnaire grounded in the theoretical KM
literature and that was adapted from previously
validated research surveys designed and used in
the European Union and was subsequently again
used twice in a longitudinal study of the understanding and uptake of KM in Australia (Ionescu,
Burstein, & Zyngier, 2006; Murray, 1998; Zyngier,
Burstein, & Rodriguez, 2003). Those areas of
the instrument adapted to include elements of
governance was informed by constructs derived
through recent related case study data collection
(Zyngier, 2006, 2008; Zyngier & Burstein, 2009).
This research was directed to those engaged in
KM activity in: public and private companies, and
government and semi government organizations.

It was conducted as an anonymous web-based
survey (survey questions appended). The data was
collected using nine online closed KM discussion
forums and list-servs and discussion forums based
in Europe, Canada, the USA, India, Australia, and
Malaysia. Distribution lists included members
from blue chip companies, SME, government
and not-for-profit institutions. Limitations of using this frame to obtain respondents can include
biased responses, the representativeness of population and possible low response rate. Specifically,
members of such discussion boards have a personal
interest in KM related concepts; therefore they
may answer differently to respondents who do not.
Due to the email method of subject recruitment
this sample cannot be said to be representative
of all organizations or of the opinion of all KM
practitioners and does not represent the population (Dillman, 2000). Sampling issues are the
same for internet and for paper based surveys
although with the internet it is more difficult to
verify. (Jansen et al., 2007) There is a legitimate
problem in the use of volunteers from the internet.
Non-response bias is countered by researcher in
that the estimate that the response rate from the 9
discussion groups gives a total population of 5500
members. However it must be strongly stressed
that the experience of the researchers also indicates
that there is very large overlap of memberships
between discussion groups. Many members email
addresses regularly appear in postings on up to
three groups on a weekly basis.
This evidence suggests that the overlap may
be in the order of up to 25% with a total sample
frame being closer to 4125. This being the case
then the response of 214 individuals may equate to
5.3%. This is acknowledged as a low response rate
however the average response rate for an unsolicited survey with no personalization of address and
no follow up is 5%. It is also acknowledged that
due to the email method of subject recruitment,
this sample cannot claim to be representative of
all organizations that have KM programs or of the
57
opinion of all KM practitioners (Dillman, 2000).

However, the number of responses is considered
large enough and sufficiently diverse to be statistically indicative (Dillman, 2000). Therefore the
response and the results are cautiously regarded as
valid through comparison with similar validated
surveys. The survey data revealed broad openness
of opinions. This openness and in some cases
blunt honesty - provides indicative trend data in
an understanding of the current global approach
to KM. It can be reasonably argued that this
population sample is a microcosm of the [KM]
population (Bryman & Bell., 2007, p. 731) and
that these are therefore, both representative of
the selected population, and accurate informants.
The survey was prefaced by an explanatory
cover letter. The survey instrument comprised
22 multiple choice questions and three questions
that required a text based response. Of these 13
multiple choice questions collect organizational
data, and nine multiple choice questions collect demographic data. The sections comprised
knowledge management definitions, the tools and
techniques in the management of knowledge as
an asset, cultural aspects of knowledge management, knowledge use in the future and obstacles
to its management, structural mechanisms that
support the development and implementation
of KM strategies and the final section sought
both organizational and individual demographic
information.
The respondents were required in some questions to tick appropriate responses using attitude
questions in the questionnaire. This allowed
ranking of agreement to a statement relative to
positive and negative endpoints of a five- point
Likert scale. The questionnaire was timed to take
approximately 14 minutes to complete. The results
have been analyzed using the statistical software
package SPSS 16.0 for Windows and employs
descriptive and inferential statistics. Analysis
takes account of the possibility of the acquiescent
response set where the respondent may develop a
pattern of agreeing with all the items. Participants
58
Table 1. Defining KM
Definition
Response
rate
Business focused creation dissemination & utilization of knowledge to fulfill org. objectives
49.5%
The capability to create store retrieve and to apply knowledge
32.8%
The use of IT to capture data and information to

manage knowledge
11.3%
Intellectual assets documents and information

bases
6.4%
were offered the opportunity to be informed of

the aggregate results of this research.
SurVeY reSultS: KM
goVernance and
Strategic ManageMent
Respondents came from 34 countries across every
continent indicating that KM is truly a widely
practiced organizational activity. The first section
of the survey deals with the respondents definition of KM and issues relating to KM strategies
contributing to the achievement of business goals.
The responses as shown in Table 1, defining an
organizations understanding of KM indicated
a strong trend of understanding KM as a business focused approach that comprises the whole
collection of processes that govern the creation,
dissemination and utilization of knowledge to
fulfill organizational objectives.
This definition clearly separates respondents
who see KM as being the capability to from those
who have a more strategic approach to the utility
of organizational KM. The other options offered
were: about intellectual assets, and as a technological concept. Only four percent of respondents
chose not to define that understanding.
The research then sought to establish from
the data, which role has authority over the KM
strategy. This survey instrument suggested that
these might be a CEO or Managing Director, a
Figure 1. Authority for KM
Chief Knowledge Officer or IP Officer or Chief

Learning Officer, a Chief Information Officer, a
stakeholder group, a Director of HR, a Consultant,
or perhaps no nominated person. The inclusion
of a stakeholder group was new among these
variables but was substantially represented in
the data. The concept of the stakeholder theory
embraces notion that the needs of the spectrum
of interests spanning the organizations owners
or shareholders (embodied in the strategic aims
of the organization), the spectrum of employees
should all be acknowledged in organizational
decision making (Van den Berghe & De Ridder,
1999). Added to this is the need to engage with
staff who both deliver elements of a KM strategy,
and with those who are expected to participate in
the sharing of knowledge. This may lead to better
buy-in from both sides in delivery and in activity
of a KM program of strategies.
Case study and anecdotal evidence points to
the appointment of a CKO, a CLO or a Chief of
IP, but that these roles are often misunderstood,
under resourced bound to fail (Desouza & Raider,
2006; Lakshman, 2007). As can be seen in Figure
1, we asked about authority for KM rather than
leadership of KM, it is found that authority most

often lies at the executive level of the organization.
Evaluating the data to establish the responsibilities of that authority role is presented in Figure
2. The responsibilities suggested were modeled
on constructs established through case studies,
with a text based field available to the survey
respondents to make additional comment. The
revealed roles from Figure 1 above all involved
are setting knowledge management priorities; the
development of policy to strategically align and
guide strategy; evaluation or measurement of
performance; review and revision of policy in the
context of performance; oversight of risk management; and financial responsibility for investment
in KM.
As can be observed across each role the least
important role is the oversight of risk management
while both the prioritizing of strategic knowledge
needs and authorization of strategy are of greatest
but not equal importance in each case. There is
however clear variance between the responsibilities. For the CEO and for the stakeholder group
the prioritization of strategic knowledge needs is
reported more highly than KM policy develop-
59
Figure 2. Governance roles and responsibilities
ment, while the obverse is true for the CKO and

the CIO that prioritization of knowledge needs is
secondary.
Drawing back to the literature, we can confirm
that all authority roles demonstrate KM responsibilities revealed hitherto only in case study
analysis, and are affirmed here by this global
survey. These responsibilities are proportionally
represented although there is variance between the
roles in the extent of responsibility for each facet
of the governance spectrum of activity.
We sought to investigate the variables that
might influence the distribution of roles. Those
investigated were size, distribution and constitution of the organization cross-tabulated with
the named roles of governance. In Figure 3 an
unambiguous consistent pattern of governance
authority emerged in relation to the size of the
organization. The large organizations with more
than 1000 employees and the small organizations
with fewer than 50 employees stood out in their
60
selection of a CKO or the CEO as the role with

authority for KM. Stakeholder groups and the CIO
were also nominated albeit to a lesser degree by
large organizations. Small to medium size enterprises employing between 100 and 1000 people
showed a more even spread of authority for KM.
It is noteworthy that only very few very large
or very few small organizations retained consultants and endowed them with authority roles. In
small organizations, this might indicate an overall lack of capacity to employ new staff with
appropriate skill sets or the lack of time or skills
for existing staff. Of the large organizations, the
employment of consultants may indicate an overall lack of capacity to understand the skill sets
required for KM that could be met by internal
staff resources, or a lack of time or skills within
existing staff structures. It may also indicate in
both very large and very small organizations, a
culture and preference for the engagement of
consultants.
Figure 3. Cross tabulation of size of organization and authority for KM
Looking in more detail at the two predominant

responsibilities, we suggest that both the prioritization of strategic knowledge needs and KM
policy development relate clearly to the strategic
alignment of KM with organizational aims and
objectives. We know from the data, that of the
respondents 64.7% agree or strongly agree that
their organizations KM program of strategies
is designed specifically to contribute to achieving business goals. In Figure 4 it is evident that
strategic alignment does not equal the successful
realization of benefits, however the active pursuit
of this goal does indicate a tendency to reap KM
rewards. What becomes pertinent is to establish
the other indicators of success for those organizations. It is not enough to say that benefits had been
realized and that all other organizations need to
do is to emulate that. In order to learn from other
cases, it is also important to examine other likely
variables that will further illuminate the road to
KM success.
Because the volatility of the environment

moderates the strategic value that can be achieved.
The capacity of the organization to manage
knowledge resources has a consequent impact on
its performance (Zack & Street, 2007). Examination of the distribution and utilization of various
KM tools and techniques can only be of use in
the context of the size, distribution and perhaps
the industry sector in which each organization
can be found. Responses by country may merely
reflect the availability of the range of tools and
techniques.
Now seeking to define where realization of
benefits is derived this research returns to structural elements in KM. These are taken as being
the maturity of the KM strategy, and the issue of
KM governance.
We observe results describing the instance of
the maturity of the KM strategy and any relationship realization of strategic benefits. It is evident in
Figure 4 below that there is a clear trend towards
the realization of strategic benefits when KM is
61
Figure 4. Maturity of KM strategy development and implementation
escalated through the stages of maturity beyond

being established through the implementation of
several initiatives to operating organization wide
and is ultimately optimized through inclusion in
strategic planning. Our trend line moves from the
realization of whatever benefits can be achieved
through exploration and initial implementations,
to a reported success rate of 92% when organizations express their KM as mature and included in
their strategic planning.
In Figure 5 below a similar strong trend is seen
in cross tabulation of governance authorities and
the realization of strategic benefits. It is clear that
a greater number of organizations realize strategic
benefits where their KM strategy is governed at
the most senior executive level by a committed
and interested CEO or Managing Director, by a
CKO or similar or by a stakeholder group.
From simple examination of these two figures
we might well conclude that in order to realize
strategic benefits of a KM strategy development
and implementation, an organization ought to
ensure that their CEO has ultimate authority in
62
governing their KM. that this would be optimized

at the mature stage of KM and that KM is included in their organizational strategic planning.
However a simple interpretation of these results
is not enough. The following figure requires some
degree of serious contemplation. The results shown
in Figure 6 are a three layer cross tabulation of:
Realization of strategic benefits

Governance authorities and
KM Maturity
The results show organizations with mature

KM programs of strategies that have realized
strategic benefits from the development and
implementation of those strategies. The reader
should note that as this represents a section of the
survey population the absolute numbers in each
category are therefore limited. However these are
indeed representations of 64 success stories. The
results can effectively be interpreted as indicative
factors in establishing for success at the various
stages of KM maturity.
Figure 5. Governance authorities and the realization of strategic benefits
Figure 6. Governance authorities, KM maturity and the realization of strategic benefits
63
Where the organization is just curious and

exploring KM, those organizations that realize
any benefits are those where KM is authorized
by a CEO; a stakeholder group; or a CIO. Of the
organizations implementing first KM initiatives
or have implemented at least one KM initiative,
then we see the same degree of involvement from
CEOs but the sudden and strong appearance of
the CKOs appointment and involvement. We also
see the involvement of some KM consultants and
the HR department.
Those organizations that have implemented
several KM initiatives again show the involvement of a CEO in some organizations however,
both the CKO and the CIO are prominent in their
involvement. We see a continued involvement of
stakeholder groups and of external consultants.
Notably there is no presence of the HR entity.
Where KM is operating organization wide
CEO or Managing Director is again prominent in
their involvement, while the CKO has an equal
level of involvement with the stakeholder group.
At the same time, we see the reappearance of the
HR entity together with the CIO and consultants.
Finally we examine those organizations where
the development and implementation of KM is
considered mature where KM is included in
strategic planning. In this scenario, it is the CKO
who is most important. The CEO or the Managing
Director are still strongly represented. The CIO
is once again prominent while the Stakeholder
group maintains a consistent presence. There is
no evidence of consultants or the HR entity in
mature KM implementation.
We ask the reader to return to Figure 2 that
examines the distribution of KM governance
responsibilities, the reader can now draw out
comparisons between their own organization
and those successful KM organizations shown
here. They can look at the maturity of their KM
implementation, the involvement of staff, and
the leadership and governance responsibilities:
the development of KM policy to guide activity,
the prioritization of KM needs, measurement
64
and evaluation, financial responsibility and the

oversight of risk management for the KM strategy.
concluSion and
future reSearcH
This research confirms that the management of
knowledge is considered a key organizational
resource by many organizations across the globe.
Further it point clearly to indicators that as the
significance and consequential positive impact
of KM becomes apparent, so too do the seniority
of those with responsibility for KM. A majority
of organizations resource their KM endeavor
with senior executive staffs organizational time
and resources. It is yet to be established which is
the cause and which is the effect in this scenario.
Organizations invest considerable resources to
support the growth and sustainability of KM. The
greater the maturity of the KM program and levels
of investment in that, the greater the likelihood
that benefits will be actualized.
KM maturity is represented in six stages likened
to the KM maturity models of Ehms & Langen
(2002) and Weerdmeester, Pocaterra, & Hefke
(2003): just curious and exploring; implementing first KM initiatives; have implemented at
least one KM initiative; have implemented
several KM initiatives; KM is operating organisation wide; and that we include management of
knowledge in our strategic planning. This research
extends those models to include the element of
strategic planning where KM is both derived from
and is embedded into organizational strategy. It
must also be said that such strategic planning can
only be successful where it is made sustainable
by the investment of resources in such growth.
We have presented the roles and the responsibilities of 214 organizations, surveyed globally
from March 2008 to the end of June 2008. From
these we have drawn data from 64 success stories
for interpretation, showing indicative factors in establishing leadership that can be cross-referenced
to governance responsibilities for success in the

stages of maturity in KM implementations.
Governance authority is qualitatively different
from power endowed through organizational rank.
It is clearly the centre of the KM decision-making
authority, an executive framework to deliver the
expected benefits of KM in a controlled manner. It
operates through the establishment of checks and
balances to strategically align activity, expressed
as policy with the oversight of financial control,
evaluation and risk. We have clearly confirmed
that all authority roles proportionally demonstrate
responsibilities that were hitherto only revealed
in case study analysis, and are confirmed through
this global survey population.
We find that recognized and defined authority
for KM leads to strategically aligned successful outcomes from investment in KM. We have
shown that governance through assigned authority
strongly contributes to successful management
of organizational knowledge to support strategic organizational management. This research
presents clear-cut and explicit findings of this
research. Future research will raise expanded issues as both text-based and other statistical data
are further examined.
referenceS
ActKM discussion forum. (2006). On Governance.
Retrieved 20 February, 2006, from http://www.
actkm.org.au
Braganza, A., Hackney, R., & Tanudjojo, S. (2007).
Organizational knowledge transfer through creation, mobilization and diffusion: a case analysis
of InTouch within Schlumberger. Information
Systems Journal.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research
methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Chua, A., & Lam, W. (2005). Why KM projects

fail: a multi-case analysis. Journal of Knowledge
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in
theory and practice. Boston: Elsevier. Butterworth: Heinemann.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing
cultural barriers to knowledge management. The
Academy of Management Executive. Ada, 14(4),
113127.
De Tienne, K. B., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C., & Harris,
S. (2004). Toward a Model of Effective Knowledge
Management and Directions for Future Research:
Culture, Leadership and CKOs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 2643.
Desouza, K. C., & Raider, J. J. (2006). Cutting
corners: CKOs and knowledge management.
Business Process Management Journal, 12(2).
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys:
The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ehms, K., & Langen, M. (2002). Holistic Development of Knowledge Management with
KMMM. Retrieved 5 December, 2004, from
www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/library.
cgi?action=detail&id=5180
Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1999).
Strategic alignment: Leveraging information
technology for transforming organisations. IBM
Systems Journal, 38(2/3), 472.
International Standards Organization. (2006). ISO/
IEC 16085:2006: Systems and software engineering - Life cycle processes - Risk management.
Geneva: International Standards Organization.
Ionescu, L. M., Burstein, F., & Zyngier, S. (2006).
Knowledge Management Strategies in Australia
(No. 2006/01). Caulfield East: Knowledge Management Research Program, Monash University.
Document Number.
65
IT Governance Institute. (2001). Board Briefing on

IT Governance. Rolling Meadows, Il. Information
Systems Audit and Control Foundation.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Fall and Rise of

Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review,
(January-February): 107114.
Jennex, M., & Zyngier, S. (2008). Security as a

Contributor to Knowledge Management Success.
Information Systems Frontiers: A Journal of Research and Innovation, 9(5), 493504.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. W., & Lampel,

J. (1998). Strategy Safari; the complete guide
through the wilds of strategic management. London: Pearson Educational.
Kaen, F. R. (1995). Corporate finance: concepts

and policies. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
Murray, P. (1998). The Cranfield/Information

Strategy Knowledge Survey; Europes State of
the Art in Knowledge Management. London: The
Economist Group.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance
Measurement to Strategic Management: Part 1.
Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87104.
Kelleher, D., & Courtney, N. (2003). PD 7502
Guide to Measurements in Knowledge Management. London: British Standards Institution.
Kulkarni, U. R., Ravindran, S., & Freeze, R.
(2006). A Knowledge Management Success
Model: Theoretical Development and Empirical
Validation. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 23(3), 309347.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Pfeffer, J. (2005). Understanding the Role of Power
in Decision Making. In Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S.,
& Jang, Y. S. (Eds.), Classics of Organization
Theory (6th ed., pp. 289303). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhardt, K. (2000).
Managing Knowledge; Building Blocks for Success. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Lakshman, C. (2007). Organizational knowledge

leadership: a grounded theory approach. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
28(1), 5175.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing

barriers managers must consider. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9(3), 1835.
Lavergne, R., & Earl, R. L. (2006). Knowledge

Management: A Value Creation. Journal of Organizational Culture. Communication and Conflict,
10(2), 4360.
Schultze, U., & Stabell, C. (2004). Knowing What

You Dont Know? Discourses and Contradictions
in Knowledge Management. Journal of Management Studies, 41(4), 549573.
Liebowitz, J., & Suen, C. Y. (2000). Developing

knowledge management metrics for measuring
intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
1(1), 5467.
Smits, M., & deMoor, A. (2004). Measuring

Knowledge Management Effectiveness in Communities of Practice. Paper presented at the 37th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2004). Strategic Management of e-Business. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
66
Spender, J. C. (1996). Organizational knowledge,

learning and memory: three concepts in search
of a theory. Journal of Organizational Change
Standards Australia. (2005). AS 5037-2005 Knowledge management - a guide (2nd ed.). Sydney:
Standards Australia.
Stehr, N. (2003). The Governance of Knowledge.
New York: Transaction Publishers.
Sun, P. Y.-T., & Scott, J. L. (2005). An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer. Journal of
Sveiby, K. E. (2001, July 2004). Methods for
Measuring Intangible Assets. Retrieved August,
3, 2004, from http://wwwsveiby.com/articles/
IntangibleMethods.htm
Swart, J., & Kinnie, N. (2003). Sharing knowledge
in knowledge-intensive firms. Human Resource
Management Journal, 13, 60.
Tanudjojo, S., & Braganza, A. (2005). Overcoming
Barriers To Knowledge Flow: Evidence-Based
Attributes Enabling The Creation, Mobilization,
and Diffusion of Knowledge. Paper presented
at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii.
Tiwana, A. (2002). The Knowledge Management
Toolkit: Orchestrating IT, Strategy, and Knowledge Platforms (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Van den Berghe, L., & De Ridder, L. (1999). International Standardisation of Good Corporate
Governance: Best Practices for the Board of
Directors. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Van Grembergen, W., De Haes, S., & Van Brempt,
H. (2007). Strong Consensus on the Most Important Business and IT Goals. COBIT Focus, 3, 13.
Weber, M. (2005). Bureaucracy. In Shafritz, J. M.,
Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (6th ed., pp. 7378). Belmont,
CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Weerdmeester, R., Pocaterra, C., & Hefke, M.

(2003). D 5.2. Knowledge Management Maturity
Model (No. ST-2002-38513): INFORMATION SOCIETIES TECHNOLOGYo. Document Number.
Weill, P., & Ross, J. (2004). IT governance: how top
performers manage IT decision rights for superior
results. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wiig, K. M. (2004). People-focused Knowledge
Management: How Effective Decision Making
Leads to Corporate Success. Burlington, MA:
Elesevier Butterworth Heinemann.
Zack, M. H., McKeen, J. D., & Singh, S. (2006).
Knowledge Management and Organizational
Performance: An Exploratory Survey. Paper presented at the Thirty-Ninth Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
Zack, M. H., & Street, C. (2007, June). A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Knowledge
on Firm Performance. Paper presented at The
International Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge, and Capabilities, University of
Western Ontario
Zyngier, S. (2002). Knowledge Management Obstacles in Australia. Paper presented at the 10th
European Conference on Information Systems,
Gdansk, Poland.
Zyngier, S. (2005). Knowledge Management
Governance. In Schwarz, D. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management. Hershey, PA:
Idea Group Publishing.
Zyngier, S. (2006). The Role of Knowledge Management Governance in the Implementation of
Strategy. Paper presented at the 39th. Hawaiian
International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS39), Hawaii.
67
Zyngier, S. (2007). Knowledge Management

Governance: a Framework for Knowledge Management Benefits Realization. Paper presented
at the 8th International Research Conference on
Quality, Innovation and Knowledge Management,
New Delhi, India.
Zyngier, S. (2008). Risk management: Strengthening Knowledge Management. International
Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3).
Zyngier, S., & Burstein, F. (2009). Knowledge
management governance as a mechanism for
sustainable organizational knowledge creation
and transfer. International Journal of Learning
and Intellectual Capital, 6.
Zyngier, S., Burstein, F., & McKay, J. (2004).
Knowledge management governance: a multifaceted approach to organizational decision and innovation support. Paper presented at the Decision
Support in an Uncertain World: Proceedings of
the 2004 IFIP WG8.3 International Conference on
Decision Support Systems (DSS2004), Prato, Italy.
Zyngier, S., Burstein, F., & McKay, J. (2005). Governance of Strategies to Manage Organizational
Knowledge - a mechanism to oversee knowledge
needs. In Jennex, M. (Ed.), Knowledge Management Case Book. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Books.
Zyngier, S., Burstein, F., & McKay, J. (2006). The
Role of Knowledge Management Governance in
the Implementation of Strategy. Paper presented
at the 39th. Hawaiian International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS39), Hawaii.
Zyngier, S., Burstein, F., & Rodriguez, M.-L.
(2003). Knowledge Management Strategies in
Australia. In Hasan, H., & Handzic, M. (Eds.),
Australian Studies in Knowledge Management.
Woolongong, Australia: University of Wollongong Press.
68
KeY terMS and definitionS

Authority: An established power to enforce
moral or legal decisions. Organizational authority
is accountable for its actions. Authority is a right to
demand and instruct subordinates. Authority may
also be delegated or be derived from delegated
control. The organization may mandate power to
a role or position a group or individual in authority, or power may be assigned or sanctioned by
consensus.
Evaluation: The assessment of the effectiveness of service delivery and the identification of
obstacles or barriers to service delivery. Some
means of evaluation include understanding the
perceptions of improvement in the organization
in the manner in which it formalizes knowledge
processes, knowledge structures and underlying
systems. These in turn will affect operations,
products or services delivered. Another means of
evaluation of the effectiveness of a KM strategy
is through establishing increased awareness and
participation in that strategy.
Governance: A process that is a framework
of authority to ensure delivery of anticipated or
predicted benefits of a service or process. The
operationalization of the particular organizational
strategy and is therefore executed in an authorized
and regulated manner. Governance act to manage
risk, evaluate and review strategic goal and objectives and exercise fiscal accountability to ensure
the return on investment of those strategies.
Measurement: Substantially a quantitative
tool. It may rely on direct comparison of performance before and subsequent to the initiation and
establishment of a KM strategy. The organization
may choose to measure of its performance in market competitiveness and acceptance, it may look
at the contribution of the KM strategy to financial
benefits and viability. It can also measure contributions to and the growth in the volume of explicit
knowledge content stored and used by staff. Some
knowledge managers may regard the increase in
the resources attached to the project as a measure
of the acceptance and hence the understanding of

the value of KM to their organization.
Return on Investment (ROI): Commonly
used as an accounting term to indicate how
well an organization has used its investment in
resources. In a knowledge management context,
ROI describes the return on both the human and
financial capital invested in that strategy. Some
measures may include sustainable growth, calculable efficiencies in product development cycles;
improved decision-making; better ability initiate
and integrate new employees; lower rates of staff

turnover reflecting improved employee morale;
better ability to retain customers reflecting trust
in employees expertise
Risk Management: A tactic to minimize
the susceptibility of the KM strategy to risk and
subsequent failure or ineffectiveness. Risk must
be analyzed to assess the potential exposure to
the chance of human or infrastructural barriers.
Risk may also threaten operational or financial
elements of the strategy.
69
aPPendix a: SurVeY queStionS

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
70
There are a number of definitions of knowledge management listed below. Please indicate the one
that most closely reflects your organizations interpretation.
A technological concept - the use of information technology to capture data and information
in order to manage knowledge
A business focused approach - the collection of processes that govern the creation, dissemination, and utilisation of knowledge to fulfil organisational objectives
About intellectual assets - taking the form of documents and information bases
The capability to create, store, retrieve and to apply knowledge

Select the reason/s that knowledge is important to your business
Gaining competitive advantage
Growing revenue
Growing profits
Improving market share
Instigating change
Identifying new markets
Developing new product/services
Improving efficiency
Improving effectiveness
Other (please specify)

What is your organizations current stage in KM?
How long has your organization been involved with formal strategies to manage knowledge?
The organizations KM program of strategies is specifically designed to contribute to achieving
business goals
Since 2003 your organizations budget for knowledge and learning activities has proportionately:
Grown; Remained about the same; Dont know
In the last 5 years that the number of knowledge workers in your organization has: Grown; Remained
about the same; Dont know
Please indicate all the KM techniques used in your organization:
Facilitated networking
Social network analysis
Peer to peer knowledge sharing
Communities of Practice face to face and virtual
Best practice replication
Organisational learning programs
Innovation support
Strategies to protect Intellectual Property
Strategic information management
Storytelling
After action review
Knowledge brokers
Narrative
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Please indicate all the KM tools used in your organization:
Video-conferencing
Groupware (e.g. Lotus Notes)
Online forums or list-serv
Intranet
Portal
Expert systems
Search and retrieval agents
Data warehousing & Data mining
Document repositories
Document management systems
Instant messaging
Wikis
Blogs
Who has authority for the KM strategy?
CEO / Managing Director
Chief Knowledge / IP / Learning Officer
Chief Information Officer
A stakeholder group
Director of HR
Consultant
No-one
Is there a formal terms of reference or position description for this authority
What does the authority cover?
KM Policy development
Developing terms of reference
Authorizing strategy
Oversight of risk management
Oversight of financial management and allocation of resources
Review and revision of policy
Prioritization of strategic knowledge needs

Who is responsible for planning and development of KM strategy?
Chief Knowledge Officer
Chief Learning Officer
Director of HR
A department/function
Consultant
Informal cross-functional team
Formal cross-functional team
No formal role exists
71
14. What is involved in KM strategy development?
Build ways to leverage explicit knowledge
Build ways to leverage tacit knowledge
Map/Audit knowledge resources
Identify and or locate knowledge and information
Selection of KM techniques
Selection of KM tools
Measure or evaluate effectiveness of KM
Financial management
Analyze and remedy risks to KM strategies
Benchmark best practices

15. Who is responsible for the implementation of KM strategy?
Chief Knowledge Officer
Chief Learning Officer
Director of HR
A department/function
Consultant
Informal cross-functional team
Formal cross-functional team
No formal role exists

16. What is involved in KM strategy implementation?
Collect or gather knowledge and information
Organise knowledge
Implement learning strategies
Broker or distribute knowledge
Facilitate Communities of Practice
Roll out and implement KM tools
Best practice replication
Facilitate peer to peer knowledge sharing
Mentoring, training, coaching
Measure or evaluate effectiveness of KM

17. Is there a relationship between Corporate Governance and KM?
18. Reporting relationships please indicate role that applies
Those with authority for KM report to:
Those who are responsible for development of KM strategy report to:
Those who are responsible for implementation of KM strategy report to

19. Has the development and implementation of your KM strategy realized strategic benefits?
20. Please describe any contextual issues or obstacles you feel are fundamental to moving knowledge
management forward in your organization.
21. Background Information: What is your role? What industry sector is your organization in?
22. Is your organization: Listed on a stock exchange; privately owned; Government sector; Semi
Government sector; Not-for Profit organization
72
23. How many employees in your organization?

24. How many locations does your organization have?
25. Employment: How long have you worked in your organization? How long have you been in your
current position?
26. What is your highest level of education?
27. What is your age group?
73
74
Chapter 5
An Evaluation of Factors
that Influence the Success
of Knowledge Management
Practices in US Federal Agencies
Elsa Rhoads
The George Washington University, Institute of Knowledge & Innovation, USA
Kevin J. OSullivan
New York Institute of Technology, USA
Michael Stankosky
The George Washington University, USA
abStract
This chapter investigates the status of knowledge management practices implemented across federal
agencies of the U.S. government. It analyzes the extent to which this status is influenced by the size of
the agency, whether or not the agency type is a Cabinet-level Department or Independent Agency, the
longevity of KM Practices implemented in the agency, whether or not the agency has adopted a written
KM policy or strategy, and whether the primary responsibility for KM Practices in the agency is directed
by a CKO or KM unit versus other functional locations in the agency. The research also tests for possible KM practitioner bias, since the survey was directed to members of the Knowledge Management
Working Group of the Federal CIO Council and KM practitioners in federal agencies.
introduction
The implementation of knowledge management
practices has been underway in both the public
and private sectors for many years. For the federal
government this transition was well underway
prior to the devastating events of September 11th,

2001 (9/11). However those events increased the
awareness of the value and importance of the
governments stewardship of its knowledge. In
fact, the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade
Center in New York City is considered by many
to have been a wake-up call for federal agencies
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch005
to make both policy and process changes in order

to prevent future attacks.
Knowledge management programs concentrate on managing and distributing what the
government knows within and between agencies
for the purpose of taking collaborative action. The
basic tenet of knowledge management is that the
right knowledge needs to be made available to
the right people at the right time for the purpose
of taking concerted action.
The most important role of the federal government is unarguably to protect its citizens from
harm, and specifically from terrorist threats. As
a result of 9/11, President George W. Bush, upon
a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States, created in November 2002) began
to rectify the gap in sharing knowledge and coordinating action by creating the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). Twenty-two different
agencies with a total of 180,000 employees were
reorganized into a single agency for the purpose of
preventing terrorist attacks and protecting citizens
and infrastructure from threats and hazards. The
intentional sharing of knowledge on the part of
federal agencies is the new paradigm, albeit one
in transition. The major objective is to ensure that
the government knows what it needs to know,
when it needs to know it.
Deployment of knowledge management programs in U.S. federal agencies has been hampered
by two distinct conditions:
1.
2.
Long-established hierarchical commandand-control management styles and bureaucratic organizational structures make it
challenging for agencies to share knowledge
through either intra-agency collaboration,
and much less through cross-agency or
inter-agency collaboration.
Agency Information Technology (IT)
systems are a mixture of legacy systems
cobbled together with newer systems and
technologies, making interoperability a
technically difficult impediment both within

and between different agencies.
The management of the governments knowledge is also made difficult by the vast amount
of data and information contained in its repositories. In addition, the governments knowledge
is comprised of the working knowledge in the
minds of approximately 1,800,000 federal employees (OPM Fedscope, 2004) To manage this
bewildering resource of both explicit and tacit
knowledge and harness its capabilities is enormously demanding. Much of the knowledge in
government organizations, and certainly within
a constituency base, is tacit in nature, that is,
knowledge that cannot be easily articulated and
thus exists in peoples hands and minds, and only
manifests itself through their actions. (Stenmark,
2001) (Koh, Ryan & Prybutok, 2005)
A further problem is that the management of
knowledge can be executed in many forms, but
it is most useful to agencies when these forms
are developed to fit specific agency objectives.
This immediate utility is what gives knowledge
its value to each agency. However, these unique
uses and designs are what make it difficult to share
knowledge across agencies. Much research has
been pursued in the area of knowledge management, in which knowledge management initiatives
were internally focused, and principally aimed
at collaboration and knowledge sharing among
employees (Almashari, Zairi & Alathari, 2002),
(Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993) (Lai & Chu,
2003), (Liebowitz, 2003-2004) & (Koh, Ryan &
Prybutok, 2005)
Unfortunately, there has been mixed comprehensive research into the value proposition
of applying knowledge management practices
to achieve improvements in productivity either
within a single federal agency, or through the
transfer of knowledge between agencies to serve
common customers.
The focus of this chapter and our research has
been to answer the following question:
75
What factors influence the success of knowledge

management practices within the U.S. federal
government?
To answer this question, a survey of KM
practitioners in federal agencies, members of
the Knowledge Management Working Group
(KM WG) of the Federal CIO Council, (Chief
Information Officers), was conducted in 2005.
The current website of the Federal Knowledge
Management Working Group is located at http://
km.gov. The survey identified the status of knowledge management programs in federal agencies
and examined the extent to which this status was
influenced by the size of the agency, whether or
not the agency type was a Cabinet-level Department or Independent Agency, the longevity of
established KM Practices in the agency, whether
or not the agency had adopted an effective KM
policy or strategy, and whether the primary responsibility for KM Practices was directed by a
CKO or KM unit versus another type of functional
unit in the agency.
The question of the success of KM Practices is answered by the fact that we now have
benchmark data on the KM Practices established
in individual U.S. federal agencies, resulting
from credible sources from the responses of the
KM practitioners in these agencies themselves.
This survey has obtained the first baseline data
on this subject.
reSearcH bacKground
One of the most inhibiting and intransigent
barriers contributing to the lack of knowledge
transfer within and across federal agencies is the
lingering presence and influence of the historical
culture of organizational bureaucracy that is built
into federal organizations. It is a hierarchical approach to management, more appropriate for the
Industrial Age, in contrast to the practical and
intentional establishment of collaborative working
76
relationships between employees from different

operational entities more suitable to the Knowledge Age of the twenty-first century. Employees
must be prepared to work across the independent
silos of agency operations to bring their collective
knowledge to bear on the most demanding issues
facing the government, in times of normalcy as
well as in emergencies.
In many European countries, the central government establishes knowledge management planning and implementation for the whole country
through a central administration, and this acts as
an effective mandate for knowledge management
within and between governmental bodies in the
country. Many of these countries are members
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD). The OECD promotes
knowledge management, and for that reason a
separate discussion of the OECDs role is included
in this chapter.
In the United States, there is no comparable
centrally administered mandate for the adoption of
knowledge management programs in U.S. federal
agencies. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reporting to the President, mandates
agency commitment to adopt an E-Government
approach to provide electronic services to the
U.S. public, in response to the Presidents Management Agenda (PMA) adopted in 2002. The
PMA contains the principles for the Presidents
vision for government reform: to citizen-centered,
not bureaucracy-centered, results-oriented and
market-based agency organizations. There is no
concomitant mandate for the intentional transfer
of knowledge through the implementation of
knowledge management programs within and
between agencies.
The General Accountability Office (GAO),
an independent non-partisan agency reporting to
Congressional policy-makers and the public under
the leadership of the U.S. Comptroller General
(who holds the position for a period of 15 years)
with the authority to improve the performance
and ensure the accountability of federal government programs.

In 1998, David M. Walker was appointed
Comptroller General by President William J.
Clinton. At the latter part of his career at the GAO,
his work led him to conduct a series of wake-up
tours around the country to warn about the worsening fiscal condition of the federal government.
In March 2008 he joined the Peter G. Peterson
Foundation in New York as President and CEO.
He recently shared his knowledge in a new book
titled Comeback America: Turning the Country
Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility.
While the GAO promotes knowledge management, and embraces it internally, it does not
mandate knowledge management. However, the
specific use of knowledge management for its
transformational effect on organizations has received longstanding support (GAO, 2004). One
of the stated goals of the GAOs Strategic Plan
is to transform the federal governments role and
how it does business to meet twenty-first century
challenges. The GAO considers transformation as
the key to achieving a new model of management
for government organizations.
In 2005, the GAO designated a new high
risk watch area for federal agencies that of
establishing appropriate and effective information
sharing mechanisms, citing the need for securing
the homeland in a government-wide effort involving multiple federal agencies. (GAO, 2005).
In December 2005, the 9/11 Commission
remonstrated that The failure to share information among and within agencies cost us dearly on
September 11th, and concluded No single step
is more important to strengthen our intelligence
than to improve information sharing. (9/11 Commission Report Card, 2005).
Public Sector Governance: Traditionally,
public administrations are bureaucratic organizations: an operational definition that gives a better
understanding of the difficulties of bringing about
change (OECD, 2000). The office organization is
a collective order, a legitimate domination based
on a set of procedures, a professional organization

based on process. The production of services in a
bureaucratic organization follows the concepts of
specialization and sequencing of tasks. The advantage to employees for this segmented, bureaucratic
work style is that there was no requirement for
employees to collaborate with others (Dupuy,
OECD, 2000). From the other side of the equation, to receive services, the public had no choice
but to follow the sequential steps imposed by the
organizations operational procedures. This is the
antithesis of todays customer-service orientation
between the government as provider and the public
as customer.
Sistare (2004) describes the concept of achieving government transformation and reorganization
for the twenty-first century through means of a
virtual reorganization. This has become increasingly possible, due to the growth of the Internet.
There are four possible paths to achieve the
virtual reorganization of federal agencies in lieu
of a physical reorganization: virtual reorganization through e-Government (firstgov.gov); virtual
reorganization through coordinating councils
(Council of Chief Information Officers); reorganization by commission (the 9/11 Commission);
and reorganization via legislative authorization
(the forming of DHS). (Sistare, 2004).
An effective implementation of knowledge
management to achieve electronic government
requires that knowledge be managed horizontally
across agencies. Citizens are not cognizant about
where or how the government information they
require is created, or whether the information they
seek needs to be aggregated by federal agencies to
provide the ultimate service. To effectively meet
these objectives requires that knowledge be integrated between independent segments of common
service functions across government. Even though
the federal government is organized vertically,
with each department and agency serving the
public directly, much of what federal agencies do
to effectively distribute what it knows to improve
public services is achieved by sharing knowledge
77
through horizontal partnerships. Government

agencies are vertical bureaucracies (federal, state
and local) that are inherently knowledge-intensive
(Barquin, Bennet, & Remez, 2001). Knowledge
management requires leveraging the collective
knowledge of agencies to fulfill the mission of
the overall federal enterprise (Barquin, Bennet,
& Remez, 2001).
Knowledge Management Practices and the
OECD: Headquartered in Paris, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) provides a forum where the governments
of 30 industrialized countries, with democratic
governments, work together to solve the common
economic, social and governance challenges of
the member countries. Knowledge management
forms the central core of OECD focus.
In January 2002, the OECD launched the first
international survey of knowledge management
practices for ministries/departments or agencies of
central government in OECD member countries. A
comparison of seven functional sectors of central
governments was obtained through a survey of 20
participating members. These functions were the
ministries of Economy, Trade and Industry, Education, Finance/Budget, Foreign Affairs, Health/
Social Affairs, Home Affairs/Interior, and State
Reform/Civil Service/Public Administration. The
United States, a member of the OECD, submitted
responses to the survey in all except the Finance/
Budget sector.
The broad conclusions of the OECD KM
Practices Survey were that within the central
government in OECD countries, activities are
knowledge-intensive, staff is highly educated, a
critical mass of knowledge exists in these public
organizations, and central governments must
have superior mechanisms with which to share
knowledge across government organizations.
The OECD survey was designed to review the
actual KM Practices implemented, as well as to
elicit a self-assessed perception of the results of
these practices.
78
One of the significant results of the survey was

that there is a need to think about knowledge management from a whole of governmentperspective
rather than from the perspective of individual
organizations within central government. (OECD,
GOV/PUMA, 2003. This is a key difference from
the perspective of how knowledge management
programs are implemented in the U.S. federal
government. While they may be adopted within
individual departments or agencies, they are not
directed for adoption for the federal government
as a whole.
reSearcH deSign and

MetHodologY
The research methodology was designed to
investigate the factors affecting success in U.S.
federal agencys adoption of Knowledge Management Practices in Cabinet-level Departments and
Independent Agencies reporting to the President.
The Bureaus and Program Offices of the large
Cabinet-level Departments are comprised of approximately 130 organizations.
Research Goal: The central research goal was
to examine the influence of five key factors in
the success of knowledge management practices
within the federal government.
Research Hypothesis: Five research hypotheses were developed to address this research goal.
HS: Small federal agencies have higher KM
Practices Index Scores than large agencies.
HI: Independent agencies have higher KM
Practices Index Scores than Cabinet agencies.
HL: Agencies where KM has been in place
for more than 4 years have higher KM Practices
Index Scores than agencies where KM has been
in place for less than or equal to 4 years.
HP: Agencies with a commitment to an effective written KM policy or strategy have higher
KM Practices Index Scores than agencies with no
effective written KM policy or strategy.
Table 1. Survey research population

The 16 U.S. Federal Government Cabinet-level Departments
Agriculture
Housing & Urban Development
Commerce
Interior
Defense
Justice
Education
Labor
Energy
State
Environmental Protection Agency
Transportation
Health and Human Services
Treasury
Office of Homeland Security
Veterans Administration
The 10 U.S. Federal Government Independent Agencies

Agency for International Development
Office of Management and Budget
Army Corps of Engineers
Office of Personnel Management
General Services Administration
Small Business Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Smithsonian Institute
National Science Foundation
Social Security Administration
HR: Agencies where the KM responsibility is

assigned to a KM unit have higher KM Practices
Index Scores than agencies where the KM responsibility is assigned to a different department.
Each of these hypotheses has an associated
null hypothesis.
The dependent variable for this study is an
index score of Knowledge Management Practices
in federal agencies. The independent variables are
the size of the agency, whether or not the agency
type is a Cabinet-level Department or Independent
Agency, the longevity of KM Practices, whether
or not there is a commitment to adopt a KM policy
or strategy, and whether the primary responsibility
for KM Practices is directed by a CKO or KM unit
versus other functional locations in the agency.
The KM Practices survey questions for this
research are drawn from both the Statistics Canada
KM Practices survey conducted in 2001, and
from the first international KM Practices survey
conducted by the OECD in 2002. Previous to the
KM Practices survey of U.S. federal agencies,
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic,
Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States

participated in the OECD Knowledge Management Practices survey. This survey was limited
to seven common functional government areas
of operation in each country. The KM Practices
survey of U.S. federal agencies was conducted
in March 2005.
Research Population: The survey research
targeted the population of the 16 Cabinet-level
Departments and the 10 Independent Agencies of
the federal government listed in Table 1.
Research Instrument: The KM Practices
research instrument was used to determine the
extent of KM practices implemented in the 26
federal departments and agencies and the type of
practices most frequently employed. It consisted
of 45 questions in three sections: 27 questions
about specific Knowledge Management Practices; 11 questions regarding the perception of
effective results from the use of KM Practices;
and 6 mixed questions.
Validation and Reliability: The survey instrument was based on the previous KM Practices
surveys conducted by Statistics Canada, Denmark,
France, Germany, and the OECD. Our Web-based
79
online survey was tested, and feedback was received from a Survey Special Interest Group (SIG)
of members of the KM WG interested in taking the
survey in order to provide feedback prior to the
survey distribution. Feedback from these members
indicated a concern for the time required to take
the survey, and adjustments were made.
Research Procedures: Procedures recommended by Statistics Canada were followed in
the administration of the research instrument.
In addition, the recommendation of the central
government office in Germany that piloted a
Knowledge Management Practices survey to
utilize a Likert scale was followed. The Canadian
survey used a predictive scale that asked whether
the respondent had implemented the KM Practices
within the past 24 months, or whether they were
considering an implementation within the next
24 months. In January 2005, in a review of the
survey prior to its distribution, Statistics Canada
advised the use of a four-ratio Likert scale instead
of a five-ratio scale.
data collection and analYSiS

The survey was distributed in the first week of
March 2005. It remained open for 6 weeks and
was closed in April 2005. The online survey was
a blind survey, ensuring that no individual names
were attributable to the information collected
from each agency. The survey was distributed by
a survey company via an e-mail code to 326 KM
practitioners, employees of U.S. federal agencies
and members of the KM WG of the Federal CIO
Council.
After six weeks, the total count of survey
responses received from 26 different agencies
was 125, or 38% of the members of the KM WG.
Of the 125 responses, 119 were included in the
analysis, with 6 removed because of incomplete
or missing data.
Validation of the Survey Instrument: The
reliability of our survey tool was assessed after the
80
initial review of the data analysis of the descriptive

statistics concerning the respondent profiles and
prior to considering the validation of the research
hypotheses. An analysis of the normal distribution
of the variables was performed before examining the possible variance analyses. A descriptive
analysis was conducted in order to verify the kurtosis and skewness values of the various factors.
It is generally accepted that variables obtaining
an absolute value lower than 2 are acceptable
(George & Mallery, 2005). In order to assess the
discriminant and convergent validity, various factor analyses were conducted using the principal
component method with a Varimax rotation and
a Kaiser normalization. Only factors obtaining an
eigenvalue greater than 1 were extracted.
The Cronbachs alpha test was used to test the
internal reliability of the KM Practices construct
as well as its five dimensions. The overall alpha
value for the KM practices is =0.941, which
reflects an excellent level of reliability. All the
alpha values are greater than 0.7, which denote
an acceptable level of internal reliability of the
KM Practices construct.
Data Analysis: The KM Index Score for each
agency was evaluated under 5 dimensions, as a
result of the component factor analysis of the 27
KM Practice questions. Each dimension was rated
separately, and is described in Table 2.
In order to increase the validity and the reliability of our analysis it was decided to include
only the agencies where more than 1 respondent
responded to the survey (frequency 2).
1. Agency Size Influence. Hypothesis HS tests
the difference between the KM Practices Index
Score (dependent variable) associated with the size
of the federal department or agency (independent
variable). HS: Small federal agencies have higher
KM Practices Index Scores than large agencies.
Table 3 shows the size of each agency responding to the survey. While not a federal agency,
The World Bank was included in the survey as a
public sector organization with a long and close
Table 2. The KM Index Score Dimensions

Index Dimensions
Description
Knowledge Engagement
Agency implementation of KM Practices through KM policy, strategy as responsibility of a CKO or KM unit;

including formal and informal training in Knowledge Management Practices
Knowledge Exchange
Agency value system conducive to promote knowledge-sharing; improve workforce retention; monetary or
non-monetary incentives; capture of Best Practices and Lessons Learned; SME locators; portal for shared
documents; submit best practices
Knowledge Acquisition
Partnerships/alliances to acquire knowledge; captures external knowledge; develop CoPs; transfer knowledge
to less-experienced workers
KM Responsibility
Responsibility of managers/executives; responsibility of non-management workers
KM Training and
Mentoring
Formal and informal mentoring; funding for work-related courses; funding for KM study
Table 3. Agency Size

Agency
Frequency
Percent
Size
Cabinet
Independent
Department of Veterans Affairs
VA
3%
236,495
Cabinet
Department of the Army
US Army
7%
230,496
Cabinet
Department of the Navy

(incl. US Marine Corps)
US Navy
13
10%
174,350
Cabinet
Department of the Air Force
USAF
2%
154,999
Cabinet
Department of the Treasury
TREAS
5%
122,521
Cabinet
Department of Agriculture
USDA
6%
101,472
Cabinet
Department of Defense Civilian
DOD
13
10%
98,663
Cabinet
Department of Health & Human

Services
HHS
2%
63,514
Cabinet
Department of Transportation
DOT
7%
55,611
Cabinet
Army Corps of Engineers
USACE
4%
35,250
Independent
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA
2%
18,452
Independent
Department of Energy
DOE
11
9%
14,990
Cabinet
General Services Administration
GSA
4%
12,472
Independent
The World Bank
WB
2%
9,300
Special
Government Printing Office
GPO
2%
2,395
Independent
United States Agency for International

Development
USAID
6%
2,317
Independent
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
PBGC
10
8%
780
Special
affiliation with the Federal Knowledge Management Working Group.

The KM Practices Index Score variable was
measured on an interval/ratio scale of values
ranging from (5-20). Since most agencies were
large-sized, we used the median value of the
agency size (45,431) in order to differentiate small

versus large agencies. Agencies having a size
lower than or equal to 45,431 employees were
categorized as small and the others as large.
An independent-sample one-tailed t test was used
to analyze the differences of means between the
81
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of the 2 Groups Studied

Group Statistics
KM Index Score
Size_S_L
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Small
Large
33
13.1192
2.03984
.35509
53
11.2106
3.37009
.46292
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean

Group Statistics
KMIndexScore
Agency type
Cabinet
75
11.3290
3.21994
.37181
Independent
32
12.6541
3.00754
.53166
Figure 1. Comparison between the KM Index Score of Small and Large Agencies
two groups (small and large). Table 4 provides

the descriptive statistics of the two groups studied.
The probability associated with the Levenes
test for equality of variance is 0.012 (Table 5, row
(1)). Because this is less than .05, we can be
reasonably certain that the variance of the KM
Index score differs across the two groups. Data
from the second row of Table 5 is used (equal
variance not assumed).
Applying the two-step rule, p=0.001 (one
tailed) (lower than the pre-set of .05) and directionality of the difference in sample means is
consistent with HS (Small 13.12 > 11.21 Large).
Thus, H0 is rejected and HS is accepted. We can
be reasonably certain that small agencies have
higher KM Practices Index Scores than large
agencies.
82
2. Cabinet Agencies vs. Independent Agencies Influence: Hypothesis HI tests the difference
between the KM Practices Index Score (dependent variable) associated with Cabinet-level and
Independent Agencies (independent variable). HI:
Independent agencies have higher KM Practices
Index Scores than Cabinet agencies.
ranging from (5-20). An independent-sample
one-tailed t test was used to analyze the differences of means between the two groups (cabinet
and independent). Table 5 provides descriptive
statistics of the two groups studied.
test for equality of variance is 0.594 (Table 6, row
(1)). Because this is more than .05, there is no
reasonable certainty that the variance of the KM
Table 6. Comparison between the KM Index Score of Cabinet-level and Independent Agencies
Independent Samples Test
Levenes
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
KMIndexScore
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
.286
Sig.
.594
t-test for Equality of Means
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
-1.987
105
.050
-1.32516
.66696
-2.64761
-.00271
-2.043
62.476
.045
-1.32516
.64877
-2.62184
-.02848
Table 7. Longevity of Agency KM Initiatives

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
< 2 years
38
31.9
31.9
31.9
2-4 years
36
30.3
30.3
62.2
5-9 years
15
12.6
12.6
74.8
> 10 years
Dont know!
Total
6.7
6.7
81.5
22
18.5
18.5
100.0
119
100.0
100.0
Index score differs across the two groups. Data

from the first row of Table 6 will be used (equal
variances assumed).
Applying the two-step rule, p=0.025 (one
consistent with HI (Independent 12.65 > 11.33
Cabinet). Thus, H0 is rejected and HI is accepted.
It is reasonably certain that Independent agencies
have higher KM Practices Index Scores than
Cabinet-level agencies.
3. KM Longevity Influence: Hypothesis HL
tests the difference between the KM Practices
Index Scores (dependent variable) associated
with the longevity of the KM Practices (how
long the KM practices have been in place in the
organization) (independent variable). HL: Agen-
cies where KM has been in place for more than

4 years have higher KM Practices Index Scores
than agencies where KM has been in place for
less than or equal to 4 years.
Table 7 illustrates that in our survey population, 62.2% or more that half of the agencies have
had KM Practices implemented for a period of 2
to 4 years or less.
ranging from (5-20). The longevity variable is a
discrete categorical variable (Less than 2 years,
2-4 years, 5-9 years, more than 10 years). A oneway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was
performed to analyze the differences of means
between the various groups. Table 8 provides
descriptive statistics of the various groups studied.
83
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics of the Different Groups Studied

N
Mean
Std. Deviation
95% Confidence Interval for

Mean
Std. Error
Lower Bound
< 2 years
33
11.1827
2.54444
.44293
Minimum
Maximum
5.00
16.75
Upper Bound
10.2805
12.0849
2-4 years
32
12.1618
3.04531
.53834
11.0638
13.2597
5.00
17.32
5-9 years
14
13.7454
3.08852
.82544
11.9622
15.5287
9.05
18.63
> 10 years
13.3135
2.72521
.96351
11.0352
15.5919
9.40
18.88
87
12.1511
2.94919
.31619
11.5226
12.7797
5.00
18.88
Total

test for equality of variance is 0.743 (Table 9).
Because this is more than .05, we can not be
Index score differs across the different groups
(equal variances assumed).
The results of the ANOVA test can be found
in Table 10. The significance value p=0.028 is
lower than the pre-set of .05, which indicates
that we can be reasonably certain that significant
differences exist in KM Index Scores among the
various groups studied.
In order to test our hypothesis we made a more
precise comparison between the groups <2 years
2-4 years and the other groups.
A pairwise multiple comparison test was
performed and the result of the contrast test is
displayed in Table 11. The significance value
p=0.012 is lower than the pre-set of .05. Thus,
H0 is rejected and HL is accepted. We can be reasonably certain that agencies where KM has been
in place for more than 4 years have higher KM
Practices Index Scores than agencies where KM
has been in place for less than or equal to 4 years.
4. KM Policy Influence: Hypothesis HP tests
the difference between the KM Practices Index
Score (dependent variable) associated with agencies that have adopted an effective written KM
policy or strategy and the agencies with no written KM policy or strategy (independent variable).
HP: Agencies with an effective written KM policy
or strategy have higher KM Practices Index Scores
84
Table 9. Test of Homogeneity of Variances

KMIndexScore
Levene
Statistic
.743
df1
df2
3
Sig.
83
.529
than agencies with no effective written KM policy or strategy

ranging from (5-20). An independent-sample onetailed t test was used to analyze the differences of
means between the two groups (KM policy and
no KM policy). Table 12 provides descriptive
statistics of the two groups studied.
test for equality of variance is 0.620 (Table 13
row (1)). Because this is more than .05, we can
not be reasonably certain that the variance of the
KM Index score differs across the two groups.
Data from the first row of Table 12 will be used
Applying the two-step rule, p<0.000 (one
consistent with HP (Policy 14.24 > 10.34 No
policy). Thus, H0 is rejected and HP is accepted.
We can be reasonably certain that Agencies which
have adopted an effective written KM policy or
strategy have higher KM Practices Index Scores
Table 10. Result of ANOVA Test

ANOVA
KMIndexScore
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
Df
Mean Square
77.348
25.783
Within Groups
670.659
83
8.080
Total
748.006
86
Sig.
.028
3.191
Table 11. Contrast Test Results

Contrast Tests
Contrast
KMIndexScore
Value of
Contrast
Std. Error
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Assume equal variances
-3.7145
1.44380
-2.573
83
.012
Does not assume equal
-3.7145
1.44765
-2.566
26.987
.016

Group Statistics
KM policy in place
KMIndexScore
Mean
Std. Error
Mean
Std. Deviation
KM policy or strategy
38
14.2423
2.37113
.38465
No KM policy or strategy
69
10.3391
2.72698
.32829
Table 13. Comparison Between The KM Index Score of Agencies with or without A KM Policy or Strategy
Independent Samples Test
Levenes
Test for
Equality of
Variances
KMIndexScore
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig.
.248
.620
7.411
7.718
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Lower
Upper
105
.000
3.90320
.52667
2.84891
4.94749
85.773
.000
3.90320
.50570
2.89787
4.90852
df
than agencies with no effective written KM policy or strategy.
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
5. KM Responsibility Influence: Hypothesis

HR tests the difference between the KM Prac-
85
Table 14. Descriptive Statistics of the Different Groups Studied

Descriptives
KMIndexScore
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Minimum
Maximum
HR
12.1220
2.38630
.84368
10.1270
14.1170
9.60
16.33
IT
17
12.6078
2.72768
.66156
11.2054
14.0103
9.23
18.88
KM Unit
22
12.8744
2.86626
.61109
11.6035
14.1452
6.25
16.98
Library
8.8708
2.33934
1.65417
-12.1473
29.8890
7.22
10.53
Executive
11
12.9644
2.92186
.88097
11.0015
14.9273
7.63
18.63
Grass-Roots
26
10.4692
3.23647
.63472
9.1619
11.7764
5.00
17.63
Total
86
11.9430
3.06369
.33067
11.2861
12.5998
5.00
18.88
Table 15. Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Test of Homogeneity of Variances
KMIndexScore
Levene Statistic
df1
.308
tices Index Scores (dependent variable) and the

functional area with primary KM responsibility
(independent variable). HR: Agencies where the
KM responsibility is assigned to a KM unit have
higher KM Practices Index Scores than agencies
where KM responsibility is assigned to a different
department.
ranging from (5-20). The functional area responsibility variable is a discrete categorical variable
(Human Resources, Information Technology, KM
Unit, Library Services, Executive Management,
Grass-roots effort). A one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was performed to analyze
the differences of means between the various
groups. Table 14 provides descriptive statistics
of the various groups studied.
test for equality of variance is 0.907 (Table 15).
86
df2
5
Sig.
80
.907
Because this is more than .05, we can not be

Index score differs across the different groups
The results of the ANOVA test can be found
in Table 16. The significance value p=0.028 is
lower than the pre-set of .05, which indicates
that we can be reasonably certain that significant
differences exist in KM Index Scores between the
various groups studied.
In order to test our hypothesis, it was necessary
to make a more precise comparison between the
group KM Unit and the other groups. The result
of the contrast test is displayed in Table 17. The
significance value p=0.038 (one-tailed) is lower
than the pre-set of .05. Thus, H0 is rejected and
HR is accepted. We can be reasonably certain that
agencies where the KM responsibility is assigned
to a KM unit have higher KM Practices Index
Table 16. Result of ANOVA test

ANOVA
KMIndexScore
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
113.681
22.736
2.659
.028
Within Groups
684.144
80
8.552
Total
797.825
85
Table 17. Contrast Test Results

Contrast Tests
Contrast
KMIndexScore
Value of
Contrast
Std. Error
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Assume equal variances
-7.3375
4.08316
-1.797
80
.076
Does not assume equal
-7.3375
3.79480
-1.934
17.591
.069
Scores than agencies where the KM responsibility is assigned to a different department.
concluSion
The conclusions of the study were that the size
of the agency does influence the advance of KM
Practices within the federal agencies that were the
subject of this study. We can be reasonably certain
that small agencies have higher KM Practices,
as measured by the KM Index Score, than large
agencies. There was no previous expectation that
agency size would have an effect on the level
of the implementation of KM Practices in the
research population.
The study also found that whether or not
the agency is a Cabinet-level Department or an
Independent Agency does influence the advance
of KM Practices within the agency. Independent
agencies have higher KM Practices Index Scores
than Cabinet-level Departments. There was no
expectation that the type of agency, either Cabinetlevel or Independent Agency, would have an effect on the level of their implementation of KM
Practices. The research gives no indication for
this conclusion. This is a new finding that could

be explored further.
The research data were also analyzed to determine whether agencies where KM Practices were
in place for more than 4 years had higher KM
Practices Index Scores than agencies where KM
Practices had been in place for less than 4 years.
The study found that the longevity of KM Practices does influence the advance of KM Practices
within agencies. Agencies where KM has been
in place for more than 4 years have a higher KM
Practices Index Score than agencies where KM
Practices have been in place for less than 4 years.
This conclusion would appear to bear out the fact
that KM implementation matures and continues to
expand over time. This is an encouraging finding.
The study also found that whether or not there
is a commitment to an effective written KM
policy or strategy does influence the advance
of KM Practices in the agencies included in the
study. Agencies with an effective written KM
policy or strategy have higher KM Practices Index
Scores than agencies without an effective written
KM policy or strategy. As in most management
disciplines, policy, planning and strategy set the
tone for the agencys commitment to become
87
knowledge-centric organizations. This indicates

the value that can benefit an organization whose
management is committed to setting a policy for
the implementation of a knowledge management
program.
The study found that the location of primary
responsibility for KM Practices i.e., whether
responsibility is assigned to a KM unit versus a
different department does influence the advance
of KM Practices within the agency. Agencies
where the KM responsibility is assigned to a KM
unit have a higher KM Practices Index Score than
agencies where KM responsibility is assigned to
a different department or unit. We can conclude
that when a KM unit is created and assigned the
responsibility for the implementation of a KM
program throughout an agency, that the visibility
of this commitment results in a broader number
of KM Practices.
The study also tested the difference between
the KM Practices Index Scores associated with
survey respondents who have a KM job title and
respondents who have a job title not related to
KM. The aim was to determine whether or not
respondents with a KM job title provided higher
KM Practices Index Scores than respondents with
a different job title. The study found that we can
not be reasonably certain that respondents with
a KM job title provided higher KM Practices
Index Scores than respondents with a different
job title. Therefore, we can be reasonably certain
that responses from KM practitioners relative to
their agencys implementation of KM Practices
are not biased.
The significance of this research into the
implementation of KM Practices in U.S. federal
agencies has provided us with a first benchmark
view into the demographic characteristics of the
26 agencies that have successfully implemented
KM programs.
Additional information about the nature of
the KM practices implemented were also significant which practices were implemented most
frequently across the responding agencies; the
88
results and benefits from the implementation as

indicated by the KM practitioners themselves;
and the methods of measurement applied across
agencies. Unfortunately, we were unable to present
this information within the context of this chapter.
referenceS
Almashari, M., Zairi, M., & Alathari, A. (2002).
An Empirical Study of the Impact of Knowledge
Management on Organizational Performance.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(5),
7482.
Barquin, R. C., Bennet, A., & Remez, S. G.
(2001). Knowledge Management: The Catalyst
for Electronic Government. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.
Commission, 911 (2004). The 9/11 Commission
Report: Final Reort of the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd.
Commission, 911 (2005). Final Report of the
9/11 Public Discourse Project, December 5,
2005. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://
www.9-11pdp.org
Dupuy, F. (2000). Why Is It So Difficult to Reform
Public Administration? Government of the Future.
Paris: OECD Publications.
GAO. (2004). GAO Strategic Plan for 2004-2009,
Document # GAO-04-5334SP. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://www.gao.gov/sp.html
GAO. (2005). High-Risk Series, An Update, January, 2005, Document # GAO-05-207. Retrieved
February 2, 2005, from http://www.gao.gov/sp
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2005). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference
12.0 Update, 5th Edition.
Henderson, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations. IBM Systems
Journal, 32(2), 416.
Koh, E. C., Ryan, S., & Prybutok, V. R. (2005).
Creating value through managing knowledge in
an e-Government to constituency (G2C) environment. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
45(4), 3242.
Lai, H., & Chu, T. (2002). Knowledge Management: A Review of Industrial Cases. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 42(5), 2639.
Liebowitz, J. (2003-2004). A Knowledge Management Strategy for the Jason Organization: A
Case Study. Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 44(2), 15.
OECD. (2003). Knowledge Management: Measuring Knowledge Management in the Business

Sector-First Steps. Paris & Ministry of Canada:
Center for Educational Research & Statistics
Canada (OECD).
OPM, Office of Personnel Management. (2004,
June). FedScope. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://
www.fedscope.opm.gov/index.asp
Sistare, H. (2004). Government Reorganization:
Strategies and Tools to Get it Done, 2004 Presidential Transition Series. Washington, DC: IBM
Center for The Business of Government.
Stenmark, D. (2001). Leveraging Tacit Organizational Knowledge. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 17(3), 924.
89
Section 2
KM Measurements
91
Chapter 6
Process Model for Knowledge

Potential Measurement in SMEs
Kerstin Fink
University of Innsbruck, Austria
abStract
Knowledge measurement is developing into a new research field in the area of knowledge management.
objective to uncovering the tacit knowledge in an organization and of identifying the existing management practices is needed. This chapter uses the quantum mechanical thinking as a reference model
for the development of a knowledge potential measurement system. This system is influenced by three
knowledge velocity. Based on several case studies conducted in small and medium-sized enterprises, a
process model for the implementation of the knowledge potential framework is discussed and introduced.
Future research and limitations of the model are discussed in the final part.
Knowledge MeaSureMent
introduction
In recent years, not only knowledge management,
but also primarily the measurement of knowledge
(Holsapple, 2008; Jennex, 2007; Skyrme, 1998;
Tiwana, 2000) is developing into a new research
field. Skyrme (1998) sees the measurement and
management of knowledge-based assets as one of
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch006
the most important issues for knowledge organizations. As a result, new methods, new methodologies, and new tools have to be developed to
measure the knowledge of organizations and of
the knowledge workers. A range of quantitative
measures - mainly money-based - is available to
measure the value of a firm and its intellectual
capital. The focus is primarily in the measurement of stocks or flows. Business measurements
are the bases for decision making. Defining and
measuring the value of a company are key stra-
Process Model for Knowledge Potential Measurement in SMEs
tegic concerns in contemporary companies. In

the knowledge-economy, the value of the companys knowledge and its measurements are the
key drivers for success. In the knowledge-based
economy (Stewart, 1997), the management and
the measurement of intangible assets has become
one of the most important issues. Historically,
business focused on the measurement of tangible
assets such as the return on investment, cash flow,
and the cost of sales. In the recent years, the focus
shifted towards measuring intangible assets such
as customer satisfaction and the knowledge of the
company personnel. In light of this transition,
companies are trying to combine both financial
and nonfinancial measurements to achieve optimal
organizational well-being.
Already in 2000, the OECD (Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development)
research area concentrates on the measurement
of the knowledge and learning (OECD, 2000).
Knowledge measurement systems can help policy
makers identify where outcomes fall short of
expectations. In the near future, it will be more
important to calculate the amount of knowledge in
specific sectors and the rate at which knowledge
is produced with much more accuracy. The importance of measurement systems for knowledge
also is pointed out by Pearson (1990). To ensure
that a company is successful, business, technology, and human elements must be integrated
and balanced. The key players in a knowledge
organization are the experts with their skills and
experiences. Amar (2002) points out that experts
in knowledge organizations work together not only
to achieve the goals of the organizations, but also
to achieve the fulfilment of their own goals by using the organization as a vehicle to achieve them.
Managers in organizations have to recognize that
the uniqueness and creativity of each knowledge
worker will lead to customer satisfaction and to
the success of the company. Knowledge workers
are characterized by a high individuality and by
the denial of formal and bureaucratic structures.
The major competitive advantage of a knowledge
92
organization is the pool of knowledge workers

who find creative and quick problem solutions,
hence seven identified characteristics should be
taken into consideration (Amar, 2002):
To connect the doers work with the system

outcome, end products, or services, and/or
with incoming factors, inputs, services, or
raw materials;
To have professional and social interaction
within and outside the organization provided by or through the knowledge work;
To perform a variety of knowledge tasks
and skills;
To know how important and how visible
the knowledge workers part is in the organizations scheme of things, project, product, or service to the outcome;
To believe others have a high regard for
this work;
To employ state-of-the-art technology in
performance of this work;
To provide opportunities for new learning
and personal growth.
In general, knowledge measurement approaches can be clustered into two mainstream areas:
(1) Cognitive Science and (2) Management Approaches. Cognitive Science deals with the nature
of intelligence, and it rests on empirical studies
that describe the performance of human subjects
in cognitive tasks. Another way to structure cognitive science is to understand that field more deeply
and to know the disciplines that contributed to its
foundation. Simon and Kaplan (Simon & Kaplan,
1989) identify six disciplines which determine
the field: philosophy, psychology, neurosciences,
artificial intelligence, language, and cognition.
These six fields correspond to The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (Wilson &
Keil, 1999) that constitutes the foundation on the
cognitive sciences. The Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) clustering of the cognitive
sciences into the fields of philosophy, psychol-
ogy, neurosciences, computational intelligence,

linguistics and language, and culture, cognition
and evolution establish the basic framework for
discussing the cognitive science approach because
it is one of the most detailed approaches.
Over the years, research into measuring the
value of company intangible assets or intellectual capital (IC) has produced many methods
and theories (Management Approach). Figure 1
illustrates a measurement matrix given an overview of management measurement approaches.
The author uses the classification schema from
Sveiby (Sveiby, 1997) as a basic framework, and
is adapting it to the quantum mechanical thinking
dimension which is the key research focus of this
chapter. The X-Axis represents the content of measurement (money-based measurement, no moneybased measurement, quantum performance measurement). The Y-Axis symbolizes the object of
measurement, such as unit/process, organizational
level and finally individual (knowledge worker)
level. The 9x9-Knowledge Performance Matrix
visualizes the different measurement methods
and techniques. Knowledge measuring solutions
can accelerate decision making processes, help
enhance the speed of the business process, and
deliver a decisive competitive advantage, which
can be clustered into five commonly known
knowledge management categories:
1.
2.
3.
Direct Intellectual Capital Methods (DIC).

The DIC methods estimate the $-value of
intangible assets by identifying various
components. Once the components are
identified, they can be evaluated directly
either individually or as an aggregated
coefficient.
Market Capitalization Methods (MCM).
The MCM calculate the difference between
a companys market capitalization and its
stockholders equity as the value of its intellectual capital or intangible assets.
Return on Assets Methods (ROA). The ROA
methods divide the average pre-tax earnings
Figure 1. Knowledge measurement matrix
4.
5.
of an organization for a period of time by

the average tangible assets of the company.
The result is the ROA of a company, and it
is compared with the industry average. The
difference is multiplied by the organizations
average tangible assets to compute the average annual earnings from the organizations
intellectual capital. Dividing the intellectual
capital earnings by the companys average
cost of capital or by a reference interest
rate results in an estimate of the value of an
organizations intellectual capital.
Scorecard Methods (SC). SC methods
identify different components of intellectual
capital and corresponding indicators which
are generated in scorecards or graphs.
Knowledge Potential Measurement Method
uses quantum mechanical thinking to evaluate the intangible assets asscociated with
knowledge work.
The research focus combining the individual

level, representing the knowledge worker perspective, with the quantum mechanical thinking
integrating the uncertainty view of knowledge is
93
the objective of this chapter. The research of this

chapter focuses on the measurement process of
the highly uncertain knowledge of the experts
who have a high importance to the organization.
This field is very critical for the future success of
organizations because it contains the Knowledge
Potential (Fink, 2004) of the organization and its
knowledge workers. The term knowledge potential
refers to the skills and experience each knowledge
worker possesses based on the learning process
to transform them into an excellent employee.
The knowledge potential is about identifying,
networking, and implementing the tacit knowledge
of the experts quickly to achieve the companys
strategic objectives. The knowledge potential of
a knowledge worker covers customer capital,
networking and communication skills, competitor
information, content and culture knowledge, constant learning and training processes, information
about knowledge management systems, information about the organizational knowledge structure,
and the evaluation of the tacit knowledge of the
experts. The management has to guide knowledge workers to make their knowledge potential
transparent for the organization.
Therefore, the objective of this chapter is to
introduce a knowledge measurement system which
enables each organization to make statements
about the knowledge potential of each knowledge
worker. Influenced by the circumstance that an
uncertain character distinguishes the term knowledge, each organization has to find a measurement
system to evaluate the knowledge potential of its
highly important experts.
quantuM MecHanical
tHinKing and Knowledge
The concept of quantum mechanical thinking
and the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg are
the basic frameworks for the derivation of the
Knowledge Potential Measurement Model.
94
quantum organization
There is an aspect of uncertainty (Pearl, 1990)
associated with knowledge management and
measurement. Looking at our daily reasoning processes, most of the decisions are based on uncertain
premises, meaning that most of the action relies on
guesses. In general, it has to be accepted the fact
that uncertainty is a fact of life. Nature shows that
uncertainty exists from quantum to cosmological
scales. Complex systems, such as the ecosystem,
the economy, society, and climate border chaos
and order where the Nature is very creative. In the
knowledge management environment complexity
and uncertainty are combined forces influencing
the system and making it difficult to predict an
outcome. Uncertainty is responsible for the fact
that the more a system gets complex, the less
precise statements can be made.
Kilmann (2001) is introducing the quantum
organization as a new paradigm to manage organizational transformation in a world which
is highly interconnected and where success depends whether the participants progress towards
self-aware consciousness. This means, that
the process of transformation in organizations
requires that individuals develop a self-aware
consciousness. The transformation for organizations has to be seen in the light of the shift from
the old paradigm which Kilmann (2001) calls
Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm, to the new
paradigm, the Quantum-Relativistic Paradigm.
The traditional old paradigm separates people
from an outside, objective material universe.
This worldview is influenced by the separation
of consciousness and matter. The physical world
exists on its own, and it is unaffected by human
beings. This means, that the human mind has no
effect on the nature of the physical reality. The old
paradigm is underlying a deterministic certainty
in the sense that objects are inert and only moved
by external forces. Objects can be compared with
a billiard ball for which position and momentum
can be determined simultaneously and precisely.
The changing paradigm is influenced by the

relevance of quantum mechanical thinking. The
key question for Kilmann is why is it possible
to apply quantum-based principles to mediumsized objects such as people and organizations
(Kilmann, 2001). One reason for choosing the
Quantum-Relativistic Paradigm is to look at the
self-motion of particles and people. For Kilmann
both particles and people can be seen as monads
because they are free to choose their direction and
motion by themselves and because they do not need
external forces to move them. Nuclear particles are
similar to human beings. They have the freedom
to go anywhere and even to transform themselves
into a variety of other forms. This process causes
uncertainty in the sense of the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg (Gribbin, 1999). In quantum
physics, position and momentum uncertainty are
the archetypal example discovered by Werner
Heisenberg. This principle means that no entity
can have both precisely determined momentum
and precisely determined position at the same time.
Photons and people are at self-motion. A second
explanation for the new paradigm is the nature
of the human brain which is subdivided into two
halves, the left and the right hemispheres. While
the left brain is associated with more logical thinking, the right brain is responsible for processes
that enable a person to recognize whole images.
Zohar discusses the nature of the human being from
a quantum thinking perspective (Zohar, 1997):
The essence of quantum thinking is that it is the
thinking of precedes categories, structures, and accepted patterns of thought, or mind-sets. It is with
quantum thinking that we create our categories,
change our structures, and transform our patterns
of thought. Quantum thinking is vital to creative
thinking and leadership in organizations. It is the
key to any genuine organizational transformation.
It is the key to shifting our paradigm. Quantum
thinking can link between the brains creativity,
organizational transformation and leadership, and
the ideas found in the new science. This new
way of working also demands a different kind of
organizational structure and a new view of dealing

with employees. In the new paradigm, the knowledge of employees, the skills and experiences of
experts gained over a long period of learning and
communicating with other people stand at the
center of consideration. The basic assumption
of the new paradigm is that the problem solving
process of an individual is directed by his inner
knowledge and experience. Kilmann uses the term
quantum organization as opposed to Newtonian
organization. The term quantum organization
is used synonymous with networked organization
or knowledge-creating organization. A quantum
organization is characterized by a set of seven
categories (Kilmann, 2001):
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Inclusion of Consciousness in SelfDesigning Systems. This means that each employee has knowledge, skills, and experience
to influence the design of the organizational
system. It is a proactive approach which also
includes the knowledge of stakeholders such
as customers, competitors, suppliers and
other partners. Each individual is contributing creativity and knowledge-in-action to
solve problems.
Organizations as Conscious Participants
Actively Involved in Self-Designing
Processes. This dimension of quantum organizations implies that each employee tries
to design value-added processes throughout
the organization. Participants should reflect
on their processes and built new knowledge which is applied to add value to the
organization.
Cross-Boundary Processes as Explicitly
Addressed and Infused with Information.
In a quantum organization, its members are
encouraged to exchange knowledge with
other partners across the organizational
boundary.
The Conscious Self-Management of a
Flexibly Designed Organization. In contrast
to the Newtonian organization, the subunits
95
5.
6.
7.
in the quantum organization are responsible

for the self-management of all different kinds
of tasks such as hiring, training, recruiting,
educating and learning. The knowledge
workers are individuals who have the freedom to self-design and self-manage daily
work in order to develop creative solutions
to customer problems.
The Internal Commitment of Active
Participants. In a quantum organization,
employees are committed to discover new
knowledge and to build new knowledge and
to refresh the existing experiences in educational programs. The knowledge worker
is responsible for seeking new opportunities for constant improvement of his own
knowledge and, by this, improvement for
the whole organization.
The Empowered Relations Among Active
Participants. The high-level professionals
in a quantum organization exchange their
skills and experiences with other knowledge workers within or even outside the
organization. A cross-boundary connection
and communication with other participants
helps to foster and exchange knowledge
across national boundaries and to gain and
improve the existing knowledge base.
The Eternal Self-Transformation of Flexibly
Designed Organizations. Finally, a quantum
organization has to nourish the trust, commitment and creativity gained in the past and
transform it into present and future activities.
The transformation only will be successful
if the knowledge of joint ventures, mergers
and acquisitions, and global networks will be
used for a creative problem solving process.
The useful knowledge gain will build an
organization that can rely on the experience
and skills of its knowledge workers.
If organizations are transforming into the new

paradigm, they need a corresponding quantum
infrastructure which enables their employees to
96
use self-awareness and self-motion skills, for

teambuilding, structure, strategy, process, and
culture. The experts with their skills have to have
a cultural environment which is not built on a
standard operating system like the Newtonian
organization, but rather one built on a system of
complex problem solving which often requires not
only the expertise of one professional but also the
sharing of knowledge with diverse experts through
networking and communication.
uncertainty Principle
In 1927 Heisenberg articulated the so called
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or Indeterminacy Principle (Green, 2000; Wick, 1995).
According to the Uncertainty Principle, the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be
measured exactly at the same time. Any attempt
to measure the velocity of a subatomic particle,
such as an electron, precisely is unpredictable,
so a simultaneous measurement of its position
has no validity. This result has nothing to do
with inadequacies in the measuring instruments,
the technique, or the observer; it arises from the
intimate connection in nature between particles
and waves in the subatomic realm.
There are four properties which are important
to the Uncertainty Principle: the position of the
electron, its momentum (which is the electrons
mass times its velocity), its energy, and the time.
These properties appear as variables in equations
that describe the electrons motion. Uncertainty
relationships have to do with the measurement of
these four properties; in particular, they have to
do with the precision with which these properties
can be measured. Until the advent of quantum
mechanics, everyone thought the precision of any
measurement was limited only by the accuracy
of the measurement instruments used. Heisenberg showed that regardless of the accuracy of
the instruments used, quantum mechanics limits
precision when two properties are measured at
the same time. These are not just any two prop-
erties; they are the two represented by variables

that have a special relationship in the equations.
The uncertainty relationship can be written more
precisely by using mathematical symbols. First,
the basic symbols have to be defined:
x is the uncertainty in the position

measurement;
p is the uncertainty in the momentum
measurement;
E is the uncertainty in the energy
measurement;
t is the uncertainty in the time
measurement;
h is a constant known from quantum theory
known as Plancks constant;
is pi.
Putting these symbols together, the two uncertainty relationships look like the following
(Gerjuoy, 1993):
px
h
4
Knowledge Potential
MeaSureMent fraMeworK
basic concept and assumptions
and
E t
h
4
Assume that it is possible to measure the

position of a moving electron with such great
accuracy that x is very small. What happens
to the precision of momentum p, measured at
the same instant? From the first relationship, the
following formula can be calculated:
p
the precision of the position measurement gets

so great that the uncertainty x gets so small that
it approaches zero, then p gets so large that it
approaches infinity or it becomes completely undefined. The uncertainty relationship for energy is
stated as giving an estimate for E in the energy
that is found when measuring it in an experiment
lasting at most a time t. Considering the two
equations above, a quite accurate measurement of
one variable involves a relatively large uncertainty
in the measurement of the other.
Quantum theory measurement is needed in a
microscopic world because the measurement interaction disturbs the object. The classical theory
of measurement is adequate for the macroscopic
world because the measurement interaction does
not significantly disturb the object. The Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is the theoretical
framework for the derivation of the knowledge
potential measurement framework.
h
x
4
It can be seen that the uncertainty in the momentum measurement, p, is very large because
x in the denominator is very small. In fact, if
The Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is the

basic theoretical framework for the knowledge
potential measurement procedure. However, it is
not possible to take the equations from Heisenberg
and to transfer them to the knowledge potential approach without changes. The Uncertainty Principle
functions as a reference-model for the knowledge
approach because it is not a physical environment.
The linking relationship is that uncertainty is the
major characteristic of knowledge as well as a
physic phenomenon. The measurement procedure
of the knowledge worker is greatly influenced by
uncertain decisions. The match between the two
ideas is the concept of uncertainty. During the analogical mapping process, moreover, the existing
structure of the Uncertainty Principle is imported
into the new knowledge measurement approach.
97
The problem of measurement in the knowledge

approach arises from the fact that several principles
of the quantum world appear to be in conflict with
the knowledge approach and that, in contrast to
quantum measurement, the knowledge approach is
influenced by the individual abilities of a person.
This is the reason why knowledge management
has three basic assumptions for the uncertainty
measurement:
1.
2.
3.
The constant h will not be used; it is substituted for the knowledge potential of a
knowledge worker.
The measurement procedure is not a physical one. Thus, characteristics of a human
resource based approach must be taken into
consideration. A basic physical definition has
to be re-interpreted and put into a knowledge
context by using the analogical reasoning
process.
The theoretical implication of Heisenbergs
measurement is that the more precisely the
position is determined, the less precisely the
momentum is known in this instant, and vice
versa. This physical phenomenon is difficult
to explain for the knowledge measurement
process, hence, the conducted case studies
show first implications of this phenomenon.
It must be pointed out that the procedure of

measurement in the case of knowledge is not a
traditional one in the sense of a physical measurement. Rather it is a measurement in psychology.
Michell (Michell, 1999) points out that there is
a difference in measuring in the natural sciences
and in a psychological context. In the natural
sciences numbers are not assigned to anything;
they are measured like they are in physics. The
difference is that numbers are assigned to objects
in psychological measurement. In the knowledge
potential measurement procedure, each knowledge worker is assigned a number, his personal
knowledge potential.
98
Knowledge Potential
Measurement Process
Figure 2 illustrates the Knowledge Potential
Measurement Model (Fink, 2004).
The two key measured properties are:
Knowledge momentum (person-dependent

variables); and
Knowledge position (system-dependent
variables).
Knowledge mass is a quantity representing

the amount of expertise, skills, and experience
of a knowledge worker. Mass is characterized
by an individual dimension, and it is dependent
on the personal ability of a knowledge worker to
deal with his experience. Mass can be defined as
a person-dependent variable. The amount of the
mass is influenced by variables which depend
on the experience of a knowledge worker. The
variables concerning individual knowledge acquisition, transfer, and learning experience are
assigned to the mass index. The knowledge mass
is the sum of the four dimensions of the knowledge potential view: content, networking, skills,
and learning information. Therefore, knowledge
mass can be defined as follows:
Knowledge Mass = {Content, Networking, Skills,
Learning}.
The term knowledge mass is defined as the sum
of person-dependent variables that influence the
knowledge potential of an expert and is measured
by four variables: Content, Networking, Personal
Skills and Learning Environment.
Velocity is an expression for the displacement
an object or particle undergoes with respect to
time. Time is an observed phenomenon by means
of which human beings sense and record changes
in the environment and in the universe. Velocity
then, is the time rate of change of position of a body
Figure 2. Knowledge potential measurement model
in a particular direction. So velocity is directionoriented. When evaluating the velocity of an object, one must monitor the direction. To determine
the velocity of an object, one would need to know
the speed and direction of the object. In terms of
the knowledge potential view, knowledge velocity
is the accomplishment of problem solving objectives. How good or bad has a knowledge worker
reached his objectives within a certain time? This
means, if a person has to solve a problem, quality
of the problem solution and length of time to solve
a problem are important facts. The quality of the
solution process is relevant, but the time it took
to solve the problem also is relevant. Velocity is
an expression of the quality of the problem solution process for a knowledge worker in a certain
time. It is not enough that a knowledge worker
solves a problem quickly, but you also need to
know the direction of the solution process. Velocity measures the degree to which any knowledge
contributes to knowledge potential. An optimal
velocity performance is knowledge with a high
degree of contribution towards the improvement of
the knowledge potential. Tiwana (Tiwana, 2000)
uses the term knowledge velocity that successful
companies must develop to overcome knowledge

sluggishness and to gain competitive advantages.
Tiwana notes that knowledge sluggishness is to
learn from failures and their analyses to prevent
the repetition of past mistakes. It is necessary to
integrate a knowledge velocity into the knowledge
processes of a companys business processes.
Knowledge velocity should allow people to learn
from past decisions and to apply this experience
to new complex choices and to future decisions.
Davenport and Prusak (1998) point out that a
successful and efficient knowledge transfer is
influenced by the velocity of the transfer, the
speed with which knowledge moves through an
organization. How quickly and widely is it disseminated? How quickly do the people who need
the knowledge become aware of it and get access
to it? In a company, there must be a general acceptance for rapid decision-making and the quick
application of knowledge to the development of
new products and services. Velocity is an important
variable for one to understand how efficiently a
company is using its knowledge capital. The term
knowledge velocity in the knowledge potential
view can be defined as follows:
99
Knowledge Velocity = Degree of quality that a

knowledge worker uses to solve a problem with
respect to the time dimension. Thus, how rapidly
can customers receive high quality problem solutions? Knowledge velocity is the implementation
speed for good solutions and the quality of the
solution to the problem. Knowledge velocity is
directed towards the high quality solution of
customer problems. Knowledge velocity is the
accomplishment of problem solving objectives.
Finally, the term knowledge position has to be
described. The questions behind the knowledge
position measurement are: In what environment
is a person applying his knowledge? Where does
the action take place? What factors influence the
application of knowledge? The position variable is
system-dependent. The knowledge worker cannot
directly influence the position dimensions because
they are not dependent on his personal behavior.
Knowledge Position = {Culture, Organizational
Knowledge, Competitors, Customers, I&CS/KMS}
The term knowledge position covers all systemdependent variables that influence the creation of
the knowledge potential of the knowledge worker
and is influenced by four variables: Culture, Organizational knowledge, Competitor Knowledge,
Customer Knowledge and Information/Knowledge
Management Systems.
Knowledge position covers all of the influencing variables for knowledge potential, variables
that cannot be manipulated and changed directly
by the knowledge worker. The action-knowledge is
embedded in outputs such as products or services
demanded by a customer.
The definition of the two variable groups
depends on the company specific structure and
on industry-dependent influencing factors. These
properties appear as variables in an equation that
describes the knowledge potential of a knowledge
100
worker. Each knowledge worker has answered

questions concerning the nine dimensions which
cover the different knowledge management aspects. These nine dimensions cover the major
influencing knowledge fields. The number of
dimension also can be enlarged to more than
nine or reduced to less than nine dimensions.
These specifications depend on the industry and
on the specific company setting. Similar to the
Jennox and Olfman (Jennex & Olfmann, 2007;
Jennex, Smolnik & Croasdell 2008) Knowledge
Management Success Model it was derived from
several US and European case studies and expert
interviews conducted by the author. These case
studies took place during the time period between
2004 to 2008 and were concentrated on the ITindustry sector. In addition, videotaping (Herschel
& Yermish, 2008) and analysis is applied to get
more insight into the knowledge sharing process.
After the calculation of the knowledge potential, the value is clustered into five knowledgerating intervals. These five stages are based on the
skill acquisition model by Dreyfus and Dreyfus
(1997). The model of skill acquisition has the basic
idea that those persons who master specific skills
must pass through five levels of learning: (1) Novice, (2) advanced beginner, (3) competency, (4)
proficiency and (5) expertise (knowledge worker).
Finally, this skill acquisition position determines
future actions for SMEs to implement knowledge
processes and knowledge management systems.
The Knowledge Potential Measurement
Method is related to the field of Business Performance as well as Human Resource Performance
Measurement approaches (Kavanagh & Thite,
2009; Neely, 2007; Spitzer, 2007). In the future
it will be necessary to align measures of human
resourses to the strategic mission of an organization in order to optimize the planning of human
capital. From a strategic point of view, performance measurement is a central part of gaining
competitive advantages. Spitzer (2007) states
that performance measurement needs integration
into the daily working process in a positive way
Figure 3. Knowledge potential process model for SMEs
of thinking. In order to make measurement more

acceptable it has to be socialized in teams, units
and the overall organizations.
Knowledge Potential Measurement

Process Model for SMes
Fink (2004) applied the Knowledge Potential
Measurement Method to large organizations,
primarily in the ERP vendor segment. The experiences of the conducted case studies showed
that the process of measurement is cost and time
consuming. Since 2006, the measurement method
was therefore applied to small and medium sized
organizations (SMEs) in the US and in European
countries (Fink & Ploder, 2008). Historically,
knowledge management focused on the domain
of larger organizations. Consequently issues of
culture, networking, organizational structure
and technological infrastructure have been examined upon the implementation of knowledge
management initiatives in large multi-national
organizations and seem to give little relevance
(Corso, Martini, Paolucci, & Pellegrini, 2003;
Delahaye, 2003; Wong, 2005) to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). However, the success
and growth of SMEs depends on how well they
manage the knowledge of their knowledge work-
ers. Managers in SMEs have to recognize that

the uniqueness and creativity of each knowledge
worker will lead to customer satisfaction and the
success of the SMEs. The view of knowledge
management for SMEs is currently discussed
by Fink and Ploder (Fink & Ploder, 2006; Fink
& Ploder, 2007; Fink & Ploder, 2008) who state
that SMEs need a knowledge process model that
can be applied in a time-saving and cost-saving
manner. Figure 3 illustrates the basic framework
for SMEs to integrate knowledge measurement
into their knowledge management concept.
The SME layer defines the local and national
specifications for a SME in order to participate
on knowledge management. During this process
it is necessary to deal with a clear focused strategy, a good leadership practice and the social
context for successful knowledge management
implementation. After this process, for SMEs it
is necessary to concentrate on the key knowledge
processes of their organization (Fink & Ploder,
2008). Besides complex knowledge management
systems, Fink and Ploder (Fink & Ploder, 2007)
found out that only for key knowledge processes
for SMEs are relevant for modeling (knowledge
process layer). However, after the definition of
the key knowledge processes, the knowledge
potential measurement process needs to be inte-
101
Figure 4. Balanced system for knowledge potential method
grated into the modeling process. Once the

knowledge workers have been identified, they
their personal knowledge potential value can be
measured by applying the knowledge potential
method. This means, that the knowledge worker
stand in the center of consideration and the knowledge velocity, knowledge position and knowledge
momentum are measurement. The result should
be a balanced system.
Figure 4 illustrates a balanced system for the
knowledge potential measurement process indicating that a balance can only be achieved by a
positive application of the knowledge velocity.
This means, only knowledge workers who are
able to apply their know-how in a timely manner
can gain competitive advantages for SMEs. The
Performance Layer is an indicator system that
measures the success of the knowledge process
and enables SMEs to improve the knowledge
potential of their experts in order to gain competitive advantages.
liMitationS and future

reSearcH
The limitations of any measured value involve
uncertainty, thus uncertainty should be taken into
consideration for any calculated value. Ronen
(1988) states, that from a physical viewpoint,
all measured values are approximate and any
degree of accuracy is subject to the limitations
of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in the
102
sense that uncertainty is inherent in physical

processes. Ronen makes the point that the accuracy of physical parameters improves over time,
and it reduces uncertainties. However, this basic
idea from physics also can be transferred to the
knowledge potential view, meaning that the measurement uncertainty can be reduced over time.
In our everyday life, decisions are made based on
the calculation of numerical values. The quality
of the decision is highly dependent on the size of
the error associated with those values. A single
measurement can be the basis for further actions
concerning our safety, health, and environment
or, in our case, the companys knowledge value.
Therefore, it is important to keep the uncertainties of such measurements small enough that any
actions based on the measurement are negligibly
affected. The measurement of the nine variables
done by the knowledge-engineer includes an
uncertainty which affects the system of measurement and, hence, the outcome of that system.
This means the calculated knowledge potential
for each knowledge worker is associated with
an uncertainty based on the measurement error
of the interviewer. However, the idea exists in
our mind that we measure correct values. Gupta
(1992) argues that every human is confronted with
uncertainties arising from our thinking, cognition, and perception processes. In our learning
process, every human is collecting experiences
from which useful information is extracted from
the uncertainties in our environment, and this
information is used for further actions and decision making processes.
Current and future research deals with the
further specification to the measurement process to the SME characteristics. The process of
measurement itself has to be simplified in order
to overcome knowledge measurement barriers
(Fink, 2009). So far, expert interviews have been
conducted with each knowledge worker in order
to measure the value in the nine dimensions. Currently a software prototype is under development
to standardize certain questions and to improve
the result process. The key measurement process

is still conducted with expert interviews and
videotaping.
referenceS
Amar, A. (2002). Managing Knowledge Workers.
Westport: Quorum Books.
Corso, M., Martini, A., Paolucci, E., & Pellegrini,
L. (2003). Knowledge management configurations in Italian small-to-medium enterprises.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14(1), 4656.
doi:10.1108/09576060310453344
Fink, K., & Ploder, C. (2008). Integration Concept

for Knowledge Processes, Methods & Software
for SMEs. In Gupta, J., Sharma, S., & Rashid,
M. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Enterprise Systems.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Gerjuoy, E. (1993). Uncertainty Principle. In
Parker, S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Physics (pp.
14901491). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Green, H. (2000). Information Theory and Quantum Physics. Berlin: Springer Publisher.
Gribbin, J. (1999). Q is for Quantum. New York:
A Touchstone Book.

knowledge: how organizations manage what they
know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Gupta, M. (1992). Intelligence, Uncertainty and

Information. In Ayyub, B., Gupta, M., & Kanal, L.
(Eds.), Analysis and Management of Uncertainty.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Delahaye, D. (2003). Knowledge Management in

a SME. International Journal of Organisational
Behaviour, 9(3), 604614.
Herschel, R., & Yermish, I. (2008). Knowledge

Transfer: Revisiting Video. International Journal
of Knowledge Management, 4(2).
Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1997). Why Computers May Never Think Like People. In Ruggles, R.
(Ed.), Knowledge Management Tools (pp. 3150).
Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Holsapple, C., & Wu, J. (2008). Does Knowledge

Management Pay Off? Paper presented at the
HICSS-41.
Fink, K. (2009). Knowledge Measurement Barriers. Paper presented at the 15th American Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco.
Fink, K., & Ploder, C. (2006). The Impact of
Knowledge Process Modeling on Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises. In K. Tochtermann
& H. Maurer (Eds.), Proceedings of I-KNOW
06: 6th International Conference on Knowledge
Management (pp. 47-51). Graz: J.UCS.
Fink, K., & Ploder, C. (2007). Knowledge Process
Modeling in SME and Cost-Efficient Software
Support: Theoretical Framework and Empirical
Studies. In Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.), Managing
Worldwide Operations and Communications with
Information Technology. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Jennex (Ed.). (2007). Knowledge Management in

Modern Organizations. Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Kavanagh, M., & Thite, M. (2009). Human Resource Information Systems. Los Angeles: Sage P.
Kilmann, R. (2001). Quantum Organization. Palo
Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in Psychology.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490040
Neely, A. (2007). Business Performance Measurement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488481
OECD. (2000). Knowledge Management in the
Learning Society. France: OECD Publisher.
103
Pearl, J. (1990). Bayesian Decision Methods. In

Shafer, G., & Pearl, J. (Eds.), Readings in Uncertain Reasoning (pp. 345352). San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Pearson, T. (1990). Measurement and the Knowledge Revolution. In Cortada, J., & Woods, J.
(Eds.), The Knowledge Management Yearbook.
Ronen, Y. (1988). The Role of Uncertainties. In
Ronen, Y. (Ed.), Uncertainty Analysis (pp. 239).
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Simon, H., & Kaplan, C. (1989). Foundations
in Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Skyrme (1998). Measuring the Value of Knowledge. Metrics for the Knowledge-Based Business.
London: Business Intelligence.
Spitzer, D. (2007). Transforming Performance
Measurement. New York: American Management
Association.
Stewart, T. (1997). Intellectual Capital. The New
Wealth of Organizations. New York: Doubleday
Currency.
Sveiby, K. (1997). The New Organizational
Wealth: Managing and Measuring KnowledgeBased Assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Tiwana, A. (2000). The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Practical Techniques for Building
Knowledge Management System. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wick, D. (1995). The Infamous Boundary: Seven
Decades of Controversy in Quantum Physics.
Boston: Birkhuser.
Wilson, R., & Keil, F. (1999). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge: The
MIT Press.
104
Wong, K. (2005). Critical success factors for

implementing knowledge management in
small and medium enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(3), 261279.
doi:10.1108/02635570510590101
Zohar, D. (1997). Rewiring the Corporate Brain.
Using the New Science to Rethink How We Structure and Lead Organizations. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.

Knowledge Mass: The sum of person-dependent variables that influence the knowledge
potential of an expert and can be measured by
variables such as content, networking, personal
skills and learning environment.
Knowledge position: All system-dependent
variables that influence the creation of the
knowledge potential of the knowledge worker
and is influenced by variables such as culture,
organizational knowledge, competitor knowledge,
customer knowledge and Information/Knowledge
Management Systems.
Knowledge Potential Measurement: An
expert oriented measurement process that puts
the employee in the center of consideration. The
main focus lies in the ability to capture the variety
of influencing factors in a working environement.
Knowledge Velocity: The degree of quality
that a knowledge worker uses to solve a problem
with respect to the time dimension. Thus, how
rapidly can customers receive high quality problem
solutions? Knowledge velocity is the implementation speed for good solutions and the quality of
the solution to the problem. Knowledge velocity
is directed towards the high quality solution of
customer problems. Knowledge velocity is the
accomplishment of problem solving objectives.
Knowledge Worker: A person who has the

ability to solve complex problems by using the
experiences and skills gained in a long learning
process. Key players in an organization are the
experts with their skills and experiences.
Quantum Organization: A new paradigm to
manage organizational transformation in a world
which is highly interconnected and where success depends wether the participant progresses
towards self-aware consciousness. This means,
that the process of transformation in an organization requires that individuals develop a self-aware
consciousness.
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

(SME): Enterprises which employ fewer than
250 persons and which have an annual turnover
not exceeding EURO 50 million, and/or an annual
balance sheet total not exceeding EURO 43 million. Within the SME category, a small enterprise
is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer
than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/
or annual balance sheet total does not exceed
EURO 10 million. Within the SME category, a
micro enterprise is defined as an enterprise which
employs fewer than 10 persons and whose annual
turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does
not exceed EURO 2 million.
105
106
Chapter 7
Developing Individual Level

Outcome Measures in the
Context of Knowledge
Management Success1
Shahnawaz Muhammed
American University of Middle East, Kuwait
William J. Doll
The University of Toledo, USA
Xiaodong Deng
Oakland University, USA
abStract
Success of organizational level knowledge management initiatives depends on how effectively individuals implementing these initiatives use their knowledge to bring about outcomes that add value in their
work. To facilitate assessment of individual level outcomes in the knowledge management context, this
research provides a model of interrelationships among individual level knowledge management success measures which include conceptual knowledge, contextual knowledge, operational knowledge,
innovation, and performance. The model was tested using structural equation modeling based on data
collected from managerial and professional knowledge workers. The results suggest that conceptual
knowledge enhances operational and contextual knowledge. Contextual knowledge improves operational
knowledge and is also a key predictor of innovations. The innovativeness of an individuals work along
with operational knowledge enhances work performance. The results support the proposed model. This
model can potentially be used for measuring knowledge management success at the individual level.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch007
Developing Individual Level Outcome Measures in the Context of Knowledge Management Success
introduction
At an organizational level, an important aspect of
knowledge management (KM) success is to have
systems and processes that enable getting the right
information to the right person at the right time
(Jennex, Smolnik & Croasdell, 2007). How these
systems and processes impact an individuals
knowledge and the subsequent work outcomes
are an equally important aspect, if not of greater
significance. One of the most important objectives
of various organizational systems and processes
is to empower individuals to take informed actions that will create value for the organization.
A pragmatic view of individual knowledge and
how it is related to other performance outcomes is
lacking in the literature. This research addresses
this gap and empirically tests a model of individual task knowledge and its relationship with
other individual level outcomes in the context of
KM success.
A significant amount of KM success literature
focuses mainly on systems and processes; often
with little emphasis on the individual who use these
systems to solve problems and create value (Guo
& Sheffield, 2006). Knowledge is often viewed
as an organizational resource that has to be managed well in order to gain competitive advantage.
Such an organizational view of knowledge is
comparable to the resource based view of the firm
(Grant, 1996; Grover & Davenport, 2001). From
the organizational view of knowledge, specific
processes and systems including information systems (IS) are used to manage this organizational
resource. These processes and systems often form
the key elements of most organizational level
KM initiatives. In the KM literature, knowledge
is seldom studied as an individual resource that
improves the individuals productivity and innovation. Individuals productivity and innovation
can contribute to organizational success.
Several researchers acknowledge the importance of individual knowledge in the implementation and success of organizational level KM
initiatives (Grant, 1996; Grover & Davenport,

2001). The task-related knowledge of individuals
can be considered as a critical component of how
individuals act to create value for organizations.
This task knowledge reflects the individuals
knowledge related to their work. The task knowledge accumulates over time and may include the
learning that takes place within the organizational
context (Kim, 1993; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
The lack of a broader understanding of KM and
its outcomes at the individual level can potentially
hamper the overall research efforts in this field
(Guo & Sheffield, 2006). Acknowledging that
there are different types of task knowledge, we
contend that enhanced task knowledge should
be one of the primary outcomes of individual
knowledge management. We further explore the
various dimensions of task knowledge, their interrelationships, and relationships with other relevant
individual outcomes in an organizational context
such as individual performance and innovation.
Within a broader context of KM success at the
organizational level, we focus on the individual
level to examine the task knowledge and performance outcomes and their relationships. Organizational and individual factors that contribute
to the individual KM outcomes are discussed.
Specifically, we focus on (1) developing measures
of task knowledge, which includes conceptual
knowledge, contextual knowledge, and operational knowledge, (2) exploring the relationships
among the three types of knowledge, and (3)
relating the various dimensions of individual task
knowledge to the innovation and performance of
individual knowledge workers.
Knowledge ManageMent
SucceSS
KM success is viewed from many different
perspectives in the KM literature. From an IS
perspective, KM success is often equated with
knowledge management system (KMS) success.
107
Figure 1. A model of knowledge management success at the individual level
Those who adopt this perspective have often used

the DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) IS success
model to model KMS success (Jennex & Olfman,
2006; Kulkarni, Ravindran & Freeze, 2006; Wu &
Wang, 2006). Ambiguity exists among researchers in equating KMS success with KM success
(Jennex et al., 2007). Jennex et al. (2007) details
the concept of KM success from many widely
adopted perspectives in the KM literature and
provides an integrated definition of KM success
as ...capturing the right knowledge, getting the
right knowledge to the right user, and using this
knowledge to improve organizational and/or individual performance. KM success is measured using
the dimensions of impact on business process,
strategy, leadership, efficiency and effectiveness of
KM processes, efficiency and effectiveness of the
KM system, organizational culture, and knowledge
content. (p. 6). This is a much broader definition
and captures many of the essential elements that
embody such an important concept in KM.
Given the multi-faceted nature of KM success
as defined above, it might be a challenge to capture
the entire concept in one instrument development
effort. Further, various aspects highlighted in this
definition might be more applicable in different contexts. In another study that summarized
explicit and implied KM success measures in
the literature, Anantatmula and Kanungo (2006)
identified a host of KM outcomes ranging from
108
better employee skills to increased share price.

They classified these outcomes into five categories
consisting of employee performance, organizational performance, business performance, market
performance and intellectual capital. In this study,
different respondents rated different outcomes
as most important for them. This suggests that
the appropriateness of using a specific outcome
measure may be context dependent.
A key aspect of Jennex et al.s (2007) definition is that the knowledge captured, distributed,
and used should improve organizational and/or
individual performance depending on the context
in which it is applied. The definition implies that
there could be aspects at both the organizational
and individual level that contributes to KM success. In this chapter, we focus on the definition and
measurement of the individual level performance
outcome in the context of KM success as defined
here. In Figure 1 below, we show how individual
level KM success relates to organizational level
factors.
At an organizational level, KM success and
the factors that contribute to this success are often
used interchangeably in the literature (Jennex et
al., 2007). Jennex and Olfman (2005) have shown
a need to separate the critical success factors (CSF)
from the outcomes of KM success at an organizational level. From their perspective, success
factors are aspects of the organization or the en-
vironment that are required for KM to succeed

and should be viewed as distinct from the outcomes. They identify twelve such success factors
that include knowledge strategy, technical infrastructure, and organizational culture/structure
which are crucial to the success of any KM implementation.
The organizational level CSFs affect individual behaviors by creating conducive or adverse
work environments. From a KM perspective, these
factors enable or deter behaviors related to how
individuals manage their knowledge. In a work
setting, knowledge management behaviors of
an individual can include processes involved in
knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, knowledge access, knowledge capture, and use of that
knowledge (knowledge application). By engaging
in these sustained behaviors or practices, individuals should be able to improve their work related
knowledge and reap the associated benefits. These
individual level benefits such as productivity gains
and innovations form the basis of organizational
level outcome or impacts (Delone & McLean,
1992). This is especially pronounced in the context of knowledge work where individual work
is primarily interfaced with information systems
and KM success is often equated to KMS success.
For the vast majority of the respondents,
Jennex et al. (2007) found that KM success was
viewed as a multidimensional construct including
both the process and the outcome. This was also
identified by Anantatmula and Kanungo (2006)
as KM success factors and KM outcomes where
KM success factors can be viewed as facilitating
factors for a KM initiative (p.27). In developing
an outcome measure, it is essential that the process that generates the outcome be delineated as
clearly as possible. This enables us to examine the
process and, if possible, prescribe interventions
to positively affect the outcomes. Accordingly, in
this chapter we focus on the individual level KM
success outcomes and examine the interrelationships between them, while showing how it relates
to the individual level KM processes (Figure 1).
In the definition of KM success proposed

by Jennex et al. (2007) knowledge content is an
important aspect. For a successful KM process
or initiative, it is imperative that such initiatives
enhance knowledge content at both individual and
organizational levels. This implies that KM success necessitates that individuals in the organization become more knowledgeable and transforms
that knowledge to performance gains that are of
value to such organizations.
To capture individuals task-related knowledge
in an organizational context, we conceptualized
task knowledge as having conceptual, contextual,
and operational factors based on Yoshioka, Herman, Yates and Orlikowskis (2001) knowledge
framework for communicative actions. Conceptual knowledge (know-why) is an individuals
understanding of why specific actions need to be
taken to complete the task (Kim, 1993; Schultze
& Leidner, 2002). Contextual knowledge is an
individuals understanding of the contextual
factors surrounding the task at hand, such as the
knowledge related to the people (know-who),
locations (know-where), and timing (know-when)
(Earl, 2001; Pomerol, Brezillon & Pasquier,
2002). Operational knowledge is an individuals
understanding of task requirements (know-what)
and the processes of how to accomplish the task
(know-how) (Dhaliwal & Benbasat, 1996; Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). If individuals have the right
knowledge at the right time, appropriate value
added and creative actions can be enacted.
Although possessing knowledge is desirable, individuals should also be able to use the
knowledge to make their work more innovative
and productive, ultimately adding value to the
organization. Thus, in addition to the task knowledge, we focus on innovation and performance.
Innovation is the extent to which an individuals
work is novel and creative. Performance is how
well an individuals work is done in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of work.
Figure 1 clarifies the focus of this chapter by
showing the individual knowledge management
109
outcomes or success measures in the context of the

larger process which shapes these outcomes. We
suggest that the organizational contextual factors
such as the knowledge management initiatives
and systems influence individual level knowledge
management practices. These practices lead to
enhanced task knowledge and should improve
an individuals innovation and performance. The
focus of this chapter is on the KM outcomes of the
individual as indicated in the shaded area in Figure 1. These individual knowledge management
outcomes may serve as indicators of individual
level KM success. In the next section we explore
the various aspects of these individual level KM
outcomes and their interrelationships.
indiVidual leVel outcoMeS

for KM SucceSS
As discussed in the earlier section, knowledge content is an important aspect of KM success (Jennex
et al., 2007) that we focus on in this chapter. Knowledge itself is a complex construct that is subjected
to a wide range of interpretations. Knowledge
could be viewed from an organizational perspective or from an individual perspective. Despite a
substantial interest in organizational level knowledge and its link to organizational success, there is
a widespread recognition that individuals are the
essential unit of the knowledgeable entity. Even
for knowledge to be considered at the organizational level, knowledgeable individuals within the
organization who collect, codify, and share their
knowledge need to be considered (Grant, 1996;
Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
There are several aspects of knowledge such
as content, volume, detail, form, value and tacitness/explicitness (Chilton & Bloodgood, 2008).
Certain aspects may be more appropriate in certain
situations. At other times, a multi-dimensional
measure may be more appropriate. KM success
at the individual level implies that the individuals
knowledge is enhanced in aspects which generate
110
value to the organization. It may include being

better skilled at doing the job or enhancing the
intellectual capital (Anantatmula & Kanungo,
2006) or task knowledge of an individual. KM
success also implies that individuals translate
their knowledge to productive outcomes which
the organizations value. Even though organizations often measure their employees knowledge
in the context of their work, there are few studies
that have tried to measure knowledge in any of
its aspects for theory building and testing (with a
notable exception of Chilton & Bloodgood, 2008).
In this chapter we focus on the individual knowledge as content in the context of their work and
call this task knowledge. Further, the relationship
between their task knowledge and other productive outcomes such as the innovativeness of their
work and their performance are also explored.
dimensions of task Knowledge

Traditionally, task knowledge is measured based
on skill tests or tests that are specific to each
kind of job. This approach might be appropriate in certain situations but is limited as a broad
measure applicable across a wide range of tasks.
This is similar to the tests that students take at the
end of a particular course to assess their learning
during a given period of time. Such assessment is
limited in usefulness for research that is designed
to test substantive relationships among broad
measures for building or testing theory. Further,
the assessment itself is limited to the knowledge
contained in such tests and the knowledge base
largely needs to be defined a priori. Such a priori
and narrow definition of ones knowledge base
may not be realistically achieved in a constantly
changing environment on an ongoing basis (Cohen, 1998), and may also be dependent on the
situation to which it is being applied (Chilton &
Bloodgood, 2008).
Here we define task knowledge as what an
individual knows in relation to a particular task at
a specific point in time; equating it to what ones
Figure 2. Knowledge management outcomes, definitions and relevant literature
mind holds as his/her mental model (Kim, 1993).

Building upon the 5W1H paradigm of communicative questions why, who, when, where, what,
and how (Yoshioka et al., 2001), we conceptualize
knowledge pertaining to a task to be traceable to
these questions. These questions probe the conceptual, contextual, and operational knowledge
involved in a task (see Figure 2).
Conceptual knowledge pertaining to a task is
the deeper understanding of why the person is
engaged that task and why it has to be done the
way it is expected to be performed by that individual. This type of knowledge is often referred
to as know-why (Agarwal, Krudys & Tanniru,
1997; Garud, 1997; Schultze & Leidner, 2002).
Wiig and Jooste (2004) point to the importance
of such conceptual knowledge when they refer to

the metaknowledge in their classification of task
knowledge. According to Kim (1993), know-why
implies the ability to articulate a conceptual understanding of an experience. It can be viewed as
the basic framework that helps individuals to build
or connect other information as they create mental models of how the world operates. Know-why
is also sometimes referred to more broadly as the
understanding of the principles and laws of nature
in human mind and in society (Johnson, Lorenz
& Lundvall, 2002).
Contextual knowledge in relation to a task is
the knowledge that may not be necessarily central
to the satisfactory execution of that task, but may
be peripherally related to it. It may be considered
111
as the background knowledge with respect to a

particular task (Pomerol et al., 2002). Often this
knowledge is centered on the (1) knowledge
regarding the people that may be involved or
affected by that task (know-who: for example,
knowledge regarding the customers and stakeholders) or such information as who knows what
and who knows what to do (Johnson et al., 2002;
Rulke & Galaskiewicz, 2000), (2) knowledge regarding the location of the task or the location of
the information about the task (know-where: for
example, where can I get appropriate resources
to accomplish the task), and (3) the knowledge
regarding the temporal aspects of the task (knowwhen: for example, when should each aspect of
the job be done). Such knowledge helps embellish and enrich the operationalization of an act in
addition to providing a broader knowledge base
for innovative ideas (Earl, 2001).
Operational knowledge is the core knowledge
that is needed to accomplish a task satisfactorily.
This is also sometimes referred to as problemsolving knowledge or domain knowledge (Dhaliwal & Benbasat, 1996). This core minimum
knowledge regarding the task involves know-what
and know-how, which is sometimes referred to
as declarative and procedural knowledge (Garud,
1997; Schultze & Leidner, 2002). Know-what is
the knowledge regarding what needs to be done
in accomplishing a task successfully (Johnson et
al., 2002). Know-how is the knowledge regarding
how that task needs to be performed (Johnson
et al., 2002). Without at least a cursory idea of
this operational knowledge it is unlikely that the
individual will be able to complete his/her tasks
satisfactorily (Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995; Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999).
Productivity benefits
This study examines a model of KM success at the
individual level and hence individuals are the unit
of analysis. In our model of KM success, in addition to the task knowledge we consider individual
112
performance and innovativeness of an individuals

work. Performance and innovativeness are well
accepted measures that are used in the literature to
assess knowledge worker success. Organizations
also value employees who are knowledgeable in
their work. They value them not necessarily by
virtue of their knowledge alone but because they
expect such individuals to be productive in what
they do. However, the value of knowledge gained
is often difficult to measure directly (Cohen, 1998).
Therefore, existing studies have used more indirect
measures when assessing the impact of knowledge
related activities (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003,
2005). Our measures of task knowledge would
be a contribution to the literature in this respect
and would have a greater validity as a component
of individual level KM success if it enhances the
more traditional measures of KM success such as
performance and innovation.
Innovation is one of the important individual
activities through which organizations create
value (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Van De Ven, 1986).
Scott and Bruce (1994) find that creativity and
innovation are often used interchangeably. They
argue that innovation is not only the creation of
new ideas but also the use of such ideas to create
new work productions or processes. Creativity is
a central aspect of all innovations. Creativity is
often defined as the production of ideas, products
and procedures that are novel and useful to the
organization (Amabile, 1996; Madjar, Oldham
& Pratt, 2002), as opposed to creative behavioral
traits of the individual. Accordingly, the focus here
is on the novelty of the external artifact rather
than the internal behavioral trait. It may involve
recombination of existing ideas, materials, and
processes or introducing new ideas, materials,
and processes (Madjar et al., 2002).
Having the right knowledge should enhance
quality and reduce the variability of task performance (March, 1991). For example, in a new
product development context, existing knowledge
of the firm, conceptualized as organizational
memory, is found to affect information acquisi-
Figure 3. Relationships among individual knowledge management success outcomes
tion efficiency resulting in new product performance (Brockman & Morgan, 2003). In a study
of IS professionals in knowledge management
context, Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003) used
team performance along three dimensions of efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness. This was
based on outcome measures primarily conducted
in job characteristic studies and learning, and can
be applicable to both individual and team levels
(Edmondson, 1999; Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Here we adapt Janz and Prasarnphanichs measure
of team performance and operationalize individual
knowledge worker performance comprising of
efficiency, effectiveness and quality of work.
relationSHiP aMong KM
SucceSS outcoMeS
Figure 3 shows the relationships among the
individual level KM success outcomes considered in this chapter and the subsequent research
model, which include task knowledge and individual productivity benefits. The types of task
knowledge include conceptual, contextual, and
operational knowledge. Productivity benefits
include innovativeness of an individuals work
and performance outcomes. Subsequent discus-
sions explore these relationships and propose the

associated hypotheses.
Not all the three types of task knowledge may
have a direct impact on performance and innovation. Clearly, conceptual knowledge provides the
basic mental framework that is needed to build
and acquire other types of knowledge that may
be needed to accomplish various tasks. In describing individual learning, Kim (1993) describes
learning leading to conceptual knowledge as that
which challenges the very nature or existence of
prevailing conditions, procedures, or conceptions
and leading to new frameworks in the mental
model (p.40). Conceptual knowledge orients
individuals with the world in which they interact
and thus helps to integrate other types of knowledge into their mental models. We therefore,
model conceptual knowledge as that which primarily impacts the other forms of knowledge.
In a process model, like Kims (1993) OADI
model, operational and conceptual learning contributes to each other. It is possible to envision the
three types of task knowledge as contributing to
each other. In a causal model, it is more plausible
to view conceptual knowledge as a more primal
form of knowledge that drives operational and
contextual knowledge. Our model of individual
knowledge management success outcomes (see
Figure 3 below) uses a causal model perspective.
113
It hypothesizes only the most likely and theoretically prominent linkages from task knowledge
constructs to productivity benefits.
Conceptual knowledge, which is a deeper and
broader understanding of why a task is performed,
may not always be necessary to accomplish many
aspects of a knowledge workers job satisfactorily.
But having such knowledge provides a sense of
purpose and motivation in performing the task in
the best possible manner by enhancing know-what
and know-how (Agarwal et al., 1997). This broader
understanding also helps the individual contextualize his or her actions in the larger scheme of
things, and helps draw on appropriate and useful
information in novel and useful ways (Kim, 1993).
Conceptual knowledge helps the individual look
at his/her actions from higher levels of abstraction. Being able to conceptualize the task from a
higher level of abstraction means being able to
make richer connections with other knowledge
that may or may not be immediately necessary
for the execution of the task at hand, and hence,
enabling the creation of a richer context for the
execution of that task (Gasson, 2005; Johnson et
al., 2002). Thus we contend:
H1:The higher the conceptual knowledge of an
individual, the higher the operational knowledge
of the individual.
H2:The higher the conceptual knowledge of an
individual, the higher the contextual knowledge
of the individual.
Know-who, know-where, and know-when
knowledge creates a rich background for individual actions to take place. Even in situations
where the task is primarily centered on this type
of knowledge, there still exists a potential to draw
upon more of such background information. Such
knowledge helps in contextualizing and enriching
the primary information that individuals need to
use in any of their organizational actions (Johnson
et al., 2002). The greater contextual knowledge
114
individuals can bring to bear, the better the individuals can embellish their direct task-related
knowledge. Especially in todays knowledge
intensive environment there is an increasing need
to combine knowledge from multiple domains
(Gasson, 2005). Thus, we hypothesize:
H3:The higher the contextual knowledge of an
individual, the higher the operational knowledge
of the individual.
A key aspect of being innovative in the work
place is the ability to generate and apply creative
and useful ideas in ones work. Creative artifacts
originate from ideas in an individuals mind.
Novelty is the hallmark of a creative production
and requires that individuals connect disparate
knowledge in novel ways in their minds. Wiig
and Jooste (2004) indicate that having broader
task knowledge should provide more innovative work outcomes. Rich contextual knowledge
provides the potential for the individuals to draw
upon seemingly unimportant data to connect
them in novel ways to the task at hand. Knowing
who the stakeholders are and understanding their
needs and expectations can positively contribute
to making the outcomes of a knowledge workers
actions useful, novel, and interesting. Being able
to easily access knowledge about where to get
appropriate resources and information regarding
a particular task, and knowing when to use such
information and take appropriate actions can help
the individuals ease the task of performing those
actions. This frees their mental prowess for more
creative work. Further, it is often essential to
make use of disparate, multi-domain contextual
information to produce hybrid and novel solutions
(Engestrom, Engestrom & Karkkainen, 1995).
Thus, we contend:
H4:The higher the contextual knowledge of an
individual, the higher the innovativeness of the
individuals work.
Operational knowledge is the primary knowledge that an individual needs to have in performing
the task. This knowledge includes knowing what
needs to be done to accomplish a task and how to
do it. When an individual has such information
readily accessible to his or her mind, performing
the task becomes substantially effortless. Wiig and
Jooste (2004) contend that having such knowledge
and understanding provides workers with the basic
ability to be efficient. When more such information
is available, the implementation of such actions
becomes more effective and efficient. In this case,
the individual can focus on performing the task
with efficiency, effectiveness, and quality.
H5:The higher the operational knowledge of
an individual, the higher the individuals work
performance.
Organizational productivity gains are achieved
by making people work more efficiently through
many work improvements including better innovations (Wiig & Jooste, 2004). Especially, in
non-routine work such as in knowledge work,
innovations of individuals create procedures and
artifacts that help them accomplish the task faster
and more effectively (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Van
De Ven, 1986). Over time, even small innovations
in work can accumulate to produce significant
performance improvement for the individual and
the firm. Thus, we hypothesize:
H6:The higher the innovativeness of an individuals work, the higher will be the individuals
work performance.
reSearcH MetHodS
A cross-sectional survey design was used to
collect the data to test our model. In developing
and refining the new measures, a pretest of the
measurement items were conducted followed by
a pilot test. Pilot test involved a small scale data
collection and assessment of validity, dimensionality, and reliability of the scales. Subsequently, a
large scale data collection targeting managerial and
professional knowledge workers was implemented
using a web-based questionnaire. The following
sections briefly describe the pilot, the large scale
sample, and the measurement development. The
structural equation modeling software package
LISREL is employed for measurement assessment
and for testing the structural model and hypotheses.
Pilot testing
A pilot test was performed based on 53 responses
obtained out of 68 survey requests from knowledge workers in the United States. Twenty four
responses were received from the individuals
working in the various functions within organizations involved in design, manufacturing or
consulting and the rest of the 29 responses were
received from MBA students working for various manufacturing firms. The respondents were
identified by their managers or themselves as
knowledge workers who used information technology heavily for their daily work. The pilot stage
data analysis involved item purification using
corrected item-total correlation (CITC) scores,
evaluation of unidimensionality using principal
component factor analysis, evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity using structural
equation modeling, and reliability assessment
using Cronbachs alpha. Items pertaining to each
construct were modified or eliminated based on
the feedback from the pilot results.
large Scale Sample

To implement the large scale data collection, a
web based survey was implemented. Compared
to a traditional mail survey, the web based survey
is faster, involves no data transcription errors, and
is less costly. An email list from Manufacturers
News Inc targeting individuals in engineering,
management, or information technology functions
115
within U.S. manufacturing industries (represented

by NAICS codes starting with 31, 32 and 33)
were used. Individuals in these areas are generally
considered as knowledge workers and represented
our target population.
This Manufacturers New Inc list includes a
wide variety of knowledge workers within manufacturing firms. We used this email list because of
the versatility that it offered in selecting the target
respondents. This data was collected as part of the
requirements for a Ph.D. degree in manufacturing
management. This list was used because the data
set had to be of broad interest and relevance to
manufacturing executives.
Email lists from such vendors can have a
large proportion of emails that are not current or
individual specific and may not effectively reach
the intended respondent in spite of their claims
of various efforts to ensure quality of the list. In
order to mitigate this problem to some extent,
we implemented tracking of click-throughs on
the site hosting the survey based on the email
invitations sent out. Click-throughs represent all
the individuals that clicked on the survey link in
the email including those who did not attempt
the survey. This would better represent the actual
number of individuals the email request reached
since such unsolicited emails for survey have a
tendency to be automatically junked or blocked
by organizational firewalls. Because of the traditionally low responses that are typical of such
open email lists, 24,279 emails were sent out
from this list, out of which 9,386 were returned
undeliverable due to non-existent emails or server
errors. After administering two waves of emails,
252 usable and complete responses were obtained
(140 in the first wave and 112 in the second wave)
yielding a 31.6% response rate based on the 797
click-throughs, and 1.7% based on the number of
emails sent without counting the undeliverables.
Respondents include individuals from a wide
range and size of industries. The majority of the
respondents were professionals, middle management, or executive positions. Non-response bias is
116
evaluated using a Chi-square test of goodness-offit of various demographic variables between the
first and second wave of data collection (Smith,
1983). Results indicated no significant difference
(p-value > 0.10) between the various demographic
variables. Measures were then evaluated in steps
similar to the pilot stage involving item purification, evaluation of factor structure, unidimensionality, and convergent and discriminant validity.
Measures
Respondents were asked to answer the survey
items based on a particular project or an assignment, or based on their work during the last six
months if they did not typically work on a specific
project. Providing a more specific framework as
mentioned above was expected to help respondents
recall the work situation and answer the questions
with a more consistent frame of reference. It is
important to provide such a consistent framework
to elicit the level of respondents knowledge within
the specified duration because conceptual and
contextual task-knowledge at any given time may
be the result of knowledge that may have been
accumulated over a long period of time, whereas
the operational knowledge is often acquired
closer to when the task needs to be performed.
The specific measures for the three dimensions
of task knowledge uses a five point Likert type
scale where 1= None or to a very little extent
and 5= To a very great extent (see Appendix A).
Innovation was measured using three items (see
Appendix A) based on Oldham and Cummings
(1996) creative performance and Scott and Bruces
(1994) innovative behavior with a focus on the
work outcome. The performance measure was
adapted from Janz and Prasarnphanichs (2003)
measure used in a team performance context.
Here it was adapted to focus on the individual as
the unit of analysis.
For innovation, a seven point Likert type scale
ranging from 1= Not at all to 7= To an exceptionally high degree was used. A scale ranging
from 1= Strongly disagree to 7= Strongly

agree was used for performance. The final items
for each construct after purification and measurement analysis are listed in Appendix A.
reSultS
First, the data was examined using exploratory
factor analysis to validate that the five factors
had a simple structure. Next, data was analyzed
using LISREL in a two step process (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988) where (a) the measurement model
is evaluated and then (b) the structural model is
evaluated. In step (a) descriptive statistics were
presented along with the analysis of reliability,
convergent validity and discriminant validity of
the measures. In step (b), the structural model
was evaluated to test the substantive hypotheses
H1 through H6.
Common method bias introduced due to the
measurement of both independent and dependent
variable using a single source is an important issue
in similar studies. Several procedural and statistical approaches are available to minimize or even
eliminate such bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We
used these procedural approaches such as providing anonymity in responding to the survey, improving the scale items through piloting it before the
large scale, and counterbalancing by randomizing
the order of dependent and independent variables.
Statistical remedy suggested by Podsakoff et al.
(2003) by using Harmans single factor test also
suggested that the common method bias was not
a significant issue.
factor analysis
All the items were factor analyzed with five factor
specified, oblimin rotation, and maximum likelihood extraction. The five factor solution yielded
a simple structure with all the items loading on
their respective factors. Figure 4 below reported
the results of factor analysis with the factors sorted
in the descending order with the strongest factor

listed first. No cross loadings were above 0.30.
The two lowest factor loadings were for items
OPER3 (-0.517) and CONT5 (0.576). All the
other items loaded on their respective constructs
with loadings above 0.60.
Measurement Model results

The descriptive statistics, Cronbachs alpha, average variance extracted (AVE) and correlations
between the variables were reported in Figure 5
below. The means ranged from 3.99 for contextual
knowledge (on a 5 point scale) to 5.85 for performance (on a 7 point scale). The standard deviations ranged from 0.66 for contextual knowledge
to 1.24 for innovation. The skewness values were
between -2 and +2 and the kurtosis values were
all lower than 5.0, suggesting that the scales do
not violate the assumption of normality.
The Cronbachs alpha indicated adequate reliability and ranged from 0.81 for operational
knowledge to 0.94 for conceptual knowledge.
Correlations ranged from 0.14 to 0.59, and were
all significant at p-value < 0.01 except for the
correlation between operational knowledge and
innovation (0.14) which was significant at pvalue < 0.05.
AVE scores ranged from 0.53 for contextual
knowledge to 0.80 for conceptual knowledge.
Scores above 0.50 are an indication of convergent
validity. Convergent validity was also assessed
by how well the items load on their respective
latent variable. Figure 6 below shows standardized
item-factor loadings for all the five constructs. All
standardized item-factor loadings were 0.70 or
higher, except for one item for contextual knowledge (which had a loading of 0.69), indicating
good convergent validity for the items measuring
each of these constructs. Further, all loadings were
significant at p-value < 0.01.
An analysis of AVE scores and the squared
correlations in Figure 5 indicated that the AVE
scores were greater than the square of the correla-
117
Figure 4. Exploratory factor analysis: Pattern matrix with maximum likelihood extraction and oblimin
rotation
Figure 5. Reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity of task knowledge and performance
measures
118
Figure 6. Combined Measurement and Structural Model: Standardized Solution in LISREL
tion between the focal factor and other factors,

suggesting adequate discriminant validity. A more
rigorous chi-square (2) test of discriminant validity indicates whether a unidimensional rather than
a two-dimensional model can account for the
inter-correlations among the observed items in
each pair. For ten comparisons, the chi-square
value for the test of discriminant validity between
pairs of latent factors must be equal to or greater
than 10.83 for significance at p-value 0.01. Chisquare difference between the correlated model
and the measurement model with correlations
fixed to 1 indicated that all values were significant
at p < 0.01 (see Figure 5 above), suggesting discriminant validity between all pairs.
The five factor correlated measurement model
was judged to have good model-data fit with 2
= 186.47 for 125 degrees of freedom (chi-square
per degree of freedom = 1.49), Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.044, NonNormed Fit Index (NNFI) = 0.97, and Compara-
tive Fit Index (CFI) = 0.98. Values of RMSEA

less than 0.05, and NNFI and CFI values above
0.95 indicate good model-data fit (Hu & Bentler,
1999). All items had item-factor loadings greater
than 0.69 (p-value < 0.01). The largest modification index (12.05) in the structural model was an
error correlation between two items in conceptual
knowledge. The expected value of the change for
this modification is only 0.05. There were also
two cross-loadings to conceptual knowledge,
the expected value of change for the larger one
of the two was 0.19, indicating a relatively weak
cross loading as compared to a much stronger
standardized loading on the respective constructs.
Structural Model results

In order to test the substantive hypotheses a
combined measurement and structural LISREL
model was developed (see Figure 6 below). The
result of this analysis was used to accept or reject
119
the hypotheses based on the significance of the

standardized structural coefficients of the relationships. In order to evaluate the significance of the
structural coefficients, a reasonable model-data
fit is necessary and was evidenced based on the
various fit statistics.
Examination of the various absolute and
relative fit indices indicated good model-data
fit with a chi-square of 197.58 for 129 degrees
of freedom, chi-square per degrees of freedom
= 1.53, p-value = 0.0001, RMSEA = 0.046,
NNFI = 0.97, and CFI = 0.98. Figure 6 below illustrates the structural relationships () between
the exogenous variable conceptual knowledge
and the endogenous variables () operational
knowledge and contextual knowledge. It also
depicts the structural relationships () between
operational knowledge and contextual knowledge
with performance and innovation. Evaluation of
modification indices indicated three correlations
among error terms. These correlated error terms
were relatively weak with the largest modification
index being 11.43 between CONC3 and CONC4.
No structural modifications or crossloadings were
suggested. Given the good model-data fit, the
proposed hypotheses were evaluated.
All the hypotheses proposed were supported
(p-value <0.01) by the results of the data analysis.
It is widely accepted that having better knowledge can improve ones work performance. This
research investigated the types of task knowledge
that can impact specific individual work outcomes
and the possible inter-relationship between types
of task knowledge.
Conceptual knowledge had a strong path coefficient to both operational knowledge ( = 0.24,
t = 3.03) and contextual knowledge ( = 0.63, t
= 8.38). Thus, Hypothesis H1 and H2, indicating
that a higher level of conceptual knowledge will
positively enhance the operational and contextual
knowledge of the individual were supported.
The results confirmed the widely held belief that
knowledge related to a deeper understanding of
why knowledge workers do certain actions can
120
actually equip them with better knowledge to

do such actions. Contextual knowledge also had
a strong path coefficient ( = 0.55, t = 5.72) to
operational knowledge. Thus, Hypothesis H3
(The higher the contextual knowledge of an individual, the higher the operational knowledge of
the individual.) was supported. This suggests that
if individuals are able to draw on a richer context
for a given task, the operational knowledge needed
to perform that task can be enhanced.
Hypothesized relationships leading to innovation and performance were examined next (i.e.,
H4, H5, and H6). Contextual knowledge had a
strong path coefficient ( = 0.28, t = 3.86) to innovation. Hence, hypothesis H4 was supported,
suggesting that contextual knowledge positively
enhances the innovativeness of an individuals
work. This implies that as more contextual
knowledge is available to individuals; their work
outcomes may become more innovative. In other
words, they are able to generate innovative ideas
based upon a greater amount of varied and disparate information on the context of the specific
tasks. Operational knowledge had a strong path
coefficient ( = 0.43, t = 5.86) to performance
supporting H5. This suggests that operational
knowledge is a key knowledge for impacting
knowledge worker performance. Hypotheses
H6, representing the impact of innovation on
performance was also supported ( = 0.36, t =
5.44), indicating that innovative work outcomes
enable knowledge workers to be more efficient,
effective, and produce higher quality outcomes.
diScuSSion
Knowledge management success is a broad
concept when viewed from an organizational
perspective. Previous literature has identified
various factors that are considered to be critical
for KM success (Jennex & Olfman, 2005). This
includes various organizational and individual
characteristics along with aspects of the KM
implementation environment that influence KM

success. These are factors that contribute to an
organizations success at building knowledgebased competencies or taking advantage of the
knowledge created by individuals.
Knowledge is primarily created by individuals
and then shared among a community of knowing
in an organization. To understand and evaluate
how these factors contribute to the individual
knowledge and subsequently to KM success, it is
imperative that we are able to measure individual
knowledge and understand how it contributes to
other individual success outcomes. In the context
of how key success factors for KM impact individual behavior, this chapter provides a model of
KM success at the individual level. The model
describes how task knowledge affects productivity benefits for individual knowledge workers.
We provide a measure of task knowledge as it
relates to the individuals work. Task knowledge
consists of three dimensions: conceptual, contextual and operational knowledge. Increased task
knowledge is considered to be the enhancement
of an individuals mental model of frameworks
and routines related to their work. Hypotheses
concerning the interrelationship between these
task knowledge dimensions and their subsequent
effect on other net benefits such as innovation and
performance are tested.
The results indicate that conceptual knowledge has an indirect rather than a direct effect
on innovation and performance. Conceptual
knowledge works through contextual and operational knowledge to impact innovation and
performance, respectively. Thus, conceptual
knowledge is a necessary, but not a sufficient
condition for achieving benefits such as innovation and performance. In order to ensure that
conceptual knowledge is utilized for enhancing
innovation and performance, managers need to
combine classroom knowledge (conceptual) with
on-the-job training where individuals gain operational and contextual knowledge. Innovation and
performance improve more rapidly if conceptual
knowledge is combined with some operational

experience and some contextual knowledge of
the broader work situation.
Contextual knowledge helps enhance operational knowledge. Know-what and know-how
can be enhanced by having greater knowledge of
know-who, know-where, and know-when. This
suggests that operational knowledge may not be
fully usable for improving performance without a
specified context for action. For example, people
may know the product development process but
their success in this process will be enhanced if
they have identified a specific target market, have
better knowledge of their customers needs, and
know when the product needs to be introduced
to provide a first-to-market advantage. Previous
research has not explicitly conceptualized and
measured contextual knowledge or explored its
relationships to antecedents and consequences.
Future studies should further explore the relationship among contextual knowledge and other
important variables in knowledge work.
The results indicate that contextual knowledge
also plays an important role in enhancing innovation. For example, the knowledge of customer
requirements will help knowledge workers identify innovations that meet or exceed customer
expectations. It is likely that individuals are able
to quickly generate novel ideas to be more innovative because contextual knowledge provides
a richer background to connect disparate ideas.
The results suggest that performance is improved by either doing things more efficiently or
more innovatively. In order to improve knowledge
workers performance, managers need to consider how to mix both rational and experiential
approaches to integrate working and learning. In
the context of product development, Eisenhardt
and Tabrizi (1995) distinguish between a rational
and an experiential approach to improving performance (e.g., product development time). The
rational approach involves planning operational
processes carefully before execution to avoid
delays and to speed development, but is limited
121
to existing knowledge. The experiential approach

uses an iterative cycle of doing and learning to
enhance product development time as the individual learns by doing (operational knowledge)
and obtains feedback on his/her work and how
his/her part of the design work interfaces with
that of other engineers (contextual knowledge).
A mix of rational and experiential approaches to
knowledge work may enable managers to get work
done both more efficiently and more innovatively.
liMitationS and future

directionS
The results should be interpreted with caution as
they are based upon one sample. Further research
is necessary to cross validate these success measures and the structural relationship among them.
If cross validated, these instruments can be used
in future research for evaluating the effectiveness
of antecedent factors such as KM practices or
KMS CSFs. Though it is not uncommon to use
self reported measures of performance in this type
of research, measuring performance outcomes
using more objective metrics can substantially
increase confidence in the proposed model. Using the task knowledge measures developed here,
future research may explore improvements in work
outcomes based on time, quality, and quantity
dimensions such as actual time-to-completion of
respondent tasks. In addition to using objective
performance measures, using perceptual measures from supervisors or peers for the dependent
variables should also enhance confidence in the
proposed model.
Because we use a perceptual measure eliciting
respondents level of knowledge, only the knowledge that the respondents consciously reflect as
their task-related knowledge is measured in this
research. It is possible that the work related outcomes are also affected by knowledge that may
not be directly related to an individuals work.
For example, when taking up a new job, individu-
122
als bring with them a set of skills that they have

developed over time through their previous work
and life experiences. This may include processes
and thought patterns that have evolved with their
earlier experiences. These processes and thought
patterns may or may not bear directly on the requirements of the new work. Such knowledge may
have impact on their work in subtle ways, either
positively or negatively. Future research could
focus on assessing the extent of impact of such
knowledge that may not be captured in reflective
measures as used in this research.
The conceptual, contextual, and operational
knowledge dimensions seem to be valid for the
overall general task-related knowledge when
considered for a period of time such as when
accomplishing a particular project. Whether or
not such a three factor conceptualization of task
knowledge can also be demonstrated in other
more specific domains of knowledge is uncertain.
Similarly, whether the current conceptualization
of knowledge used in this research is valid when
considering broader and general human knowledge needs of other knowledge workers outside of
the manufacturing context needs to be examined.
In this chapter, we have focused on knowledge
content as a critical aspect of knowledge for determining individual performance and hence KM success. Measurement of other facets of knowledge
such as volume, form, and detail could also be
explored in future research. For example, Chilton
and Bloodgood (2008) examine the tacit-explicit
dimension of knowledge and have developed
measures for it. Researchers examining the form
aspect of knowledge may explore the effectiveness
of using and sharing different forms of knowledge
representations such as auditory, graphical, video,
and textual forms in various situations. Further,
the forms of knowledge representation that are
effective in specific situations and their interrelationships may also be explored.
Another possible avenue for research is to
examine the applicability of the current model of
knowledge management success measures used
here at the team and organizational levels. The

impact of different dimensions of individual task
knowledge on other team and organizational level
factors such as team-building capability, ability to
foster stronger ties with their immediate customer,
and contribution to organizational intellectual
capital may also be investigated in subsequent
research. Though a greater data collection effort
may be needed for such investigations, a wealth
of statistical tools such as hierarchical linear modeling should facilitate such multilevel analysis.
referenceS
concluSion
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.
In this chapter, we have developed and tested a

model of KM success measures at the individual
level and explored their interrelationships. The
model is developed based on the conceptualization of individuals work place knowledge as
task knowledge. It explores task knowledges
relationship to other work place outcomes such
as innovation and performance. Task knowledge
is successfully modeled as consisting of three
dimensions - conceptual, contextual, and operational knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is
found to have a significant impact on contextual
and operational knowledge. Operational knowledge is also impacted by contextual knowledge.
Contextual knowledge has the greatest impact on
innovation. Individual performance is affected by
operational knowledge and innovativeness. The
valid and reliable measurement instruments developed for evaluating KM success at the individual
level should be an important tool for advancing
empirical research in knowledge management.
The instruments are short and easy to use in other
studies of KM success.
Agarwal, R., Krudys, G., & Tanniru, M. (1997).

Infusing learning into an information systems
organization. European Journal of Information
Systems, 6(1), 2540. doi:10.1057/palgrave.
ejis.3000257
management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues.
25(1), 107133. doi:10.2307/3250961
Anantatmula, V., & Kanungo, S. (2006).

Structuring the underlying relations among
the knowledge management outcomes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 2542.
doi:10.1108/13673270610679345
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103(3), 411423. doi:10.1037/00332909.103.3.411
Brockman, B. K., & Morgan, R. M. (2003). The
role of existing knowledge in new product innovativeness and performance. Decision Sciences,
34(2), 385420. doi:10.1111/1540-5915.02326
Chilton, M. A., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2007). The
dimensions of tacit & explicit knowledge: A
description and measure. In Proceedings of the
40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS 2007), Hawaii, USA.
Chilton, M. A., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2008). The
dimensions of tacit & explicit knowledge: A description and measure. International Journal of
123
Cohen, D. (1998). Toward a knowledge context:

Report on the first annual U.C. Berkeley forum on
knowledge and the firm. California Management
Review, 40(3), 2240.
Garud, R. (1997). On the distinction between

know-how, know-what and know-why. In Huff,
A., & Walsh, J. (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management (pp. 81101). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working

knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Gasson, S. (2005). The dynamics of sensemaking, knowledge, and expertise in collaborative,

boundary-spanning design. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 10(4).
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent
variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1),
6095. doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based

theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17(Special Issue), 109122.

Delone and Mclean model of information system
success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 930.
Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001). General

perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management
Dhaliwal, J., & Benbasat, I. (1996). The use and

effects of knowledge-based system explanations:
Theoretical foundations and a framework for empirical evaluation. Information Systems Research,
7(3), 342362. doi:10.1287/isre.7.3.342
Guo, Z., & Sheffield, J. (2006). A paradigmatic

and methodological examination of KM research:
2000 to 2004. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2006), Hawaii, USA.
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work

redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety

and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350384.
doi:10.2307/2666999
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria

for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 155.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995).

Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84110.
doi:10.2307/2393701
Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge
management: The importance of a knowledgecentered culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2),
351384. doi:10.1111/1540-5915.02328
Engestrom, Y., Engestrom, R., & Karkkainen, M.

(1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing
in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and
Instruction, 5(4), 319336. doi:10.1016/09594752(95)00021-6

knowledge management success. International
124
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2006). A model of

knowledge management success. International
Jennex, M. E., Smolnik, S., & Croasdell, D. T.

(2007). Towards defining knowledge management
success. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS 2007), Hawaii, USA.
Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. A. (2002).
Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(2),
245262. doi:10.1093/icc/11.2.245
Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual
and organizational learning. Sloan Management
Review, 35(1), 3751.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of
the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3),
383398. doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
Kulkarni, U. R., Ravindran, S., & Freeze,
R.(2006-7). A knowledge management success
model: Theoretical development and empirical
validation. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 23(3), 309347. doi:10.2753/MIS07421222230311
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (1999). Knowing what

to do is not enough: Turning knowledge into action.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y.,
& Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879903.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Pomerol, J., Brezillon, P., & Pasquier, L. (2002).
Operational knowledge representation for practical decision-making. Journal of Management
Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and
group performance. Management Science, 46(5),
612625. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.5.612.12052
Schultze, U., & Leidner, D. (2002). Studying
knowledge management in information systems
research: Discourses and theoretical assumptions.
26(3), 213242. doi:10.2307/4132331
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002).

Theres no place like home? The contributions of
work and nonwork creativity support to employees
creative performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(4), 757768. doi:10.2307/3069309
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavioral path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580607.
doi:10.2307/256701
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation

in organizational learning. Organization Science,
2(1), 7187. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Smith, T. W. (1983). The hidden 25 percent: An

analysis of nonresponse on the 1980 general social
survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(3), 386404.
doi:10.1086/268797
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledgecreating company: how Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3),
607635. doi:10.2307/256657
Van De Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the

management of innovation. Management Science,
32(5), 570607. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
Wiig, K., & Jooste, A. (2004). Chapter 45: Exploiting knowledge for productivity gains. In C. W.
Holsapple (Eds.), Handbook on knowledge management vol.2: Knowledge directions, 289-308.
New York: Springer Science and Business Media.
125
Wu, J., & Wang, Y. (2006). Measuring KMS

success: A respecification of the Delone and
Mcleans model. Information & Management,
43(6), 728739. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.002
Yoshioka, T., Herman, G., Yates, J., & Orlikowski,
W. J. (2001). Genre taxonomy: A knowledge
repository of communicative actions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 19(4), 431456.
doi:10.1145/502795.502798
endnote
1
126
A previous version of this article was presented at the January 7-10, 2008, 41st Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences.
aPPendix a: MeaSureMent iteMS for taSK

Knowledge and PerforMance outcoMeS
127
128
Chapter 8
Validating Distinct
Knowledge Assets:
A Capability Perspective
Ron Freeze
Emporia State University, USA
Uday Kulkarni
Arizona State University, USA
abStract
Identification and measurement of organizational Knowledge Management capabilities is necessary to
determine the extent to which an organization utilizes its knowledge assets. We developed and operationalized a set of constructs to measure capabilities associated with management of knowledge assets
identified as distinct Knowledge Capabilities (KCs) comprising the overall Knowledge Management
(KM) capability of an organizational unit. Each KC represents a distinct kind of knowledge that requires
different organizational process and technological support. This delineation of knowledge allows targeted improvement to a specific KC. We present validation of these capability constructs with empirical
evidence from two separate business units in a large semi-conductor manufacturing company, providing
the basis of measurement standardization for KM Capability improvement. Confirmatory factor analysis
affirmed four KCs, each identified as an overall factor influencing a set of latent descriptor variables.
Second Order and General-Specific Structural Equation Models of each capability provide evidence
as to the validity of measurement of these knowledge assets. A standardized instrument for measuring
knowledge capabilities would not only allow benchmarking, but also allow tracking capabilities over
time and linking them to those performance metrics that are deemed appropriate by the organization.
introduction
The quest to leverage knowledge assets through
effective Knowledge Management (KM) is a
strategic initiative for many firms. Management
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch008
literature has noted the lack of effective management of knowledge and called for establishing
quantitative measures for these intangible assets
(Teece, 1998; Zack, 1999b). Unfortunately, most
KM initiatives in reality have been information
projects that result in only the consolidation of
data and not much by way of improvements in
Validating Distinct Knowledge Assets
knowledge flows or knowledge sharing (Gold et

al., 2001). In an attempt to assess the contribution of IS/IT initiatives to a firms sustainable
competitive advantage, researchers in the IS
domain have looked at IT resources and capabilities through the lens of the Resource Based
View of the firm (Barney, 1991; Melville et al.,
2004). Both IS and KM researchers have viewed
resource and capability investments as impacting
organizational effectiveness (Tanriverdi, 2005).
However, a consistent shortcoming has been the
inadequacy in measurement of these resources
and capabilities (Wade and Hulland, 2004). In
order to evaluate KM initiatives and their ability
to leverage knowledge assets, firms must focus
on the identification and measurement of specific
knowledge assets and the capabilities that they
represent within an organization. Only through
adequate conceptualization of knowledge and
measurement of capabilities associated with its
management can firms begin to tie knowledge
assets to value generating outcomes. Thus, capability measurement is the logical first step in
justifying investments in KM projects that can
ultimately move the firm towards a sustainable
competitive advantage.
Knowledge assets are grounded in the experience and expertise of individuals (Teece, 1998).
The ability of an organization to use them has
been portrayed as a type of organizational capability in prior research. We use the term KM
Capability to refer to this overall organizational
capability. The conceptual development of KM
Capability can benefit from the rich theoretical
literature on capability research which associates
organizational capabilities (of various kinds) with
its performance (Gold et al., 2001; Santhanam and
Hartono, 2003; Zhu, 2004). Knowledge is still a
highly nebulous and debated concept in business
literature and it collectively covers a wide range
of intangible assets. For this reason it is desirable
to classify this concept into multiple types and
try to study the capabilities associated with each
type separately.
Research efforts at understanding KM Capability and its association with organizational effectiveness have attempted to define multiple KM
related constructs. Gold et al. (2001) proposed that
the overall KM Capability consists of knowledge
process capability and knowledge infrastructure
capability with both impacting organizational
effectiveness. In their model, process capability
incorporates the stages of lifecycle through which
knowledge progresses. The knowledge infrastructure capability includes technology, structure and
culture as its building blocks. Their notion of
organizational knowledge views all knowledge
similarly and fails to recognize different types of
knowledge that KM Capability must incorporate.
Tanriverdi (2005) presents KM Capability as a
second order capability comprised of an organizations Product, Customer and Managerial KM
Capability. Each of these first order constructs
comprised four stages of the knowledge lifecycle.
In this case, generic forms of the knowledge lifecycle stages have been used for each first order
construct which implies a separation of processes.
We assert that organizational knowledge covers
a wider range of assets and propose that different types of knowledge assets require different
organizational processes and technology support
to be utilized effectively.
Another significant attempt at conceptually
defining a framework for measuring KM Capability is the Cognizant Enterprise Maturity Model
(CEMM) that introduced the concept of measuring
15 Key Maturity Areas within an organization to
improve its business value through KM (Harigopal
and Satyadas, 2001). While the CEMM identifies
a multitude of knowledge processes through the
Key Maturity Areas, knowledge is differentiated
only through their discussion of tacit and explicit
knowledge. Each of these frameworks has provided valuable steps toward understanding the
nature of KM within an organization. However,
none have identified separate capabilities in distinct knowledge areas that may be individually
129
measured and leveraged within a single organization to more effectively meet its objectives.
The objective of this research is to further develop and validate a set of Knowledge Capability
(KC) measures that accurately capture a firms
overall KM Capability (Freeze and Kulkarni,
2007). Each KC is the knowledge related capability
of an organization within a particular knowledge
type. We draw upon previously identified KM
application areas such as knowledge repositories,
lessons learned, expert networks and communities of practice, etc. (King et al., 2002), and
characteristics of different types of knowledge
assets to conceptualize the KCs. We developed
a Knowledge Management Capability Assessment instrument that operationalizes the KCs.
The contribution of this paper lies in extending
previous research via improving the granularity of
measurement for KM Capability by hypothesizing
separate knowledge capabilities, developing and
validating the necessary measures, and defining the
steps necessary to improve each KC individually
and the KM Capability as a whole. We provide
validation of the KCs with empirical evidence
from two large independent organizational units
within a Fortune-50 semiconductor manufacturing company.
We begin by reviewing how prior research has
viewed the composition of a firms knowledge
asset structure in Section II. These viewpoints
include human capital participation in knowledge
related activities, importance of technological factors, lifecycle stages of knowledge, and the tacit/
implicit/explicit nature of knowledge. We use these
various viewpoints to recognize the different types
of knowledge and the abilities needed to leverage
them effectively. This prior conceptual work had
a significant influence on the composition of each
KC. We identify four important KCs that represent distinct KM capabilities - Lessons Learned,
Knowledge Documents, Expertise and Data. These
four KCs are sufficiently distinct, encompass a
130
majority of the knowledge capabilities within a

firm and arose from the literature review of the
various viewpoints elaborated below. While we
believe that these four KCs represent a majority of the knowledge capabilities within a firm,
other KCs may exist. KM is an evolving concept
and its understanding can undergo changes as
the maturity of its use increases. Nevertheless,
the explication of these KCs should follow the
construction criteria identified and may include
additional relevant viewpoints. We present these
four KCs as tested constructs to measure and
improve the KM Capability of an organization.
The conceptual development of the KCs was
done in a field setting with a Fortune-50 semiconductor manufacturing firm in the south-western
United States. The conceptual development, construction of the questionnaire, target population
and data collection are described in Section III.
Each KC consists of multiple latent descriptor
factors that represent an organizations ability to
effectively and efficiently manage this aspect of
knowledge. These latent descriptor factors are
considered First Order constructs. With the data
gathered from two large business units of the
company, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood factoring and verified the alignment adequacy of items
to the posited latent descriptive factors. Results
of the convergent/discriminant validity and the
CFA confirm the adequacy of the constructs.
We then tested each KC using General-Specific
and Second Order measurement models. This
analysis establishes each capability as a significant construct and validates the measurability of
the KC factors. Significance of the measurement
models provides the evidence of the reliability of
measurement for individual capabilities. These
results are presented in Section IV. The concluding remarks in Section V include implications for
researchers and practitioners as well as further
research directions.
Knowledge aSSet fraMeworK

In spite of the recognized need for creation and
utilization of knowledge assets, a standard,
well-accepted description of what is knowledge
continues to be debated. Some view knowledge
as non-existent without the knower (Fahey and
Prusak, 1998), while others claim to have successfully captured it into knowledge objects (Carlsson et al., 1996). In order to make effective use
of knowledge assets, organizations must be able
to first recognize and then assess the true value
of these resources. Only when these knowledge
assets are clearly identified can the capabilities
associated with them be measured and effective
managing of knowledge begin. In the following
paragraphs, we discuss the perspectives offered
in prior research to the concept of knowledge and
Knowledge Management.
Human capital and technology

Knowledge assets are intangible assets that encompass the knowledge as well as the ability of
an organization to leverage that knowledge. They
must include the extent to which a firms human
capital exploits the knowledge. A firms employees, also called knowledge workers, are integral
to the capabilities associated with the knowledge
assets. This perspective views knowledge assets
as organizational resources intertwined with the
human capital as defined within the resource-based
view of the firm. The literature on resource-based
strategy treats human capital as one of the key
rent-generating (knowledge) assets of a firm
(Barney, 1991; Coff, 1997).
Technology designed to facilitate the interaction of knowledge with the human capital through
each stage of its lifecycle is another important
aspect of knowledge capabilities. Davenport et al.
(2002) identify a few major factors management
and organization, information technology, among
others that influence the performance of knowl-
edge workers and knowledge-based organizations,

emphasizing the interplay of organizational and
technological factors in knowledge work.
Knowledge lifecycle
A lifecycle or knowledge process oriented view
of knowledge assets stipulates that companies that
want to develop and use knowledge effectively
need to treat knowledge differently according to
the stages of its life (Birkinshaw and Sheehan,
2002). KM researchers have regarded these stages
of the knowledge lifecycle as: knowledge flows,
steps to KM, architectures for explicit knowledge,
and knowledge lifecycle (Birkinshaw and Sheehan, 2002; Satyadas et al., 2001; Zack, 1999b).
Evaluating the different stages proposed resulted
in our viewing the knowledge lifecycle for this research as a four stage acquisition/storage/retrieval/
application cycle. Interaction between a firms
human capital and knowledge at different stages
of its lifecycle is facilitated by the technological
factors briefly described below.
The actual acquisition of knowledge and decision to transfer resides solely with the capabilities
associated with a firms human capital. Knowledge
can only be acquired if the knowledge worker
recognizes its value. The next logical stage in leveraging knowledge assets is to codify and capture
this new knowledge in repositories under existing
or expanded taxonomies. These processes begin
the storage stage of the knowledge assets and create the potential to use that captured knowledge.
The retrieval stage is the result of the decision to
reuse/apply existing knowledge; the success of
any attempt to leverage knowledge assets of a
firm is measured by whether a knowledge reuse
has occurred and is the culmination of the entire
cycle. This movement of knowledge exemplifies
the importance of recognizing the knowledge
lifecycle. Closer examination of the knowledge
lifecycle is needed in the context of different
knowledge types to understand each KC.
131
tacit/implicit/explicit Knowledge
Tacit knowledge has engaged researchers for many
years and is described in a multitude of ways: practical know-how, difficult to articulate, transferred
only via observation and practice, subconsciously
understood and applied, and rooted in action,
experience and involvement in a specific context
(Harigopal and Satyadas, 2001; Koskinen, 2003;
Nonaka, 1994; Teece, 1998; Zack, 1999b). Similarly, there is a wealth of research about explicit
knowledge depicting its essence as embodied in
code or language, knowledge already documented,
precisely or formally articulated, codified and
communicated in symbolic form and/or natural
language (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Harigopal and
Satyadas, 2001; Koskinen, 2003; Zack, 1999b).
Knowledge management researchers debate
whether knowledge can exist external to human
beings and therefore be captured electronically.
The research of tacit and explicit knowledge is
intrinsic to this debate.
A holistic view of organizational knowledge
assets must encompass both the tacit and explicit
nature of knowledge and the interplay that exists
between these two types of knowledge. The connection between tacit and explicit knowledge is
apparent when one recognizes that tacit knowledge is the means by which explicit knowledge is
created, captured, assimilated, and disseminated
(Fahey and Prusak, 1998) and where tacit knowledge forms the background necessary for assigning the structure to develop and interpret explicit
knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Polanyi,
1975). These connections between explicit and
tacit knowledge imply a continuum that provides
a scale of media richness vs. externalization:
face-to-face (tacit knowledge), telephone, written
personal, written formal, numeric formal (explicit
knowledge) (Koskinen, 2003).
The continuum of tacit to explicit knowledge
hints at a process in which tacit knowledge is
converted or transformed into explicit knowledge.
This movement of knowledge from tacit to explicit
132
is where the domain of implicit knowledge exists.

Organizational Learning (OL) literature defines
implicit knowledge as that which results from
the induction of an abstract representation of the
structure that the stimulus environment displays.
This knowledge is acquired in the absence of conscious, reflective strategies to learn (Reber, 1989).
To place a KM perspective on this definition,
the tacit knowledge of experts has unconsciously
been made implicit. The transfer of knowledge
from being tacit to implicit is unobservable since
this process occurs within an individual. Tacit
knowledge is unconsciously understood and is
difficult to articulate. Implicit knowledge can
be consciously understood and articulated, but has
not yet been articulated or captured explicitly. This
implicitness enables the possibility of transforming what was originally tacit into explicit. The
OL literature has researched implicit learning
and provided support that implicit knowledge
can be retained for longer periods than explicit
knowledge (Tunney, 2003). This means that, once
tacit knowledge is made implicit, it resides with
greater permanence within the human capital and
therefore extends the time available for making
that knowledge explicit.
As the knowledge lifecycle has identified steps
in the movement of knowledge, the types of knowledge that are available, useable and transferable
must be recognized within each KC. Recognizing
the richness of implicit knowledge that exists in
each KC can facilitate the construction of venues
for transforming implicit knowledge to explicit
knowledge that becomes an integral part of an
organizations knowledge assets.
Knowledge capabilities
The framework presented here provides a method
to assess the overall capability of an organization
to manage its knowledge within the four KCs
mentioned earlier: Lessons Learned, Knowledge
Documents, Expertise and Data. Higher levels of
KCs may result in improved organizational per-
formance. That association is beyond the scope of

this paper. We describe each KC in terms of four
elements: (1) the recognition of the capability in
prior research, (2) the interaction of human capital and technology, (3) the tacit/implicit/explicit
nature of the knowledge and (4) the knowledge
lifecycle flow.
Lessons Learned or best-known methods are
defined as situation-specific useful knowledge
gained while completing tasks or projects. Each
Lesson Learned begins as tacit knowledge in a
knowledge worker and at some point it becomes
implicit knowledge. Lessons Learned, as internal
benchmarking or best practice transfer, are identified as one of the most common applications (in
KM) (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Internal benchmarking is the process of identifying, sharing, and
using the knowledge inside ones own organization
(ODell and Grayson, 1998). Lessons Learned are
unique individual aspects of knowledge and their
identification as best practices imply that they
are highly tacit/implicit, singular and specific to
situations. Although lessons may be unique and
learned in specific circumstances, one can develop
a process to facilitate the identification, capture
and transfer of such lessons to other similar situations. One of three basic repository types found
by Davenport et al. (1998) to be informal internal
knowledgeis sometimes referred to as lessons
learned. An organizations human capital can be
focused to collect or capture these lessons through
reviews conducted at the completion of projects,
on achieving major milestones, and/or at periodic
intervals such as operational updates. The lessons,
captured as successes, failures, solutions, etc.,
can be organized in a context-specific manner in
a repository for reuse. Such knowledge can then
be retrieved when the context warrants its use
or, if the lessons are generalizable, they may be
distributed or used for training other knowledge
workers.
Knowledge Documents are defined as codified
knowledge originating from published sources and
containing highly explicit knowledge typically
having a long shelf life. Knowledge Documents

may be text-based forms that include project
reports, technical reports, research reports and
publications. This field of information (codified
knowledge) can include statistics, maps, procedures, analyses and can include alternative
forms such as pictures, drawings, diagrams, presentations, audio and video clips, on-line manuals,
and tutorials (McDermott, 1999). The Cognizant
Enterprise Maturity Model identifies knowledge
already documented as a procedure, concept, or
theory as explicit knowledge to be stored in a
repository (Harigopal and Satyadas, 2001). While
many of these sources of codified knowledge
originate internally, knowledge sources may lie
within or outside the firm (Zack, 1999a). Such
knowledge needs to be organized through sorting
and categorizing via an established taxonomy
into a repository for use within the organization.
Search engines are the primary technology used
by organizations knowledge workers to locate and
use these knowledge documents. An organizations
human capital must recognize the explicit nature,
the internal/external origin, and the referential
usage of this knowledge source. The interaction
of the human capital with this knowledge source
mainly occurs at the search and retrieval stage of
the life cycle.
Expertise is viewed as the knowledge that may
be gained through experience or formal education. The need for domain expertise initiates the
demand for transfer of this highly tacit form of
knowledge. The Personalization Strategy (Hansen
et al., 1999) relies extensively on the identification of experts in various areas of expertise. This
strategy views knowledge transfer as occurring
through the mentoring done by experts. Identifying such experts and classifying their areas of
expertise such that their knowledge can be efficiently tapped is an active research area (Alavi
and Leidner, 2001; Dooley et al., 2002). In many
organizations, corporate directories have been created to map internal expertise (Alavi and Leidner,
2001) while individually held expertise has been
133
shown to facilitate team creativity (Tiwana and

Mclean, 2005). Most importantly, individuals in
organizations often need to access knowledge that
is outside their own area of expertise (Dooley et
al., 2002) and to do so may require accessing the
tacit knowledge in peoples heads (Gurteen, 1998;
Quintas et al., 1997). The tools used to facilitate
the domain experts tacit knowledge transfer range
from capturing contact and domain information
of experts so other knowledge workers shorten
the time to locate and contact known experts to
collaboration technologies for simulating faceto-face communication. Experts are also a source
of implicit knowledge that has the potential to be
made explicit. Hence, some organizations encourage, with supporting technologies, transformation
of experts implicit knowledge to explicit knowledge for wider dissemination to the organizations
human capital.
Data provides many complementary benefits
to the leveraging of other KCs. Data can be transformed into decision- and action-relevant meaning. Databases and data warehouses containing
aggregated or otherwise summarized historical
information are the most basic form of KM tools
(Brown and Duguid, 2000; Fahey and Prusak,
1998). The value of this highly explicit form of
knowledge is dependent on various dimensions
such as context, usefulness, and interpretation
(Alavi and Leidner, 2001). A common view holds
that data is raw numbers, information is processed
data and knowledge is authenticated information
(Vance, 1997). The iconoclastic view reverses
the data to knowledge assumption and states that
knowledge must exist before information can be
formulated and before data can be measured to
form information (Tuomi, 1999). The raw data
that exists in data warehouses has been a significant source of business intelligence (BI) in recent
years. Yet BI initiatives have not realized the
anticipated benefits to firm performance (Rogers
et al., 2005). The capture of an organizations data
into the warehouse is mostly automated through
the extract-transform-load process (Hoffer et al.,
134
2005). Major organizational benefits accrue when

this knowledge source is utilized through analysis
and mining tools to support tactical and strategic
decision-making. The focus of organizations on
this source of knowledge justifies the inclusion of
Data as a KC and the lack of success indicates a
need to assess the knowledge capability required
to capitalize on it.
MetHodologY
The conceptual development of the KCs was
done in partnership with a large semiconductor
manufacturing firm comprised of multiple business units in a global setting. The research methodology included face validation of the four KC
areas derived from prior research, construction
of the measurement instrument, identification of
the target population, data collection, and analysis
for construct validation. This was accomplished
in phases over a period of 18 months. The first
phase started with the development of KC constructs including the knowledge processes that
comprise them. The company charged an internal
team of five experts in Process Management,
Information Technology, Value Engineering,
HR, and Training and Development to work
with the external researchers (authors) for the
entire project. The authors and the internal team
studied several internal knowledge documents,
training documents, questionnaires, guidelines,
memos, and other artifacts used by knowledge
workers. They also studied various KM systems
and interviewed knowledge workers in multiple
business units regarding their knowledge sharing
activities. The aim was to achieve an initial face
validation of the KC constructs.
From these field interactions, the team developed a KM Capability assessment instrument to
measure various aspects of the four KCs described
earlier. Each KC was operationalized using a set
of latent descriptor factors guided collectively by
its unique involvement in the knowledge lifecycle,
need for technological support, and interaction

with the human capital. For example, Lessons
Learned is hypothesized to be composed of four
descriptor factors: Capture, Repository, Taxonomy, and Application/Use.
A focus group of 12 individuals within the
subject organization evaluated the first version
of the instrument. The group consisted of 10 to
12 senior and mid-level managers to assess the
meaning, relevance, and completeness of the
instrument (Kulkarni and Freeze, 2004). The feedback from the focus group resulted in clarifying
the questions to ensure applicability to the target
audience. We then surveyed a pilot group of 98
individuals whose feedback resulted in shortening
and substantially simplifying the questionnaire.
Another focus group ensured that the meaning of
the questions remained intact. Table 1 shows the
KC factors (in bold and underlined), the descriptor
factors (in bold), and an abbreviated version of the
scale items in the questionnaire. The groupings
in the table show the hypothesized descriptors
for each KC. Each scale item was measured on a
5 point Likert scale denoting the extent to which
the item was applicable.
The organizations KM Training and Development group solicited participant organizational
groups without the assistance of the researchers.
Two large business units were selected to undergo the initial set of assessments. These two
units data is analyzed for the purpose of this
research. (Eventually, the company used this instrument to assess the KM Capability of many
business units; interested readers may request
those assessment results from the authors). The
first business unit, BU1, was charged with assuring the internal material and product quality across
the entire organization (population about 1000).
The knowledge workers of BU1 were lab managers, engineers, and technicians. A majority were
located in North America with some groups in
European and Asian regions. The second unit,
BU2, was responsible for the development and
sourcing of system software across all product
lines of the organization (population about 700).

BU2 knowledge workers were mainly application
engineers and software engineers, but also included other enabling groups. BU2 was more
globally dispersed. The responsibilities of the two
units illustrated substantially different functional
areas. The knowledge workers of the two units
were charged with tasks belonging to different
domains, required distinctly different skill sets
and accessed knowledge of different types and
forms. Even though the two business units resided within a single organization, we believe the
differences in their responsibilities, business goals
and objectives provided us with some amount of
external validity.
Each member of the two business units received
an introductory email from senior level sponsors
in their business unit concerning the upcoming
administration of the survey, its potential impact
on KM and the importance of completing the
survey. This was followed by a second email with
instructions and a link to the survey instrument. A
weekly reminder email with a link to the survey
was sent for the four-week data collection period.
Incentives in the form of raffles were used to boost
the participation rates. These efforts resulted in
response rates of 22% (223 useable responses)
and 43% (303 useable responses) in BU1 and
BU2. We note that the responses were voluntary
and therefore may have introduced some response
bias in the results. To test for this, BU2 allowed
us to poll a sample of non-respondents of the
survey. Discriminant analysis of this group with
the original respondents did not provide evidence
of a response bias. BU1 was reluctant to allow
us to contact a sampling of the non-respondents;
hence, we tested BU1 for a potential response bias
by comparing the first and fourth quartile (early
and late) responses using discriminant analysis.
This analysis was also conducted with BU2 data
for comparison. These procedures for BU1 and
BU2 provided no evidence of a response bias.
135
Table 1. Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Instrument

Expertise
Expertise Repository
Expertise Taxonomy
er1
Availability of repository(ies)
et1
Existence of taxonomy
er2
Accessibility of repository(ies)
et2
Clarity and standardization
er3
Usefulness of repository content
et3
Comprehensiveness
er4
Information about internal & external experts
et4
Extensibility
er5
Search capabilities
er6
Ease of searching
ec1
Routineness of use
er7
Multiple search criteria
ec2
Ease of use
ec3
Access to internal & external experts
ec4
Multiple tool set
Collaboration Tools **
Expert Access/Consulting
ea1
Practice of looking for available expertise
ea2
Ease of finding experts
ea3
Embedded in normal work practices
ep1*
ep2
Communities of Practice**
es1
Participation in SIGs
Expert Profiling & Registration
es2
Encouragement for participation
Existence of a registering & profiling process
es3
Availability of relevant SIGs
Ease to use
es4
Participation on company time
ep3
Allows self-updating
es5
Financial support for participation
ep4
Managed for consistency

Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned Repository(ies)
Taxonomy
lr1
lt1
lr2
lt2
lr3
lt3
Comprehensiveness
lr4
Search & retrieval capabilities
lr5
Ease of searching
lc1
Practice of capture
lr6
lc2
Consolidation and management
lc3*
Individual and group responsibilities
lc4
Existence of a systematic processes
Application/Use
la1
Practice of application/use
la2*
Ease of finding relevant lessons
la3
Capture
continued on following page
analYSiS and reSultS

While evaluating each KC construct, we hypothesized each latent descriptor factor within an
individual KC to be a trait (first order or specific
factor) for the set of measures. We first conducted
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to deter-
136
mine the validity of the hypothesized descriptor

factors within each KC. After this analysis, we
constructed two measurement models for each
KC - a Second Order model and a General-Specific
model - to perform further confirmatory analysis.
These Structural Equation Models provide further
Table 1. continued
Knowledge Documents
Knowledge Documents Repository(ies)
Taxonomy**
kr1
kt1*
kr2
kt2*
kr3
kt3*
Comprehensiveness
kr4
Access to internal & external documents
kr5
Supports rich formats
ks1
Ease to use
kr6
Clarity of meta-data
ks2
Effectiveness of retrieval system
ks3
Search & Retrieval
Categorization
Reference & Use**
kc1
Existence of a categorization process
kc2
Ease to use
ku1*
Practice of reference/use
kc3
ku2*
Ease of finding documents
kc4
Managed to ensure adherence

Data
Data Repository(ies)
Data Relevance
dr1
dv1
Timeliness
dr2
dv2
Periodicity
dr3
Currency of data
dv3
Completeness
dr4
Level of detail/summarization
dv4
Usefulness of format
dr5
Clarity of meta-data
dv5
Accuracy
ds1*
Ease of use
ds2*
Sufficiency
Decision Support Tools
KC factors are in bold and underlined, descriptor factors are in bold

* - Dropped scale item for EFA, ** - Dropped factor for CFA
evidence of the validity of measurement of these

knowledge assets.
confirmatory factor analysis

Comparisons of Principal Component Analysis
(PCA) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) factor
analysis indicate that either technique is equally accurate for pattern reproduction (Velicer and Fava,
1998). However, we chose ML over PCA because
PCA is designed as a data reduction technique that
maximizes the extracted variance, whereas ML is
designed to estimate factor loadings for populations that maximize the likelihood of sampling
the observed correlation matrix (Fabrigar et al.,

1999; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Through
the use of ML, an iterative process was applied
to each KC to identify problem scale items for
both business units.
During the iterative process, we set three goals
while performing the CFA for determining the inclusion or exclusion of scale items on a factor. The
first goal was to retain a minimum of three variables
per factor in order to ensure stability (Velicer and
Fava, 1998). For determining the loading criteria,
we used the following recommended thresholds:
0.71 excellent, 0.63 very good, 0.55 good
and 0.45 fair (Comrey and Lee, 1992). If a scale
137
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis ML Results

Variance
Explained (%)
Knowledge
Capability
TLI
Observations
BU1
BU2
BU1
BU2
BU1
BU2
BU1
BU2
Expertise
Repository, Taxonomy,
Access, Profiling,
Collaboration, CoPs
85
78
654
614
0.92
0.92
250
301
Lessons Learned
Repository, Taxonomy,
Use, Capture
84
80
139
143
0.95
0.95
243
290
Repository, Categorization,
Search
88
82
140
140
0.96
0.96
228
283
Repository, Relevance
90
87
97
123
0.97
0.96
224
291
Knowledge
Documents
Data
Descriptor Factors
Chi Square
(p < .001)
item did not load on the hypothesized factor, it

was removed rather than trying to provide a possible alternative explanation for reorienting that
item. This parsimony is especially critical when
the removal improves the models fit indices and
facilitates achieving our second goal which was
that the removal of any scale item should improve
the models Chi-Square and Tucker/Lewis Index
(TLI) fit indicators. The third goal was to achieve
a model that is significant for both business units
and can guide the development of the Structural
Equation Models for confirmatory factor analysis.
In Table 1, latent descriptors and scale items that
were dropped after the CFA are marked with an
asterisk. The final loadings of the four KCs, Lessons Learned, Knowledge Documents, Expertise,
and Data, are presented in Tables 3-6. Summary
results of the overall model for each KC of the
two business units (BU1 and BU2) are presented
in Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ML
Results. The results are discussed below along
with the impact each goal had on the analysis for
the individual capability.
The Lessons Learned CFA agreed with the
initial four hypothesized factors and with the
exception of the fourth factor, the first goal of
retaining at least three variables per factor was
achieved (Table 3). As can be seen from Table 3,
most of the scale items had excellent loadings
on their respective factors. The fourth factor, Ap-
138
plication/Use, had two scale items with loadings

greater than 0.80. Since both these scale items
had loadings that were much better than the
threshold for excellent, retaining the Application/Use factor with only two scale items is not
deemed to be a major drawback. More importantly, the two improperly loading scale items,
lc3 and la2, were from different hypothesized
factors (one from Capture and the other from
Application/Use). Of the two scale items, lc3 did
not load for BU1 and la2 did not load for BU2.
Following our second goal, we iteratively removed
each scale item (la2, then lc3) which improved
both the Chi-Square statistic and TLI upon each
removal. Our third goal was achieved with a TLI
of 0.95 for both business units.
The CFA results of the Expertise KC returned
six identifiable factors as was originally hypothesized (Table 4). We achieved our initial goal of
retaining at least three variables per factor for
all six factors. Of the twenty-seven scale items,
only four did not have excellent loadings. The
only scale item of the four that loaded improperly
was ep1. Instead of loading on Expert Profiling
& Registration, ep1 had the highest loading on
Repository. Removal of this scale item increased
the TLI for both business units. Our third goal was
achieved with TLIs of 0.92 for each business unit.
Further analysis shows that five of the six factors
had three scale items with excellent loadings for
Table 3. Lessons Learned Factors

Repository
Taxonomy
BU1
BU2
lr1
0.67
0.70
lr2
0.82
0.86
lr3
0.82
0.80
lr4
0.87
0.92
lr5
0.88
0.86
lr6
0.89
0.86
Capture
BU1
BU2
lt1
0.63
0.64
lt2
0.87
0.87
lt3
0.83
0.91
App/Use
BU1
BU2
lc1
0.67
0.79
lc2
0.89
0.74
lc3
lc4
0.51
0.49
la1
BU1
BU2
0.83
0.84
la2
la3
0.84
0.87
each business unit. The sixth factor, Expert Access, had two items with excellent loadings for
both business units and the third item had either
a very good (BU1) or a good loading (BU2).
The Knowledge Documents KC was originally hypothesized to be composed of five factors.
However, the five scale items hypothesized for
Taxonomy and Reference & Use did not load on
a separate/distinct factor (Table 5). For only the
factors of Repository, Categorization and Search
were we able to achieve our first goal. Pursuant
to our second goal, each of the scale items for
Taxonomy (kt1, kt2 and kt3) and Reference &
Use (ku1 and ku2) were iteratively removed. The
TLI improved with each iteration and a more
parsimonious three-factor model emerged. Our
third goal was achieved with a TLI of 0.96 for
each business unit. For each of the remaining
three factors, there were at least three scale items
with excellent loadings.
The Data KC (Table 6) was originally hypothesized as having three factors. The descriptor
variable Decision Support Tools and the associated scale items (ds1 and ds2) encountered commonalities greater than one while running the ML
and would not complete computation. This factor
did not originally have three items and so these
scale items, as well as the factor, was iteratively
removed, which resulted in convergence to two
factors for data with excellent loadings for all
scale items. The final TLI was 0.97 for BU1 and
0.96 for BU2.
Knowledge capability SeM Models

Another approach to confirming the KC factors is
to build a Structural Equation Model (SEM) for
each capability. For this purpose, we constructed
two measurement models, a Second Order model
and General-Specific model, to perform further
confirmatory analysis of each KC. In the Second
Order model, the descriptors within each capability correspond to first order factors and the
KC factor is the second order factor. In the case
139
Table 4. Expertise Factors

Repository
BU1
BU2
er1
0.64
0.64
er2
0.80
0.85
er3
0.84
0.85
er4
0.85
0.85
er5
0.93
0.90
er6
0.93
0.90
er7
0.92
0.90
Taxonomy
BU1
BU2
et1
0.62
0.58
et2
0.77
0.78
et3
0.80
0.80
et4
0.79
0.78
Profiling
BU1
Access
BU2
BU1
BU2
ea1
0.84
0.97
ea2
0.69
0.59
ea3
0.84
0.75
Collaboration
BU1
BU2
ec1
0.91
0.74
ec2
0.94
0.87
ec3
0.78
0.75
ec4
0.85
0.77
CoPs
BU1
BU2
es1
0.79
0.57
es2
0.88
0.86
es3
0.87
0.80
es4
0.92
0.94
es5
0.83
0.88
ep1
ep2
0.73
0.76
ep3
0.76
0.81
ep4
0.75
0.81
of the General-Specific model, the descriptors

correspond to specific factors and the KC is the
general factor. Although these two models are not
mathematically equivalent, they provide similar
interpretations of the capability under investigation (Chen et al., 2006; Gustafsson and Balke,
1993). The main difference between the two
models is that the Second Order model evaluates
the influence of the second order factor (e.g., the
Expertise KC) on the first order factors (descrip-
140
tors of Expertise), whereas the General-Specific

model evaluates the influence of the general factor
(KC) directly on the specific (scale) items that
comprise it. In both models, the descriptors are
considered to be orthogonal.
We used LISREL 8.54 for the investigation
of all sixteen measurement models (4 KCs * 2
Models * 2 business units). The final results of
the measurement models for each capability are
summarized in Table 7 SEM Confirmatory
Table 5. Knowledge Document Factors

Repository
BU1
Taxonomy
BU2
Categorization
BU1
BU2
BU2
kt1
kt2
kt3
ku1
ku2
0.76
0.74
kr2
0.86
0.80
kr3
0.88
0.79
kr4
0.78
0.80
kr5
0.76
0.77
kr6
0.67
0.73
BU2
kc1
0.58
0.58
kc2
0.78
0.83
kc3
0.80
0.81
kc4
0.81
0.84
BU1
Use
BU1
kr1
BU1
Search
BU2
ks1
0.85
0.82
ks2
0.86
0.78
ks3
0.86
0.76
Table 6. Data Factors

Repository
BU1
Relevance
BU2
BU1
Search
BU1
BU2
ds1
ds2
dr1
0.71
0.66
dr2
0.88
0.85
dr3
0.87
0.88
dr4
0.90
0.91
dr5
0.87
0.89
BU2
dv1
0.89
0.88
dv2
0.90
0.91
dv3
0.83
0.85
dv4
0.80
0.85
dv5
0.86
0.88
141
Table 7. SEM Confirmatory Analysis Results

Knowledge Capability
Model Type
Group
df
NNFI
CFI
SRMR
Lessons Learned
Second Order
BU1
223
100
465
0.95
0.96
0.093
Lessons Learned
Second Order
BU2
303
100
629
0.94
0.95
0.120
Lessons Learned
General-Specific
BU1
223
88
355
0.96
0.97
0.069
Lessons Learned
General-Specific
BU2
303
88
394
0.96
0.97
0.093
Data
Second Order
BU1
223
51
183
0.98
0.98
0.032
Data
Second Order
BU2
303
51
198
0.98
0.99
0.034
Data
General-Specific
BU1
223
43
136
0.98
0.99
0.048
Data
General-Specific
BU2
303
43
125
0.99
0.99
0.036
Expertise
Second Order
BU1
223
131
578
0.96
0.97
0.076
Expertise
Second Order
BU2
303
131
477
0.97
0.98
0.066
Expertise
General-Specific
BU1
223
117
461
0.97
0.97
0.034
Expertise
General-Specific
BU2
303
117
391
0.98
0.98
0.030
Knowledge Documents
Second Order
BU1
223
62
263
0.97
0.98
0.052
Knowledge Documents
Second Order
BU2
303
62
241
0.98
0.98
0.043
Knowledge Documents
General-Specific
BU1
223
52
193
0.97
0.98
0.030
Knowledge Documents
General-Specific
BU2
303
52
201
0.98
0.99
0.024
Analysis Results. Path diagrams for the Lessons

Learned KC representing the two measurement
models, Second Order and General-Specific, for
BU1 are in Figure 1a and 1b. Figures 2 through
4 show the Second Order and General-Specific
measurement models for the other three KCs Expertise, Knowledge Documents, and Data - for
BU1. Similar figures for BU2 are omitted due to
space constraints. Only the summarized results
appear in Table 7.
For confirming the factors within each capability+, we began with a model that replicated the
initial instrument and included all items and their
loadings on the hypothesized descriptors. This
confirmation ignores the results of the earlier CFA
in order to test the adequacy of the initially hypothesized factors within each KC. If adequate
Second Order and General-Specific models are
achieved, these are considered the final models.
We achieved significant results for this initial
confirmation in the capabilities of Lessons Learned
(Figure 1a and 1b) and Data (Figure 4a and 4b).
For Knowledge Documents (Figure 3a and 3b),
142
the five hypothesized factors would not converge

using either model. We then used the CFA results
to run a three-factor model which achieved a good
model fit. Expertise encountered similar problems
with convergence which prompted us to reevaluate its descriptor factors in light of the other KC
descriptors which were mainly knowledge process
oriented. We concluded that although Collaboration Tools and Special Interest Groups were
confirmed to be latent factors within the capability of Expertise in the original CFA, these factors
did not represent any particular stage in the lifecycle view of knowledge capabilities and thus
may in reality represent a different capability.
These descriptors need further investigation. We
removed these two factors and achieved convergence on a four-factor model for Expertise (see
Figure 2a and 2b). The results in Table 7 represent
these final measurement models.
The fit indices in Table 7 provide four tests
indicating the adequacy of fit for each KC factor.
The overall KC is represented as a Second Order
factor and a General factor. These two represen-
Figure 1. BU1 Lessons Learned Measurement Models
Figure 2. BU1 Expertise Measurement Models
143
Figure 3. BU1 Knowledge Documents Measurement Models
Figure 4. Data Measurement Models
tations were each replicated, with similar goodness

of fit, in the two business units. NNFI and CFI
above a threshold of 0.90 are considered to indicate a good fit for the model. An SRMR below
the threshold of 0.08 is considered a good fit for
the model. As can be seen from Table 7, all models for each business unit represent a good fit and
thus validate the KC constructs. The following
analysis and comparisons of the Second Order
144
and General-Specific model outputs reference

only the Lessons Learned KC (Figure 1a and 1b).
Similar comparisons can be made for each of the
other KCs (Figures 2 through 4). Analysis of
BU2s results also provided similar results. The
details and diagrams may be requested from the
authors.
Reviewing the Second Order model (Figure
1a), we see that for each of the descriptors (Re-
pository, Taxonomy, Capture, and Application/

Use), the loadings for each scale item are excellent based on the stated loading criteria of 0.71
or better. This provides the requisite construct
validation (in addition to the original CFA), i.e.
the instrument measures the intended separate
latent concepts. Each path between the first order
descriptor factors and the second order KC factor (Lessons Learned in this case) is significant
indicating the influence of the overall KC on
each of its first order descriptor factors. When
reviewing the General-Specific model (Figure
1b), each scale item is posited to load on both
the general factor (KC) and one of the specific
factors (descriptor). A General-Specific model
does not follow the previously stated loading
criterion; instead, the significance of the loading
coefficients has greater meaning since each scale
item is hypothesized to load on both a general
and a specific factor. For Lessons Learned, the
loadings on the general factor (Lessons Learned)
are all significant which indicates the influence
of the general factor on all scale items. The scale
item loadings for the specific factors (Repository,
Taxonomy, Capture and Application/Use) are also
significant even though these loadings vary from
a low of 0.18 to a high of 0.71. These loadings
represent the additional influence and explanation
of variance that the specific factors have on each
of the scale items, above and beyond the influence
of the general factor (Chen et al., 2004). The fact
that all items are also significant on the specific
factors provides additional evidence of construct
validity of the measurement model.
Since the Second Order model is a more restricted model and has been demonstrated to be
a nested version of the General-Specific model
(Yung et al., 1999), the Chi-Square difference test
indicates whether the two models are significantly
different in their representation of the KC. The
form of the Chi-Square difference test statistic and
its value for the Lessons Learned KC is:
2 = (22nd 2GS) = (465 355) = 110,
df = (df2nd dfGS) = (100 88) = 12,

where: 2 is the difference between the ChiSquared statistics and df is the difference between
the degrees of freedom of the Second Order model
and the General-Specific model respectively.
Significance of the Chi-Square test is determined by consulting a Chi-Square table utilizing
the resulting Chi-Square value and the number of
degrees of freedom. The Chi-Square test results
for BU1 for the Lessons Learned KC indicate
that the two models are significantly different
(at p<.001). A review of the fit indices indicates
that, although both models indicate the existence
of Lessons Learned as a valid KC, the GeneralSpecific model represents the Lessons Learned
capability more accurately than the Second Order
model. This means that, for any investigations
involving Lessons Learned as an overall factor
(e.g. relationships between Lessons Learned capability and firm performance) the General-Specific
model would be a better choice for representing
this KC. On the other hand, if the theory indicates
descriptor variables within Lessons Learned, then
the Second Order model provides an adequate
representation for testing the hypotheses. The
Chi-Square difference test and comparison of
model fit indices provided similar results for each
capability for both business units. This indicates
that the structure of the KCs and the descriptor
variables are consistent across all the capabilities
and that both models may be used depending on
the theoretical basis from which they are applied.
concluSion
In the process of establishing capabilities as
knowledge assets, we have focused our efforts
on establishing measurement consistency and
the representation of each knowledge capability
as a latent factor. Each capability was established
using the two measurement model forms of: (1) a
General-Specific SEM model and (2) a Second-
145
Order SEM model. Both models provided fit indices for all capabilities indicating models of good
fit. The significance of the General factor and the
Second Order factor representing the overall capability provides strong evidence supporting these
knowledge assets as measurable capabilities. This
evidence is further strengthened by the application
of the models to two large independent business
units in a leading semi-conductor manufacturing
company in order to confirm the measurability of
the capabilities as knowledge assets. By using two
measurement models within two business units,
we have provided experimental rigor and some
amount of external validity.
While we have demonstrated the standardized measurability and recognized a different
makeup for each knowledge asset, we recognize
that these results may be limited by the fact that
the data originated from a single organization.
This limitation needs to be evaluated in light of
the vastly different corporate directives and the
autonomous nature of the two business units. One
must also recognize that while the identification
of four capabilities represents an attempt at enumerating diverse knowledge assets within most
organizations, these KCs may not represent all that
is considered as knowledge by every organization.
KM is an evolving field and the definition of what
is knowledge can undergo changes as researchers
and practitioners develop a better understanding
of this complex concept.
Immediate implication for managers is that a
method has been provided to assess the capability
level for these four knowledge assets. Recognition that a specific knowledge capability is low
in comparison to other knowledge capabilities
and organizational strategic goals will allow KM
initiatives to be targeted to that specific KC. For
example, an organization may recognize a need
for contacting experts and using relevant expertise
as a knowledge asset. The Expertise KC may not
be currently understood or exploited as well as
their documented knowledge that is systematically
maintained and shared widely across the organi-
146
zation (Hansen et al., 1999). If this deficiency is

identified and the need recognized, an organization
may focus on improving the sharing of relevant
expertise to complement the existing high capability in Knowledge Documents. Conversely, another
organization may identify a higher need for effectively reusing the knowledge asset of Lessons
Learned, but a lower need for directly sharing
Expertise. The organizations business strategy
may determine such differences in emphases for
its use of knowledge and the measurement can
identify the relative strength of each capability.
Organizational decision making can then be organized around the knowledge asset most beneficial
to the organizations strategy.
Assessment at the individual descriptor level
allows management to focus on targeted improvements within the specific knowledge area. Recognizing the appropriateness of an organizations
knowledge asset capabilities with respect to its
business goals will assist in directing resources
to initiatives that provide the greatest return. This
delineation of knowledge assets has not been
achieved in prior literature and represents an important improvement in the ability to target specific
improvements in organizational KM Capability.
Potential business implications of measuring
knowledge asset capabilities are in the ability to
tie KM to recognized value metrics, construct
targeted knowledge sharing improvements and
match organizational/business unit goals to the
need for capabilities in specific knowledge areas.
Outcomes that knowledge assets causally affect
may range from such soft measures as user satisfaction, perceived usefulness of knowledge, and
decision effectiveness, to directly measurable
unit-level or firm-level goal-oriented performance
metrics such as cycle-times, productivity, and customer satisfaction. Current research is underway
to investigate how knowledge capabilities relate
to some of these metrics.
As an initial avenue of future research, the
nature of the interaction between knowledge and
human capital implies a potential influence of the
organizations culture with respect to KM and

knowledge sharing. While the capability measurement models are considered adequate without
taking a cultural metric into account, an organizations culture may influence a causal relationship
to the value achieved from these knowledge asset.
Factors such as the leaderships commitment to
knowledge sharing, rewards and incentive systems
for promoting knowledge sharing behavior, attitudes of co-workers, and importance placed on
training while introducing new KM initiatives
are all important aspects to be considered while
investigating the causal relationships of KCs to
value indicating metrics of an organization.
The implications for research are significant. A
standardized instrument for measuring knowledge
capabilities would not only allow benchmarking,
but also allow tracking capabilities over time and
linking them to those performance metrics that
are deemed appropriate by the organization. The
application of this measurement instrument to
multiple organizations will improve the external
validation of the KC measurement models and
the identification of knowledge assets across
organizations. Within the current organization,
KM improvements have been initiated and a
longitudinal study is in progress to validate the
predictive ability of the instrument and the level
of impact of each KC to proposed value metrics.
referenceS
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management
Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research
Issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107136. doi:10.2307/3250961
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained
Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management,
17(1), 99120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
Birkinshaw, J., & Sheehan, T. (2002). Managing

the Knowledge Life Cycle. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1), 7583.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing act:
How to Capture Knowledge without Killing It.
Harvard Business Review, 78(3).
Carlsson, S. A., & Sawy, O. A. El, Eriksson, Inger
and Raven, Arjan. (1996). Gaining Competitive
Advantage Through Shared Knowledge Creation:
In Search of a New Design Theory for Strategic
Information Systems. In Proceedings of the Fourth
European Conference on Information Systems.
Lisbon, Portugal. (pp. 1067-1076).
Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006).
A Comparison of Bifactor and Second-Order
Models of Quality of Life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189225. doi:10.1207/
s15327906mbr4102_5
Coff, R. W. (1997). Human Assets and Management Dilemmas: Coping with Hazards on the Road
to Resource-Based Theory. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 374402. doi:10.2307/259327
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A First
Course in Factor Analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C.
Davenport, T. H., Thomas, R. J., & Cantrell,
S. (2002). The mysterious art and science of
knowledge-worker performance. Sloan Management Review, 44, 2330.
Dooley, K. J., Corman, S. R., & McPhee, R. D.
(2002). A Knowledge Directory for Identifying
Experts and Areas of Expertise. Human Systems
Management, 21, 217228.
147
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R.

C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the Use
of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological
Research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272299.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management. California
Management Review, 40(3), 265276.
Freeze, R., & Kulkarni, U. (2007). Knowledge
Management Capability: Defining Knowledge
Assets. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(6).
doi:10.1108/13673270710832190
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001).
Knowledge Management: An Organizational
Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Management
Gurteen, D. (1998). Knowledge, Creativity and
Innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management,
2(1), 513. doi:10.1108/13673279810800744
Gustafsson, J., & Balke, G. (1993). General
and Specific Abilities as Predictors of School
Achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
28, 407434. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2804_2
Whats Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?
Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106116.
Harigopal, U., & Satyadas, A. (2001). Cognizant
Enterprise Maturity Model (CEMM). IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part
C, Applications and Reviews, 31(4), 449459.
doi:10.1109/5326.983928
Hoffer, J. A., Prescott, M. B., & McFadden, R. R.
(2005). Modern Database Management (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
King, W. R., Marks, P. V., & McCoy, S. (2002).
The Most Important Issues in Knowledge Management. Communications of the ACM, 45(9),
9397. doi:10.1145/567498.567505
148
Koskinen, K. U. (2003). Evaluation of Tacit

Knowledge Utilization in Work Units. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 6781.
doi:10.1108/13673270310505395
Kulkarni, U., & Freeze, R. D. (2004). Development and Validation of a Knowledge Management
Capability Assessment Model. In Proceedings on
the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on
Information Systems, Washington DC
McDermott, R. (1999). Why Information Technology Inspired but Cannot Deliver Knowledge
Management. California Management Review,
41(4).
Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004).
Review: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT
Business Value. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 28(2), 283322.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), 1437. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
ODell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we
knew what we know: Identification and transfer
of internal best practices. California Management
Review, 40(3), 154174.
Polanyi, M. (1975). Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997).
Knowledge Management: a Strategic Agenda in
Long Range Planning. London: Elsevier Science
Ltd. 385-391.
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit Learning and Tacit
Knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
General, 118(3), 219235. doi:10.1037/00963445.118.3.219
Rogers, S. B., McDonald, K. D., & Brown, V. A.
(2005). CFOs Positioned to Drive BI Integration.
Financial Executive, 21(7), 46.
Santhanam, R., & Hartono, E. (2003). Issues in

Linking Information Technology Capability to
Firm Performance. Management Information
Systems Quarterly, 27(1), 125153.
Satyadas, A., Harigopal, U., & Cassaigne, N. P.
(2001). Knowledge Management Tutorial: An Editorial Overview. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics. Part C, Applications and Reviews, 31(4), 429437. doi:10.1109/5326.983926
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using
Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). New York: Allyn
and Bacon.
Tanriverdi, H. (2005, June). Information technology relatedness, knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms.
29(2), 311334.
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The New Economy, Markets for
Know-How, And Intangible Assets. California
Management Review, 40(3).
Tiwana, A., & Mclean, E. R. (2005). Expertise
Integration and Creativity in Information Systems
Development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 1343.
Tunney, R. J. (2003). Implicit and Explicit
Knowledge Decay at Different Rates: A Dissociation Between Priming And Recognition
in Artificial Grammar Learning. Experimental
Psychology, 50(2), 124130. doi:10.1026//16183169.50.2.124
Vance, D. M. (1997). Information, Knowledge and

Wisdom: The Epistemic Hierarchy and ComputerBased Information System in Americas Conference on Information Systems. Indianapolis. In
Proceedings of the Third Americas Conference
on Information Systems.
Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of
variable and subject sampling on factor pattern
recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231251.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.231
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). Review: The
Resource-Based View and Information Systems
Research: Review, Extension, and Suggestions
for Future Research. Management Information
Yung, Y. F., Thissen, D., & McLeod, L. D. (1999).
On the Relationship Between the Higher-Order
Factor Model and the Hierarchical Factor Model.
Psychometrika, 64(2), 113128. doi:10.1007/
BF02294531
Zack, M. H. (1999a). Developing a Knowledge
Strategy. California Management Review, 41(3),
125145.
Zack, M. H. (1999b). Managing Codified Knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4).
Zhu, K. (2004). The complementarity of information technology infrastructure and e-commerce
capability: A resource-based assessment of their
business value. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1), 167202.
Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is More than Knowledge:

Implications of the Reversed Hierarchy for
Memory. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second
Hawaii International Conference on Systems
Sciences. Hawaii, IEEE Computer Society Press,
Los Alamitos, CA.
149
150
Chapter 9
Assessing Knowledge
Management:
Refining and Cross-Validating the

Knowledge Management Index
(KMI) using Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) Techniques
Derek Ajesam Asoh
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA & National Polytechnic, University of Yaounde,
Cameroon
Salvatore Belardo
University at Albany, USA
Jakov (Yasha) Crnkovic
University at Albany, USA
abStract
With growing interest in KM-related assessments and calls for rigorous assessment tools, the objective
of this study was to apply SEM techniques to refine and cross-validate the KMI, a metric to assess the
degree to which organizations are engaged in knowledge management (KM). Unlike previous KM metrics research that has focused on scales, we modeled the KMI as a formative latent variable, thereby
extending knowledge on formative measures and index creation from other fields into the KM field.
(OP). Research contributions, managerial implications, limitations of the study, and direction for further
research are discussed.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch009
Assessing Knowledge Management
introduction
The knowledge-based view of the firm (Grant,
1996) and the resource-based view of knowledge
(Barney, 1991, 2001) have contributed to an understanding and recognition of knowledge as a
unique resource that enables organizations to attain
and maintain sustainable competitive advantage.
The recognition of the value of knowledge has
propelled many organizations to become more
committed to managing their knowledge assets.
As a result, knowledge management (KM) has
evolved to become a prevalent if not mandatory
practice in such organizations; where expectations
are high, of KM to positively and significantly
contribute to bottom-line results and consequently
overall organizational performance (OP). Yet,
despite massive investment in KM per se, many
organizations are still struggling to assess and tie
KM to such outcomes as improved performance
(Chan & Chau, 2005).
KM benefits are intangible in nature and assessing the performance impact of KM may be one of
the greatest challenges confronting organizations
that have embarked on KM. But the results of the
assessment are quite invaluable to be ignored even
if organizations have to face various challenges or
other deterring factors to the assessment process.
For example, assessing KM permits organizations
to identify and possibly eliminate gaps in knowledge preparedness, set realistic expectations of
KM benefits, and appreciate how such benefits
relate with OP.
As organizations approach KM as a means
to improve their performance, being able to assess the degree of engagement in KM remains
an important task that must be conducted with
a reasonable degree of accuracy if they hope to
use the results for better management decision
making regarding the allocation and deployment
of resources to meet performance goals through
KM. The knowledge management index (KMI)
has been proposed as a metric to measure the degree to which an organization is engaged in KM
(Asoh, Belardo, & Crnkovic, 2002). Although

the usefulness of the KMI as a proxy for KM
and predictor of OP has been reported in previous studies (Asoh, Belardo, & Crnkovic, 2004;
Crnkovic, Belardo, & Asoh, 2004), the KMI has a
number of limitations which this study addresses
in order to enhance its usefulness.
First, in its current form with 32 items measuring one construct, the KMI instrument may
be perceived as being lengthy and as such would
be of limited usefulness (Comer, Machleit, &
Lagace, 1989). Second, the KMI is conceptualized and measured as a mean score of responses
to questionnaire items. Although summing item
responses (Spector, 1992) or creating item parcels
(Little, Cunningham, Shahar et al., 2002), is acceptable practice, some researchers have stressed
the necessity of first establishing that the items
summed or used in the parcel are unidimensional
(Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Kim & Hagtvet,
2003). The unidimensionality of the KMI has
not been investigated. Third, we believe that the
KMI is multi-dimensional because KM itself
is a multi-faceted organizational phenomenon.
Without establishing the unidimensionality of the
KMI items, attempts at validating the KMI where
groups of items are simply summed and used in
regression equations as in the recent study (Asoh,
Belardo, & Crnkovic, 2005) may produce results
that are not stable. Fourth, the KMI model has
not been cross-validated. Researchers have been
urged to validate empirical research as a means of
maintaining rigor in the field (Straub, Boudreau,
& Gefen, 2004). However, cross-validation is
often ignored. Cross-validation, which involves
the use of a second sample to test a theory/model
that has been developed using a first sample,
avoids circular reasoning in research when the
theory/model is developed and tested using only
one sample as is often the case in validation only
studies. Furthermore, cross-validation is essential to evaluating the accuracy of a model and
is important because it demonstrates the model
can generate consistent results, and will thus be
151
of practical value in making predictions among

members of the reference population upon which
the model is based (Sheskin, 2004) (p. 1002).
Given the interest in KM-related assessments
(Anantatmula, 2005; Kankanhalli & Tan, 2005),
the relevance of the KMI as a potential KM assessment metric (Asoh et al., 2004; Crnkovic et
al., 2004), and the calls for rigorous assessment
tools (Straub et al., 2004), the purpose and objectives of this study were to (1) refine and reduce
the number of items of the KMI instrument; (2)
conceptualize and investigate the KMI model
as a multi-dimensional formative latent variable
(LV) construct, (3) investigate the performance
impact of KM via the KMI, and (4) investigate
the stability of the refined KMI model across
two independent datasets of the same population through cross-validation: developing a KMI
nomological network model using a first sample
(calibration) and testing it using a second sample
(holdback/validation).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
The second section presents the theoretical background, including the rationale for KM assessment,
and highlight of current work on KM metrics,
scope of the KMI, definition of the elements of
the KMI model as well as a multi-dimensional
LV model of the KMI. The third section presents
the research models and hypotheses of the study.
We present the methodology of the study in section four, discuss the results in section five, and
conclude in section six with a discussion of the
contribution, management and academic implications, limitations, and directions for further
research.
tHeoretical bacKground
KM assessment requirements,
benefits, and Metrics
To assess KM requires the use of metrics, i.e.
measures that yield key data about KM. Such
152
data can be translated into actionable information for managerial decision making processes.
Unfortunately, as (Lee, Lee, & Kang, 2005) point
out, many organizations that have introduced KM
have yet to develop appropriate means of assessing KM effectiveness and usefulness. While some
organizations currently have a few or no metrics to
assess their commitment to, and their engagement
in KM, it is precisely such assessment metrics,
we contend, that should be developed, validated,
and applied within organizational settings prior
to attempting to associate KM benefits with OP.
Executives and managers often look at metrics
to understand past, current, and possible future
business scenarios before making decisions and
as such, KM assessment should be a routine or
mandatory activity in organizations. Other benefits
of KM assessment can be cited. For example, assessment of the performance impact of KM can
provide the basis for the development and deployment of knowledge resources in the best possible
way to maximize OP. Furthermore, by assessing
KM and OP, key objectives such as evaluating
investment, securing funding for KM, developing
benchmarks, and deriving lessons for the future
can be realized (Kankanhalli & Tan, 2005).
The usefulness of KM metrics extends beyond
the focus of individual organizations. Metrics permit comparability with other organizations, across
industries, time, and geographical regions. Metrics
also permit comparability of research and provide
a basis for validation of theories and relationships
among concepts, as well as facilitate replication
of research without the need to reinvent the wheel
by developing new instruments (Boudreau, Gefen,
& Straub, 2001).
Despite the necessity and usefulness of metrics,
research on the development of KM assessment
metrics has remained largely underdeveloped
(Grover & Davenport, 2001). Equally, the practice
of KM assessment has remained underdeveloped
(Bontis, 2001). These underdevelopments arise
not only as a result of the complexity of assessing organizational initiatives but also because
KM is multi-facet, and knowledge has multiple

interpretations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
As KM is multi-faceted, it is has multiple values (Kankanhalli & Tan, 2005) and is understood
and assessed in a variety of ways (Shin, 2004).
For example, the Balanced Scorecard, Economic
Value Added, Intangible Asset Monitor, Market
Value Added, Technology Broker, and Skandia
Navigator have been discussed as different KM
assessment metrics employed by various organizations (Bontis, 2001; Bose, 2004). In a more
recent and structured review of KM assessment
metrics, five main areas of KM research metrics
(user of KM and KM system, KM System, KM
Process, KM Initiative, and Organization as a
whole) and eight areas of KM practice metrics
(House of Quality, Balanced Scorecard, Process
Classification Framework, Skandia Navigator,
Intellectual Capital Index, Intangible Asset Monitor, Economic Value Added, and Tobin Q) were
identified (Kankanhalli & Tan, 2005). We refer
the reader to the details on these KM metrics in
the works cited above.
This study opines on, extends, and crossvalidates results of previous studies (Asoh et al.,
2004; Crnkovic et al., 2004) that focused on the
KM process area within the research stream of KM
metrics. In addition, rather than developing scales
as in previous KM process metric research (Darroch, 2003; Lee et al., 2005), this study extends
the above previous research by conceptualizing
the KMI as a formative index (Diamantopoulos &
Winklhofer, 2001); applying the SEM analytical
technique as a means of confronting the a priori
theory of a relationship between KM and OP
with empirical data (Fornell, 1982); and crossvalidating the KMI model.
Furthermore, previous KM Process metric
research has focused only on processes, without
taking into account the management of the KM
processes or consideration of key factors that influence or enable the success of KM efforts, referred
to as critical success factors (CSF) (Asoh et al.,
2002). For example, Darroch (2003) developed
scales to measure three KM behaviors and practices in organizations which included knowledge
acquisition, knowledge dissemination, and knowledge responsiveness or use. Although these scales
could be useful in identifying knowledge gaps in
organizations, they do not take into consideration
factors that influence or enable the knowledge
behaviors and practices, i.e. KM CSFs.
Equally, Lee et al., (2005) constructed a scale
used in conjunction with an analytical measure
they call the knowledge management performance
index (KMPI). The KMPI focuses primarily on five
KM processes: knowledge creation, accumulation,
sharing, utilization, and internalization. While
the KMPI can be used to measure the quality of
organizational knowledge, just as in the case of
the study by Darroch (2003), the approach by
Lee et al., (2005) neither takes into account the
management of the five KM processes nor considers factors critical to the success of KM efforts,
i.e. KM CSFs.
But according to Asoh et al., (2002), to properly assess KM efforts organizations must not
only consider KMPs but also KM CSFs. Their
underlying assumption, to which we subscribe,
is that in every organization, there is persistent
interaction between knowledge management
processes under the influence of critical success
factors, orchestrated by some actors: employees,
customers, partners, and the environment of the
organization [in pursuit and support of organizational performance objectives]. (p.26). One
implication of the foregoing assumption is that it
is possible to cast and investigate an organizations
engagement in KM, as depicted by the KMI, within
a common frame of KMPs and CSFs.
Scope of the Knowledge

Management index (KMi)
The level of commitment to and engagement in
KM and, subsequently, the benefits that may accrue from managing knowledge, vary widely from
one organization to another because of the multi-
153
Table 1. Belardos Matrix: The reference base of the KMI model

Knowledge Management Process (KMPs)
Identification
Critical Success
Factors (CSFs)
Elicitation
Dissemination
Utilization
Technology
Leadership
Culture
Measurement
faceted nature of knowledge and KM. Although

any metric designed to assess organizational KM
efforts should take into consideration as many
facets as possible, it is important to develop a
simple and parsimonious model with a manageable
number of variables. Common denominators in
any such metric must include processes that are
common to KM (KMPs) and enablers or factors
critical to the success of KM (CSFs).
Drawing on research within the areas of KMPs
and/or CSFs (Arthur Andersen, 1996; ODell,
Wiig, & Odem, 1999), the KMI was proposed as
a metric to assess the degree of an organizations
engagement in KM within a common frame of four
key KMPs (knowledge identification, elicitation,
dissemination, and utilization) and four key CSFs
(technology, leadership, culture, and measurement) (Asoh et al., 2002).
For practical purposes, the KMI is framed
within an evaluation matrix that relates the four
key KMPs with four key CSFs. This matrix, referred to as Belardos Matrix, forms the reference
base of the KMI model, and is depicted in Table
1 (Asoh et al., 2002).
The choice of the elements constituting KMPs
and CSFs was influenced by the works cited above
and practical experience in teaching KM in an
accredited MBA Program at a Northeastern US
university over many years.
154
Processes (KMPs)
Different authors have attributed different names
to the same KMPs. We maintain that a parsimonious yet relevant and informative model consists
of the following stages: identification, elicitation,
dissemination, and utilization (Asoh et al., 2002).
These stages, we contend, effectively capture the
various discussions and practices relevant to most
KM programs.
Knowledge identification focuses on discerning the location and value of knowledge, the roles
and expertise of individual employees, constraints
to knowledge flow, and opportunities to leverage
knowledge. Knowledge elicitation focuses on
extracting knowledge from relevant sources to
meet the goals of the organization or to enhance the
organizations knowledge management system.
Knowledge dissemination focuses on distributing knowledge to organizational members, i.e.,
ensuring that those who have knowledge share it
with those who do not have it. Knowledge utilization is defined as the application of knowledge
for the attainment of organizational goals. With
knowledge recognized as a key organizational
resource, the capture (identification and elicitation), sharing (dissemination) and application
(utilization) of knowledge become fundamental
in creating, maintaining, and sustaining an organizations competitive advantage (Grant, 1996;
von Krogh, 1998).
Knowledge Management critical

Success factors (cSfs)
The CSFs identified in Belardos Matrix (Table 1)
-- technology, leadership, culture, and measurement - are closely connected to organizational
KM efforts, as explained below.
Technology is defined as any machine-based
mechanism that provides the foundation for
solutions that automate and inform various organizational processes. In the context of KM,
information technology (IT) is the main focus.
IT has evolved from being a driver of KM to
become a CSF in KM (Tsui, 2005). IT is critical
because it ensures the creation of KM systems,
the principal purpose of which is to add value to
KM (Quaduss & Xu, 2005). Furthermore, IT is
instrumental in the acquisition and dissemination
of knowledge (Sher & Lee, 2004) and supports
knowledge application and use by embedding
knowledge in organizational routines (Alavi &
Leidner, 2001).
Common IT tools (e.g., groupware, e-mail,
bulletin boards, online databases, intranets, data
warehouses, software agents, search engines,
retrieval and classification tools, e-collaboration
tools, portals, and content management systems)
facilitate KMPs (Hendriks & Vriens, 1999; Tsui,
2005) and enable the storage and sharing of organizational knowledge (Davenport, De Long, &
Beers, 1998; Hansen, Nohira, & Tierney, 2001).
The importance of IT to KM can be further appreciated when IT is viewed as a tool that enables
the transfer of knowledge among organizational
members across time and space. It is hoped that
organizational members, thus enabled, can internalize knowledge and apply it toward organizational goals (Zyngier, 2003).
Leadership is defined as the support provided
for KM activities by management. Such support
is critical to effective KM initiatives, particularly
when it comes to direction and evaluation (Brown
& Woodland, 1999; April, 2002). An APQC study
of the World Bank, found that its success in the area
of KM could be directly attributed to the efforts

of top management, which was instrumental in
removing barriers by making learning a priority
and eliminating the negative impacts of sharing
[knowledge]. (ODell, 2004) (p. 6). Contrary to
the situation at the World Bank, the inability of
top management to champion and stimulate KMPs
has been deemed responsible for the failure of
well-intentioned organizational KM efforts and
subsequent decline in OP (Chan & Chau, 2005).
Culture is broadly defined as embodying
people issues and is reflected in values, norms,
and practices (De Long & Fahey, 2000; Schein,
2001). It influences individual motivation for
learning (Amabile, 1997) which, in turn, shapes
knowledge-related norms within an organization.
Culture presents the greatest challenge to KM efforts since it can simultaneously act as a facilitator
and an inhibitor of success (Ruggles, 1998) and
presents a major barrier to creating and leveraging
knowledge (De Long & Fahey, 2000).
Measurement is defined as the continuous assessment of how well KM is proceeding within the
organization. Measurement focuses on evaluating
the appropriateness of knowledge, and knowledgerelated activities in relation to the needs of the
organization. Linking KM to performance results helps make the business case for managing
knowledge. Measurement provides indicators that
can help the organization align KM with business
strategy and allocate resources to increase the
organizational knowledge base (ODell, 2004).
the KMi dimensions and

latent Variable Model
To model the KMI in this study, we maintained
the initial theoretical framework of Belardos
Matrix (Table 1) with the same two questionnaire
items for each of the sixteen cells as proposed by
Asoh et al., (2002). However, we contend that
KM is multifaceted and instead of considering
the KMI as a mean score of the 32 questionnaire
items, we conceived the KMI as an unobservable
155
Figure 1. The KMI model (LV Model Type II, with 32 indicators)
LV or construct associated with the 32 questionnaire items. In the absence of appropriate previous LV measurement models, it is necessary to
define a preliminary model of the dimensions
of a construct, since this enhances our ability to
understand and interpret empirical results (Sethi
& King, 1991; MacKenzie, 2003).
By definition, the four KMPs (identification,
elicitation, dissemination, and utilization) are
distinct concepts, each of which is a first-order
construct that can be cast across the frame of the
CSFs to take into account the impact of the CSFs
on the specific KMPs. Defining the KMI as the
degree to which an organization is engaged in
KM means it is the combination or aggregate of
various organizational engagements in KMPs that
determines the KMI, rather than the other way
around. On this basis, we modeled the KMI as
a second-order aggregate or formative construct
rather than a superordinate or reflective construct
(Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Diamantopoulos &
Winklhofer, 2001; Jarvis, Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003).
When considered as a second-order formative
unobservable LV, the level of the KMI is dependent
on the summative effect of all four dimensions of
KMPs as influenced by the CSFs. The expectation
is that, as a formative LV, the KMI will increase
or decrease if any of its dimensional components increases or decreases (Diamantopoulos &
156
Winklhofer, 2001; MacKenzie, 2003). Though

considered at a higher level as a summation of
dimensions (Sethi & King, 1991), this conceptualization of the KMI as a formative LV is in line
with the one in which the summation occurs at
the item level for each dimension (Asoh et al.,
2005). Nevertheless, an important issue to address
concerns the nature of the first-order constructs
that constitute the second-order KMI model. An
accurate specification of first-order models (as either formative or reflective) is one mandatory step
toward the conceptualization and development of
good constructs (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer,
2001; Jarvis et al., 2003; MacKenzie, 2003).
Within the perspective of multidimensional
constructs, the KMI model can be considered as
either a type II (reflective first-order and formative
second-order) or a type IV (formative first-order
and formative second-order) LV model (Jarvis et
al., 2003). To decide on the nature of the first-order
constructs in the KMI model, we opined on the
various decision rules proposed in the literature
(e.g. see Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2002;
Jarvis et al., 2003; MacKenzie, 2003).
Given the definition of the KMI and its dimensions, we opted for reflective first-order constructs
and investigated the KMI as a type II LV model,
i.e., reflective first-order and formative secondorder. What this means is that the 32 indicators
(Q1, Q2Q32) of Belardos Matrix reflect the
Figure 2. KMI-OP LV research model
four first-order dimensions which are then aggregated to form the KMI model as a second-order
construct. Therefore, the KMI is depicted as a
formative second-order model with the KMPs as
dimensions, each of which is a reflective first-order
constructs (Figure 1).
reSearcH Model and

HYPotHeSeS
Since the main objective of this study was to refine
and cross-validate the KMI model (Figure 1) it
is important to relate the KMI in a nomological
network with OP. When organizations are engaged
in the KMPs under the influence of specific CSFs,
it is expected that the right knowledge will get to
the right person at the right time for the execution
of right tasks for the attainment of OP (Hibbard,
1997). Therefore, we hypothesized that:
H1:The degree to which an organization is engaged in KM is positively correlated with the
performance of the organization. In other words,
the KMI is positively correlated with OP.
The KMI-OP LV research model is presented
in Figure 2. In this model, OP was considered in
terms of non-financial measures. Non-financial
measures have been recognized as good substitutes for objective financial performance (Dess
and Robinson, 1984).
As KM attempts to enhance the skill level of
employees (Bose, 2004), one important non-financial dimension is human resources capabilities
(Stivers, Covin, Hall et al., 1998; Hackett, 2000).
And given this specific dimension of OP, the following sub-hypothesis is investigated:
H1a: The more an organization is engaged in
KM, the more will be the level of development of
its human resources capabilities. In other words,
the KMI is positively correlated with OP viewed
in terms of organizational human resources capabilities.
Considering the four dimensions of the KMI,
the resulting KMI-OP LV nomological network
model of this study is presented in figure 3, where
Q1, Q2, Q32 are the 32 items in the current KMI
instrument; and P1, P2, P16, are OP-related
items discussed later under methodology.
MetHodologY
KMi instrument
In the KMI instrument proposed by Asoh et al.,
(2002), 32 items are used covering the content areas of KMPs and CSFs identified in Belardos Matrix (Table 1). Following two pilot studies (Asoh
et al., 2004; Crnkovic et al., 2004), the instrument
was modified to ensure clarity and avoid jargon.
In the final version of the instrument, respondents
were asked to rate: (1) the degree to which each
item reflected the organizations engagement in
specific KMPs as influenced by specific CSFs;
and, (2) the importance of the concept expressed
by each item to the organization.
The response on the importance of the concept
was used to compute a mean importance score
required in the item purification process as an
external criterion (DeVellis, 1991; Spector,
1992). The rationale for the use of this external
criterion is that since the importance score
reflects the value an organization places on its
KMPs and CSFs, only item measures that correlate positively and highly with the importance
score are meaningful and should be retained for
157
Figure 3. The KMI OP nomological network model
further analysis (Sethi & King, 1991). All items

were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The 32 KMI items are presented in Appendix A.
The OP instrument proposed by Asoh et al.,
(2004) consisted of 16 items (P1, P2, P3 P16),
reflecting three non-financial OP areas: Goal attainment: P1, P2, P3, P4, P9; Human resources capabilities: P5, P6, P7, P8, P11, P12; and Customer
service: P10, P13, P14, P15, P16. Responses to
the OP items were made on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). The 16 items are presented in Appendix B.
data collection, Sample, and

descriptive Statistics
Data Collection: Data were collected using the
survey method from two purposive samples of
participants in an international Executive MBA
program at a Northeastern U.S. University. The
first survey was conducted amongst participants
based in the US, the second amongst participants
based in Europe (Germany and Switzerland). Each
of the surveys was administered by one of the
authors in person. Those surveyed were briefed
beforehand and participation was voluntary. Since
the unit of analysis was the organization, only one
participant from each organization was chosen.
In lieu of financial incentives, as suggested by
158
(Dillman, 2000), participants were promised a

summary of the results.
Sample: Of the 52 questionnaires administered
to U.S. participants, 38 were useable (response
rate=73.1%). Of the 58 questionnaires administered to European participants, 44 were useable
(response rate=75.9%). Thus, of the 110 questionnaires administered, 82 yielded useable results
(response rate=74.6%). This high response rate
can be attributed to the method of administering
the survey on the spot; this method also alleviated
the need to test for response bias.
Descriptive Statistics: Participants in the study
came from both the private and public sector. 10 of
the 82 (12.2%) were government employees--6 in
the US sample and 4 in the European. The remaining 72 (87.8%) were privately employed--32 in the
US sample (44.4%), 40 in the European (55.6%).
Although many government organizations have
embraced KM, we believe that their approach to
KM is substantially different from that of private
companies. Given our objective of refining and
cross-validating the KMI model, we thus excluded
the ten government samples from further analysis.
Most of the organizations were well established. 54 (75%) were at least 15 years old; only
3 (4%) were less than 2 years old, while 19 (21%)
were between 2 and 15 years old. 15 companies
(21%) employed fewer than 50 employees; 27
(38%) employed more than 2,000 employees,
while 30 (41%) employed between 50 and 2,000

employees. Annual revenues mirrored organizational size: 16 companies (22%) had revenues of
less than US $50 million; 25 (35%) had revenues
above $2 billion, while 31 (43%) had revenue
between $50 million and two billion.
Of the 72 private sector respondents, 11 (15%)
were female and 61 (85%) were male; 43 (60%)
were mid-level managers and directors; 13 (18%)
were upper level executives, i.e., presidents, vice
presidents, chief information/knowledge officers;
16 (22%) had other titles. 37 (52%) of the respondents had held their current position for at
least two years, 35 (48%) for two years or less.
38 respondents (53%) held BAs/BScs, 28 (39%)
MAs/MBAs/MScs, 5 (7%) had DBAs/PhDs, and
1 (1%) had another degree.
KMi instrument Purification

Equality of Sample Test: A preliminary test was
conducted to determine whether responses from
the two samples (U.S. and European) were statistically different from each other. Levines test
for equality of variance indicated that there were
no significant differences for any item in the
two samples. The items were then subjected to
a screening or purification process to eliminate
garbage items.
Purification of KMI Measures: Various approaches have been suggested and used in the
purification of items for construct refinement.
For example, DeVellis (1991) and Spector (1992)
suggest the use of correlational analysis in which
each item is correlated with an external criterion
variable and only items that significantly correlate
with the external variable are retained. To purify
items for index construction, it has been suggest
that a suitable external variable would be an item
that summarizes the essences of the construct that
the index purports to measure (Diamantopoulos
& Winklhofer, 2001).
In the correlational analysis, items that are uncorrelated or negatively correlated with an overall
measure are considered poor items and dropped in

the purification process as recommended (DeVellis, 1991; Spector, 1992). Recently, substantive
and empirical criteria have been employed for
items purification (Matsuno, Mentzer, & Rentz,
2000). The substantive criteria entails examining
the breadth of the theoretical content coverage by
items while the empirical criteria entails examining
descriptive statistics, fit statistics, and correlational
and reliability statistics. Items with poor content
coverage, low fit indices, or low correlations were
deleted in the purification process.
Within the sphere of SEM, a split-sample approach to item purification has been used. In this
approach data were split into two equal datasets
(validation and holdback sample) (Chan, Huff,
& Copeland, 1998). Using the validation sample,
poorly performing items in the SEM model were
dropped in the purification process in which an
initial model was revised to obtain a refined
model. Using the holdback sample, the resulting
refined model was tested for parameter stability
without any further modifications or dropping of
purified items. More recently, an SEM purification
approach using multiple survey samples has been
used (Netemeyer, Krishnan, Pullig et al., 2004).
Here, items that loaded low (<0.50) or had very
high loadings (>0.95) were deleted in the purification process from one sample data to another.
We opined on the above research on items
purification and employed a mix approach to
purify the KMI item measures at two levels. At
the first level, we carried out item correlational
analysis with the importance score. The importance score was the external criterion on
the KMI instrument; and reflects the value an
organization places on specific KMPs and CSFs.
Only item measures that correlate positively and
highly with the importance score were retained
for further analysis. As a result of the correlation
analysis, the item pool was reduced from 32 to
19 after the first level of the KMI items purification. The initial and pre-final distributions of the
KMI items within Belardos Matrix are shown
159
Table 2. Distribution of KMI Items (Before, during, and after two quantitative screenings)
Knowledge Management Process (KMPs)
Identification
Critical Success
Factors (CSFs)
Dissemination
Utilization
Technology
Q1* Q2*
Q9* Q10
Q17* Q18*
Q25 Q26*
Leadership
Q3 Q4
Q11* Q12
Q19* Q20
Q27* Q28
Culture
Q5 Q6
Q13 Q14
Q21 Q22
Q29 Q30*
Measurement
Q7* Q8
Q15 Q16*
Q23 Q24
Q31 Q32
in Table 2, where the 19 items retained after the

first level of the purification process are bolded
and underlined. As presented in Table 2, none of
the KMPs retained all the eight items across all
the CSFs. Although only knowledge elicitation
retained seven items across all four CSFs, it is
important to note that the other three KMPs retained items, distributed across three CSFs. If all
the items along one column (KMPs) or across one
row (CSFs) were eliminated through the screening, the scope of the KMI construct would have
been changed, and redefining the construct would
have been necessary.
At the second level of purification, we adopted the SEM item purification approach discussed above (Chan et al., 1998). We split the
reduced dataset with 19 items into two equal
samples (calibration and validation) as discussed
below under KMI Instrument cross-validation.
Further purification of the 19 items using the
calibration sample in an SEM model resulted in
the reduction of the item pool to 12 items (with
asterisk in Table 2). The 12 items constituting the
final refined KMI instrument used in the SEM
measurement and structural models validation
and cross-validation are in bold and asterisks
(Appendix A) and further discussed in section
five. It is worth noting that even though seven
items were dropped, and the KMI framework still
maintained, testing of the stability and validity of
the KMI model with the reduced number of items
can only be ascertained through cross-validation
in a nomological network.
160
Elicitation
KMi instrument cross-Validation

Calibration and Validation Samples: After the first
level of item screening, the combined dataset of
19 items was systematically split into two subsamples (calibration and validation or holdout)
(Grant & Higgins, 1991; Chan et al., 1998). First,
responses with even numbers from both the U.S.
and European samples were selected to constitute
the calibration sample, while odd-numbered responses were retained to constitute the validation
sample. Second, the calibration and validation
samples were tested for statistical differences on
questionnaire items.
The calibration and validation datasets that
resulted from this split each had 36 cases. Levines
test for equality of variance revealed no significant
differences between the two datasets for all 19
KMI items as well as seven demographic variables
(age, size, and revenue of company, employee
title, years in service with company, years in
current position, and gender of respondent). A
significant difference (2 tail, p=0.005) was noted
for the educational level of respondents. This may
be explained, in part, by the uneven distribution
of respondents across the four educational levels:
BA/BS, MBA/MA/MS, DBA/PhD, or other (see
demographics). We consider this difference to be
an isolated incident when all eight demographic
variables are examined. We maintain, therefore,
that the calibration and validation samples were
not statistically different from each other and could
be retained for further analysis. The calibration
sample was subsequently used to calibrate, purify,
and test the KMI measurement and structural

models while the validation sample was used to
cross-validate these models.
Cross-validation Approach: After generating
the measurement and structural models based
on post hoc modification using the calibration
sample, we then cross-validated these models
using the validation dataset (Grant & Higgins,
1991; Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995;
Chan et al., 1998).
Cross-validation is established when the best
model obtained using the calibration sample replicates over the validation sample (Bryne, 2001).
Since the PLS SEM analytic approach does not
model fit indices, replication is judged by comparing the level and significance of: (1) item loadings
and weights in the measurement models; (2) paths
coefficients; (3) variances explained in the structural models within a nomological network; and
(4) overall construct validity for the calibration
and validation samples.
Cross-validation Nomological Network:
Another theoretical question of interest in crossvalidating the KMI is the relationship between the
KM and OP. We anticipate that when organizations are engaged in KMPs under the influence of
specific CSFs, the right knowledge will get to the
right person at the right time for the attainment
of OP objectives (Hibbard, 1997). In the current
context, relating the KMI to OP would constitute
a useful nomological network within which the
validity of the refined KMI model can be tested
and cross-validated. In line with previous studies (Asoh et al., 2004; Crnkovic et al., 2004), we
hypothesize that the KMI is positively correlated
with OP, i.e., the degree to which organizations
are committed to, and engaged in KM, will be
positively and significantly associated with OP.
The OP instrument (Appendix B) had 16 items,
the mean of which was used in previous research.
Since these items represented three OP-related
areas (goal attainment, human resources capabilities, and customer services), the logic of the SEM
modeling technique requires conceptualizing OP
as a three-dimensional second-order construct.

However, the focus of this study was not on the
OP construct. In order to keep the nomological
network and corresponding analysis simple, as
well as minimize the number of parameters to be
estimated in the SEM models we decided to use
the six items from one dimension of OP (human
resources capabilities, HR-Cap).
Levines test for equality of variance indicated
that there were no significant differences for any
of the six HR-Cap items (P5, P6, P7, P8, P11,
and P12) in the two samples. After SEM analysis
using the calibration sample, three items (P5, P6,
P7) were retained for use in the cross-validation
based on item loadings considerations (bold and
asterisk in Appendix B).
Structural equation Modeling

(SeM) analytical approach
The SEM analytical approach, unlike traditional
approaches (e.g., regression analysis), allows us
to examine multiple variables simultaneously
(Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000). SEM makes
it possible not only to confront a priori theory and
hypotheses with empirical data but also to model
unobservable latent variables such as the KMI
(Fornell, 1982).
In this study, we used the Partial Least Squares
(PLS) SEM approach. We preferred PLS to other
SEM approaches, e.g., LInear Structural RELationships (LISREL), for a number of reasons. First,
PLS is more suitable for exploratory/confirmatory
research, is predictive, maximizes the variance
explained, is more robust to multivariate data
distributions, and does not require a large sample
size (Chin & Newsted, 1999; Gefen et al., 2000).
In fact, PLS has been recommended as the best tool
for early stage research in where the theoretical
background is still developing and not yet very
strong (Falk & Miller, 1992), as is the case here.
Second, PLS is flexible with regard to sample size
considerations: unlike LISREL, acceptable results
161
can be obtained with small sample sizes (Fornell

& Bookstein, 1982; Fornell, 1982).
Sample size consideration was important because of the need to partition the dataset to have
a hold-out sample for cross-validation purposes.
The PLS sample size criterion is based on the
portion of the model with the largest number of
predictors. While a minimum of 30 to 100 cases
often meets power analysis requirements (Chin &
Newsted, 1999), the general sample size requirement is considered to be ten times which ever is
greater, A or B, where A is the greatest number of
formative indicators on any single construct in the
model and B is the greatest number of exogenous
latent variables impacting any single construct
in the model (Chin, 1998). A weak rule of thumb
calls for sample sizes of five, rather ten times A
or B as being acceptable for PLS analysis (Gopal,
Bostrom, & Chin, 1992).
With the KMI modeled as a four-dimensional
formative construct, a sample size of 40 would be
required for the more stringent rule of ten, while
a sample size of 20 would be sufficient for the
weak rule of five. Although the sample size of 36
for both the calibration and validation samples
is slightly less than the required size when the
stringent rule of ten is applied, it is more than
sufficient when the weak rule of five is applied.
In previous research, Lohmoller used a sample
size of 10 to estimate a model with 27 variables,
and another model with 96 indicators and 26
constructs was estimated with 100 cases (cited in
Barcaly et al.,1995). We believe, therefore, that
estimated model parameters would not be unduly
affected by the sample size, given that we have
only 15 indicators and 20 parameters to estimate
(see KMI structural model discussed later).
data analysis using the

PlS analytical tool
We conducted SEM data analysis using PLS Graph
version 03.00 Build 1126 (Chin, 2005). Based on
our conceptualization of the KMI, we adopted
162
the PLS molar approach (Chin & Gopal, 1995;

Iivari, 2005) for the PLS analysis; modeling the
KMI as a four-dimensional type II LV construct in
a reflective first-order, formative second-order
configuration (Jarvis et al., 2003).
Knowledge identification (IDENT), elicitation
(ELICIT), dissemination (DISSEM), and utilization (UTILIZ) were considered as first-order
reflective LV, which acted as formative indicators
of the second-order KMI construct since they determine the level of the KMI of the organization
(Figure 1). Subsequently, we used the two-step
approach to SEM (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) to
complete the data analysis using the calibration
and validation samples in separate analyses. First,
the calibration sample was used to investigate the
measurement model which depicts the relationship
between the items and their respective constructs
(IDENT, ELICIT, DISSEM, and UTILIZ for KMI
and human resources capabilities (HR-Cap). Second, the calibration sample was used to investigate
the KMI structural model in a nomological network
with OP. The foregoing analyses were repeated
using the validation sample. In both the calibration and validation analysis, we used a bootstrap
sample of 200 to estimate the parameters.
For the calibration and validation models, we
assessed the measurement and structural models
following the statistical measurement modeling
approach (Segars, 1997) and the guidelines for
validating research instruments (Straub et al.,
2004). Specifically, we assessed (1) reliability of
measurements within the KMI construct dimensions and the HR-Cap construct and (2) validity
of measurements between the KMI construct dimensions and the HR-Cap construct. In terms of
reliability, we assessed (1) the internal consistency
reliability and (2) unidimensionality of items; and
in terms of validity, we assessed (1) convergent
validity, (2) discriminant validity, and (3) nomological validity. The results of these assessments
are presented and discussed in the next section.
Figure 4. Measurement models for calibration and validation samples (all loadings significant at
p=0.1level)
reSultS and diScuSSion

Measurement Models
The essence of assessing the measurement model
is to ensure that the constructs are accurately measured. The measurement models for the calibration and validation samples are shown in Figure
4. All loadings in both samples were significant
at the p=0.1 level.
We consider the SEM measurement model as
a form of confirmatory analysis (Loehlin, 2004)
through which the reliability (i.e. internal consistency reliability and unidimensionality) of construct items can be assessed before assessing the
constructs themselves. Unidimensionality of an
item means the item reflects only one underlying
construct (Segars, 1997). Without acceptable
unidimensionality, it is not meaningful to talk
about statistics such as composite scores (Gerbing
& Anderson, 1988) used in previous KMI studies
or other statistics that involve manipulation of
items to make judgments on constructs. In effect,
unidimensionality is a necessary condition that
should precede both reliability and validity con-
siderations in that order (Segars, 1997; Ping Jr.,

2004).
The verification criterion for unidimensionality
is that a set of items measuring a given construct
or sub-construct should exhibit a parallel correlational pattern with other sets of items measuring
other constructs or sub-constructs (Segars, 1997)
(p. 109). To assess unidimensionality of the measurement models in the calibration and validation
samples, we computed a table of item loadings
and cross-loadings on the various constructs for
both samples (Figure 5).
According to the unidimensional criterion, an
item should significantly load only on the latent
construct to which it is assigned. The parallel
correlational pattern is evident in Figure 5 for the
items assigned to each construct, indicating that
all items are unidimensional except one item,
Q26, which loaded high on two constructs (DISSEM and UTILIZ) in the calibration sample. This
item however loaded high only on the UTILIZ
construct in the validation sample as expected.
When we examined the item (Q26) which read
my organization employs technology that makes
the utilization of knowledge resources transparent
to all, we noted that the item was meant to capture
163
Figure 5. Item cross-loadings on constructs demonstrating unidimensionality
the impact of the technology CSF on the knowledge utilization KMP. It is possible that the words
transparent to all might have been interpreted in
the sense of dissemination by most respondents
within the calibration sample who also associated
the item with knowledge utilization as expected.
Furthermore, the relatively very low loading of
the same item on the DISSEM construct in the
validation sample and its persistent high loading
on the UTILIZ construct in the same sample seem
to suggest some possible hidden variation between
the two samples rather than specific problems
with the item. We decided to maintain the item.
Having established unidimensionality of the
items, we proceeded to look at items loading
and reliability. The loadings and weights of the
items in the measurement models are indicated in
Figure 4, with numbers in brackets representing
weights. All item loadings in both calibration and
validation samples were significantly related to
their respective constructs at or above the p=0.01
level. The loadings were also within the limit or
164
exceeded the threshold value of 0.70 indicating

good reliability with the exception of item Q19
in the calibration sample which loaded at 0.52.
Although some researchers (Yang, Cai, Zhou et
al., 2005) have retained items with loadings as
low as 0.47 in cross-validation studies, we considered dropping the Q19 item since it was far
below the threshold value of 0.70. However, this
item loaded as expected (0.81) in the validation
sample. Barclay et al., (1995) pointed out that it is
not uncommon to find items load below the 0.70
threshold when newly developed instruments are
used in SEM modeling. We attributed the fluctuation to possible slight variation in interpretation of
the item by the US and European samples rather
than problems with the item and therefore maintained the item. In addition, maintaining the item
also ensured balanced item blocks in the models.
The means, standard deviations, internal consistency, construct inter-correlations, convergent
validity, and discriminant validity are presented in
Table 3 and discussed in the following paragraphs.
Table 3. Construct means, standard deviations, consistencies, validity, inter-correlation

Inter-correlation of latent constructs and square root of average
variance extracted (SQR (AVE)) in diagonalsa .
Internal Consistency
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Cronbach
Alpha
Composite Reliability
IDENT
3
3
8.04
7.40
2.39
2.75
0.61
0.73
0.80
0.85
0.75
0.81
ELICITa
3
3
8.34
8.40
2.81
2.32
0.74
0.68
0.85
0.83
0.63
0.49
0.81
0.79
DISSEMa
3
3
9.50
9.86
2.73
3.20
0.64
0.83
0.81
0.90
0.46
0.61
0.46
0.28
0.77
0.86
UTILIZa
3
3
7.77
7.75
2.58
2.44
0.54
0.57
0.77
0.78
0.44
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.44
0.33
0.72
0.74
HR-CAPa
3
3
9.44
8.58
2.91
2.73
0.68
0.76
0.83
0.86
0.30
0.35
0.30
0.31
0.40
0.20
0.39
0.41
No. of
items
IDENT
Construct
ELICIT
DISSEM
UTILIZ
HR-CAP
0.78
0.82
In each cell: Upper number: calibration sample; lower number: validation sample.
Since loadings are correlations, the reliability

of an item can also be assessed as the square of
the item loading. An item is considered reliable
if its squared loading is greater than or equal to
0.50, meaning 50 percent of the variance in the
observed variable is associated with the construct
for which the variable is a measure. The squared
loadings of all items were within reasonable
limits or exceeded the 0.50 threshold in the calibration and validation samples (with the exception
of item Q19 whose reliability fluctuated between
the two samples) again providing evidence of
acceptable item reliability.
Internal consistency is often examined in support of the reliability of items through the Fornell
and Larcker Measure (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
This statistic which is computed as the sum of
the loadings, all squared, divided by the sum of
the loadings, all squared, plus the sum of the error terms, is directly obtainable as the composite
reliability from the PLS Graph software. For
adequate reliability based on internal consistency,
the composite reliability should be greater than
or equal to 0.70 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). All
composite reliabilities for item constructs in the
calibration and validation samples were well above
the 0.70 threshold. The composite reliabilities for
the calibration sample varied between 0.77 and

0.85 while those for the validation sample varied
between 0.78 and 0.90.
Cronbach Alpha, a traditional measure of
reliability in non-SEM research was computed
for comparison with the composite reliability.
An Alpha value of 0.70 is considered moderate
and acceptable for early stage research (Nunnally,
1978). The Alpha values for the constructs in the
calibration sample varied from 0.54 to 0.74 while
those for the constructs in the validation sample
varied from 0.57 to 0.83. While each construct
had a moderate Alpha value above the benchmark
value (0.70) in either the calibration or validation
sample, this was not the case for the UTILIZ
construct which had low values (0.54 and 0.57)
in both samples.
We explain the low Alpha value for the
UTILIZ to be the result of a possible offending
contribution of item Q26 which loaded high on
DISSEM as previously discussed. Nevertheless,
a comparison of Alpha measures and composite
reliability measures shows that Alpha measures
seem to suggest the KMI is far from being in its
best form. Not withstanding, it is worth noting that
the Alpha measure has been noted as not being
the best measure of reliability compared to the
165
composite measure by the Fornell and Larcker

Measure. The argument is that the Fornell and
Larcker Measure is superior because it uses items
loadings estimated in a causal model, and in which
the item loadings are not assumed to have equal
weights as is the case with the Alpha measure
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In addition, the Alpha measure is sensitive to the number of items
in a scale, which is not the case for the Fornell
and Larcker Measure, which is considered more
universal (Barclay et al., 1995). Equally, Alpha is
sensitive to unidimensionality. Deviations from
unidimensionality turn to increase the estimate of
Alpha (Shevlin, Miles, Davies et al., 2000). As
already observed, the KMI constructs exhibit high
unidimensionality (Figure 5), which may explain
the low values of Alpha.
Convergent validity refers to the extent to
which a set of items thought to reflect a given
construct converge or show high correlations
with one another (Straub et al., 2004) and act as
if they were measuring the underlying construct
because they shared a common variance. The
statistic is depicted as the ratio of the amount
of variance of the set of items captured by the
underlying construct to the total variance of the
construct, including variance due to measurement
errors; and is measured by the average variance
extracted (AVE) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). An
AVE of less than 0.5 is judged unsatisfactory since
more variance in the construct is attributable to
errors. The AVEs are directly obtained from the
PLS-Graph software.
Both the calibration and validation samples
exhibit adequate convergent validity for the constructs since all AVEs (the square of values in the
diagonals of Table 3) are above the 0.50 threshold:
from 0.53 to 0.65 (calibration sample) and from
0.54 to 0.74 (validation sample).
Discriminant validity indicates the extent to
which one construct is different from other constructs (Grant & Higgins, 1991; Barclay et al.,
1995; Hulland, 1999). The criterion for discriminant validity is that the average variance extracted
166
(AVE), i.e., the average variance shared between a

construct and its measures should be greater than
the variance shared between the construct and other
constructs in the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981;
Barclay et al., 1995; Chin, 1998; Hulland, 1999;
Iivari, 2005). In other words, the average variance
shared between a construct and its measure must
be greater than the squared correlation between
two constructs.
In order to judge on the nature of the discriminant validity, the square of the average
variance extracted (SQR(AVE)) is placed in the
diagonal position of the correlation matrix for
the constructs under consideration. For adequate
discriminant validity, the elements in the diagonal
position (SQR(AVE)) should be greater than the
off-diagonal elements in the corresponding row
and columns. The diagonal elements exceeded all
the off-diagonal elements in both the calibration
and validation samples. In Table 3, the diagonal
elements for the calibration sample (upper value
in the diagonal cells) are bolded.
Structural Models
The structural models for the calibration and
validation samples are presented in Figure 6. We
assessed the structural models by examining the
significance of: (1) path coefficients among the
constructs; and, (2) variance explained (Falk &
Miller, 1992).
To obtain the path coefficients, we conducted
a bootstrap analysis with an initial sample size of
200 as recommended by Chin (2005). The PLS
software provides t-statistics for the path coefficients. For both the calibration and validation
samples, all path coefficients were significant at
the p=0.1 level or higher.
To ensure more confidence in the stability of the
path coefficients, we also assessed the structural
model by considering the significance of variance
explained based on the F-statistics (Falk & Miller,
1992) with the F-statistics computed as:
Figure 6. Structural models for calibration and validation samples (all paths significant at p=0.1level)
Table 5. Construct contribution to variance explained and significance

Path
IV => DV a
N=36;
m
Loading
Correlation
[Partial] R2
F(m, N-m1)
Critical
F(m,N-m-1)
R2 p-level
(2 tail Sign.)
KMI => HRCAP
1b
1
0.45
0.53
0.45
0.53
0.20
0.28
8.61
12.90
7.44
9.01
0.01
0.005
IDENT=> KMI
4
4
0.28
0.37
0.80
0.89
0.23
0.33
2.28
3.38
2.12
3.19
0.1
0.025
ELICIT => KMI
4
4
0.35
0.28
0.89
0.74
0.31
0.21
3.42
2.10
3.19
2.12
0.025
0.1
DISSEM=>
KMI
4
4
0.32
0.34
0.79
0.75
0.25
0.25
2.56
2.66
2.12
2.12
0.1
0.1
UTILIZ =>
KMI
4
4
0.27
0.27
0.82
0.77
0.22
0.20
2.17
1.99
2.12
2.12
0.1
ns
IV is exogenous & DV is endogenous construct.b Upper number in each cell is for calibration sample while lower number is for validation sample.
F=
R2 m
(1 R ) (N m 1)
2
where R2 is contribution to variance explained,

N is the sample size used in the model, with
N-1 degree of freedoms, and m is the number of
predictors of the construct. The R2 value (0.20)
for the KMI=>HR-Cap path for the calibration
sample was significant at the p=0.01 level, while
the R2 value (0.28) for the same path in the validation sample was significant at the p=0.005 level.
The results of these assessments are presented

in Table 5.
We also investigated the partial contributions
of each of the four dimensions of the KMI
model to the value of the KMI and the significance
of such contributions. ELICIT made the greatest
contribution (31%) to the KMI in the calibration
sample while IDENT made the greatest contribution (33%) in the validation sample. UTILIZ made
the smallest contribution in both samples: 22%
167
and 20%, respectively, in calibration and validation. All partial contributions were significant in
both samples at the p=0.1 level or above, except
UTILIZ whose partial contribution was narrowly
non-significant at the p=0.1 level in the validation
sample (see Table 5).
While the non-significance of the contribution
of UTILIZ in the validation sample raises some
questions, Falk & Miller (1992) maintain that,
between values of significance and values of
variance explained, preference should be given
to variance explained. According to these authors,
variances explained should be greater than or
equal to 0.10; interpreting variances of less than
0.10, even if statistically significant, offers little
or no benefit. In fact, Falk and Miller strongly
argue that a predictor should only be maintained
in a model if the contribution made by that predictor is at least 1.5% of the total variance of the
predicted variable. Given the conceptualization
of the KMI as a formative construct, the four
dimensions are predictors of the KMI. Evidently,
the 20% contribution of UTILIZ in the validation model is more than ten times the minimum
required contribution (1.5%) advocated by Falk
& Miller (1992). These considerations alleviate
any worries about the nature and stability of the
four dimensions of the KMI in both the calibration
and validation samples.
concluSion
Summary of Study and results
The main purpose of this study was to refine
and cross-validate the KMI model proposed by
Asoh et al., (2002) so that a robust model can be
available for both researchers and practitioners.
In refining and cross-validating the KMI model,
we used empirical data to verify two hypotheses.
First, that the KMI is a multidimensional construct,
and second, that the KMI is significantly and
positively correlated with OP.
168
We rationalized the multi-dimensional perspective of the KMI on the grounds that the
KMPs (identification, elicitation, dissemination,
and utilization) are distinct from each other and
can be measured using different items even if
they are impacted by the same or different CSFs
(technology, leadership, culture, and measurement). In addition, we also maintained that KM
is a multi-faceted organizational phenomenon that
cannot be effectively studied using a reductionism approach based on the mean of responses to
questionnaire items.
For the refinement and validation we employed
quantitative criteria at two levels (correlational
analysis and SEM analysis) using empirical data
collected from U.S. and European samples to refine
and reduce the initial pool of 32 items in the KMI
instrument to 12 items. We further investigated
and compared the psychometric properties of the
12 item refined version of the KMI instrument
with a calibration sample and cross-validated the
model using a validation sample.
Results of our analysis confirmed the multidimensionality of the KMI. Each of the four
dimensions significantly contributed to the KMI.
We also found that the psychometric properties
of both the calibration and validation samples
were within acceptable limits as prescribed in
the SEM literature. The validation sample faithfully replicated the properties of the calibration
sample, thereby confirming cross-validation of the
KMI model. Furthermore, in both the calibration
and validation samples, the KMI was found to
be positively and significantly related to OP by
virtue of the positive and significant path coefficient between the KMI and HR-cap as well as
the significant variance explained (Table 5). The
findings of this study therefore confirm similar
findings from previous research by Asoh et al.,
(2004) and Crnkovic et al., (2004).
research contributions
and implications
KM is an emerging field and developing and using
constructs is an important step in the development
and advancement of theory in the field. In order
not to re-invent the wheel, researchers are urged
to use existing constructs in theory development.
Such an approach makes it possible for comparative evaluation of research results. However, it
is important to know the properties of scales or
indexes developed to measure a construct before
deciding to use the construct (Matsuno et al.,
2000) since results obtained from using inadequate
constructs can be misleading and detrimental to
the development of theory and advancement of
knowledge (MacKenzie, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Jarvis, 2005). This study successfully
refined and cross-validated the KMI models using
the SEM approach via PLS.
Post hoc model modifications and adjustments
are common practices in SEM analysis. As Loehlin
(2004) points out, once a model has been modified
or adjusted on the basis of its fit or lack of fit with
a given dataset, its statistical status is precarious
until it can be tested on a new body of data that
did not contribute to the adjustment (p. 234).
The study cross-validates the KMI model. Crossvalidation of research models is important because
it not only alleviates any concerns regarding model
specification (Rigdon, 1998; Loehlin, 2004) but,
more importantly, demonstrates that the KMI
model can generate consistent results, and will
thus be of practical value in making predictions
among members of the reference population upon
which the model is based. (Sheskin, 2004) (p.
1002). A refined and cross-validated KMI model
makes for easy and confident replication of this
study in future research.
Related assessments of KM have focused on
the development of scales (e.g. Darroch, 2003; Lee
et al., 2005). This study differentiates itself from
the others by casting and investigating the KMI
as a formative latent variable, thereby applying
to the KM field research on formative measures

and index creation gleaned in other fields (Fornell,
Lorange, & Roos, 1990; Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001; Arnett, Laverie, & Meiers, 2003).
Management implications
This study revealed the positive and significant
relationship between the KMI and OP. Specifically, the study verified previous research on the
predictive validity of the KMI in the nomological
network with OP, with OP considered in nonfinancial terms of HR capabilities. The study
contributes to management understanding of the
possibility to predict OP based on organizational
KM efforts. Given the definition of the KMI and
the positive correlation between the KMI and OP,
managers would note that greater engagement in
KM would lead to greater accrued or expected
KM benefits and consequently higher accrued
or expected OP.
In addition, the study revealed that although all
four KMPs contribute significantly and positively
to the value of the KMI, knowledge identification,
elicitation, and dissemination seem to contribute
more (respective averages of 28%, 26%, and 25%
for calibration and validation samples) compared
to knowledge utilization (average 21%). While
companies stand to benefit more when knowledge
is used, the lower contribution of knowledge
utilization despite high knowledge identification,
elicitation, and dissemination may seem to suggest
that organizations have to pay more attention to
knowledge utilization.
When we examined the 12 items retained for
the refined KMI within Belardos Matrix, we
found that three CSFs (technology, leadership,
and measurement) impacted at two or more KMPs
while one CSF (culture) impacted only one KMP
(utilization). Although one interpretation may be
that culture is not as important as other CSF when it
comes to knowledge identification, elicitation, and
dissemination, we believe a contrary interpretation
is in order: managers should rather focus greater
169
attention on the culture of knowledge identification, elicitation, and dissemination. This ensures
that the contribution of culture is felt when it
comes to anticipating KM benefits since the KMI
is a formative, rather than a reflective construct.
The KMI model with the refined 12 item instrument should appeal to managers. Managers will
be able to easily use the new instrument to assess
the degree of their organizational commitment to,
and engagement in KM. Such preliminary assessments would further help managers understand
and anticipate potential KM benefits. Those
organizations that are able to identify the knowledge they need, acquire it, and disseminate it so
that it can be utilized in business operations, will
increasingly be able to appreciate and eliminate
knowledge gaps in order to improve KM benefits
and ultimately OP.
limitations and directions

of future research
The research described herein has a number of
limitations. First, two configurations of the KMI
model (first-order unidimensional and second-order multidimensional models) were discussed but
only the multidimensional model was considered
most appropriate and investigated. Our position
does not exclude the possibility of a first-order
formative index for assessing KM. Such an index
could be investigated if the KMI is not defined in
terms of KMPs, which we maintain are distinctive from each other and constitute individual
constructs. Second, OP is multi-faceted. Only
one facet of OP associated with human resources
development capabilities, was considered when
testing the KMI model in a nomological network.
Future research, would investigate the relationship
between the KMI and other facets of OP. Third,
the item reduction process almost resulted in the
elimination of culture as a CSF. Only one item
in the reduced scale relates culture to one of the
KMPs (knowledge utilization).
170
We believe the impact of culture as a CSF is

not limited to knowledge utilization only. Even
though the model based on the reduced items
was successfully cross validated, future research
should consider augmenting the items to ensure
a balanced representation of the CSFs. Fourth,
although an international sample was used in the
study and the KMI model was found to be stable
both in the calibration and validation samples,
the results cannot be generalized to all settings
without further testing. Fifth, the generalizability
of the findings of the study is also limited in view
of the study sample size, which is based on the
weak, rather than stringent rule of thumb. Another
direction for future research is replication studies
with larger sample sizes.
referenceS
25(1), 107136. doi:10.2307/3250961
Amabile, T. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving
what you do. California Management Review,
40(1), 3958.
Anantatmula, V. S. (2005). Outcomes of Knowledge Initiatives. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 5067.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423. doi:10.1037/00332909.103.3.411
April, K. A. (2002). Guidelines for developing a
K-strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management,
6(5), 445456. doi:10.1108/13673270210450405
Arnett, D. B., Laverie, D. A., & Meiers, A. (2003).

Developing parsimonious retailer equity indexes
using partial least squares analysis: A method and
applications. Journal of Retailing, 79, 161170.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00036-8
Arthur Andersen. (1996). The knowledge management practices book: A guide to whos doing
what in organizational knowledge management.
Arthur Andersen Consulting.
Asoh, D., Belardo, S., & Crnkovic, J. (2002).
Modeling and constructing the Knowledge Management Index of organizations. Paper presented
at the 6th World Multiconference on Systemics,
Cybernetics, and Informatics (SCI 2002), Orlando, FL.
Asoh, D., Belardo, S., & Crnkovic, J. (2004). The
relationship between the Knowledge Management Index and organizational performance: A
preliminary empirical analysis. Paper presented
at the 15th International Information Resource
Management Association Conference (IRMA
2004), New Orleans, Louisiana.
Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: A

review of the models used to measure intellectual
capital. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 4160. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00053
Bose, R. (2004). Knowledge management metrics.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(6),
457468. doi:10.1108/02635570410543771
Boudreau, M., Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2001).
Validation of IS research: A state-of-the-art assessment. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 25(1), 124. doi:10.2307/3250956
Brown, R. B., & Woodland, M. J. (1999). Managing knowledge wisely: A case study in organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Management
Studies, 8(2), 175198.
Bryne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Chan, I., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2005). Getting knowledge management right: lessons from failure.
International Journal of Knowledge Management,
1(3), 4054.
Asoh, D. A., Belardo, S., & Crnkovic, J. (2005).

Computing the Knowledge Management Index:
Validation of the instrument. Paper presented at
the 16th Information Resources Management Association Conference (IRMA 2005), San Diego,
California.
Chan, Y. E., Huff, S. L., & Copeland, D. G. (1998).

Assessing realized information systems strategy. Strategic Information Systems, 6, 273298.
doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(97)00005-X
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995).

The Partial Least Square (PLS) approach to casual
modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as
an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285309.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares

approach to structural equation modeling. In
Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for
Business Research (pp. 295336).
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained

competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
17(1), 99120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
Chin, W. W. (2005). PLS Graph. Soft Modeling,

Inc.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based view

a useful perspective for strategic management
research? Yes. Academy of Management Review,
26(1), 4156. doi:10.2307/259393
Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs. The
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems,
26(2&3), 4263.
171
Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural

equation modeling analysis with small samples
using Partial Least Squares. In Marcoulides, G.
A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research
(pp. 307341).
Comer, J. M., Machleit, K. A., & Lagace, R. R.
(1989). Psychometric assessment of a reduced
version of INDSALES. Journal of Business
Research, 18(4), 291302. doi:10.1016/01482963(89)90023-4
Crnkovic, J., Belardo, S., & Asoh, D. (2004). The
Knowledge Management Index as a micro level
organizational diagnostic tool: Analysis and illustrations with data from a pilot study. Paper
presented at the 9th World Multiconference on
Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics (SCI
2004), Orlando, Florida.
Darroch, J. (2003). Developing a measure of
knowledge management behaviors and practices.
doi:10.1108/13673270310505377
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M.
C. (1998). Successful knowledge management
projects. Sloan Management Review, (Winter):
4357.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management.
The Academy of Management Executive, 14(4),
113127.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory
and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001,
May). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. JMR,
Journal of Marketing Research, xxxxvlll, 269277.
doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.269.18845
Dillman. (2000). Mail and Internet Survey: The
tailored design method. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
172
Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the

nature and direction of the relationship between
constructs and measures. Psychological Methods,
5, 155174. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A premier
for Soft Modeling. Akron, OH: The University
of Akron.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. (1982). Two structural
equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440452. doi:10.2307/3151718
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement errors. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950. doi:10.2307/3151312
Fornell, C., Lorange, P., & Roos, J. (1990, Oct.).
The cooperative venture formation process: A
latent variable structural modeling approach. Management Science, 36, 12461255. doi:10.1287/
mnsc.36.10.1246
Fornell, C. R. (1982). A Second Generation of
Multivariate Analysis.: Vol. I. Methods. New
York: Praeger.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C.
(2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
4(Article 7), 1-77.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An
updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. JMR,
Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186192.
doi:10.2307/3172650
Gopal, A., Bostrom, R. P., & Chin, W. W. (1992).
Applying adaptive structuration theory to investigate the process of group support systems use.
Journal of Management Information Systems,
9(3), 4569.
Grant, R. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). The impact

of computerized performance monitoring on service work: Testing a casual model. Information
Systems Research, 2(2), 116142. doi:10.1287/
isre.2.2.116
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based
theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17, 109122.
Grover, V., & Davenport, T. (2001). General
perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management
Hackett, B. (2000). Beyond Knowledge Management: New ways to work and learn.: The Conference Board.
Hansen, M., Nohira, N., & Tierney, T. (2001). In
In, H. B. R. (Ed.), Whats your strategy for managing knowledge? (pp. 6186). Boston: Harvard
Business Review on Organizational Learning.
Hendriks, P., & Vriens, D. (1999). Knowledgebased systems and knowledge management:
friends or foes? Information & Management, 35(2),
113125. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00080-9
Hibbard, J. (1997, Oct.). Knowing what we know.
InformationWeek, 653, 4654.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares
(PLS) in strategic management research: A
review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195204. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AIDSMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7
Iivari, J. (2005). An empirical test of the DeLoneMcLean Model of information system success. The
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems,
36(2), 826.
Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M.

(2003, September). A critical review of construct
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. The
Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199218.
doi:10.1086/376806
Kankanhalli, A., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2005). Knowledge management metrics: A review and directions for future research. International Journal of
Kim, S., & Hagtvet, K. A. (2003). The impact
of misspecified item parceling on representing latent variables in covariance structure
modeling: A simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 101127. doi:10.1207/
S15328007SEM1001_5
Lee, K. C., Lee, S., & Kang, I. W. (2005). KMPI:
Measuring knowledge management performance.
Information & Management, 42, 469482.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.10.003
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., &
Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits.
Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151173.
doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent Variable Models: An
introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor
construct conceptualization. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323326.
doi:10.1177/0092070303031003011
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C.
B. (2005). The problem of measurement model
misspecification in behavioral and organizational
research and some recommended solutions. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710730.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.710
173
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Rentz, J. O. (2000). A

refinement and validation of the MARKOR scale.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
28(4), 527539. doi:10.1177/0092070300284005
Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang,
G., Yagei, M., & Dean, D. (2004). Developing and
validating measures of facets of customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57,
209224. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00303-4
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd
ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
ODell, C. (2004). The executive role in knowledge
management: American Productivity and Quality
Center. APQC.
ODell, C., Wiig, K., & Odem, P. (1999).
Benchmarking unveils emerging knowledge management strategies. Benchmarking:
An International Journal, 6(3), 202211.
doi:10.1108/14635779910288550
Ping, R. A. Jr. (2004). On assuring valid measures
for theoretical models using survey data. Journal of
Business Research, 2004, 125141. doi:10.1016/
S0148-2963(01)00297-1
Quaduss, M., & Xu, J. (2005). Adoption and difussion of knowledge management systems: Field
studies of factors and variables. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 18(2001), 107-115.
Rigdon, E. E. (1998). Structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed.), Modern Methods
for Business Research (pp. 251293).
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion:
Knowledge management in practice. California
Schein, E. H. (2001). Defining organizational
culture. In Classics of Organization Theory (pp.
369379). Fort Worth, FL: Harcourt College.
174
Segars, A. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration

within the context of information systems research.
Omega. International Journal of Management
Science, 25(1), 107121.
Sethi, V., & King, W. R. (1991). Construct measurement in information systems research: An
illustration in strategic systems. Decision Sciences,
22(3), 455464. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.
tb01274.x
Sher, P. J., & Lee, V. C. (2004). Information
technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic
capabilities through knowledge management.
Information & Management, 41(8), 933945.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.06.004
Sheskin, D. J. (2004). Handbook of parametric
and nonparametric statistical procedures. (3 ed.).
Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRS.
Shevlin, M., Miles, J. N. V., Davies, M. N. O.,
& Walker, S. (2000). Coefficient alpha: A useful
indicator of reliability? Personality and Individual
Differences, 28, 229237. doi:10.1016/S01918869(99)00093-8
Shin, M. (2004). A framework for evaluating
economics of knowledge management systems.
Information & Management, 42, 179196.
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated ratings scales
construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stivers, B. P., Covin, T. J., Hall, N. G., & Smalt,
S. W. (1998). How nonfinancial performance
measures are used. Management Accounting
(USA), 79(8), 4448.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., & Gefen, D. (2004).
Validation guidelines for IS positivist research.
Communications of the ACM, 13, 380427.
Tsui, E. (2005). The role of IT in KM: Where
are we now and where are we heading? Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 36.
doi:10.1108/13673270510584198
von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation.

Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005).
Development and validation of an instrument to
measure user perceived service quality of information presenting web portals. Information &
Management, 42, 575589. doi:10.1016/S03787206(04)00073-4
Zyngier, S. (2003). The role of information technology in knowledge management strategies in

Australia: Recent trends. Journal of Information
and Knowledge Management, 2(2), 165178.
doi:10.1142/S0219649203000061
175
aPPendix a: KMi inStruMent (q1, q2, q3 q32).

Instruction: In this section, a statement is made concerning some aspects of knowledge management in
your organization. You should indicate how important (IMP) you think the aspect is, and how effective
(EFT) it is currently being experienced. Your response on the importance and effectiveness should be
as follows: SD-Strongly Disagree, D-Disagree, N-Not Sure, A-Agree, and SA-Strongly Agree. Mark
the appropriate response corresponding to your answer, against IMP and EFT.
Q#
1
(In) my organization, agency, or department:

provides employees with appropriate technology tools to identify critical knowledge for business activities as required*.
has a strategic program in place to identify, collect and analyze business intelligence information to develop business strategy*.
management is committed to the identification of the right knowledge for organization business, demonstrates commitment and action in knowledge management policy,
guidelines and activities.
management constantly reviews and acts on opportunities for appropriate alliances and
joint ventures to increase the organizations intellectual capital.
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
is open to ideas and knowledge from all employees, irrespective of status.
is open to ideas and knowledge from other organizations, agencies, departments, or

disciplines.
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
employs some means of determining the percentage of knowledge required and

received for its business processes*.
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
Regularly identifies, reviews, and deletes out-of-date information and ensures updates
from designated information owners.
IMP
SD
SA
uses technological tools to create opportunities for employees to contribute knowledge in the form of tips to others*.
10
makes wide use of electronic documentation, cataloguing and archiving practices.
11
management actively promotes behaviors that enable knowledge owners to put

knowledge at the service of others*.
12
management actively promotes behaviors that enable knowledge seekers to ask their
questions to others without penalties for not knowing.
13
obtaining knowledge from fellow employees is routine and second nature.
14
sharing stories of success is encouraged.
15
is constantly assessing the extent to which employees knowledge is shared.
16
176
is constantly evaluating the possibilities to get the most knowledge out of its employees*.
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
Q#
(In) my organization, agency, or department:
17
technology is understood to be an enabler which ensures that the right knowledge

gets to the right person at the right time*.
18
electronic networks for internal and externally knowledge dissemination are

adequate*.
19
management actively promotes collaboration, teamwork and rotation of staff to

spread best practices and ideas*.
20
management actively promotes informal networks such as communities of practice.
21
employees are actively engaged in informal networks such as communities of practice.
22
sharing knowledge with fellow employees in routine and second nature.
23
is constantly reviewing the extent to which best practices disseminate.
24
constantly measures weather the people who need the knowledge get it when they need
it.
25
employs technology to track what knowledge is being used in the organization.
26
employs technology that makes the utilization of the knowledge resources transparent to all*.
27
is constantly tracking to ensure people who need knowledge get it when they need
it*.
28
intellectual assets are recognized and valued in the organization.
29
employees do not distinguish between personal and corporate knowledge when it comes
to utilizing knowledge resources for organizations business.
30
does not discourage improvisation by employees related to business objectives*.
31
has defined responsibilities and a budget set for knowledge management.
32
has key performance measures of knowledge management.
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
Bold and asterisk (*): Final items retained for the KMI model
177
aPPendix b: organizational PerforMance (oP) (P1, P2, P3 P16)

Instructions: In this section, a statement is made concerning some aspects of the performance of your
organization. Please consider your response for the period starting from when you think formal knowledge management or knowledge management-related activities were initiated in your organization.
Your response should be as follows: SD-Strongly Disagree, D-Disagree, N-Not Sure, A-Agree, and
SA-Strongly Agree.
P#
My organization, agency, or department:
produces accurate, reliable, and thorough financial reports
communicates budgetary and financial data to citizens/customers
produces financial reports in a timely manner
accurately gauges the cost of delivering programs/services/products
Conducts strategic analysis of present and future human resource needs*
is able to facilitate timely and quality hiring as required*
has sophisticated professional development programs*
has meaningful reward and evaluation structures for staff
has sufficient data to support analysis and management requirements
10
effectively monitors and evaluates projects throughout implementation
11
identifies strategic objectives, and with provide a clear purpose
12
effectively communicates strategic objectives to all employees
13
is responsive to input from customer, stakeholders, and employees
14
develops indicators and evaluative data that can measure progress toward results and
accomplishments
15
uses results data for decision-making and evaluation of progress
16
clearly communicates the results of its activities to stakeholders
Bold and asterisk (*): Final items retained for the HR-Capability component of OP.
178
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
IMP
SD
SA
EFT
SD
SA
179
Chapter 10
A Relational Based-View
of Intellectual Capital
in High-Tech Firms
G. Martn De Castro
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
P. Lpez Sez
J.E. Navas Lpez
M. Delgado-Verde
abStract
The Resource-Based View (RBV) has tried to test the role of strategic resources on sustained competitive
advantage and superior performance. Although this theory has found several flaws in order to reach its
objective effectively (Priem & Butler, 2001), recent proposals have suggested that these problems can
be overcome (Peteraf & Barney, 2003). This solution requires paying a greater attention to the analysis of knowledge stocks, developing a mid-range theory: the Intellectual Capital-Based View (Reed,
Lubatkin & Srinivasan, 2006). This mid-range and pracmatic theory allows the hypotheses development and empirical testing in a more effective way that the RBV. There is a certain degree of general
agreement about the presence of human capital and organizational capital as the main components of
intellectual capital, as well as about the fact that the configuration of knowledge stocks will vary from
one industry and firm to another one. Taking these assumptions as a starting point, this paper explores
the configuration of intellectual capital that can be empirically found on a sample of high-technology
firms. Our findings highlight the importance of relational capital, which must be divided into business
and alliance capital, so the strategic alliances play a relevance role in the type of firms that have been
included in our research.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch010
A Relational Based-View of Intellectual Capital in High-Tech Firms
introduction
From the Resource-Based View (RBV), it is widely
accepted that sustained competitive advantage and
superior rents are closely tied to company ability
to utilize and deploy its intangible resources and
capabilities, or its knowledge stocks (Barney,
1991; Grant, 1996) or intellectual capital (Subramaniam & Yound, 2005).
Nevertheless, the RBV suffers from various
concerns (Priem & Butler, 2001): (i) it is not prescriptive; (ii) it is too general; (iii) and it lacks a
clear definition of its key concepts, among other.
These can be the reasons why there is so little effort
in studying a conceptual and empirical test of it.
To overcome some of these concerns, during the 90s has arisen a pragmatic and focused
framework, called Intellectual Capital-Based View
(ICV) (Reed et al., 2006). As a mid-range theory,
ICV should allow a better hypotheses development and empirical testing than a more generalize
framework as the RBV.
In this sense, there are several intellectual
capital models that have been provided in the literature (Brooking, 1996; Kaplan & Norton, 1996;
Edvinsson & Malone, 1997; Bueno, 1998; CIC,
2003; among others) to measure and conceptualize intellectual capital. However, it is necessary
to improve previous proposals and empirically
support models for the classification and measurement of intellectual capital.
At this point, most of them, use three elements
of intellectual capital: human capital, structural
capital, and relational capital (Leitner, 2005),
which are representing, in a wide sense, all expressions of firms knowledge stocks. In this way,
it is tried to reconcile the concept of intellectual
capital (CIC, 2003).
This work is based on an empirical research in
high-tech organizations since the dominant stream
of the theoretical proposals of intellectual capital
adopt the follow basic three components:
180
Human capital, which includes values and

attitudes, aptitudes, abilities, experiences
and know-how of employees to carry out
different activities into the organization.
Structural capital that contains both organizational and technological elements that
pursue integration and coordination within
the firm. In this sense, the structural capital
is the whole of organizational methods and
processes needed in order to obtain products and services as well as complete organizational tasks.
And relational capital, which gathers the
value of relationships maintained with external agents by a firm (close to business
activity or through strategic alliances).
The empirical research, focused on high-tech

firms, presents an interesting case for the study of
different kinds of intangible or knowledge assets
in knowledge-intensive firms (Leitner, 2005),
and the aim of this paper is testing the previous
models, and providing a configurative definition of
intellectual capital from the different components
that it comprises.
tHeoretical bacKground
Knowledge assets -intellectual capital- as economic wealth have been accepted along the scientific
literature as well as its useful application (Teece,
1998). Although studies about its identification,
measurement and strategic assessment are limited
because there are several problems implicated
in that. These problems are examined by the
models of intellectual capital, carrying out their
measurement and identification of the different
components that compose it. Furthermore, the
importance of managing the intellectual capital
in firms supposes a key point to perform a work
like this.
On the other hand, the definition of intellectual
capital by Bueno (1998: 221): basic competen-
cies of intangible character that allow creating

and maintaining competitive advantage argues
how it can be tied the intellectual capital to the
Resource-Based View (RBV). In this way, intellectual capital is used as a synonym for intangible
or knowledge assets (Stewart, 1991).
The different components of intellectual
capital allow improving its assessment, as they
symbolize diverse kinds of intangible resources
and capabilities and it is simpler its analyses.
However, in spite of their strategic nature, all of
these assets would not have the same value for the
firm as it seems to suggest the studies of Itami &
Roehl (1987), Aaker (1989), Prahalad & Hamel
(1990), or Hall (1992, 1993) that emphasize the
importance of certain intangibles. Setting this kind
of differences can be considered as a useful help
for strategic management, since they can facilitate
to make decisions about the actions that the firm
should perform and about the implementation
of programs that allow to protect, maintain or
develop those more valuable intangible assets.
Thus, it is required an understandable classification of intellectual capital in order to explore the
relation between any specific kind of intellectual
asset and competitive advantage.
Nevertheless, there are numerous classifications about the different components of intellectual capital, as well as for establishing series
of indicators for its measurement. In this way,
according to most of the theoretical proposals, in
a first step, three main components can be found:
(i) human capital; (ii) structural capital; and (iii)
customer or relational capital (Kaplan & Norton,
1992; Saint-Onge, 1996; Edvinsson & Malone,
1997; Sveiby, 1997; Bontis, 1998; Carson et al.,
2004; Moon & Kym, 2006; Cabrita & Bontis,
2008; Kong, 2008).
However, in a second step, it can be observed
that there are various authors who take into account
a major number of components for carring out a
more detailed and deeper analysis of intellectual
capital (Brooking, 1996; Roos & Roos, 1997;
CIC, 2003; Leliaert et al., 2003; Pike et al., 2005;
Carlucci & Schiuma, 2007); trying differentiate

issues with different nature in order to improve
their examination.
In this sense, with respect to structural capital, Brooking (1996) highlights the differences
between intellectual property assets -focused on
technological knowledge- and infrastructure assets
-focus on organizational knowledge-. And regarding relational capital, Leliaert et al. (2003), distinguish between customer capital -assets related
to clients-, and strategic alliance capital -assets
with regard to relationships derived to alliance-;
and Carlucci & Schiuma (2007) discern social
capital -assets regarding networks of relationships
among agents-, and stakeholder capital -assets
related to relationships maintained with internal
and external stakeholders-.
Other models, as Intellectus Model (CIC,
2003) includes five components: (i) human capital
(makes reference to the tacit or explicit knowledge
which people possess, as well as their ability to
generate it, which is useful for the mission of an
organization and includes values and attitudes,
aptitudes and know-how); (ii) technological
capital (refers to the combination of knowledge
directly linked to the development of activities and
functions of technical system of an organization,
responsible for obtaining products and services);
(iii) organizational capital (as the combination
of explicit and implicit, formal and informal
knowledge which in an effective and efficient
way structure and develop the organizational
activity of a firm, that includes culture -implicit
and informal knowledge-, structure -explicit and
formal knowledge- and organizational learning
implicit and explicit, formal and informal renewal
knowledge processes); (iv) business capital (refers
to the value to an organization of the relationships
that maintains with the main agents connected with
its basic business processes -customers, suppliers,
allies, etc.-); (v) and social capital (as the value to
an organization of the relationships that maintains
with other social agents and its surroundings).
181
As it has been presented, structural capital

was divided into technological and organizational
capital, and relational capital was divided into
business and social ones due to theirs heterogeneous nature, allowing a better understanding
of these types of factors. The Intellectus Model
(CIC, 2003) is a good example that theoretical
proposals about intellectual capital are becoming more complex and detailed every day. This
encourages analytical reflection among managers
and Chief Knowledge Officers, but it can also be
seen as a too extensive proliferation of criteria and
categories of intangible assets.
In this sense, empirical evidence is needed to
determine the level of aggregation that intellectual capital components must adopt in practice.
Thus, the aim of this work is to build blocks of
an intellectual capital balance sheet, taking the
three most common components of intellectual
capital (human capital, structural capital, and
relational capital) and testing empirically if this
grouping of intangible assets is supported by the
evidence obtained from a sample of knowledgeintensive firms.
That is, this investigation will try to reply if
there is an especific structure about intellectual
capital in high-tech firms and if some of its components stand out, exploring the configuration of
intellectual capital that can be empirically found
on a set of high-technology firms from Bostons
Route 128 (MA, USA). In addition, Route 128 is
one of the most important technological clusters,
where companies maintain relationships with
customers, suppliers and competitors, which are
interesting in order to examine relational capital.
SaMPle and MetHod

Taking into account the previously mentioned
theoretical proposal, we empirically test the
presented simple model of intellectual capital in
knowledge-intensive firms. With this purpose, we
have carried out a survey in firms operating within
182
NAICS 334 (Computer and Electronic Product

Manufacturing), 516 (Internet Publishing and
Broadcasting), 517 (Telecommunications) and 518
(Internet Service Providers, Web Search Portals,
and Data Processing Services) from Bostons
Route 128 (Massachusetts- U.S.A.) during 2005.
The selection of industries was guided by the
purpose to have a homogeneous sample (Rouse
& Daellenbach, 1999).
From a population of 422 firms, finally 52
firms took part in our survey, so we reached a
response rate of 12.32% (see Table 1 for a general
description of the fieldwork).
In our preparation of the questionnaire that we
would use to collect quantitative data from primary and internal sources especially chosen for
our research, we followed a process that can be
divided into four phases: (1) literature review; (2)
elaboration of the questionnaire in an initial version; (3) pre-testing the preliminary version of
the survey; and (4) correcting and reframing the
questionnaire in order to obtain a final version to
be used in the fieldwork.
The questionnaire employed for the survey
included 12 items for measuring different intellectual capital aspects according to the three
main constructs that it involves. 4 items were
devoted to report human capital (HC), 3 addressed
structural capital (SC), and 5 tried to analyze
relational capital (RC). Firms had to answer in a
seven positions Likert style scale, showing their
level of agreement about the sentences presented
in the survey. The 12 items employed in the
questionnaire were taken from general insights
about the pre-defined components of intellectual
capital taken into account (see Table 2). The
items were ungrouped in the questionnaire, and
one of them was reversely written (our relations
with suppliers are sporadic and punctual). These
facts granted attention and sense-making from
the respondent (CEO). Assessing the intellectual
capital in a homogeneous scale is not very easy
to do, nevertheless, the survey allows to perform
Table 1. Research resume

Research focus
Criteria defining sample
Sample
Response rate
Knowledge Creation Processes

Knowledge-intensive firms
From industries NAICS 334, 516, 517 & 518
Placed on Route 128 (Massachusetts, USA)
50 employees or bigger
Included in CareerSearch Database
422 firms
52 firms (12.32%)
Method for data gathering
Survey
Process for data gathering
Ordinary mail
Follow up on the phone
Backup with second ordinary mail, FAX, webpage and e-mail
Statistical software used
SPSS 12.0 for Windows (version 12.0.1)
Table 2. Intellectual capital elements. Descriptive statistic

Mean
Standard
Deviation
HC2 - Our employees are among the most experienced in the industry
5.92
1.074
HC1 - Our employees develop new ideas and knowledge
5.81
1.049
HC4 - Our employees have a long experience in the firm
5.67
1.232
HC3 - Our employees do team work
5.67
1.098
RC5 - Our firm is recognized by the external agents (customers, suppliers, competitors, and the general
public) as one of the best firms in the industry
5.61
1.297
RC2 - Our customers are highly loyal to our firm
5.35
1.341
RC4 - Our collaboration agreements are held during long periods of time
5.19
1.394
SC1 - Our efforts in creating and sustaining an organizational culture are among the highest in our
industry
5.02
1.651
SC2 - Our firm develops more ideas and products than any other firm in our industry
4.75
1.671
SC3 - We perform a lot of actions to spread our corporate values and beliefs
3.96
1.703
RC3 - Our relations with suppliers are sporadic and punctual (R)
3.81 (R)
1.313
RC1 - Our firm devotes an important part of its budget to funding community and green actions
2.60
1.796
Questionnaire items
(R) Reversed item. Un-reversed mean would be 4.19. Standard deviation remains the same.
these comparison applying a same framework for

the assessment from each respondent.
reSultS
A factor analysis was developed in order to identify
the main dimensions (Hair et al., 2004) of intellectual capital for these types of industries as well
as their main elements and variables, although in

the following paragraphs, as a preliminary approach to the data analysis performed after data
gathering, a comment on the descriptive statistics
about the items of the questionnaire is provided.
This analysis allows us to detect the most and less
common aspects of intellectual capital that firms
possess (see Table 2).
183
As it can be seen, the items related to human

capital show the higher means (close to 6 in a
scale with 7 as the maximum value). This reports
that firms operating in the chosen industries are
highly focused on having a strong human capital. And these data are quite robust, as the low
standard deviations (see Table 2). Almost every
firm strongly values its human capital. Employees with high experience in the industry, ability
to develop new ideas and knowledge, as well as
experience within the firm and the involving in
teamwork appear as key assets for competing in
the analysed industries.
The surveyed firms agree considerably (reduced standard deviations) about recognizing as
next importance in the list of intellectual strengths
and assets the renown among customers, suppliers, competitors and general public, the effective
customer loyalty, and the long-lasting collaboration agreements sealed by the firm. All of these
issues are tied to relational capital in the fashion
of reputation-based and operationally-based relationships with the environment.
The item our relations with suppliers are
sporadic and punctual (RC3) deserves special
attention, placing it as an intermediate power asset. This is consistent with the literature, which
confers less relevance to the relations with the
suppliers compared with other external agents as
customers or allies. This is backed by the obtained
results, because the items devoted to these agents
show higher values as firm strengths their relations
with the suppliers.
When firms assessed their intellectual capital
positions, the issues tied to structural capital ranked
among the less common element. Organizational
culture emerges as the most employed element of
internal coherence, but firms differ considerably
among them about this issue (see the standard
deviations, in Table 2). The effective flow of ideas
and products delivered to the market is a slightly
common asset, but we must take into account
that it has been posed in industrial-competition
terms. Finally, the relevance of actions for spread-
184
ing and reinforcing corporate values and beliefs

differ considerably for each particular firm (see
standard deviations, in Table 2).
In order to end this preliminary descriptive
analysis of our results, we must highlight that
there are very few firms in the studied industries
investing in community and green actions. Funding these actions was posed as an indicator for
relational capital focused on community, social
and green care agents. The average position in
this kind of relation is actually low.
After descriptive statistics, an exploratory factor analysis (Hair et al., 2004) was carried out in
order to identify the factors or latent phenomena
that lie in the data about intellectual capital provided by the studied firms.
For deciding if factor analysis is an appropriate technique in this case, several preliminary
tests are needed: the analysis of communalities,
the Bartletts test, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin.
Table 3 shows the results of them for the set of
items contained in the questionnaire employed
in our research.
As it can be seen in Table 3, the test advise to
perform the factor analysis, the KMO index is
above 0.6, so it can be considered acceptable for
exploratory studies (as this one), and the factor
analysis becomes appropriate.
From the factor analysis we obtained four
components of intellectual capital. Jointly they
explained almost a 70% of the total variance
contained in the original data (see Table 3).
The first found component was labeled as
Human Capital because it gathered all the items
originally developed for measuring this construct,
as well as one of the elements initially designed for
relational capital. The five items included in this
component explained the 25% of the total intellectual capital of a firm. The element that better
characterizes Human Capital is the experience
in the industry held by employees. Nevertheless,
the experience in the firm also presents important
factorial weight. Besides, this component of intellectual capital includes the abilities of the employ-
Table 3. Rotated components matrix (a)

Component
Human Capital
HC2
.836
HC3
.760
RC5
.739
HC1
.716
HC4
.527
Structural Capital
SC3
Alliance Capital
.448
.500
.892
RC1
SC1
Business Capital
.844
.446
.681
RC3
.821
SC2
.660
RC2
.507
RC4
.903
% variance
25.078
20.000
13.224
11.248
% acumul.
25.078
45.078
58.302
69.550
KMO index
0.618
Extraction method: Main components analysis

Rotation method: Normalization Varimax with Kaiser
(a) Rotation has converged after 5 iterations
ees for developing ideas and new knowledge, and

for team-working, as well as the recognition as a
leading firm by the external agents (see Table 3
for factorial loadings).
The second component found in the factor
analysis represents a 20% of the intellectual capital
of a firm and includes three elements. The most
important of them is the set of actions devoted
to spread corporate values and beliefs. Due to
the fact that this item was clearly representing
structural capital, and because this component
of intellectual capital includes two of the three
items originally designed for structural capital it
was named Structural Capital. The other two
items that appear within this component are the
investments on community and green initiatives,
as well as the efforts that a firm makes for creating
and sustaining its organizational culture.
The third found component of intellectual
capital weighted a 13% of the total variance con-
tained in the original data and it was shaped by

three items. The strongest of them was representing the relations with suppliers, showing content
clearly tied to relational capital. In this vein, this
component also included the relations with customers. The factorial loadings of two relational
capital items in this component, as well as the
clear dominance of one of them led us to label it
simply as Relational Capital, although it also
contained one of the items originally designed
for structural capital (see the composition of this
component through the factorial loadings shown
in Table 3).
The last component of intellectual capital
that provided the factor analysis was designated
Strategic Alliances because it contained only one
item, initially developed for measuring relational
capital along with the collaboration agreements
held by a firm. This component emerged as an
own entity, representing the 11% of the intellectual
185
Figure 1. Components of intellectual capital obtained from the empirical research
capital of a firm, which highlights the relevance

that special partners can have for a firm of the
analyzed industries.
diScuSSion
According to the obtained data, the average balance sheet of intellectual capital that could be found
in a firm of the knowledge-intensive industries of
Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing,
Internet Publishing and Broadcasting, Telecommunications, and Internet Service Providers, Web
Search Portals, and Data Processing Services operating in Bostons Route 128 at the beginnings of
2005 would show something similar to Figure 1.
In this configuration of intellectual capital,
human capital appears as the most influential
component. It includes the experience, creativity
and teamwork of employees, but when a firm
holds a strong position in these areas, an image
of leading firm is projected towards external agents
(customers, suppliers, competitors, and general
public) present in the environmental setting. Thus,
the quality of workforce seems to be the main
indicator of leadership in the industry. Probably,
due to the important knowledge-base of the studied industries, the role of key engineers or experts
could determine that the best people make the
best firm.
186
Structural capital represents almost a 30%

of the total intellectual capital of a typical firm.
The purpose of structural capital is to provide an
appropriate context for communication, cooperation, adhesion and identity (Kogut & Zander,
1996). Issues related to organizational culture,
values and beliefs are gathered within the label
of structural capital, although we have found that
investments on green care or community initiatives hold a strong relation to corporate culture
and structural capital. This is nothing strange,
because when a positive mission and values are
stated for a company, probably the best way to
legitimize them is with subsequent actions which
reinforce the declared principles. Respect for the
natural environment and the active involvement in
the community life are two of the most common
aspects that can be included in the documents
about organizational mission, vision and values,
and this explains the configuration obtained for
structural capital.
Nevertheless, one of the most appealing findings of this research has been the fact that relational capital did not appear as initially supposed.
Although according to the literature we expected
to find grouped all of relations with external agents
(customers, suppliers, allies, competitors, ), two
components of intellectual capital were found
with regard to these issues: the one that we have
named Relational Capital, which is divided into
business and alliance capital.
Our block of relational capital includes the

relations with customers and suppliers, as well
as the capability of a firm to deliver ideas and
products in its industrial setting. Although this
characteristic was originally planned as an indicator of structural capital, the development process
of ideas and products appears intertwined with its
industrial environment, involving external aspects
because it has been written with a comparison to
the rest of competitors of the firm. This way, the
factor named relational capital represents the set of
general relations that a firm holds in its industrial
setting, taking into account the interconnections
with customers, suppliers and competitors. These
agents are very close to the business activities,
and it can be compared easily to the concept
of business capital that can be found in other
models (CIC, 2003).
The rising of an independent relational component of intellectual capital for allies and partners
of a firm points out that certain collaboration
agreements deserve a special interest. The presence of strategic partners could make the management and nature of this component considerably
different from the management of the rest of the
relations with environmental agents. Although
we have taken into account firms from different
industries, or even from different sectors, there
are common patterns about possible interactions
with key partners. Thus, firms born in a certain
industry can learn to operate in another one with
the help of an appropriate ally, or simply form
alliance networks (Kogut, 2000) to reinforce its
competitive position.
It is not strange to find a computer manufacturer partnering with a firm that develops and
updates contents for manuals, or distributing
its product with the web-searching software of
other firm, or providing special reduced conditions for accessing the Internet through a specific
company, which surely will need communication
equipments for undertaking its operations. These
are some examples of how strategic alliances can
strengthen the competitive position in the own
industry, thanks to the ties with firms from other

industries. This kind of alliances can be a key for
the required and success specialized management,
so that is what the results reveal when Strategic
Alliances appear as an independent component
of intellectual capital.
Further research is needed in order to improve
knowledge about any of these building blocks of
intellectual capital, bridging the extant advances
in the fields of human resource management,
organization theory and design, supply chain
management or collaborative agreements, with
the literature of intellectual capital. With empirical researches as the presented one in this chapter,
managers can discover the components of intellectual capital that can be found in their industry.
Then, they should apply the strategies and advices
already developed for other fields of management
research in order to develop and strengthen each
kind of capital. Research efforts are welcome:
a) in analyzing the configuration of intellectual
capital for different industries, building models
from empirical findings, so theoretical proposals
in the field could be supported or improved, and
b) in providing guidance for practitioners in the
complex process of reinforcing the intangible
endowments of a firm, improving each of the
different components of intellectual capital.
concluSion and
future trendS
We want to highlight the contribution of our
research towards a Relational-Based View of
Resource-Based View or Intellectual CapitalBased View. Furthermore, although several
proposals about intellectual capital classification,
identification and measurement can be found in the
literature, this work provides an evidence-driven
classification and configuration of intellectual
capital in high-tech firms.
In this sense, it is stressed the relational capital,
as it represents a 35% of the intellectual capital
187
of a firm, although the traditional concept has

been divided into business and alliance capital.
So that, the human capital it is as important as
the relational capital, leaving a supporting role
for structural capital.
With respect to the presented empirical model,
the classification of different components of intellectual capital obtained in this work (see Figure
1) is very similar to the traditionally treated in
theoretical literature, where it is considered that
the intellectual capital is shaping by three components. Nevertheless, our research highlights
the alliance capital as key component due to its
relevance in the industries of our sample, leaving the intellectual capital with four components,
two of them with an internal nature and two more
devoted to relating the firm with its environment.
Therefore, regarding challenges in managing
intellectual capital, managers should pay attention to the following points: (a) recruitment and
improvement of human capital because it is the
key of its intellectual capital; (b) structure for
sustaining strategy, linking appropriately the different elements of human capital, and designing
the attractive map of relationships and alliances
needed for successfully running business; (c)
environment and several relevance agents (as
customers or suppliers) in order to develop those
relationships; and (d) key partners for reaching
an important influence on operative, service and
financial return.
referenceS
Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual Capital: An Exploratory Study that Develops Measures and
Models. Management Decision, 36, 6376.
doi:10.1108/00251749810204142
Brooking, A. (1996). Intellectual Capital. Core Asset for the Third Millennium Enterprise. London:
International Thomson Business Press.
Bueno, E. (1998). El Capital Intangible como
Clave Estratgica en la Competencia Actual.
Boletn de Estudios Econmicos, 53, 207229.
Cabrita, M. R., & Bontis, N. (2008). Intellectual
Capital and Business Performance in the Portuguese Banking Industry. International Journal
of Technology Management, 43(1-3), 212237.
doi:10.1504/IJTM.2008.019416
Carlucci, D., & Schiuma, G. (2007). Exploring
Intellectual Capital Concept in Strategic Management Research. In Joia, L. A. (Ed.), Strategies for
Information Technology and Intellectual Capital
(pp. 1028). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
Carson, E., Ranzijn, R., Winefield, A., &
Marsden, H. (2004). Intellectual Capital. Mapping Employee and Work Group Attributes.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(3), 443463.
doi:10.1108/14691930410550390
CIC (2003). Modelo Intellectus: Medicin y
Gestin del Capital Intelectual (Serie Documentos
Intellectus No. 5). Madrid: Centro de Investigacin
sobre la Sociedad del Conocimiento (CIC).
Aaker, D. (1989). Managing Assets and Skills:

the Key to a Sustainable Competitive Advantage.
California Management Review, 31, 91106.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual

Capital. Realizing your Companys True Value
by Findings its Hidden Brainpower. New York:
Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained

Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management,
17, 99120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based

Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109122.
188
Hair, J. F. Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L.,

& Black, W. C. (2004). Anlisis Multivariante.
Madrid: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Moon, Y. J., & Kym, H. G. (2006). A Model for

the Value of Intellectual Capital. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 23(3), 253269.
Hall, R. (1992). The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources. Strategic Management Journal,
13, 135144. doi:10.1002/smj.4250130205
Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. (2003). Unraveling

the Resource-Based Tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), 309323. doi:10.1002/
mde.1126
Hall, R. (1993). A Framewok Linking Intangible

Resources and Capabilities to Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 607618. doi:10.1002/smj.4250140804
Itami, H., & Roehl, T. (1987). Mobilizing Invisible
Assets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The Balanced
Scorecard Measures that drive Performance.
Harvard Business Review, 70, 7179.
Kogut, B. (2000). The Network as Knowledge: Generative Rules and Emergence of Structure. Strategic
Management Journal, 21, 405425. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<405::AIDSMJ103>3.0.CO;2-5
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What Firms
Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502518. doi:10.1287/
orsc.7.5.502
Kong, E. (2008). The Development of Strategic
Management in the Non-Profit Context: Intellectual Capital in Social Service Non-Profit Organizations. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 10(3), 281299. doi:10.1111/j.14682370.2007.00224.x
Leitner, K. (2005). Managing and Reporting
Intangible Assets in Research Technology Organisations. R & D Management, 35, 125136.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00378.x
Leliaert, P. J. C., Candries, W., & Tilmans, R.
(2003). Identifiying and Managing IC: A New
Classification. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
4(2), 202214. doi:10.1108/14691930310472820
Pike, S., Gran, R., & Marr, B. (2005). Strategic Management of Intangible Asset and Value
Drivers in R & D Organizations. R & D Management, 35(2), 111124. doi:10.1111/j.14679310.2005.00377.x
Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The Core
Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 90, 7991.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Tautology in
the Resourced-Based View and the Implications
of Externally Determined Resource Value: Futher
Comments. Academy of Management Review, 26,
5766. doi:10.2307/259394
Reed, K. K., Lubatkin, M., & Srinivasan, N.
(2006). Proposing and Testing an Intellectual Capital-Based View of the Firm. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 867893. doi:10.1111/j.14676486.2006.00614.x
Roos, G., & Roos, J. (1997). Measuring your
Companys Intellectual Performance. Long Range
Planning, 30(3), 413426. doi:10.1016/S00246301(97)90260-0
Rouse, M. J., & Daellenbach, U. S. (1999).
Rethinking Research Methods for the ResourceBased Perspective: Isolating Sources of Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 487494. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1097-0266(199905)20:5<487::AIDSMJ26>3.0.CO;2-K
189
Saint-Onge, H. (1996). Tacit Knowledge. The

Key to the Strategic Alignement of Intellectual
Capital. Strategy and Leadership, 24, 1014.
doi:10.1108/eb054547
Stewart, T. (1991). Brainpower. Fortune, 123,
4450.
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The
Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of
Innovative Capabilities. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 450463.
190
Sveiby, K. (1997). The New Organizational

Wealth. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koeheler
Publishers Inc.
Teece, D. (1998). Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: the New Economy, Markets for
Know-how, and Intangible Assets. California
Management Review, 40, 5579.
Section 3
192
Chapter 11
The Effect of Organizational

Trust on the Success
of Codification and
Personalization KM Approaches
Vincent M. Ribire
Bangkok University, Thailand
abStract
Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives are expanding across all types of organizations worldwide.
However, not all of them are necessarily successful mainly due to an unfriendly organizational culture.
Organizational trust is often mentioned as a critical factor facilitating knowledge sharing. For this
research we took an empirical approach to validate this assumption. The purpose of this research is to
explore the relationships between organizational trust, a knowledge management strategy (codification
vs. personalization) and its level of success. This study was conducted among 97 US companies involved
in knowledge management. A survey tool was developed and validated to assess the level of trust, the
level of success and the dominant KM strategy deployed by an organization. Nine main research hypotheses and a conceptual model were tested. The findings show the impact of trust on the choice of the
KM strategy as well as on the level of success.
introduction
In 2001, the Journal of Management Information
Systems (JMIS) had a special issue on knowledge
management (KM). In their editorial, Davenport
and Grover (2001), mentioned that a significant
gap between KM theory and practice existed and
that research in the domain seemed fragmented.
Ten years later, we can say that the literature
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch011
and interests on KM have continued to grow but

research remains fragmented and very few KM
theories and frameworks have been generally
developed and fully accepted. It seems like the
multidisciplinary aspect of KM slows down the
process of developing commonly accepted principles, models and theories. KM might be one of
the few fields that requires various disciplines
(Management, Information Sciences, Computer
Science, Economy, Education, Psychology) to
share and to develop common theories and it seems
The Effect of Organizational Trust on the Success of Codification and Personalization KM Approaches
that such integration remain a challenge. Earl

(2001) created a taxonomy of schools of KM that
describes and summarizes in three categories the
different approaches/views of KM; Technocratic,
Economic and Behavioral.
KM has been a hot topic for more than fifteen years and organizations worldwide are still
struggling to successfully implement it and to
significantly benefit from it. Bain & Company
conducted a study in 2007 regarding the global
Management tools and trends (Rigby & Bilodeau,
2007). Knowledge Management was ranked in the
top 10 list (7th position (tie)) in term of usage.
Unfortunately it was also ranked in the bottom 5
for satisfaction in every survey for the past ten
years! This fact illustrates that organizations are
still struggling to fully take advantage of their KM
investments. The context and business strategy of
each company should be taken into consideration
while defining a KM strategy. Becerra-Fernandez
and Sabhervawal (2001) argue that a contingency
perspective should be adopted in order for each
unit to try to better understand the characteristics of
their tasks which will consequently lead to selecting the KM processes that are more appropriated
to them. This finding is aligned with the one from
Alavi, Kayworth & Leidner (2005) who suggest
that differences in culture values within firms
might influence the choice, use and effectiveness
of different KM enabling technologies. Markus
(2001) also emphasizes the need to provide different types of knowledge repositories for different
types of reusers. All these findings suggest the
need to take a more micro approach to KM and
to develop KM strategies that are more granular,
flexible and customizable enough to meet every
individual and groups needs.
This research embraces a knowledge based
view of the firm where the primary role of the
firm is the integration of knowledge to create
organizational capabilities and to gain a sustainable competitive advantage (M. Alavi & Leidner,
2001; Dinur, 2002; Grant, 1991). We went through
different waves and tools of KM but what remains
at the center of managing knowledge is people. If

people are not willing to share and acquire knowledge even the best IT tool will be inefficient. So in
order to gain a sustainable competitive advantage
the human aspect of KM and knowledge sharing
behaviors must be better understood. Various
studies and authors (Maryam Alavi, et al., 2005;
M. Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Barth, 2000; Fahey &
Prusak, 1997; Gold, Malhortra, & Segars, 2001;
William R. King, 2006; William R. King, 2007;
Knowledge Management Review, 2001; KPMG
Consulting, 2000; Microsoft, 1999; Pauleen &
Mason, 2002; Rigby & Bilodeau, 2007) report
that organizational culture remains the main barrier to successful KM implementation. Corporate
culture is a set of values, norms, symbols, guiding
principles that enable and encourage people to
involve into knowledge activities of knowledge
generation, codification, storage, sharing and
use behavior. Culture shapes assumptions about
which knowledge is important, it mediates the
relationship between organizational and individual
knowledge, it creates a context for social interaction, it shapes processes for the creation and adoption of new knowledge (William R. King, 2007).
It encourages knowledge creation by influencing
employees to getting involved in learning activities in organization, it encourages employees to
use information technology to codify and store
knowledge in knowledge management systems,
it encourages knowledge sharing by making it
the norm of acceptable behavior and it stimulates
knowledge use by influencing employees to
constantly innovate and implement knowledge
gained. Therefore corporate culture is needed to
encourage all phases of the knowledge management cycle and to focus on tacit as well as explicit
knowledge. Since tacit knowledge resides in employees, culture should support its creation and
sharing through interaction, whereas for explicit
knowledge culture should encourage employees
to codify it, to enter it into knowledge management systems, and to take part into activities for
its transfer. Positive culture can be the difference
193
between successful companies and those that fail.

A study shows that only 10% of companies are
successful at creating a high-performance culture
(HR Focus, 2007).
As King (2007) and Alavi, Kayworth & Leidner
(2005) highlighted, few studies have investigated
how some cultural values might be related to KM
technology and practice use and KM outcomes.
This empirical and exploratory study will contribute to fill this gap. Trust is often listed as one of
the most important cultural value that facilitates
knowledge sharing and which facilitates KM success (Maryam Alavi, et al., 2005; T. Davenport
& Prusak, 1998; De Long & Fahey, 2000; Hinds
& Pfeffer, 2003; Hubert, 2002; Kinsey Goman,
2002a, 2002b; Lee & Choi, 2003; Rao, 2002; Rolland & Chauvel, 2000; Von Krogh, 1998). Trust is
getting more and more interests in organizations
and the literature on the topic is also growing
rapidly (Kramer, 2007; Schoorman, Mayer, &
Davis, 2007). Unfortunately very few studies
have attempted to measure the effect of Trust on
KM initiatives (Renzl, 2008). This research will
focus on this particular aspect.
In order to study this research question, the

level of organizational trust is assessed through
a questionnaire distributed to knowledge workers from different organizations involved in KM.
Second, the types of KM tools and technology
implemented and used in these organizations were
evaluated. Finally, the level of success achieved
was assessed. The next sections define these
aforementioned variables.
Trust is the one essential lubricant to any and all

social activities. Allowing people to work and live
together without generating a constant, wasteful
flurry of conflict and negotiations (Cohen &
Prusak, 2001)
Trust consists of a willingness to increase your

vulnerability to another person whose behavior
you cannot control, in a situation in which your
potential benefit is much less than your potential
loss if the other person abuses your vulnerability
(Zand, 1997).
reSearcH queStion
and definition of Main
reSearcH VariableS
Belief that those on whom we depend will meet

our expectations of them (Shaw, 1997).
This study attempts to better understand how

organizational trust affects the choice and use of
KM tools and technology and the resulting success of the organizations KM initiative, or lack
thereof. Our main research question is as follows:
Does the level of organizational trust influence
the success of a KM initiative?
194
organizational trust
Considerable research has been conducted concerning the concept of trust, both interpersonal
trust and organizational trust. As with the concept
of organizational culture, organizational trust has
been defined somewhat differently in the literature
by numerous authors (Carnevale & Wechsler,
1992; Culbert & McDonough, 1986; Griffin, 1967;
Luhmann, 1979; Matthai, 1989; H. D. McKnight
& Chervany, 2000). The definitions of trust are
numerous and sometimes confusing mainly due
to each discipline viewing trust from its own perspective. Two definitions of trust were selected:
Trust is often categorized in two forms (Levin,

Cross, & Abrams, 2002a, 2002b; McAllister,
1995), cognition-based and affective-based trust.
The cognition-based dimension of trust is associated with beliefs about competence, integrity,
responsibility, credibility, reliability, and dependability. It is mainly task-oriented. The affectivebased dimension of trust is based on beliefs about
reciprocated care and concern, benevolence,
altruism, commitment, and mutual respect. It is

relationship-oriented. In organizational settings,
the cognition-based form of trust is more central
since it impacts more particularly reliability and
dependability (Cook & Wall, 1980). This dimension of trust will be assessed and used for this study.
In addition to the many definitions of trust,
many tools have also been created to assess its
level in an organization. Five trust factors defined
by De Furia (1996, 1997) were determined to be
most relevant to our research: (1) sharing relevant
information; (2) reducing controls; (3) allowing
mutual influences; (4) Clarifying mutual expectations; and, (5) Meeting expectations. These factors are described in more detail in the following
section of this chapter.
Very often people think that an organizational
culture with a high level of sociability also implies
a high level of trust. This is not always true. Consider the example of a parent-child relationship:
you love your children but it does not imply that
you trust them (e.g., you will not leave them by
themselves). The opposite is also true: you might
trust someone but might not necessarily like this
person (e.g., an airplane pilot). One also needs to
remember that trustworthiness takes a long time to
build, and yet trust can be destroyed in an instant.
These different examples show the complexity
and fragility associated with trust. Trust is part of
the social capital of an organization, even though
in some particular cases its effect on knowledge
sharing might be limited (Bakker, Leenders, Gabbay, Kratzer, & Van Engelen, 2006).
Strategies and their associated
tools and technologies
Numerous publications present knowledge management practice/tool/technology frameworks.
Among them, the knowledge management spectrum, presented by Binney (2001), offers a good
overview of different KM tools and practices that
are offered to organizations to better manage their
knowledge. The tools and practices are organized

in six categories: transactional, analytical, asset
management, process, developmental, and innovation and creation. Nevertheless, most of them
are IT oriented, since IT is the main enabler for
KM. Nevertheless, other KM practices that are not
driven by IT must also be taken in consideration
in order to fully understand the KM strategy of
an organization.
Two main KM strategies or approaches
emerged: codification vs. personalization. (Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999) describe how different companies focus on different practices and
strategies in order to manage their knowledge.
Additional reasons for this particular categorization of KMS approaches are offered by Jennex
and Olfman (2003). Dennis and Vessey (Dennis
& Vessey, 2005) also used these two strategies as
the bedrock for their three knowledge management systems: knowledge hierarchies (where
knowledge is viewed as a formal organizational
resource), knowledge markets (where knowledge
is treated as an individual resource), and knowledge community (where knowledge is viewed as
a communal resource).
The Codification Approach

The first strategy identified by Hansen, et al.
(1999) is called codification, which relies heavily on IT. One of the benefits of the codification
approach is the reuse of knowledge. Knowledge
is codified and stored in databases, where it can
be accessed and used easily by anyone in the
company. Knowledge is codified using a peopleto-documents approach: it is extracted from the
person who developed it, made independent of that
person, and reused for various purposes (Hansen,
et al., 1999). It has been named and described differently by other authors: The cognitive network
model (Swan, Newell, Scarbrough, & Hislop,
1999); The collecting dimension (Denning, 1998);
The product view approach (Know-Net, 2000);
The transformation model (Natarajan & Shekhar,
195
2000); Distributive applications (Zack & Michael,

1998); and, The document-centered approach and
The technological approach (Wick, 2000). After
a close analysis of these different portrayals, one
can conclude that all of these descriptions and
definitions are very similar and depict the same
type of practices and tools (Ribire, 2001).
The Personalization Approach

The personalization approach (Hansen, et al.,
1999) focuses on developing networks for linking
people so that tacit knowledge can be shared. It
invests moderately in IT. This approach focuses
on dialogue between individuals, not knowledge
in a database. Knowledge that has not been codifiedand probably couldnt beis transferred in
brainstorming sessions and one-on-one conversations (Hansen, et al., 1999). An investment
is made in building networks of people, where
knowledge is shared not only face-to-face but
also over the telephone, by email, and via videoconference. All the previously cited authors who
defined the codification approach also came up
with their own definition for this approach: The
community networking model (Swan, et al., 1999);
The connecting dimension (Denning, 1998); The
process-centered approach (Know-Net, 2000);
The independent model (Natarajan & Shekhar,
2000); The collaborative approach (Zack &
Michael, 1998); and, Socio-organizational knowledge management (Wick, 2000).
KM initiative Success
It is always difficult and open to controversy to
define and measure success. Different metrics
(qualitative and quantitative) can be used to
measure success. For example, Jennex and Olfman (2004) offer a success model based upon the
Delone and McLean (1992) IS Success Model and
discussed four different models of KM success:
(1) The Knowledge Value Chain (Bots & Bruiin,
2002); (2) the KM Success Model (2002); (3)
196
the KM Effectiveness Model (2002); and, (4) the

KMS Success Model (2003). Four main indicators defined and used by Davenport et al. in their
publication concerning successful knowledge
management projects were adopted (T. Davenport, De Long, & C., 1998):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Growth in the volume of knowledge available

since the KM initiative has been launched
(e.g., number of documents available)
Growth in the usage of knowledge available
since the KM initiative has been launched
(accesses to repositories, or the number of
participants for discussion-oriented projects)
The likelihood that the project would survive
without the support of a particular individual
or two, that is, the project is an organizational
initiative, not an individual project
Growth in the resources (e.g., people, money)
attached to KM initiatives.
Success was measured based on two dimensions. Since the main purpose of a KMS is to
facilitate the flow and dissemination of knowledge,
an important dimension for success is the fact that
different employees use the system. Success factors #1 and #2 were used to measure this dimension
of success. The second dimension of success used
is based on the robustness of the KM initiative.
If KM is given the resources and if there is a clear
commitment from senior management to make it
happen, then robustness is a success factor. Success factors #3 and #4 were used to measure this
second dimension of success.
We believed that it would also be relevant to
check if the expected benefits of the KM initiative
were achieved and, if yes, to what degree. To do
so, we used a questionnaire developed by KPMG
(2000). Fifteen main benefits often expected after
KM implementation were used (KPMG, 2000).
Additional success factors could have been
used such as the 12 KMS success factors presented
by Jennex and Olfman (2004) but it was easier
to work with a smaller number of core variables.
The average of all the success factors was used

to obtain the success level score.
reSearcH HYPotHeSeS and

ProPoSed concePtual Model
research Hypothesis #1
As previously presented, organizational trust
seems to be an important cultural factor influencing
interaction and knowledge sharing between individuals. Nelson and Cooprider (Nelson & Cooprider, 1996) demonstrated a significant relationship
between mutual trust and shared knowledge between IS groups and their line customers. Politis
(Politis, 2003) also used a quantitative approach
to demonstrate the relationship between trust and
knowledge acquisition. His findings support that
most interpersonal trust dimensions are positively
related to the variable of knowledge acquisition.
Despite these two researches very few studies
have been conducted to demonstrate the direct
relationship of trust on knowledge sharing. A lot
of research focus on demonstrating the relationship between variables like; personal motivation,
social capital, communication, and knowledge
sharing particularly on topics focusing on virtual
teams and communities of practice (Teoh & Avvari,
2004). All these studies reinforce the importance
of trust in individual interactions (face to face
or assisted by technology). KM personalization
approaches are based on practices and tools that
support direct relations between individuals. If
the level of trust in between employees is high
we can expect more direct communication and
more knowledge sharing. Our first hypothesis is
based on this assumption:
H1:The level of organizational trust positively
influences the level of usage of KM personalization tools and practices.
What is the relationship between organizational
trust and the usage of codification tools? We are
now focusing on a human-technology relationship. The knowledge used has been codified and
is available in an information system. The question becomes, does someone who doesnt trust
his/her colleagues will still use the knowledge
they codified in the system or not? In fact this
problem has 2 facets; trust in the system and trust
in its content. We can think that if people dont
trust the system they are not going to use it, so
they will not be able to get and use the knowledge
available in it. This type of research concerns the
field of the adoption of technologies and among
the most used model we can mention the TAM
model originally developed by Davis (Davis,
1989). The trust variable was originally not part
of the TAM model but the numerous evolutions
of the model as well as its customization to ecommerce applications made the trust variable
appear as important additional component of the
model (Bahmanziari, Pearson, & Crosby, 2003;
D. H. McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002;
H. D. McKnight & Chervany, 2000). Bock, Sabherwal and Qian (2008) developed and tested a
model of knowledge repository success (KRS)
including perceived KRS searchability, perceived
KRS output quality, perceived usefulness and user
satisfaction. They examined how three aspects of
social context (extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards,
and organizational trust) affected the dimensions
of the KRS success. The model was tested on KM
systems following a codification strategy. Their
findings suggest to 1) develop organizational trust
and 2) to facilitate intrinsic rewards for knowledge
contribution partly through organizational trust.
Now if we assume that a person does trust the
system but doesnt trust people who populated its
content with knowledge artifact, what can happen?
I dont trust this person so I am not going to contact him/her directly to get their
197
knowledge but I have no problem accessing knowledge they shared in the system.
The key is to acquire knowledge no matter
how it was obtained.
I dont trust this person and I will not even
trust what this person shared on the system.
These two scenarios reflect the two types of

trust previously described (cognitive and affective
(McAllister, 1995)). In the first scenario there is
no affective trust between the 2 individuals but
some cognitive trust. In the second scenario both
types of trust are lost and knowledge acquisition
will not occur.
Based on the following discussion we postulated the following hypothesis:
influences the level of usage of KM codification
tools and practices.
We think that the level of organizational trust
does influence the usage of KM codifications tools
but we are also conscious that other dimensions
present in the TAM model will also play a role
in this relationship. Consequently we expect the
relationship between trust and codification to be
moderate (not too strong).
Early in the 1990s, Jack Welsh had already underlined the important role of trust:
Trust is enormously powerful in a corporation.
People wont do their best unless they believe
theyll be treated fairly--that theres no cronyism
and everybody has a real shot. The only way I
know to create that kind of trust is by laying out
your values and then walking the talk. Youve got
to do what you say youll do, consistently and over
time (Welch, 1993).
198
The early KM efforts conducted by Buckman

laboratories have been coroneted with success
and once again trust was mentioned as a critical
component: It is important to create a climate of
continuity and trust so that we may have proactive knowledge sharing across time and space.
Organizational culture must change from a state
of hoarding knowledge to gain power to one of
sharing knowledge to gain power (as quoted in
Davenport and Prusak, 1998). When the level or
organizational trust is high people are more open
to interact, to collaborate, to innovate, to take risks,
and of course to share and acquire knowledge. This
leads us to postulate the following hypothesis:
influences the success level of a KM initiative.
Hypothesis #4
The personalization approach is intended to facilitate the interaction and collaboration between
individuals so they can share their tacit knowledge,
solve problems more rapidly, make better decisions
in a fastest way, grow intellectually, and be more
creative. Very few studies have been conducted to
assess the relationship between personalization approaches and the success of KM initiatives. Among
them we can mention the research conducted by
Delmonte and Aronso (Delmonte & Aronson,
2004) who demonstrated a significant relationship between social interaction and knowledge
management system success. The trust factor is
often mentioned in this study has been critical.
Another study conducted by Choi and Lee (Choi
& Lee, 2002) establishes the effect of four KM
styles and their effect on corporate performance
(based on benchmarking). Their results shows
that companies adopting a Dynamic style
(highly tacit and explicit oriented) are the most
successful. Results of companies that are mainly
system-oriented (focus on explicit knowledge)
or the ones which are human-oriented obtain

similar scores (lower than the dynamic style).
Based on these findings we postulated the
following hypothesis:
H4:The level of usage of KM personalization tools
and practices positively influences the success
level of a KM initiative.
Hypothesis #5
Based on Choi and Lees study (Choi & Lee,
2002) previously described it looks like both approaches (codification ad personalization) have a
positive effect on the success of a KM initiative.
Not everyone agrees with this idea. McDermott
(McDermott, 1999) for instance clearly stated
in a provocative paper titled Why information
technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge
management that ICT can only carry the information that will be used for individual or group
thinking which become source of knowledge. To
leverage knowledge, thinking must be leveraged
with appropriate information. For McDermott
the solution resides in Communities of Practice
(CoP) but he doesnt deny the enabling effect of
ICT in KM. We could not think about KM these
days without the use of technology but as often
mentioned its role needs to remain an enabler and
not the center of a KM strategy. Our last research
hypothesis is:
H5:The level of usage of KM codification tools
and practices positively influences the success
level of a KM initiative.
Hypothesis #6
Lee and Choi (2003) studied the relationships between knowledge management enablers, processes
and organizational performance. Their study,
conducted among 63 major Korean companies,
demonstrated significant relationships between

KM enablers Knowledge creation processes
Organizational creativity Organizational
performance. Organizational performance was
measured based on an adaptation of the balanced
scorecard, where the company compares itself to
its competitors using five factors. Wu (2008) conducted a longitudinal examination of 36 companies
which won the MAKE award (Most Admired
Knowledge Enterprises) to assess the relationship
between KM performance and firm performance
in terms of accounting and market measures. His
findings show that KM performance is a predictor
of superior bottom line performance. Anantatmula
(2007) conducted a survey to link KM effectiveness attributes to organizational performance.
All the selected key attributes (similar to ours)
confirmed to have an effect on improving organizational performance. An extensive literature
exist on this topic, Chen and Chen (2005) conducted a review of survey research in knowledge
management performance measurement between
1995-2004 and grouped them in eight categories;
qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, financial indicator analysis, non-financial indicator
analysis, internal performance analysis, external
performance analysis, project-oriented analysis,
and organizational-oriented analysis together with
their measurement matrices for different research
and problem domains. Following this classification we could state that our organizational benefits
assessment tools fits into the internal performance
analysis category. Other KM performance classifications can be used, for example Dudezert
(2006), based on an extensive literature review,
defined two categories; macro-organizational
(composed of competitive performance of KM
and of the financial performance of KM) and a
micro-organizational approach to KM evaluation
(composed of process-based approach and of a
systemic approach to the performance of KM). In
our research we consider KM as being a process
used to identify, capture, store, share and transfer
knowledge in an organization in order to support
199
its core business processes and in alignment with

its business strategy. Since KM is about improving business processes by better managing the
knowledge flows around them, its resulting impact
should be directly visible at the organizational
level. Its impact might be more or less visible
depending on the effectiveness of the KM initiative but it should be present to some extent. This
leads us to postulate the following hypothesis:
H6:The success level of a KM initiative positively
influences organizational benefits
Hypotheses #7 and #8
Keskin (2005) conducted a study among 128
Turkish SMEs and found that the codification approach had a direct impact on firm performance.
Based on his findings the impact of the codification approach was greater on performance than
the personalization one. Schulz (2001) conducted
a study among 98 subsidiaries of multinational
corporations based in the US and in Denmark
and found that companies that used a focused
approach to codification or personalization will
have positive effect on performance. Schulz
argues that a focused codification approach will
have a stronger impact on performance than a
focused personalization approach. A focused approach is defined as KM strategies that regulate
knowledge flows by controlling the degree to
which knowledge is encoded in forms that match
the information intensity and ambiguity of their
knowledge (Schulz & Jobe, 2001). Zack (1999)
also argues that the nature of the benefits gained
from managing explicit knowledge depends on
the type of application. Based on these findings
we postulated the following two hypotheses:
H7:The level of usage of KM personalization
technologies and practices positively influences
organizational benefits.
200
H8:The level of usage of KM codification technologies and practices positively influences

organizational benefits.
Hypothesis #9
Assessing the impact of trust on organizational
performance is a difficult task and very few
researches have been conducted to validate this
relationship. Among them we could mention the
work of Sako (2006) who argues that performance
factors can be classified in three categories; reducing transaction costs, investment with future
returns and continuous improvement and learning.
She used a sample of 1,415 responses from first-tier
component suppliers in the automotive industry in
Japan, the USA, and Europe and asked respondents
to evaluate how much trust they could place on
their customers. Three types of trust were used to
validate their relation with business performance;
goodwill trust, contractual trust and competence
trust. Goodwill trust was estimated to have the
stronger influence on business performance. Tam
and Lin (2009) demonstrated that the positive relation between trust in coworkers and performance
is fully mediated by trust in their organization.
De Furia (1997) argues that the benefits of high
trust include; Stimulates innovation, leads to
greater emotional stability, facilitates acceptance
and openness of expression and encourages risk
taking. Therefore, we proposed:
H9: The level of organizational trust positively
influences organizational benefits.
research Model
The five previous hypotheses served as foundation
of the following model (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Research model
reSearcH MetHodologY
assessment of Variables
A survey tool (a questionnaire) was developed in
order to assess:
The level of organizational trust

The level of use of different KM tools and
technologies deployed in each organization
The perceived success of the KM initiative.
Organizational benefits
assessing organizational trust

The selected tool, the Organizational Trust Survey
(OTS), was developed and validated by De Furia
(De Furia, 1996, 1997) where trustworthiness
(TW) is based on five behaviors:
TW = SI + RC + AI + CE + ME
Sharing relevant information (SI) refers to the
behaviors whereby one individual transmits information to another person.
Reducing controls (RC) refers to the behaviors
affecting the processes, procedures or activities
with which one individual (1) establishes the per-
formance criteria or rules for others, (2) monitors

the performance of another person, (3) adjusts the
conditions under which performance is achieved,
or (4) adjusts the consequences of performance
(i.e., positive or negative reinforcements).
Allowing for mutual influences (AI) occurs when
one person makes a decision that affects both
individuals. Mutual influence means that both
individuals have approximately equal numbers
of occurrences of convincing the other or making
the decision for both individuals.
Clarifying mutual expectations (CE) refers to
those behaviors wherein one person clarifies what
is expected of both parties in the relationship. It
involves sharing information about mutual performance expectations.
Meeting expectations (ME) involves any behaviors in which one individual fulfills the behavioral
expectations of another person. It is closely related
to confidence, reliability and predictability.
The OTS allows organizations to measure the
trust-related behaviors of various categories of
people within the organization upper managers,
first line supervisors, and coworkers in relation
to how employees trust-related expectations are
being met. It also measures trust-related behaviors
between organizational units and the perceived
201
impacts of organizational policies and values on

trust-related behaviors. This tool is based on 50
questions (10 questions for each of the 5 factors).
We used this tool because it measures different dimensions of trust at different levels of an
organization and also because the OTS has the
advantage to be easy to administer with a limited
number of questions and it had been previously
tested and validated.
organizational expected and achieved benefits.

Respondents were asked to assess on a five point
Likert scale to what degree they believed that the
following statements corresponded to the current
success status of their organizational KM initiative.
assessing the use of KM

tools and technologies
For this section of the questionnaire an assessment

tool was developed. The most common tools and
technologies used for knowledge management
initiatives were listed, based on a literature review.
These technologies cover the six categories of the
knowledge management spectrum, presented by
Binney (2001).
Respondents were asked to list the KM tools
and technologies used at the organizational level
(cf. Table 2). A sense of the degree of use or utilization ranging from most used to least used
was employed to enrich this insight. It might be
argued that some of the personalization tools, e.g.,
corporate yellow pages, in fact are examples of
codified knowledge, the critical delineator is how
the tools are used in practice. For example, the
crucial fact about corporate yellow pages is not
that it is a knowledge repository, but that employees use it to connect to experts. At the time of the
data collection social networking tools were not
yet popular, but future research should include
them. Their classification in the codification/
Personalization scheme might be difficult since
they fit in both categories, even though their initial
intend is to network (socialization).
KM initiatives Success and

organizational benefits
Four items were used to assess the level of KM
success and 15 items were used to assess the
202
I have noticed a significant growth in the

volume of knowledge available since the
KM initiative has been launched (number
of documents available).
usage of knowledge available since the
KM initiative has been launched (accesses
to repositories and number of participants
for discussion-oriented projects)
I believe that the project would survive
without the support of a particular individual or two
I believe that resources (e.g., people, money) attached to KM initiatives are going to
grow
Regarding the 15 KM benefits (as shown in

Table 1) expected and achieved the respondents
were asked to assess on a five point Likert scale to
what degree they believed that the benefits were
achieved (only if expected).
As mentioned earlier in this paper four main
indicators were used to assess the level of success
as well as 15 expected benefits. Respondents were
asked to assess on a five point Likert scale to what
degree they believed that the following statements
corresponded to the current success status of their
organizational KM initiative.

volume of knowledge available since the
KM initiative has been launched (number
of documents available).
usage of knowledge available since the
KM initiative has been launched (accesses
to repositories and number of participants
for discussion-oriented projects)
Table 1. Fifteen common KM benefits
Table 3. Results of Cronbach alpha test
Better decision making
Sharing best practice
Construct (number of items remaining)
Better customer handling
Reduced costs
Organizational Trust (24)
0.94
Faster response to key business issues
New ways of working
Codification (7)
0.801
Improved employee skills
Increased market share
Personalization (7)
0.827
Improved productivity
Create additional business

opportunities
KM Success (4)
0.708
Increased profits
Improved new product development
Increased innovation
Staff attraction / retention
Organizational benefits (15)
Increased share price
Table 2. Codification and Personalization KM

Tools and Practices
KM Tools and Technologies
Email & Listserv
Corporate Intranet Extranet Internet
Database Management Systems
Search Engines - Intelligent Agents
Data Warehouses Data Marts
Codification
Web-based training e-learning

Help-desk applications
DMS
Multimedia repositories
DSS and Expert Systems
Data mining- Knowledge Discovery
Knowledge Mapping
Expertise locators Corporate Yellow pages
Whos who
Communities of Practice (interests in the
same topic, field)
Communities of Purpose (project, task
oriented)
Groupware
Personalization
Teleconferencing (shared applications,

whiteboards)
Best practices repository
Videoconferencing (using audio and/or video)
Mentoring - Tutoring
Story Telling
Desktop computer conferencing
Not applicable
I believe that the project would survive

without the support of a particular individual or two
I believe that resources (e.g., people, money) attached to KM initiatives are going to
grow
Regarding the 15 KM benefits (Table 1)

expected and achieved, the respondents were
asked to assess on a five point Likert scale to
what degree they believed that the benefits were
achieved (only if expected).
Validity and reliability of

the Survey instrument
Due to the space limitation of this publication,
we will only provide a summarized version of the
results of the different tests that were conducted
to verify the level of validity and reliability of our
instrument (Ribire, 2005). In order to test the
internal validity of the different dimensions assessed we performed a Cronbach alpha test (Table
3). The results demonstrate an acceptable level of
internal validity. Some items were removed from
the instrument due to their low level of correlation
with the other items composing the construct.
A factor analysis was conducted to test the
validity of each construct. For the codification
and personalization constructs, some items had
to be removed due to their low loading on the
factors. For the other constructs all the items were
retained. Overall, we consider that the levels of
Online Chat & Instant Messaging
203
Figure 2. Path analysis diagram
validity and of reliability of the assessment tool

were acceptable.
data collection and analysis

Data were collected through two main mechanisms. An online version of the questionnaire
posted on the Web as well as a paper version were
used. Most of the responses received (98%) came
from the online version. The target population was
Chief Knowledge Officers (CKOs), managers, and
other employees involved in knowledge management initiatives at any level in an organization.
A total of 1050 emails, asking for participation,
were sent out to targeted people involved with KM
(members of KM groups and associations). A total
of 129 responses were received. This represents
a response rate of 12%. A fundamental premise
of the research was that targeted organizations
must have had experience with KM initiatives.
Of the 129 questionnaires received only 97 were
complete and were representative of organizations
involved in KM.
Organizations which participated were predominantly (68%) large organizations (>1,000
204
employees) and were in the fields of ICT-telecommunications (27%), consulting (23%) as

well as agencies of the US Federal Government
(23%). Respondents organizations were mainly
(61%) service-oriented offering both standardized
and customized products/services (64%). A large
portion of the respondents hold an executive/
managing/director position (59%).
Model Validation
A path analysis using structural equation modeling
techniques was performed to test our model. The
test was performed using the CALIS procedure
of the statistical software SAS. This procedure
uses parameter estimation based on maximum
likelihood. The path diagram is presented on Figure 2. The goodness of fit indexes are presented
on Table 4.
The value of the Chi square listed on this table
represents the null hypothesis test that the covariance matrix generated based on the data collected has the same structure as our theoretical
model, meaning that the model fits our data.
Table 4. Goodness of fit indexes for final model

Goodness-of-Fit Index
Chi2
Degrees of freedom
Values
For a good model the value should be:
11.70
The smallest as possible
Prob>Chi2
0.07
As high as possible > .05
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Bentler
0.96
Greater than 0.90
McDonalds Measure of Centrality
0.96
Greater than 0.90
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) Bentler & Bonett
0.91
Greater than 0.90
Normed Fit Index (NFI) Bentler & Bonett
0.93
Greater than 0.90
Other indicators of fit are presented on the same

table. The model presented can be considered as
acceptable based on the values of the fit indexes
to obtain a good model (Hatcher, 1994).
Main findingS
Most of the coefficients on the model are highly
significant. Among the most significant coefficient
we can mention the one between the success of the
KM approach and the organizational benefits
(0.72) with a high prediction level (R2=0.69). This
finding demonstrates the positive impact that a
KM initiative can have on an organization in term
of reaching its business objectives. This finding
reinforces the fact that a KM strategy should be
closely aligned with the business strategy of an
organization to bring the most value.
The level of organization trust impacts almost
equally the use of personalization and codification approaches (H1 and H2). As explained in the
definition of the research hypotheses we originally
expected the influence of trust to be higher on
personalization than on codification but it seems
that organizational trust does impact both almost
equally. Nevertheless, the trust factor seems to
be a better predictor of personalization usage
(R2=0.23) than of codification usage (R2=0.16).
Trust then becomes a critical cultural element for
organizations who want to engage in any type of
KM initiatives. This fact is also reinforced with
the direct significant relationship between the level

of organization trust and the success level of the
KM initiative. It shows that even if technology
is not or moderately used, trust will contribute to
the success level of the KM initiative and indirectly will benefit the organization as whole. As
previously stated trust facilitates the relationships
between people, their social interaction and their
predisposition to share knowledge.
Other factors (not included in this model) will
affect the usage of KM technologies. For instance
a framework labeled Requirements of Acceptance
Model (RAM) was formulated by Ericsson and
Avdic (2003). In their model the acceptance of
knowledge management systems is a function
of perceived relevance, system accessibility and
management support. The model previously described of Bock, Sabherwal and Qian (2008) is
also source of valuable findings.
The control variable rewarding knowledge
sharing was surprisingly only significant when
applied to the personalization construct and not
on the codification construct. Most companies
currently reward people to codify their knowledge
and/or to get it from the knowledge repository.
Employees usually dont like to document things
and the quality of the resulting codified knowledge
is often low because of that. Rewarding people
to socialize and to share their knowledge through
people to people interactions (personalization)
seems to have a greater impact and might be
more fun and rewarding. Mentoring for instance
205
is a great way to pass tacit knowledge to junior

employees. It requires experts and/or senior
employees to dedicate a large amount of time to
explain their acts, decisions, behaviors, approaches
to junior employees on daily activities. Appropriated rewards should be given in exchange
of such service. The recent emphasis on Web 2.0
(social networking) tools seems to validate this
trend of encouraging people to connect.
The usage level of personalization tools has
a statistically significant impact (0.18) on the
organizational benefits of a company (H7). This
relationship was not significant between the usage
level of codification tools and the organizational
benefits variable (H8). Having employees to interact, collaborate and share seems to provide
more benefits to a company that people simply
using IT system to codify and acquire knowledge.
These findings are aligned with McDermotts
vision (1999) expressed in a provocative paper
titled Why information technology inspired but
cannot deliver knowledge management that ICT
can only carry the information that will be used
for individual or group thinking which become
source of knowledge. To leverage knowledge,
thinking must be leveraged with appropriate information. For McDermott the solution resides in
Communities of Practice (CoP) but he does not
deny the enabling effect of ICT in KM. We could
not think about KM these days without the use of
technology but as often mentioned its role needs
to remain an enabler and not the center of a KM
strategy. These findings are also aligned with the
study conducted by Bayyavarapu (2005) where
80 Canadian organizations were used to assess
the impact of KM strategies to firm performance.
He defined three main KM strategies; IT centered
strategy, Capture-based strategy and learning KM
strategy. Two types of performance, short term
and long term were used. Bayyavarapu argues that
IT-centered KM strategy in isolation yield neither
short term performance nor long term performance
benefits. Capture based KM strategies yield short
term performance and learning based KM strate-
206
gies yield long term performance. These three

strategies are complementary and yield better
performance benefits when used simultaneously.
To our surprise the level of organizational trust
did not have a significant impact on organizational
benefits (H9). The effect of organizational trust in
our model might be indirectly affecting organizational benefits through the different KM variables
composing our model. The concept of mediating
variable was not tested. This finding is aligned
with the research conducted by Zaheer, McEvily
and Perrone (1998) that showed that interpersonal
trust did not have a significant direct impact on
performance.
The control variable rewarding knowledge
sharing was surprisingly only significant when
applied to the personalization construct and not
on the codification construct. Most companies
currently reward people to codify their knowledge
and/or to get it from the knowledge repository.
Employees usually dont like to document things
and the quality of the resulting codified knowledge
is often low because of that. Rewarding people
to socialize and to share their knowledge through
people to people interactions (personalization)
seems to have a greater impact and might be more
fun and rewarding (Earl, 2001). Mentoring for
instance is a great way to transfer tacit knowledge
to junior employees (Swap, Leonard, Shields, &
Abrams, 2001). It requires experts and/or senior
employees to dedicate a large amount of time to
explain their acts, decisions, behaviors, approaches
to junior employees on daily activities. Appropriated rewards should be given in exchange
of such service. The recent emphasis on Web 2.0
(social networking) tools seems to validate this
trend of encouraging people to connect.
The usage level of personalization (H4) and
codification tools (H5) both have a significant
impact on the success level of a KM initiative.
The impact of the personalization tool usage factor (0.28) is slightly higher than the codification
one (0.24) but not different enough to draw any
conclusion.
future trendS
It is clear that more research need to be conducted
in order to fully understand the impact of the trust
factor on the use of KM practices and tools. This
research used a quantitative approach and we
will suggest complementing it by a qualitative
approach to better understand the motivations
behind the trusting and non-trusting behaviors.
This research was only conducted with US companies and it will be valuable to test such model
in other countries to assess the impact of national
culture/traits on the willingness to trust and to
share knowledge. The new strong emphasis on
social networking tool might be a new way to start
building trust in between individuals. Research
in this new direction might although be fruitful.
concluSion
Very few quantitative studies had been conducted
to demonstrate and quantify the influence of
organizational trust on the usage level of various KM approaches as well as on the success of
a KM initiative and on the emerging benefits
for organizations. This initial study is a first attempt to do so. The theoretical model presented
has an acceptable fit with the data collected but
will greatly benefit from further validations with
larger data sets and with more diversity in term
of industries represented.
The preliminary theoretical and practical
findings of this research show that organizational
trust plays an important role in the success of KM
initiatives and in the usage level of personalization and codification technologies (which is not
always obvious for the latest). The level of KM
initiative success demonstrated to have a strong
and direct impact on organizational benefits. Organizations with a high level of trust were more
likely to be successful in their KM initiatives and
the choice of a KM dominant strategy (codification, personalization, or balanced) that leaded to
success seemed to follow a contingency approach.

In term of technology usage, it looked like simple
tools as emails, intranet applications and database
management systems remain the most used in
term of codification tools and expertise locators
and communities of practices and interests for
personalization tools. One has to be very cautious
about this last finding since, as Alavi, Kayworth
and Leidner (Maryam Alavi, et al., 2005) mentioned, one cannot expect uniformity in how
groups will use KM tools since their respective
cultural values might influence their choice and
needs. One of the practical implications of our
preliminary findings is that companies should
assess their level of trust at the organizational
level and at the unit level in order to better define
a successful KM strategy(ies) since, for instance,
the adoption of socialization tools will not be likely
to be high if the level of trust is low. This study
could not fully demonstrate the strong value that
personalization tools and practices could bring to
the success of a KM initiative and to companies
resulting benefits but we believe that their impact
might be significant if the organizational culture
embraces knowledge sharing behaviors.
Not all organizations have yet realized the
beneficial influence that trust could bring to their
environment and the impact it could have on facilitating knowledge sharing, knowledge re-use and
the creation of new knowledge. When present, trust
is part of the social capital of an organization, even
though, in some very particular circumstances,
this statement might not be validated (Bakker, et
al., 2006). A culture and/or leadership change will
often be required for organizations to increase their
level of trust. Williams (2004) provides a list of
factors on how to build or repair trust; integrity,
reliability, fairness, caring, openness, competence,
loyalty, invest in employees, promote open communication, behave in an ethical and socially
responsible manner, provide job security. Other
authors like Schoorman, Mayer and Davis (2007)
summarize these various factors in three main
dimensions; Ability, Benevolence and Integrity
207
and Blomqvist, and Sthle (2000) group them

in term of ; competence, goodwill and behavior.
Finally, Galford and Drapeau (2003) provide a
good set of simple practices that can help to fight
the enemies of trust.
referenceS
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E.
(2005). An Empirical Examination of the Influence
of Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management Practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191224. doi:10.2753/
MIS0742-1222220307
Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and
Research Issues. MIS Quaterly, 25, 107136.
doi:10.2307/3250961
Anantatmula, V. S. P. (2007). Linking KM effectiveness attributes to organizational performance.
VINE: The Journal of information and knowledge
management systems, 37(2), 133-149.
Bahmanziari, T., Pearson, J. M., & Crosby, L.
(2003). Is trust important in technology adoption?
A policy capturing approach. Journal of Computer
Bakker, M., Leenders, R. T. A. J., Gabbay,
S. M., Kratzer, J., & Van Engelen, J. M. L.
(2006). Is trust really social capital? Knowledge sharing in product development projects.
The Learning Organization, 13(6), 594605.
doi:10.1108/09696470610705479
Barth, S. (2000, October). KM Horror Stories.
Knowledge Management Magazine, 3, 3740.
Bayyavarapu, H. B. (2005). Knowledge management strategies and firm performance. London,
Ontario: The University of Western Ontario.
208
Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001).

Organizational Knowledge Management: A contingency perspective. Journal of Management
Binney, D. (2001). The knowledge management
spectrum - understanding the KM landscape.
doi:10.1108/13673270110384383
Blomqvist, K., & Sthle, P. (2000). Building
organizational trust. Paper presented at the 16th
IMP-conference. from http://www.impgroup.org/
paper_view.php?viewPaper=37
Bock, G.-W., Sahbherwal, R., & Qian, Z. (2008).
The effect of social context on the success of
knowledge repository systems. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 55(4), 536551.
doi:10.1109/TEM.2008.927824
Bots, P. W. G., & Bruiin, h. (2002). Effective
Knowledge Management in Professional Organizations: Going by the rules. Paper presented
at the 35th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.
Carnevale, D. G., & Wechsler, B. (1992). Trust
in the public sector. Administration & Society,
23, 471494. doi:10.1177/009539979202300404
Chen, A.-P., & Chen, M.-Y. (2005). A review
of survey research in knowledge management
performance measurement: 1995-2004. Paper
presented at the I-KNOW 05.
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2002). An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate
performance. Information & Management, 40(5),
403417. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00060-5
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). Good Company.
How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work.
KPMG Consulting (2000). Knowledge Management Research Report.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude

measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 53, 3952.
Denning, S. (1998). What is knowledge management? from http://www.stevedenning.com/

Find_what_is_km.html
Culbert, S. A., & McDonough, J. J. (1986). The

politics of trust and organizational empowerment.
Public Administration Quaterly, 10, 171188.
Dennis, A. R., & Vessey, I. (2005). Three knowledge management strategies: knowledge hierarchies, knowledge markets, and knowledge communities. MIS Quaterly Executive, 4(4), 399412.
Davenport, T., & De Long, D. W., & C., B. M.

Dinur, A. (2002). Intrafirm knowledge transfers in

multinational corporations: Considering critical
context. Temple University.

Knowledge. How organizations manage what they
know. Harvard Business School Press.
Dudezert, A. (2006). Approaches and Methods for

Valuing Knowledge Management Performance.
In Boughzala, I., & Ermine, J.-L. (Eds.), Trends
In Enterprise Knowledge Management. International Scientific and Technical Encyclopedia.
doi:10.1002/9780470612132.ch6
Davenport, T. H., & Grover, V. (2001). Special

issue: Knowledge management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 34.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease Of Use, And User Acceptance of
Information Technology. MIS Quaterly, 13(3),
319341. doi:10.2307/249008
De Furia, G. L. (1996). A Behavioral Model of
Interpersonal Trust. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University, Springfield, LA.
De Furia, G. L. (1997). Facilitators guide to the
interpersonal trust surveys. Pfeiffer & Co.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management.
The Academy of Management Executive, 14(4),
113127.
Delmonte, A. J., & Aronson, J. E. (2004). The
Relationship Between Social Interaction And
Knowledge Management System Success. Journal
of Knowledge Management Practice, 5.
Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent
doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy. Journal of Management

Ericsson, F., & Avdic, A. (2003). Knowledge
Management Systems Acceptance. In Coakes,
E. (Ed.), Knowledge Management: Current Issues and Challenges (pp. 3951). Hershey, PA:
IRM Press.
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1997). The eleven deadliest sins of Knowledge Management. California
Focus, H. R. (2007). Why culture can mean life
or death for your organization. HRFocus, 84, 9.
Galford, R., & Drapeau, A. S. (2003). The enemies
of trust. Harvard Business Review.
Gold, A. H., Malhortra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001).
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of
competitive advantage: Implication for strategy.
California Management Review, 22, 114135.
209
Griffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies

of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal
trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 104120. doi:10.1037/h0024833
King, W. R. (2007). A Research Agenda for the

Relationships Between Culture and Knowledge
Management. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(3), 226236. doi:10.1002/kpm.281

Whats your strategy for managing knowledge?
Kinsey Goman, C. (2002a, June, 22). Five Reasons people dont tell what they know Retrieved
February, 5, 2003, from http://destinationkm.com/
articles/default.asp?ArticleID=960
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step by step approach to using

SAS for factor analysis and structural equation
modeling. Cary, N.C: SAS.
Hinds, P., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Why organizations
dont know what they know: cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise.
In Ackerman, M., Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (Eds.),
Sharing expertise: beyound knowledge management (pp. 326). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hubert, C. (2002). Knowledge Management: Its
About Engaging Your Culture, Not Changing It
Retrieved July, 17, 2004, from www.apqc.org/
portal/apqc/site/content?docid=107492
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2003). A Knowledge
Management Success Model: An Extension of
DeLone and McLeans IS Success Model. Paper
presented at the Ninth Americas Conference on
Information Systems.
Knowledge Management Success/Effectiveness
Models. Paper presented at the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Keskin, H. (2005). The relationships between
explicit and tacit oriented KM strategy, and firm
performance. Journal of American Academy of
Business, 7(1), 169175.
King, W. R. (2006). Maybe a knowledge culture
isnt always so important after all! Information
Systems Management, 23(1), 8889. doi:10.1201
/1078.10580530/45769.23.1.20061201/91776.10
210
Kinsey Goman, C. (2002b). What leaders can do

to foster knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Review, 5(4), 1011.
Know-Net. (2000). The approach, from http://
www.know-net.org
Knowledge Management Review (2001, November/December). KM Review survey reveals the
challenges faced by practitioners, 4, 8-9.
Kramer, R. M. (2007). Organizational Trust: A
Reader. USA: Oxford University Press.
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational
Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical
Examination. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 20(1), 179228.
Levin, D. Z., Cross, R., & Abrams, L. C. (2002a).
Trust and knowledge sharing: a critical combination. IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based
Organizations.
Levin, D. Z., Cross, R., & Abrams, L. C. (2002b).
Why should I trust you? (White paper presented at
2002 Academy of Management meetings).
Lindsey, K. (2002). Measuring Knowledge
Management Effectiveness: A Task-Contingent
Organizational Capabilities Perspective. Paper
presented at the Eighth Americas Conference on
Information Systems.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York:
John Wiley.
Markus, M. L. (2001). Toward a Theory of

Knowledge Reuse: Types of Knowledge Reuse
Situations and Factors in Reuse Success. Journal of
Nelson, K. M., & Cooprider, J. G. (1996). The

Contribution of Shared Knowledge to IS Group
Performance. MIS Quaterly, 20(4), 409432.
doi:10.2307/249562
Massey, A. P., M.M., M.-W., & ODriscoll, T.

M. (2002). Knowledge Management in Pursuit
of Performance: Insights from Nortel Networks.
MIS Quaterly, 26(3), 269-289.
Pauleen, D., & Mason, D. (2002). New Zealand Knowledge Management Survey: Barriers
and Drivers of KM Uptake Retrieved January
10, 2004, from http://www.nzkm.net/mainsite/
NewZealandKnowledgeManagementSurveyBarriersandDriv.html
Matthai, J. M. (1989). Employee perceptions of

trust, satisfaction, and commitment as predictors
of turnover intentions in a mental health setting,
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt
University.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognitionbased trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 38(1), 2459. doi:10.2307/256727
41(4), 103117.
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C.
(2002). Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology.
Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334359.
doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
McKnight, H. D., & Chervany, N. L. (2000, August
10-13). What is Trust? A Conceptual Analysis and
an Inderdisciplinary Model. Paper presented at
the Americas Conference on Information Systems
(AMCIS), Long Beach California.
Microsoft (1999). Practicing Knowledge Management.
Natarajan, G., & Shekhar, S. (2000). Knowledge
management: Enabling Business growth. New
Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.
Politis, J. D. (2003). The connection between

trust and knowledge management: what are
its implications for team performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 5566.
doi:10.1108/13673270310505386
Rao, M. (2002, August, 23). Eight Keys to Successful KM practice Retrieved February, 1, 2003,
from http://www.destinationkm.com/articles/
default.asp?ArticleID=990
Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and
knowledge documentation. Omega, 36, 206220.
doi:10.1016/j.omega.2006.06.005
Ribire, V. (2001). Assessing Knowledge Management Initiative Successes as a Function of
Organizational Culture. Unpublished D.Sc. Dissertation, The George Washington University,
Washington DC.
Ribire, V. (2005). The critical role of trust in
knowledge management (Le rle primordial de
la confiance dans les dmarches de gestion du
savoir). Unpublished PhD dissertation (Management Sciences) Universit Paul Czanne, Aix en
Provence (France) - available on Proquest.
Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2007). Management
Tools and Trends 2007. Bain & Company.
211
Rolland, N., & Chauvel, D. (2000). Knowledge

Transfer in Strategic Alliances. In Despres, C.,
& Chauvel, D. (Eds.), Knowledge Horizons (pp.
225236). Butterworth-Heinemann. doi:10.1016/
B978-0-7506-7247-4.50014-8
Sako, M. (2006). Does trust improves business
performance? In Kramer, R. M. (Ed.), Organizational Trust: A Reader (pp. p267p294). Oxford
University Press.
Schoorman, D. F., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H.
(2007). An integrative model of organizational
trust: Past, Present and Future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344354.
Schulz, M., & Jobe, L. A. (2001). Codification and
tactiness as knowledge management strategies: An
empirical exploration. [Article]. The Journal of
High Technology Management Research, 12(1),
139165. doi:10.1016/S1047-8310(00)00043-2
Shaw, R. B. (1997). Trust in the Balance. Building
Successful Organizations on Results, Integrity, and
Concern. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999). Knowledge Management and
innovation:networks and networking. Journal
doi:10.1108/13673279910304014
Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams,
L. (2001). Using Mentoring and Storytelling to
Transfer Knowledge in the Workplace. Journal of
Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. H. (2009). Trust in
Coworkers and Trust in Organizations. [Article].
The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 4566.
doi:10.3200/JRLP.143.1.45-66
Teoh, K. K., & Avvari, M. (2004). Integration of
TAM Based Electronic Commerce Models for
Trust. Journal of American Academy of Business,
5(1/2), 404410.
212
Von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in Knowledge Creation. [Article]. California Management Review,
40(3), 133153.
Welch, J. (1993, Jan 25). Jack Welchs lessons for
success. Fortune, 127, 8691.
Wick, C. (2000). Knowledge management and
leadership opportunities for technical communicators. Technical Communications, 47(4), 515529.
Williams, S. (2004). Building and repairing trust
Retrieved October, 2008, from http://www.wright.
edu/~scott.williams/LeaderLetter/trust.htm
Wu, J. (2008). Exploring the link beween
knowledge management performance and firm
performance. Lexington, Kentucky: University
of Kentucky.
Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing Codified Knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 4558.
Zack, M. H., & Michael, S. (1998). Knowledge
Management and Collaboration Technologies,
from http://www.lotus.com/services/institute.nsf/
550137bfe37d25a18525653a005e8462/000021ca
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998).
Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141159.
doi:10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
Zand, D. E. (1997). The leadership Triad - Knowledge, Trust, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
213
Chapter 12
Advancing the Success of

Collaboration Centered
KM Strategy
Johanna Bragge
Aalto University School of Economics, Finland
Hannu Kivijrvi
Aalto University School of Economics, Finland
abStract
Knowledge is today more than ever the most critical resource of organizations. At the same time it is,
however, also the least-accessible resource that is difficult to share, imitate, buy, sell, store, or evaluate.
Organizations should thus have an explicit strategy for the management of their knowledge resources. In
this chapter we pay special attention to a KM strategy called collaboration centered strategy. This strategy
builds on the assumption that a significant part of personal knowledge can be captured and transferred,
and new knowledge created through deep collaboration between the organizations members. A critical
element in the collaboration centered KM strategy is the facilitation process that involves managing
relationships between people, tasks and technology. We describe how the Collaboration Engineering
approach with packaged facilitation techniques called ThinkLets is able to contribute to this endeavour.
introduction
Knowledge is today more than ever the most critical resource of organizations. At the same time
it is, however, also the least-accessible resource
that is difficult to share, imitate, buy, sell, store,
or evaluate. As for any other critical resource,
organizations should have an explicit strategy
for the management of knowledge resources,
too. Organizations should plan how to harness
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch012
knowledge resources successfully in relation to

organizational goals, objectives and strategies.
What makes it challenging is that knowledge
in organizations is typically dispersed in the minds
of its members, working routines and processes,
organizational rules, etc. Part of the knowledge
is highly personal, difficult or even impossible
to transform to wider usage. Especially the content of so-called tacit knowledge that is hidden
even from its owner is difficult to harness, and
it requires special arrangements to convert or
transfer it to wider organizational usage. Smith et
Advancing the Success of Collaboration Centered KM Strategy
al. (2007) claim that knowledge managers have

started to recognize that they need to become more
sophisticated in their system-driven approach to
facilitating knowledge transfer, as it just doesnt
suffice to build a database with codified knowledge and wait it to be used (see discussion also
in Cross and Baird, 2000). Recently, Mki (2008)
has found that knowledge-intensive organizations
encounter problems with the management of
encoded knowledge and information. He recommends common organizational practices to support
the use and application of both encoded and tacit
knowledge in organizations.
Smith et al. (2007) divide the four main types
of tacit knowledge that organizations wish to
transfer into best practices, expertise, experience
and innovation. Regarding best practice transfer
Smith et al. (2007) claim that it is probably the
one which most lends itself to technical facilitation
and has the clearest value proposition associated
with it. Moreover, expertise takes a long time
to develop, and thus, it would be beneficial for
companies to find ways to develop it more rapidly
(Smith et al., 2007).
Besides knowledge transfer initiatives also
measures to ensure collaboration must be taken
in order for organizations to create knowledge,
to innovate (Kolfschoten, 2007) and to overcome the frequent resistance to share knowledge
(Thomas, 2006). Collaboration, defined as joint
effort toward a goal (Kolfschoten, 2007) or as
the extent to which individuals actively communicate, cooperate, and help one another in their
work by sharing knowledge and expertise with
one another (Thomas, 2006), is found to be one
of the critical factors for knowledge management
systems success besides top management leadership and compensation schemes (Thomas, 2006).
Similarly, Hansen and Nohria (2004) and Tapscott
(2006) have emphasized the necessity of fostering
collaboration for competitive advantage. Regarding collaborative knowledge work practices, Mki
(2008) has found that modern IT applications have
214
not been able to replace the quality, or the need,

of face-to-face interaction.
Face-to-face collaboration, however, gets fairly
time-consuming and challenging in process-wise
as the group size grows over 3 or 4 people. Already
early studies on organizational effectiveness have
found that group tasks typically result in process
losses (Lorge and Solomon, 1955; Steiner, 1972).
These losses may occur due to production blocking
(e.g. when waiting for ones own turn to speak),
evaluation apprehension, poor coordination or
motivational problems. In order to mitigate the
process losses - and simultaneously to stimulate
the process gains like synergy and learning - researchers in management information systems
have proposed the deployment of special type of
groupware - Group Support Systems (GSS) - in
group tasks (Huber, 1984; DeSanctis and Gallupe,
1987; Nunamaker et al. 1991). The goal of GSS
is to help organizational teams make faster, more
satisfying, and ultimately better decisions than
those made in face-to-face, manually supported
meetings (Fjermestad, 1998). The GSS installations typically consist of 10-30 networked computers in the same meeting room, having special
software that enable parallel and anonymous input,
real-time voting, group memory and automated
reporting of the meeting minutes. The meetings
are normally administered by a facilitator, following a predefined agenda that is built together with
the problem owner. Process facilitation has been
found to be among the most critical success factors
for effective and efficient collaboration (Anson
et al, 1995; Niederman et al, 1996; Ackermann
et al, 2005; Dennis and Wixom, 2001; Bragge et
al. 2007).
An extensive amount of research from both
experimental and field studies have found that the
efficiency and effectiveness of facilitated group
work may indeed be increased by GSS - savings
up to 50% in individual work hours have been
reported when compared to regular meetings
(Fjermestad and Hiltz, 1999, 2000). Despite the
significant efficiency gains accrued, the GSS have
not diffused to organizations as one would have

expected (Briggs et al., 2003; Kolfschoten, 2007).
However, to tackle this dilemma, a new stream of
research called Collaboration Engineering (CE)
has recently emerged from the literature on GSS
(Briggs et al., 2003). CE researchers are developing guidelines to the design process that foster
high-quality collaboration processes. The ultimate
goal of CE is that recurring collaborative work
practices could be executed by the practitioners
by themselves without the ongoing support from
professional facilitators, which tend to be a scarce
resource in organizations (Briggs et al., 2003;
Kolfschoten et al., 2006; de Vreede et al. 2009).
In this chapter we pay special attention to a
KM strategy called collaboration centered strategy. This strategy builds on the assumption that
a significant part of the personal knowledge can
be captured and transferred and new knowledge
created through the deep collaboration between the
organizations members (and sometimes also with
its external stakeholders). A critical element in the
collaboration centered KM strategy is the facilitation process that involves managing relationships
between people, tasks and technology, as well as
structuring tasks and contributing to the effective
accomplishment of the meetings outcome (den
Hengst and Adkins, 2007; Clawson et al. 2003).
We believe that the CE approach is able to provide
valuable and concrete progression for this.
The success of a collaboration centered KM
strategy is, however, not easy to assess. It is clear
that the success of a collaboration-centered KM
strategy is multidimensional and context specific.
In addition to task specific outcomes, collaboration
processes have group related as well as facilitator
related outcomes. The purpose of this chapter is
to discuss the multidimensional nature of knowledge management (Nissen and Jennex, 2007)
and the multidimensional nature of the success
of a collaboration centered KM strategy. We are
particularly interested in the facilitators roles and
responsibilities within the collaboration processes.
We formulate our research question followingly:
How to advance the success of a collaboration

centered KM strategy and, especially, what is the
role of the facilitator in it?
To answer our research question, we will
first present the conceptual background from the
literature, and then propose a framework to show
the different constituents, structures, processes
and possible outcomes of the collaboration centered KM strategy as well as the critical role of
the facilitator in the adopted KM strategy. The
framework serves as a basis in evaluating and
measuring the success of the collaboration centered KM strategy. We discuss the potentials of
the collaboration centered KM strategy in lines
with the proposed framework.
concePtual bacKgroundS
Knowledge types
Knowledge is today more than ever the most
critical resource of organizations and the impelling force of individuals. Knowledge requires
human judgement, is closely related to action,
and presupposes values and beliefs. Polanyi
(1962) tied personal dimension to all knowledge
and his master-dichotomy between tacit and
explicit knowledge has shaped practically all
epistemological discussion, especially since the
rediscovery and popularization made by Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995).
Knowledge is traditionally interpreted as a
singular, independent object. Another, procedural
interpretation of knowledge is to see it as a path,
consisting of related steps (Carlile and Rebentisch,
2003). A wider interpretation is even to see the
knowledge as a network or a system where every
element is interrelated directly or indirectly with
each other.
Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001, p. 979) define
knowledge by means of the persons ability to draw
distinctions: Knowledge is the individual ability
to draw distinctions within a collective domain
215
of action, based on an appreciation of context or

theory, or both. According to this definition, a
person is more knowledgeable if she/he can draw
finer distinctions. The value of those distinctions
is evaluated when used in judgements once actions
are taken. Making distinctions, judgements, classifications, structurings, and getting chaos under
control are capabilities of an expert having knowledge. Kivijrvi (2008) has elaborated the above
characterization of knowledge further and defines
knowledge as individual or organizational ability
to make decisions. All actions are consequences of
decisions. When defining knowledge we should
note that decisions are more than distinctions;
they are value-driven in the sense that they aim
to achieve a specific goal or a set of goals.
Oftentimes, knowledge is defined also as
justified true belief. It is clear that knowledge
is fuzzy and closely linked to persons who hold
it. It rarely remains fixed but its categories and
meanings transform frequently. Therefore, knowledge is dynamic and context specific. Without
a context, it is just information. One potential
context of knowledge creation and use is the
organizational context.
Organizations have a common capability to
act, i.e. knowledge capacity or intellectual capital
(Stewart, 1999), the lack of which would inevitably
prevent organizational action and would lead to
an unpredictable disorder and confusion. Organizational knowledge is processed information
embedded in routines and processes that enable
action. It is also knowledge captured by the organizations systems, processes, products, rules,
and culture (Myers 1996). According to Tsoukas
and Vladimirou (2001) organizational knowledge
is the set of collective understanding embedded
in a firm (p. 981). It is the capability that the
members of an organization have developed to
draw distinctions in the process of carrying out
their work, in particular concrete contexts, by
enacting sets of generalizations (propositional
statements) whose application depends on historically evolved collective understandings and
216
experiences (Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001, p.

983). In the organizational context, personal (individual) knowledge and organizational knowledge
are created, manipulated, transformed and used in
decision making. Personal knowledge is used for
personal decision making whereas organizational
knowledge is utilized in organization wide decision making. Personal knowledge is always tied
to personal action and personal valuation, while
organizational knowledge is tied to organizational
valuation.
In addition to the division between explicit
and tacit, and on the other hand between the
personal and organizational knowledge, there
are several other types of knowledge, some of
which are conscious, others preconscious. Choo
(1998) goes on to classify knowledge into three
groups: tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge, and
cultural knowledge. Scharmer (2001) divides
tacit knowledge into tacit embodied knowledge
and self-transcending knowledge. Holsapple and
Whinston (1996) define three primary types of
knowledge: descriptive, procedural, and reasoning knowledge, and three secondary types of
knowledge: presentation, linguistic, and assimilative knowledge. Savage (1996) differentiates
five types of knowledge: know-how, know-who,
know-what, know-why, and know-when, and
Liebman (1998) classifies knowledge into procedural knowledge, declarative knowledge, and
conditional knowledge. In organizational contexts,
knowledge resources include all these types, and
the challenge of knowledge management is to
advance the exploitation of multidimensional
knowledge resources to the success of the whole
organization, as well as to individual satisfaction.
Knowledge Management Strategies

According to the resource-based view of the firm
(Barney 1986, Penrose 1959, Wernerfelt, 1984)
firms should position themselves strategically
based on their rare, valuable, nonsubstitutable,
and imperfectly imitable resources and capabilities
instead of the products and services. It is assumed

that the collection of resources including tangible
and intangibles assets, knowledge and skills are
the primary predictors also of the market-based
and financial-based performance. According to
this approach the competitive advantage of a firm
is eventually based on resource heterogeneity and
resource immobility. In the markets, there are not
similar organizations with similar resource-bases
and competitors find it impossible or difficult to
imitate or substitute these resources.
As for any other critical resource, organizations
should have an explicit strategy for the management of knowledge resources, too. Knowledge
management strategy is a type of resource-based
strategy, and it is the way or a scheme to do epistemic work in organizational context, that is, to
create, convert, share, storage, secure, use, and
evaluate knowledge resources in organizational
context. Because knowledge resources are at least
partly tacit and contextual, i.e. organization specific, it cannot be directly explicated, purchased
from markets, and moved from an organization to
another. Knowledge strategy is based on experience, continuous learning and routines. In order
to create similar knowledge, competitors have
to engage similar experiences, create similar
routines, etc. It is a process that takes time, and
thus, the business strategies of an organization
based on its unique intellectual resources are more
competitive and sustainable.
When proposing the construct business strategic orientation, Venkatraman (1989) applies the
distinction between intended and realized strategies. Strategic intent is associated with a priori
strategic choices, whereas the realized strategy
is defined as a consistent pattern of behavior in
the organization (Mintzberg 1978, Mintzberg and
Waters 1985). As strategic intent can be regarded
as a thought test that results in a realized strategy
if the intent is carried through, the strategic intent
may be changed easily. We should note that most of
the realized strategies emerge without preconception. Knowledge strategy can also be an intended
or realized one, and it can even emerge without

foregoing formal planning.
Part of organizational knowledge can be effectively codified. Codification is an IT-centric
strategy to manage knowledge, and to transform
it over an organization. It is an opposite strategy
to the personalization strategy (Hansen et al.
1999). By the codification strategy, knowledge is
extracted from the person who developed it, made
independent of that person and reused for various
purposes (Hansen et al. 1999). This strategy is
based on reuse-economics, investments in IT, and
the transformation of knowledge from people to
documents and computers. On some occasions,
the difference between codified and computerized
knowledge and information might be marginal.
In addition to codification and personalization, knowledge (management) strategy can be
defined through
external or internal learning,

radical or incremental learning,
learning speed,
and the breadth of knowledge base (Bierly
and Chakrabarti, 1996).
Knowledge strategy can also be based on

exploration or exploitation of external or internal
knowledge sources (Zack 1999). For choosing an
appropriate knowledge strategy, Zack suggests
SWOT analysis to evaluate the potentials of the
strategy alternatives.
Models for evaluating the Success

of Knowledge Management
Knowledge management (KM) is that part of the
organizational administration that focuses on the
management of the knowledge resources and information capital surrounded by an organization. According to an industry survey (KPMG 2002/2003)
companies use knowledge management to realise
synergies among units (83%), accelerate innovation (63%), achieve higher customer added value
217
(74%), reduce costs (67%), improve quality (70%)

and reduce exposure to risks (26%). In a wealthy
organization, knowledge management exceeds
all organizational layers as well as all functional
borders. In addition to an operative, every-day tool
it is also a strategic weapon in the road to achieve
competitive advantages. In general, knowledge
management is a broad concept including e.g.
technological, organizational, behavioral, and
managerial issues.
Based on two exploratory surveys generated
from the literature Jennex et al. (2007, 2008)
define KM success as follows:
this knowledge to improve organizational and/or
individual performance. KM success is measured
by means of the dimensions: impact on business
knowledge content.
Some of the KM evaluation models origin
clearly from the KM domain, whereas others are
borrowed from neighbor disciplines like management information systems. The IS success model
as suggested by DeLone and McLean (1992) has
achieved a permanent status and a kind of reference
point in later success studies. In the original model,
system quality and information quality have an
effect on user satisfaction and IS use, which in
turn impact the organization through individual
impacts. This model has been later validated, applied, criticized, updated, and extended to various
dimensions in a number of studies (Seddon 1997,
Wu and Wang, 2006, Briggs et al, 2002, Jennex
and Olfman, 2006). Seddon (1997), for example,
reordered the constructs and placed the use of a
system after perceived usefulness and user satisfaction. DeLone and McLean (2003) updated their
model by adding service quality and intentions
to use and incorporating individual impact and
218
organizational impact into net benefits. They

also added feedback relations to the model.
Jennex and Olfman (2006) have applied the
principles of the model to evaluate the success
of KM and knowledge management systems
(KMS). When the model was exported from the
IS to the KM domain, notable redefinitions of the
constructs had to be made. Also Wu and Wang
(2006) respecified the DeLone and McLean model
in order to measure KMS success. In the empirical
analyses they found considerable support for the
model. Khalifa et al. (2008) argue that the usage
of KMS does not necessarily lead to organizational
performance improvement but is mediated by
knowledge-intensive capabilities such as agility
and innovativeness. Kulkarni et al. (2006) depart
from the DeLone and McLean model by looking
at KMS implementationrelated issues like the
development of organizational arrangements,
policies, processes, and incentives. Their study
is also a more generalized, broader effort across
different organizations instead of studying a single
system in a particular organization. Common to
the above studies is to utilize user satisfaction
as an intermediary variable between dependent
and independent variables. On the other hand, Lai
et al. (2008) define user satisfaction as a major
indicator of KMS success.
The task-technology fit model presented by
Goodhue and Thompson (1995) extends the
DeLone and McLean model by highlighting the
importance of task-technology fit in explaining
how technology leads to performance impacts.
This model argues that the use of a technology
may result in different outcomes, depending upon
the match between technology features and the
requirements of the task. Technology includes a
wide range of IT, such as hardware, software, data,
user support, etc. Tasks are broadly defined as the
actions carried out in turning inputs to outputs
in order to satisfy information needs. The model
proposes that information systems have a positive impact on performance only when there is
correspondence between their functionality and
the task requirements of users (Goodhue and

Thompson, 1995, p. 214). The original Goodhue
and Thompson model has been applied to evaluate the success, effectiveness, or performance of
knowledge management systems (Lin and Huang,
2008), group support systems (Zigurs and Buckland, 1998, Zigurs et al. 1999, Murthy and Kerr
2000), the systems perceived ease of use, etc.
A number of evaluation models are defined
inside the KM domain trusting relatively closely
on KM concepts and theories. Muhammed et al.
(2008) focus on KM success at individual level.
They build on conceptual, contextual, and operational knowledge. The success of KM is finally
measured by two constructs; the extent to which
individuals generate and apply new innovations
in their work, and how well the individuals work
is done. Lindsey (2002) defines KM effectiveness
by means of knowledge infrastructure capability and knowledge process capability. In his
model knowledge infrastructure capability
refers to social capital (the relationships between
knowledge sources and users) and knowledge
process capability to the integration of the KM
processes into the organization. Lindseys (2002)
success model is also process-oriented because it
defines KM processes by four phases: acquisition
(capturing of knowledge), conversion (making
captured knowledge available), application (degree to which knowledge is useful), and protection
(security of the knowledge). Lin (2007) uses the
same process model to study whether KM processes are changed over time in order to improve
KM effectiveness.
Knowledge Sharing
and collaboration
Knowledge grows from sharing (Sveiby, 1997).
Knowledge sharing is a process through which
knowledge is exchanged among individuals, inside
or between groups or organizations. Knowledge
transformation between individuals is an activity
where knowledge is not divided but multiplied.
However, knowledge sharing is a problematic

concept to some extent. First, although knowledge
sharing is a prerequisite for knowledge growth,
sharing knowledge is no different from other businesses valuable knowledge is not shared without compensation. Knowledge is a competitive
resource not only on the organizational level but
also on the individual level. People do not share
knowledge without a strong personal motivation,
and they would certainly not give it away without
concern for what they may gain or lose by doing
so. (Stenmark, 2001, p. 21). Thus, knowledge
is power. Secondly, a significant part of knowledge is tacit, hidden even from the holder of the
knowledge, and it is difficult if not impossible to
convert it to an explicit form. Actually, knowledge
conversion may be regarded as a process where one
form of knowledge is generated in the context of
acting with the aid of another type of knowledge
(Cook and Brown, 1999, p. 385). Specifically, the
tacit dimension of personal knowledge manifests
itself only in the knowing process. Collaboration
between individuals can be such a process where
two or more people work together toward a common goal by sharing knowledge, bargaining and
searching compensations.
Knowledge sharing and collaboration should
be fostered by organizations as knowledge created within the firm is especially valuable because
it tends to be unique, specific and tacitly held,
being therefore more difficult for competitors
to imitate, and making it strategically valuable
Zack (1999, p. 138-9). Oftentimes the internal
knowledge creation should be combined with
external information/knowledge (Fedorowicz et
al, 2008), which is found from literary sources
or is communicated through the organizations
stakeholders, e.g. network partners or customers.
For knowledge oriented organizational settings,
Kolfschoten (2007) defines collaboration as joint
effort toward a goal. When defined this way,
goal achievement, logically, is a success factor
of collaboration. Furthermore, collaboration itself
is not a goal; it is a process, instrumental to a
219
goal (ibid.). Viewing collaboration as a process,

it renders itself to managerial actions, and thus,
it can be managed.
It is clear that there exists a continuum of
possible collaboration processes, from ad-hoc
traditional meetings with 2-3 people without a
preplanned agenda to large-scale meetings that
have been preplanned for weeks and are supported
with advanced technology and process facilitation. When deciding how to foster collaboration,
especially for high-value tasks, organizations
need think a range of issues, and weigh the pros
and cons of possible approaches, and make
tradeoffs e.g. between customized and off-theshelf solutions. Regarding process facilitation,
professional facilitators tend to be expensive and
scarce, while training internal facilitators takes
extensive amounts of time for them to become as
experienced and skilled as professionals. Also the
faithful appropriation of possible technology to
be employed, that is, using it as intended by the
systems designers (Dennis et al. 2001) is challenging for novices. The Collaboration Engineering
(CE) research has emerged to tackle all these
issues, and it can provide invaluable support for
significant collaborative tasks. We will describe
the approach in the next section.
collaboration engineering
(ce) approach
CE is an approach to designing collaborative
work practices for high-value recurring tasks,
and deploying those as process prescriptions for
practitioners to execute for themselves without
ongoing support from professional facilitators (de
Vreede and Briggs, 2005; Kolfschoten, 2007). The
CE approach makes thus a distinction between
the roles regarding the design and execution of
a collaboration process, both of which are traditionally on the responsibility of the facilitator. In
CE, the tasks are split up: the process design is
the collaboration engineers task, while the recurring process execution is left for the practitioner.
220
The collaboration engineer (CEer) begins the

task analysis by decomposing the process into several activities (generate, reduce, clarify, organize,
evaluate or build consensus) and mapping them
with facilitation techniques (Kolfschoten, 2007).
In this, the CEer uses standardized and codified
facilitation intervention components called thinkLets, which yield predictable, reusable patterns
of collaboration among people working together
toward a goal. The collaboration process designs
provide ready-to-apply CE recipes to be conducted
by practitioners, according to the ultimate aim of
the CE approach (de Vreede and Briggs, 2005;
Kolfschoten et al. 2006).
Before transferring the process description to
the practitioner, it is important to validate (and
adjust) the design, e.g. by pilot-sessions, expert
validations or simulations. Also during the transfer,
several learning efforts for the practitioner (in the
process training, in preparing to apply it, and in
first trials of the process execution) may uncover
problems that require refinements for the design.
When completing the transfer phase, full-scale
implementation - and eventually also sustained use
- in the organization may take place. This calls for
managerial activities, planning and organization.
For instance, the management should stimulate
the use of the CE process through incentives and
controls. As has been found in traditional facilitation, also here the success of the practitioner as a
facilitator is key to the successful implementation
of the process. (Kolfschoten, 2007).
To sum up, the CE approach is not purported
for ad-hoc one off processes, but for recurring,
high-value tasks. If the task does not recur, it
would not benefit the practitioners to learn how
to execute the process (Kolfschoten, 2007). However, the informative CE process designs are still
able to provide additional learning insights, and
ease the preparatory communications between all
stakeholders, although the CEer would execute
the process (see discussions in Bragge et al.
2005a; 2007).
Figure 1. GSS research framework of Pinsonneault and Kramer (1989)
Models for evaluating the Success

of gSS-Mediated group Performance
In this section we review the research that has
dealt with the success evaluation of GSS-mediated
group meetings. According to Kline and McGrath
(1999), the process loss model (Lorge et al., 1958;
Steiner, 1972) is by far most popular approach in
examining traditional team performance, and it has
been adopted in most GSS studies also. The model
supposes that there is input (e.g. group member
expertise, personality attributes, experience),
which is followed by a process that includes the
interaction between the group members. This is
followed by an output, which may include e.g. the
number and quality of ideas generated. Regarding the process itself, the losses may occur, for
example, due to production blocking (waiting for
ones own turn to speak), evaluation apprehension,
poor coordination or motivational problems (see
Nunamaker et al. 1991). Besides the process loss
related variables (e.g. anonymity, which reduces
the reluctance to contribute information), different contextual variables have also been taken into
account when studying GSS group performance.
For instance, group size, participant proximity
(distributed or face-to-face) and cultural differ-
ences have been extensively studied. Pinsonneault

and Kraemer (1989) categorized the contextual
variables into five classes of personal factors,
situational factors, group structure, technological
support and task characteristics (see Figure 1).
The task-technology fit (TTF) model discussed
earlier has also been utilized extensively in GSS
research (see e.g. Zigurs and Khazanchi, 2008).
Already DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987), when
setting the foundations for the study and design
of GSS, suggested that also the task type confronting the group should be taken into account. Their
task dimensions were drawn from the well-known
task circumplex of McGrath (1984), which includes four main task types: generation (creativity, planning), choice (intellective, decisionmaking), negotiation (cognitive conflict,
mixed-motive) and execution (performance,
competitive) tasks. TTF theories are intended to
provide guidance for and understanding of how
best to match a tool with a problem, e.g. an appropriate set of collaboration technology capabilities with a particular group task and context
(Zigurs and Khazanchi, 2008). Besides the TTF
model of Zigurs and Buckland (1999), the media
richness theory (Daft and Lengel, 1986), the channel expansion theory (Carlson and Zmud, 1999),
221
the adaptive structuration theory (DeSanctis and

Poole, 1994) and the fit-appropriation model
(Dennis et al, 2001) were listed by Zigurs and
Khazanchi (2008) as representative TTF theories
employed and tested in GSS studies.
Fjermestad (1998) has done an extensive
study and consolidated the work of previous GSS
frameworks. His integrated framework includes
as four major factors the contextual, intervening,
adaptation and outcome variables. At the input
side are the static contextual factors, which are all
the external or driving variables that comprise the
environment or conditions for the task. They are
divided under context, group, task and technology
categories. The interaction process is divided into
two parts. The first part, the intervening factors
(either static or dynamic) represent the emergent
structuring of the group interaction derived from
and adding to the set of conditions created from
the context of the group sessions. In the second
part the groups dynamic adaptation (or interaction process) factors are controlled by the group
on an individual or a collective basis. The changes
in these variables act to influence the intervening
variables, sometimes together with contextual
factors. The static outcomes are the results of the
interplay of the intervening factors and adaptation of the group with the contextual factors, and
they are divided under efficiency, effectiveness,
satisfaction, consensus and usability measures.
(Fjermestad, 1998).
Fjermestad (ibid, p. 104) has called his integrated factors model as a prototheory, which
predicts contingent relations of the form:
222
if the GSS technology (tools and embedded structures) is appropriate to the group,
tasks and environmental context;
and if intervening factors are appropriate
(such as adequate training);
and if the groups adaptive structuration of
the tools and procedures provided is faithful, so that the intended process gains are
achieved and process losses avoided;
then GSS will lead to certain desirable outcomes (such as better decisions).
Den Hengst et al. (2006) reviewed Pinsonneault

and Kraemers (1989), Fjermestad and Hiltzs
(1999, 2000) as well as some other constructs
that have been used to evaluate the success of
collaboration processes, and they formulated additional quality constructs for reusable collaboration processes designed using the Collaboration
Engineering (CE) approach. The additional constructs are reusability (portability, adaptability,
specification), predictability (difference in input,
difference in output, reliability, robustness) and
transferability (conceptual load, perceptual load,
access load), and they are recommended to be
regarded with the CE approach. Naturally, it is
impossible to measure everything and take every
single aspect into account. Thus, a selection of
all quality constructs must be made according to
the goal of the collaboration process and the goal
of the evaluation itself. (Den Hengst et al. 2006)
Kolfschoten (2007) continues the above research in distinguishing the quality of collaboration (appreciation of joint effort by relevant stakeholders measured by effectiveness, efficiency,
productivity, commitment and satisfaction) from
the quality of the collaboration process design.
She first presents the CE approach in lines with
the Business Process Change paradigm of Kettinger and Teng (1997), which uses a process
reengineering life cycle to describe the process
from envisioning to inauguration, to diagnosis, to
(re-) design, to (re-) construction and to evaluation.
The CE approach uses similar phases and steps
to analyze, design, deploy and evaluate the new
collaboration processes. It distinguishes, similar
to envisioning, an (1) initial state in which the
applicability and added value of the approach and
the investment is addressed. Next, (2) the design
team is established (inauguration) and the task is
analyzed. Then, (3) goal setting, task diagnosis
and design can begin. After these often iterative
steps, the design is finished, and (4) transfer,
piloting and (5) implementation can start. Once

the process is implemented it can be (6) adopted
by the organization to eventually become a sustained work practice. (Kolfschoten, 2007, p. 22).
Based on the above phased model, Kolfschoten
(2007, p. 31) defines the quality of the collaboration process design generally as the degree to
which the CE design supports a practitioner to
support the group in achieving its goal. It can
be measured on five quality dimensions: efficaciousness, acceptance, reusability, predictability
and transferability (ibid, p. 43).
In the following discussion knowledge strategy is understood as a knowledge management
strategy. Next, the success of a potential knowledge strategy, collaboration centered strategy, is
discussed.
a fraMeworK for
adVancing tHe SucceSS
of tHe collaboration
centered KM StrategY
the framework
As discussed in the previous section the collaboration centered KM strategy is a process-oriented
strategy where the process proceeds from the
inaugural phase to the decision and evaluation
phases. Each of the phases can be performed
better or worse and the quality of those phases is
influenced by a number of input factors. The input
factors may be classified into four categories: task,
technology, group, and facilitator.
It is clear that the task in question has significant
effects on the collaboration process and the quality of its phases. Available data and information,
problem complexity, level of conflict and urgency
are just examples of the task related factors. Moreover, the available technology can place limits or
also give opportunities to the process flow. For
example, web-based collaborative technologies
(including both GSS and videoconferencing see-
you see-me capabilities) enable more fluently

geographically distributed meetings than local
meeting-room based technologies. Sometimes
there is no ICT technology (wanted) to be used.
In order to collaborate, a group of people is
needed. The members of the group have different
backgrounds, experiences, education, knowledge,
etc. that have influence on the collaboration process. Simply, the favorable or unfavorable attitudes
toward the cooperation with some members may
switch the whole collaboration process either to
success or disaster.
The collaboration process can employ a facilitator or not. Particularly, if the technology
plays a significant role in the process, supporting
facilitation may be needed. In the CE approach
the need for external, or professional facilitation, is minimized and the process execution
can transferred to the substanceoriented group
members. Generally, the education, previous
experience, personal characteristics, available
support materials, etc. shape the facilitators work,
and as a consequence, influences the quality of
the collaboration process.
As discussed earlier, the collaboration process
is not worth planning or evaluating in isolation.
There must be a goal toward which the process
aims. Primarily the goal and its sub-goals should
bet set up before the actual process is initiated,
but, of course, some goals can be adjusted during
the process. Anyway, the realization level of the
goals depends on the quality of the collaboration
process. It might be that the early phases of the
process determine the achievement of some subgoals, but the realization level of the other goals
is depending on the quality of the last phases.
Goals can be given to the task, technology, group
or facilitator related features. Naturally, there may
be hierarchical relations between the goals, some
of the goals can be more important than others,
some of the goals are expressed explicitly whereas
others are more or less implicit, etc.
In Figure 2 the structure of our framework
with illustrative examples is described.
223
Figure 2. A framework for advancing the collaboration centered KM strategy
The framework is centered around the concept

of the collaboration process. In the figure the
process flow of a typical GSS-aided collaboration
process is illustrated (based on Turban et al. 2007).
The arrows depict alternative routes that may be
planned and taken. Often, after prioritizing the
key ideas, additional idea generation follows to
elaborate on the key ideas. Sometimes the process
may include only idea generation, although eventually the ideation results would be processed
further, but maybe by another group of people.
It should be noted that part of the input factors
are controllable while some are beyond control. We
may have influence on the task content or group
composition, but the technology, for example, can
be given for a certain collaboration situation and
time-frame, although at the strategic decisionmaking level even it can be altered.
The CE approach is worth considering especially in recurring high-value processes. CE relies
on design guidelines including reusable building
blocks called thinkLets, which are divided into six
collaboration pattern classes of generate, reduce,
224
clarify, organize, evaluate and build consensus

(Kolfschoten et al., 2006). The thinkLets (over 70
so far) have been codified by highly professional
facilitators to transfer their expertise and skills
on facilitating group processes to practitioners.
Referring to the tacit knowledge types of Smith
et al. (2006) discussed in the introduction, the CE
approach encompasses in a way all four types:
the transfer of expertise (in form of thinkLets), of
best practices (in form of collaboration processes
composed of thinkLets), of experiences (in form
of codified insights) and of innovation (creation
of new knowledge through collaboration processes). Detailed descriptions of CE field studies
can be found e.g. from den Hengst et al. (2004),
de Vreede et al. (2005) and Bragge et al. (2005a,
2005b, 2007, 2009). In addition, de Vreede et al.
(2009) give a brief review of several other CE
field studies in the areas of collaborative mission
analysis, crisis response training and operational
execution, project knowledge elicitation, usability
testing, and software requirements negotiation.
Depending on the approach chosen in each

collaborative situation, the roles of the facilitator
can vary. In most straightforward cases, there is
no need for a facilitator, e.g. with meetings of
established small project teams. But when the
benefits of facilitation exceed its costs, there exists
several options: using professional (external or
internal) facilitators, or practitioners (internal or
external) as facilitators. The roles of the facilitator
are partially dependent on this choice. Traditionally, both the design and execution tasks belong
to professional facilitators, while in the CE approach the execution tasks are transferred to the
practitioner. Building on an extensive review of the
GSS facilitation literature, Kolfschoten (2007, p.
193) enumerates over 70 sub-tasks to be regarded
in the design phase, and over 80 sub-tasks for the
execution phase (some tasks are to be regarded
in both phases). These include, for example,
recognizing stages of a group process, enabling
participants to contribute freely, and managing
group creativity, anxiety and conflict.
Additionally, there are numerous resources
outside the GSS domain that offer insights for
facilitator roles. For example, Schwarz (2002)
builds his skilled facilitator approach on nine
ground rules that should be endorsed for effective
facilitation, e.g. sharing all relevant information,
and focusing on interests, not positions. Regarding
complex multi-organizational contexts, facilitators have been found to take on extended roles,
e.g. arbitrator, referee, or moderator (Ackermann
et al. 2005; Bragge et a., 2007). In those contexts,
it is very important for the facilitators to ensure
that the intervention provides the means for developing a common basis for shared understanding.
In our framework the process and outcome perspectives are integrated. Obviously, the framework
is context dependent and necessarily general. In
each collaboration situation we need to determine
its ultimate goal, and assess the process flow, the
input factors in each category as well as the subgoals and objectives given to each outcome type.
Because it is hard to nominate and measure the
final outcomes of the collaboration process we

need to use among others satisfaction measures,
as is common when evaluating the success of IS,
KMS and GSS.
Success of the collaboration

centered Knowledge Strategy
The framework discussed above implicitly includes a causal chain from input variables to
the final success of the strategy. In Figure 3 the
underlying sequence is explicated.
Figure 3 is the explication of the framework
but at the same time it is a research model. The
first main point of the model is that collaboration
is seen as a process and that the quality of the
process depends on the values of the controllable
and uncontrollable input variables. The relationships between input variables and the quality of
each collaboration phase are nominated as quality functions. On the other hand, the input variables
are classified into task, technology, group and
facilitator variables. Instead of the term variable
we could use construct to depict the multidimensional nature of the input factors. The model
also purports that in the beginning of the collaboration effort one or more goals are given,
explicitly or implicitly, to the process. Then according to this model, the success of the collaboration centered KM strategy is assessed through
the level of the realized goals. The level of realization is believed to depend on the quality of the
collaboration process, and the relationships are
named realization functions. Thus, the success
is multidimensional and the final success depends
on the relative importance of each dimension.
The proposed framework and the respective
model can be used to evaluate any collaborative
efforts or to design those efforts in advance, i.e. to
predict the outcomes of a particular collaboration
effort. The managerial implications of the model
may be evaluated in a form of a question: In what
circumstances will the collaboration centered
knowledge strategy succeed? The answer is in the
225
Figure 3. Control span of the collaboration centered knowledge strategy (* includes both controllable
and uncontrollable variables)
form: Assign to the controllable variables such

values that the final success is maximized. Naturally, in order to detail the answer in a particular
situation we need to specify the quality, realization,
and success functions. We need to clarify how
the quality of different collaboration phases are
depending on the different input variables, how
the goal realizations are depending on the quality
of the phases, what goals are important, and the
how the goal realizations are profiling the final
success of the collaboration centered KM strategy.
Next, some initial measures to implement and
evaluate the framework are discussed.
PreliMinarY eValuation
of tHe fraMeworK
general evaluation
In this section we evaluate the merits and applicability of the framework based on our years
experience on collaboration centered KM, which
has also influenced the frameworks formation.
The framework and its integrated model may
be utilized either implicitly by using subjective
evaluations of the relations and implications of
the different constructs, or it can be utilized to its
full capacity. The latter necessitates gathering data
systematically from various kinds of collaboration
processes, and storing it into a database in order
to be able to detect the underlying relationships
226
between the constructs. This approach would enable the creation of one type of best practices for
the success of collaboration centered KM. Note
that the framework is not purported for simple
2-3 person collaborative situations but for more
complex cases that may include tens or even
hundreds of collaborators.
Although the framework requires historical
data or subjective evaluations regarding the future, the strengths of the framework are manifold.
Among others,
it can be employed both to evaluate the

past and to predict the future,
it covers logically the whole chain from
different input factors to the overall success of a knowledge strategy, and
it can be used both in theoretical research
as well as in practical management.
When planning for collaboration, a varying

mixture of questions needs to be considered, and
consequently, taken into account when applying
the framework. Among others:
Goals:
What is the general goal and subgoals for the collaboration? Is there
a need to define more specific objectives regarding the goals?
What is the level of conflict between
the individual and group goals?
Task:
Group:
What is the type of the task?

(Generation, choice, negotiation, execution. McGrath, 1984).
Does the task recur regularly or is it
one-off?
Is the task of high-value for the
organization?
What is the composition of the group

of people (= collaborators) needed to
attain the goal? Are they all employees of the organization, or are partners, competitors, customers or endusers involved?
What is the size of the group? (small:

2-5, medium 6-9, large: 10 or more)
Are the collaborators geographically

distributed? Are they in different time
zones?
Are there notable cultural differences

between the collaborators?
Have the group members met before? (No, a few times, an established
group).
What is the initial understanding of

technology or the technology readiness (Parasuraman 2000) of the
collaborators?
Collaboration process
What is the level of collaboration

needed? (Collected work, coordinated
work or concerted work. Nunamaker
et al. 2001).
How much time there is to plan the

process?
What is the ideal mode of the collaboration (same-time same-place,

same-time different-place, different-time different-place)
Technology:
What type of information systems

support each collaboration level?
(word processors, spreadsheets,
workflow systems, GSS etc. Chen et

al., 2006)
What is the capability level of the

GSS tools needed? (Level 1 tools
for exchange of information; Level 2
tools to aid in decision-making, e.g.
in organizing, modeling, changing,
and ranking information. DeSanctis
and Gallupe, 1987)
Which collaboration capabilities are

needed and what technologies afford them? (Jointly authored pages,
streaming technologies, information
access tools, or aggregated systems.
Mittleman et al. 2008).
What collaborative information systems (CIS) to employ, if any? (E-mail,

teleconferencing, videoconferencing,
dataconferencing, web-based collaborative tools, proprietary groupware
tools, GSS. Bajwa et al. 2003). What
kind of CIS the organization already
has in use? (Decision-room, webbased GSS, videoconferencing systems etc.)
Facilitation:
Is there a need for process (or content) facilitation? (Hire, inhouse, CE

practitioner).
Does the problem owner have the

necessary individual characteristics
and skills needed to be a potential
facilitator?
Thus, these are the type of issues that should
be considered when managing collaboration
processes.
case example
In this section we demonstrate the application
of the framework by way of an example, based
on Bragge et al. (2007). In that study, an action
research intervention was conducted with a consor-
227
tium of 13 Finnish universities that manages and

develops a common student information system.
The chairman of the consortiums working committee decided to resort on facilitation support
as it appeared that the consortiums old strategy
needed major revising. The amount of member
universities had grown from 5 to 13 in a short
period of time, and that had complicated largely
the consortiums decision-making processes based
on unanimity. Moreover, the European-wide Bologna process regarding university degree reform
required major actions for the near future. Thus,
the chairman asked the first author of this chapter
to design a collaboration process for the consortiums strategy renewal workshop to be held a
few months later in the premises of the chairing
university. The strategy development itself is a
difficult task, here complicated further by the
multi-organizational group composition, thus the
facilitator invited another researcher experienced
with strategic planning to join the intervention,
as well as to other researchers to assist her in the
facilitation (hereafter called the facilitator team).
At the outset, the facilitator team felt necessary
to lean on electronic support technology to ensure
efficient and effective collaboration during the
six hours that was given for the workshop. GSS
have been found to offer unique assistance in
strategic planning, which represents a complicated
and dynamic group process (Dennis et al. 1997).
Moreover, the same time same-place mode of
electronic collaboration has been found to be
better fitting than virtual meetings for strategic
decision-making tasks. Thus, we planned to utilize
the chairing universitys decision-room facilities:
a computer class with 25 networked computers
equipped with GSS clients (GroupSystems
MeetingRoom).
The main facilitator had at the time of the
workshop only limited experience on facilitating
GSS sessions, aside her normal university faculty
duties. Thus, when designing the collaboration
process she leaned on the valuable advice from
the CE thinkLets manuscript (Briggs and de
228
Vreede, 2001), after having heard the specific

sub-goals for the strategy workshop: (1) internal
environment analysis regarding the needs of the
universities with respect to the common IS, (2)
mission statement generation, (3) vision generation, as well as (4) generating strategic goals and
the means how to achieve them. The CE facilitation process model including all these phases is
provided in the appendix.
In this case, instead of transferring the process
execution to a practitioner, the CE approach was
exploited by a novice facilitator to improve her
facilitation skills regarding both in engineering
the process design, and when executing it. The
CE approach was inevitably able to provide invaluable aid for these tasks. The implementation
of the process proved that the selected thinkLets
provided the patterns of collaboration as predicted.
Moreover, the process recipe may now be easily
repeated by other facilitators or even practitioners.
The group members (16) from the consortiums
13 universities were very content with the collaboration process and the results according to
the anonymous session feedback survey, and two
post-session interviews with the chairman of the
working committee. Based on 16 answers on a
Likert scale 1-7, the objectives of the session were
regarded well achieved (mean 5.50, SD 0.73), the
results were very useful (mean 5.69, SD 0.70), and
the e-collaboration process helped the participants
to focus the discussion on essential matters (mean
5.63, SD 0.89). All of them recommended the use
of GroupSystems to others. The GSS benefits that
were highlighted were the anonymity, equality,
interactivity, efficiency, effectiveness, online
voting and documentation. The participants liked
the systematic, controlled way of collaborating,
and regarded GSS as an ideal tool for a large and
heterogeneous group. The ideas collected were
considered useful for the development of the
consortium strategy as well as for the common
information system. The quantity and the quality
of the results gained were regarded as superior to
those obtained using their conventional strategy
development method. Also, huge amounts of time

(even months) were saved. Finally, the facilitator
teams situational sensitivity, flexibility as well
as expertise on GSS and the substance were appreciated. (Bragge et al. 2007)
Besides the CE approach, also the multiorganizational collaborative team (MCT)
framework of Ackermann et al. (2005) offered
the facilitator team a lot of insights for handling
the teamwork dynamics during the session. For
example, the main facilitator was once asked to
take the role of a legitimate and knowledgeable
arbitrator, that is, to give an opinion during the
discussions. Moreover, GSS was found to be an
excellent instrument for mitigating many of the
impediments for MCT co-operation summed up
by Ackermann et al. (2005). For example, the
novelty of the GSS-aided way of collaborating
alleviated the lack of a common history for the
group, and guided the participants to look at the
strategy neutrally and focusing on the future, not
on the past. The anonymity feature of GSS was
also extremely valuable. It mitigated the rise of
conflicts, complex politics, and power relations,
although there were many diverging opinions
among the participants and their organizations.
Also, the long-term effects related to the strategy
making challenges of this kind of a procedurally
just and fair process should be positive (Eden
and Ackermann 2001).
Regarding improvements suggested for the
process, one participant pointed out that the utilization of electronic communication does not eliminate the need for deep face-to-face discussions
and deliberation of the ideas. Thus, the process
should be continued with conventional meetings,
as was also agreed in the workshop conclusion.
Secondly, in all voting-based methods there is a
risk that an average option wins, and the wildest
options may be automatically discarded, although
they may sometimes turn out to be real jewels.
However, the facilitator attempted to mitigate
this problem through discussions by sorting the
results again by the standard deviation showing the
sources for largest disagreements (the Crowbar

thinkLet). Third, there were divergent opinions of
the workshop schedule. Some thought it was too
tight while some regarded it as too slow.
Our case represents knowledge sharing and
creation both at the individual and organizational
levels, but also at the inter-organizational level.
Besides the electronic idea generation and prioritization, also the opportunity to verbally discuss
matters that came up during the collaboration
process was regarded very important. The key issues that were discussed were the lack of common
terminology in the consortium and the need for
common business processes. The workshop also
proved to be extremely useful for the newcomers
in the consortium in the sense that it allowed them
to efficiently gain new knowledge regarding the
consortium and its other member universities.
concluSion
Knowledge is the capability to make decisions
and the primary resource for all organizational
transformations. Knowledge exists at various
levels, not only at the personal level but also at
group and organizational levels. Although the
means to share information, communicate and
express ourselves have been broadened considerably during the last decades, a lot of relevant
knowledge in organizations remains unmined,
unshared, and underutilized.
Knowledge strategy is a type of resource-based
strategy and it is a scheme to do epistemic work in
organizational context, that is, to create, convert,
share, storage, secure, use, and evaluate knowledge
resources in organizational context. In this chapter,
we have proposed a framework to advance the
success of collaboration centered knowledge management strategy. We have elaborated on previous
research on knowledge management, the closely
related success models, and on the theories of the
collaboration processes. Our framework helps in
understanding the variations of the collaboration
229
processes, quality ingredients of the phases during

the process, and subsequent impacts of the process
quality on the goal achievements, and further, on
the final success.
Since the collaboration centered KM strategy
is a process-oriented strategy, the proposed framework needs to be process-oriented, too. In addition
to the process, the framework focuses on the four
categories of controllable (manageable) and uncontrollable inputs and the respective outcomes.
The dynamic process perspective with controllable inputs makes it possible to advance, that is,
to manage the collaboration strategy towards the
intended goals and final success.
From the research point of view the next step is
to develop and validate a measurement instrument,
collect data and search for the underlying relationships between constructs. This way it is possible
to make the most out of the framework and the
collaboration centered knowledge management
strategy at scientific as well as practical levels.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can

it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?
Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656665.
doi:10.2307/258317
referenceS
Bragge, J., Merisalo-Rantanen, H., & Hallikainen,

P. (2005b). Gathering Innovative End-User
Feedback for Continuous Development of Information Systems: A Repeatable and Transferable
E-Collaboration Process. IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, 48(1), 5567.
doi:10.1109/TPC.2004.843298
Ackermann, F., Franco, L. A., Gallupe, R. B., &

Parent, M. (2005). GSS for Multi-Organizational
Collaboration: Reflections on Process and Content. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(4),
307331. doi:10.1007/s10726-005-0317-4
Anson, R., Bostrom, R. P., & Wynne, B. (1995).
An Experiment Assessing GSS and Facilitator
Effects on Meeting Outcomes. Management Science, 41(2), 189208. doi:10.1287/mnsc.41.2.189
Bajwa, D. S., Lewis, L. F., & Pervan, G. (2003).
Adoption of Collaboration Information Technologies in Australian and US Organizations:
A Comparative Study, Proceedings of the 40th
Sciences. Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://
www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings/
hicss/2003/1874/01/187410017c
230
Bierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic

Knowledge Strategies in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry. Strategic Management Journal,
17(Winter Special Issue), 123-135.
Bragge, J., den Hengst, M., Tuunanen, T., &
Virtanen, V. (2005a). A Repeatable Collaboration Process for Developing a Road Map for
Mobile Marketing. In Proceedings of the the 11th
Americas Conference on Information Systems.
Retrieved May 4, 2009 from http://aisel.aisnet.
org/amcis2005/198
Bragge, J., & Merisalo-Rantanen, H. (2009).
Engineering E-Collaboration Processes to Obtain
Innovative End-User Feedback on Advanced
Web-Based Information Systems. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 10(3),
196220.
Bragge, J., Merisalo-Rantanen, H., Nurmi, A., &

Tanner, L. (2007). A Repeatable E-Collaboration
Process Based on ThinkLets for Multi-Organization Strategy Development. Group Decision
and Negotiation, 16(2), 363379. doi:10.1007/
s10726-006-9055-5
Briggs, R. O., & de Vreede, G. J. (2001). ThinkLets: Building Blocks for Concerted Collaboration, (Version 1.0), Tucson: GroupSystems.com.
Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, G. J., & Nunamaker, J. F.

(2003). Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets
to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Support
Systems. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 19(4), 3164.
Carlile, P., & Rebentisch, E. S. (2003). Into the
Black Box: The Knowledge Transformation
Cycle. Management Science, 49(9), 11801195.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.9.1180.16564
Chen, F., Romano, N., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006).
A Collaborative Project Manamgent Approach and
a Framework for Its Supporting Systems. Journal
of International Technology and Information
Choo, C. W. (1998). The knowing organization.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Clawson, V. K., Bostrom, R. P., & Anson, R.
(1993). The Role of the Facilitator in ComputerSupported Meetings. Small Group Research,
24(4), 547565. doi:10.1177/1046496493244007
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging
Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between
Organizational Knowledge and Organizational
Knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381400.
doi:10.1287/orsc.10.4.381
Review, 41(3), 4154.
de Vreede, G.-J., Briggs, R. O., & Massey, A. P.
(2009). Collaboration Engineering: Foundations
and Opportunities: Editorial to the Special Issue
on the Journal of the Association of Information
Systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(3), 121137.
de Vreede, G.-J., Fruehling, A., & Chakrapani,

A. (2005). A Repeatable Collaboration Process
for Usability Testing. In Proceedings of the 38th
Sciences, Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://
hicss/2005 /2268/01/22680046.pdf
DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (1992). Information
Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent
Variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1),
6095. doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60
DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2003). The Delone
and Mclean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management
den Hengst, M., & Adkins, M. (2007). Which
collaboration patterns are most challenging: A
global survey of facilitators. In Proceedings of
the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences. Retrieved May 4, 2009 from
csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2007
/2755/00/27550017b.pdf
den Hengst, M., Dean, D., Kolfchoten, G., &
Chakrapani, A. (2006). Assessing the Quality of
Collaborative Processes. In Proceedings of the
www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/ proceedings/
hicss/2006/2507/01/250710016b.pdf
den Hengst, M., van de Kar, E., & Appelman, J.
(2004). Designing mobile information services:
user requirements elicitation with GSS design and
application of a repeatable process. In Proceedings
of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Retrieved April 17, 2009
from http://www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/
proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/01/205610018c.pdf
231
Dennis, A., & Wixom, B. (2001). Investigating the

moderators of the group support system use with
meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 235257.
Huber, G. P. (1984). Issues in the Design of

Group Decision Support Sytems. Management
Information Systems Quarterly, 8(3), 195204.
doi:10.2307/248666
Dennis, A. R., Tyran, C. K., Vogel, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1997). Group Support Systems for
Strategic Planning. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(1), 155184.

DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support
Systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589609.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.33.5.589
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001). Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 119140.
doi:10.1023/A:1008710816126
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental
Research: Methodology and Results. Journal of
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2000). Group
Support Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of
Case and Field Studies. Journal of Management
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995).
Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance.
19(2), 213236. doi:10.2307/249689
Hansen, M. T., & Nohria, N. (2004). How to Build
Collaborative Advantage? MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 2230.
Jennex, M. E., Smolnik, S., & Croasdell, D. (2007).

Towards Defining Knowledge Management Success. In Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved
April 6, 2009 from http://www2.computer.org/
plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings/hicss/2007/2755/00
/27550193c.pdf
Jennex, M. E., Smolnik, S., & Croasdell, D.
(2008), Towards Measuring Knowledge Management Success, In Proceedings of the 41st
Sciences. Retrieved April 6, 2009 from http://
hicss/2008/3075/00 /30750360.pdf
Khalifa, M., Yu,A. Y., & Shen, K. N. (2008). Knowledge management systems success: a contingency
perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management,
12(1), 119132. doi:10.1108/13673270810852430
Kivijrvi, H. (2008). Aligning Knowledge and
Business Strategies within an Artificial Ba. In
Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (Ed.), Knowledge Management
and Business Strategies: Theoretical Frameworks
and Empirical Research. Hersey, PA: Information
Science Reference.

Whats your strategy for managing knowledge?
Kline, T. J. B., & McGrath, J.-L. (1998). Development and validation of five criteria for evaluating
team performance. Organization Development
Journal, 16(3), 1927.
Holsapple, C. W., & Whinston, A. B. (1996).

Decision Support Systems A Knowledge-Based
Approach. Minneapolis, St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
Kline, T. J. B., & McGrath, J.-L. (1999). A Review

of the Groupware Literature: Theories, Methodologies, and a Research Agenda. Canadian Psychology, 40(3), 265271. doi:10.1037/h0086842
232
Kolfschoten, G. L. (2007). Theoretical Foundations for Collaboration Engineering, Dissertation,

Delft University of Technology, 269.
Kolfschoten, G. L., Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, G.
J., Jacobs, P. H. M., & Appelman, J. (2006). A
Conceptual Foundation of the ThinkLet Concept
for Collaboration Engineering. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(7), 611621.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.002
KPMG. (2002/2003). Insights from KPMGs European Knowledge management Survey 2002/2003.
KPMG Knowledge Advisory Services, The
Netherlanders.
Kulkarni, U., Ravindran, S., & Freeze, R.
(2006). A Knowledge Management Success
Model: Theoretical Development and Empirical
Validation. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 23(3), 309347. doi:10.2753/MIS07421222230311
Lai, J.-Y., Wang, C.-T., & Chou, C.-Y. (2008).
How Knowledge Map and Personalization Affect
Effectiveness of KMS in High-Tech Firms. In Proceeding of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved April 6, 2009
from http://www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf /
proceedings/hicss/2008/3075/00/30750355.pdf
Liebman, J. S. (1998). Teaching Operations Research: Lessons from Cognitive Psychology. Interfaces, 28(2), 104110. doi:10.1287/inte.28.2.104
Lin, H.-F. (2007). A stage model of knowledge
management: an empirical investigation of process
and effectiveness. Journal of Information Science,
33(6), 643659. doi:10.1177/0165551506076395
Lin, T., & Huang, C. (2008). Understanding
knowledge management system usage antecedents: An integration of social cognitive theory and
task technology fit. Information & Management,
45(6), 410417. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.06.004

Management Effectiveness: A Task-Contingent
Organizational Capabilities Perspective, Eighth
Americas Conference on Information Systems,
2085-2090.
Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M. (1958).
A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group
performance and individual performance, 19201957. Psychological Bulletin, 55(6), 337372.
doi:10.1037/h0042344
Mki, E. (2008). Exploring and Exploiting
Knowledge. Research on Knowledge Processes
in Knowledge-Intensive Organizations, (Doctoral
Dissertation). Helsinki University of Technology.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and
performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns of Strategy Formulation. Management Science, 24(9), 934948.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.24.9.934
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257272. doi:10.1002/
smj.4250060306
Mittleman, D. D., Briggs, R. O., Murphy, J.,
& Davis, A. (2008). Toward a Taxonomy of
Groupware Technologies, Presented at 14th Collaboration Researchers International Workshop
on Groupware, Retrieved April 17, 2009 from
http://ihop.typepad.com/docs/ criwg2008.pdf and
Appendix from http://ihop.typepad.com/docs/
webfacilitationtools.xls.
Muhammed, S., Doll, W. J., & Deng, X. (2008).
Exploring the Relationships among Individual
Knowledge Management Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Computer Society Press.
233
Murthy, U. S., & Kerr, D. S. (2000). Task/Technology Fit and the Effectiveness of Group Support
Systems: Evidence in the Context of Tasks Requiring Domain Specific Knowledge. In Proceedings
of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Computer Society Press.
Myers, P. (Ed.). (1996). Knowledge management
and organizational design. Boston: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Niederman, F., Beise, C. M., & Beranek, P. M.
(1996). Issues and Concerns about ComputerSupported Meetings: the Facilitators Perpsective.
20(1), 122. doi:10.2307/249540
Nissen, M., & Jennex, M. (2007). Toward Multidimensional Conceptualization of Knowledge. In
Jennex, M. E. (Ed.), Knowledge management in
Modern Organizations (pp. 278284). Hershey,
PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Briggs, R. O., & Romano,
N., Jr. (2001). A Framework for Collaboration and
Knowledge Management. In Proceeding of the
www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings
/hicss/2001/0981/01/09811060.pdf
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J.
S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work.
Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 4061.
doi:10.1145/105783.105793
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness
Index (TRI). Journal of Service Research, 2(4),
307320. doi:10.1177/109467050024001
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth
of the firm. New York: Wiley and Sons.
234
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L. (1989). The

Impact of Technological Support on Groups:
An Assessment of the Empirical Research.
Decision Support Systems, 5(2), 197216.
doi:10.1016/0167-9236(89)90007-9
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of the Chicago Press.
Savage, C. M. (1996). Fifth generation management: co-creating through virtual enterprising,
dynamic teaming and knowledge networking.
Scharmer, C. O. (2001). Self-transcending Knowledge: Organizing Around Emerging Realities.
In Nonaka, I., & Teece, D. J. (Eds.), Managing
Industrial Knowledge (pp. 6890). London: Sage
Publications.
Schwarz, R. (2002). The Skilled Facilitator. A
Comprehesive Resource for Consultants, Facilitators, Managers, Trainers and Coaches. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seddon, P. A. (1997). Respecification and Extension of the Delone and Mclean Model of Is
Success. Information Systems Research, 8(3),
240153. doi:10.1287/isre.8.3.240
Smith, H. A., McKeen, J. D., & Singh, S. (2007).
Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Making It Happen.
Journal of Information Science & Technology,
3(3), 5072.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Stenmark, D. (2001). Leveraging Tacit Organizational Knowledge. Journal of Management
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The New Organizational
Wealth Managing and Measuring Knowledgebased Assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Kehler
Publishers, Inc.
Tapscott, D. (2006). Winning with the Enterprise 2.0, IT and Collaborative Advantage, New
Paradigm, Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://
newparadigm.com/media/Winning_with_the_
Enterprise_2.0.pdf
Thomas, B. D. (2006). An Empirical Investigation
of Factors Promoting Knowledge Management
System Success. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech
University, Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://
etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-07072006105657/unrestricted/ Thomas_Bobby_Diss.pdf
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is
Organizational Knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973993. doi:10.1111/14676486.00268
Turban, E., Aronson, J. E., Liang, T.-P., & Sharda,
R. (2007). Decision Support and Business Intelligence Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of
business enterprises. Management Science, 35(8),
942962. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.942
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View
of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2),
171180. doi:10.1002/smj.4250050207
Wu, J., & Wang, Y. (2006). Measuring KMS
Success: A respecification of the DeLone and
McLeans model. Information & Management,
43(7), 728739. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.002
Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a Knowledge
Strategy. California Management Review, 41(3),
125145.
Zigurs, I., & Buckland, B. K. (1998). A Theory of
Task/Technology Fit and Groups Support Systems
Effectiveness. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 22(3), 313334. doi:10.2307/249668
Zigurs, I., Buckland, B.K., Connolly, J.R., &

Wilson, E.V. (1999). A Test of Task-Technology
Fit Theory of Group Support Systems. The Data
Base for Advances in Information Systems,
30(3,4), 34-50.

Collaboration Engineer: Collaboration
Engineer designs and documents collaboration
processes that can be readily transferred to a
practitioner. (Kolfschoten et al. 2006)
Collaboration Engineering (CE): Collaboration Engineering is an approach that designs, models and deploys repeatable collaboration processes
for recurring collaborative tasks that are executed
by practitioners using facilitation techniques and
technology. (Kolfschoten et al. 2006)
Collaboration Process: Collaboration process
is built as a sequence of facilitation interventions
that create patterns of collaboration; predictable
group behavior with respect to a goal. (Kolfschoten
et al. 2006)
Facilitator: Facilitator both designs and conducts a dynamic process that involves managing
relationships, tasks and technology, as well as
structuring tasks and contributing to the effective accomplishment of the meetings outcome.
(Kolfschoten et al. 2006)
Group Support Systems (GSS): Group Support Systems is a suite of collaborative software
tools that can be used to focus and structure a
teams deliberation while reducing cognitive
costs of communication and information access
and minimizing distraction among teams working
collaboratively toward a goal. (Briggs et al. 2003)
Knowledge Sharing: Knowledge sharing is a
process through which knowledge is exchanged
among individuals, inside or between groups or
organizations.
Knowledge: Individual or organizational ability to make decisions.
235
Tacit Knowledge: Tacit knowledge is the

hidden capability of a person and is difficult to
articulate or to transform to another person.
236
ThinkLet: ThinkLet is a named, packaged

facilitation technique that creates a predictable,
repeatable pattern of collaboration among people
working toward a goal. (Kolfschoten et al. 2006)
aPPendix:
Figure 4. CE Facilitation Process Model for a multi-organizational strategy development process (modified from Bragge et al. 2007)
237
238
Chapter 13
The Relevance of
Integration for Knowledge
Management Success:
Towards Conceptual and
Empirical Evidence
Alexander Orth
Accenture, Germany
Stefan Smolnik
Murray E. Jennex
abStract
Many organizations pursue knowledge management (KM) initiatives with different degrees of success.
One key aspect of KM often neglected in practice is following an integrated and holistic approach.
Complementary, KM researchers have increasingly focused on factors that determine KM success and
examined whether the metrics used to measure KM initiatives are reasonable. In this article, the importance of integration issues for successful KM is analyzed by means of a case study of a KM initiative at
an international consulting company. The investigations demonstrate the importance of an integrated
KM approach an integrated view of KM strategy, KM processes, KM technology, and company culture to ensure KM success.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch013
The Relevance of Integration for Knowledge Management Success
introduction and oVerView

Subject and Purpose of the chapter
Knowledge management (KM) has progressed
from an emergent concept to an increasingly common function in business organizations over the
past 20 years. Intense competition, fickle consumers, shorter product life cycles, and globalization
are some of the driving forces that have led to
increased inspection of the usage, application,
and leveraging of knowledge in organizations.
Successful KM is expected to have a positive
influence on a companys performance and effectiveness. It consists of critical enablers, such
as employee training, teamwork, and performance
measurement. This leads to the first observation:
KM is crucial for a company to succeed. Successful
KM depends on the achievement of critical success factors that based on supporting conditions.
Although KM systems (KMS) are shown to
provide benefits to organizations, they have a
high chance of failure due to both technical and
IT-related factors, as well as KM-related cultural,
behavioral, and strategic factors similar to many
other types of information systems (IS).
Problems experienced in KM initiatives are
assumed to be the result of one or more of the
following three factors:
1.
2.
A focus on the technological dimension

of KM (i.e. KMS), together with a lack
of attention to the social dimension (e.g.,
organizational culture).
The absence of a clearly defined purpose
and value for the business. In this context,
a key requirement for realizing the business
value of KM is the institutionalization of KM
practices and systems into peoples natural
work flow.
3.
KM frameworks, concepts and systems

lacking adoption to the specific requirements of corporate contexts. Given its focus
on people and their interactions, KM is
intrinsically highly context specific. Each
organizational setting poses its own challenges for successful KM.
These aspects lead to the second observation:
An integrated and holistic KM initiative, as well

as the complete embedding of KM in organizations
will be essential for KM success.
Based on both observations, the overall goal of
this article is to analyze and investigate coherences,
connections, and interdependencies between KM
success and an integrated and holistic view of the
subject area. The corresponding research question
can be formulated as follows: To what extent do
KM success factors that are accepted in literature
support an integrative perspective and does such
a perspective account for KM success?
research approach and Structure

Qualitative case study research was employed for
this study. Section 2 introduces Riempps architecture for integrated KMS and its performance
measurement system. Section 3 is an overview
of KM and KMS success. It also discusses the
success assessment framework of Jennex and
Olfman. Section 4 compares the key performance
indicators of Riempps architecture for integrated
KMS and the critical success factors of Jennex and
Olfmans success assessment framework, using
the case study findings. Section 5 concludes the
article by outlining the findings, limitations, and
further research areas.
239
foundationS on integrated
KMS arcHitectureS
to integrate the knowledge within a system in

order to use it efficiently across the organization.
background of KMS approaches
riempps architecture
for integrated KMS
Alavi/Leidner define KM as a systemic and

organizationally specified process for acquiring,
organizing, and communicating knowledge of
employees so that other employees may make use
of it to be more effective and productive in their
work. KM systems are clarified as IT-based
systems developed to support and enhance the
organizational processes of knowledge creation,
storage/retrieval, transfer and application.
Alternatively, Jennex took a holistic view of a
KMS as a system created by combining content,
organizational processes, users and technical solutions to facilitate the capture, storage, retrieval,
transfer, and reuse of knowledge to improve organizational and individual decision-making. This
holistic view, which integrates people, process,
and technology, is a Churchman view of KM that
allows the KMS to take the form required to accomplish KM goals.
Two kinds of KMS implementations are used to
address the comparison between KM approaches:
an approach based on infrastructure or generic
systems (KM in the large) and an approach based
on processes or tasks (KM in the small). The latter
perspective mainly focuses on employeesusage of
knowledge in a task, process, or project that already
possesses a common context of understanding in
order to improve the effectiveness of that task,
process or project. On the other hand, the former
perspective assumes that users do not have a common context of understanding. It concentrates on
the construction of a KMS which supports KM
processes throughout the organization and which
captures more knowledge contexts. The integrated
KMS is designed to fit both aspects. The approach
based on processes or tasks supports specific
tasks and processes, whereas the infrastructure
or generic-system-orientated perspective helps
240
Riempps architecture for integrated KMS was

developed by combining desk research, multiple
case studies, and action research. The field research
involved a KM initiative at PricewaterhouseCoopers, as well as studies and workshops with ten
organizations in the context of the Customer
Knowledge Management competence centre at
the University of St. Gallen.
Riempps architecture for integrated KMS
consists vertically of three layers (strategy, process, and system) and horizontally of four pillars
(content, competence, collaboration, and orientation). All these elements are influenced by the
organizational culture (Figure 1).
The strategy layer is composed of the business
strategy, the KM strategy and KM goals, as well
as the measurement system. In the latter, metrics
are defined to monitor the progress of the KM
initiatives. The measurement system of the integrated KMS architecture will be discussed in more
detail in the next section.
The process layer consists of business and
support processes. KM processes constitute support processes and are subject to the KM strategy.
Employees with specific KM roles execute the
KM processes by accomplishing specific KM
activities.
The system layer describes the integrated KMS,
which is ideally accessed through a portal. The
KMS supports the KM processes and is composed
of the following four functional pillars:
1.
2.
Content relates to the management of information objects, its context, and the management of content itself.
Collaboration refers to the identification,
exchange, development, and usage of
knowledge.
Figure 1. Overview of Riempps integrated KMS architecture
3.
4.
Competence addresses all aspects of individual and collective competencies in an

organization.
Orientation is composed of all search, navigation, and administration functions required
in the areas of content, competence, and
collaboration.
The architecture for integrated KMS distinguishes between different dimensions of integration. The elements of the architecture described
above should be integrated along the four key
dimensions:
1.
2.
Integration with the culture is the central

dimension of integration. It is aligned to
norms, values, and paradigms that need to
be reflected when configuring an integrated
KMS.
Vertical integration between the three layers
firstly indicates that KM processes should be
3.
4.
in line with the KM strategy and, secondly,

that the configuration of the strategy and
process layer influences the design of the
system layer.
Horizontal integration refers to the integration between the four pillars of the architecture. It can be achieved on the system layer
as well as on the process layer level.
Integration of the KM processes and roles in
the KMS finally means that the KMS should
be designed in order to support employees in
the execution of their roles within business
and support processes as well as related KM
processes.
the Measurement System

of riempps integrated
KMS architecture
The implementation of this vision of Riempps
architecture for integrated KMS can be allego-
241
Figure 2. Detailed view on the strategy layer (modified)
rized on the basis of a basic KM process model

consisting of the following four steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Create knowledge transparency (about the

knowledge that already exists in an organisation, knowledge managing processes, and
respective IS).
Promote knowledge exchange.
Control knowledge development.
Ensure knowledge efficiency.
Within step 4, the target achievement of the

previous steps should be verified by taking quality
improvements as well as time and cost reductions
into consideration. In order to fulfil this requirement, the architecture provides a measurement
system on the strategy layer. The achievement of
specific KM goals can be verified by means of
key performance indicators (KPIs) and respective
index values (IVs). The KM strategy similarly
refers to the four pillars of content, collaboration,
competence and orientation, as well as to the
242
culture of the organization. The KM goals, KPIs

and IVs are subordinate to the KM strategy and
mostly only refer to single pillars or to the culture
(see Figure 2).
Riempp defines a total of 78 KPIs which, according to an integrated and holistic view, refer
to the different dimensions of integration within
the architecture (see Figure 3). This means that
Riempps KPIs verify the integrational success
or successful integration of KMS.
To conclude this section, three meaningful
examples that illustrate how well these KPIs reflect
integration and verify integration success are
briefly described:
KPI 22 (Clear competence management
goals) is an example of how a KPI verifies the
success of vertical integration with the competence
management goals formulated by the KM strategy
and the KM processes constructed accordingly.
KPI 14 (Information objects are ideally
stored in an integrated, database-based, information memory, which is applicable across all
Figure 3. Overview of Riempps 78 key success factors

Layer
System
Content
Process
Pillar
Key Performance Indicator

ID
Description
Convenient integration of information objects in task execution
Sufficient knowledge of preocess involved persons about process flows
Simple, fast, and flexible execution of content management processes exclusive of unnecessary barriers
Creation and preservation of incentives (e.g. in form of rewards)
Feedback opportunities between users and authors
Chance to extend the target group over multiple stages in order to protect confidentiality and property rights
Disassociation of active, relevant information objects from non-active, irrelevant information objects
Comfort and clarity of user interface
Agile usage of authors so that searching employees can find content easily and get motivated to become authors
themselves
10
Sufficient knowledge of users about the operation and handling of Content Management functions (e.g. by trainings)
11
Adequate selection of users in order to avoid an information overload (e.g. by taxonomy-based classification
and selection
12
Preferably rich context development (e.g by rich text formatting, grouping, linking, etc.)
13
Relevance, authenticity, timliness, and usefulness of localized information objects
14
information objects are ideally stored in an integrated, datebase-based, information memory, which is applicable
across all platforms
15
Integratibility with other applications by standardized interfaces
16
Comfortable creation and revision of information objects in the daily work environment using familiar tools
(e.g. WYSIWYG)
17
Disassociation of content, structure, presentation and application logic
18
Rendering of all possible file formats for various clients
platforms.) is an example for the verification of

the successful horizontal integration on the system
layer. For example, an information object can be
generated (content pillar) and used in a collaboration room (collaboration pillar) afterwards.
KPI 1 (Convenient integration of information
objects in task execution) illustrates how a KPI
verifies integration of the KM processes and roles
within the KMS.
Figure 4 gives a detailed view on the relationship of KPIs and the different integration
dimensions.
KM/KMS SucceSS and critical

SucceSS factorS
foundations
Success is basically understood as the achievement
of goals, with goals defined as prospective aspired
states. In the business management context, profit
usually constitutes the supreme goal. This single
goal does, however, not provide sufficient guidance for an organization to grow and develop. It
ultimately needs to accommodate a spectrum of
goals, including the goals of KM initiatives.
243
Figure 3. continued
Layer
System
Competence
Process
Pillar

ID
Description
19
Guard against fears of a glassy employee by a definite authorization system and comprehensive information
20
Sufficient knowledge of process involved persons about the process flows and the handling of competence
management functions
21
Benefit and added value is distinguishable for all involved persons (e.g. by eased contacting or improved development opportunities
22
Clear competence management goals (e.g. improvement of human resources development, creation process
flexibility, promotion of innovation)
23
Comprehensive top management support
24
Early involvement of employee representatives
25
Creation and preservation of maintenance processes (e.g. by target agreements and appraisals)
26
Securing of reliability of data information by monitoring and examination
27
Timeliness of elements contained in the competence registry
28
Easy contact opportunities between searching employees and competences
29
Comprehensive change management
30
Applicability of elements contained in the competence registry
31
Comfortable navigation, search, and analysis options as well as effective visualization
32
An active usage of the competence registry enhances the incentives for maintenance and causes more timely
and applicable entries
33
Sufficient knowledge of users about the operation and handling of competence management functions (e.g. by
trainings)
34
Back-end integration with existing human resources management systems in order to avoid inconsistencies
35
Front-end integration with systems of the daily work environment
36
Multi-level authorization system
37
Active contact between searching employees and competences
The achievement of objectives and the aligned

successful completion of a KM initiative result in
KM success. Jennex et al. define KM and KMS
success as a multidimensional concept. Each
includes capturing the right knowledge, getting
knowledge content.
244
This paper takes the position that KMS success has a direct effect on KM success, making
the terms interchangeable in the rest of the article.
Success factor research explicitly focuses on
analyzing factors that influence success by defining performance metrics to make the influence of
these factors measurable and comparable. The
term success factor traces back to Daniel, who
used the perception for the first time in the IS
context. It was afterwards broadened by Rockert
to business-related aspects:
Critical success factors thus are, for any business, the limited number of areas in which results,
Figure 3. continued
Layer
System
Collaboration
Process
Pillar

ID
Description
38
Continuous engagement of role models (e.g. moderators, team officers, sponsors, etc.)
39
Acceptance and encouragement of the top management
40
Community goals are clearly formulated and consistent with organizational goals
41
Support of influential sponsors
42
Active attendance of popular experts acting as role models and precursors
43
Optional attendance and high intrinsic motivation of employees
44
Free spaces for formation, collaboration, documentation, and reflection
45
Securing the transmission and reutilization of results
46
Continuous virtual and physical meetings
47
Convenient support of information and communication systems
48
Intuitive and comfortable handling of user interface
49
Active usage by role models and antetypes (e.g. executive managers) in order to have a multiplication effect
50
Seamless integration of community management functions into the daily work environment
51
Sufficient knowledge about the operation and handling of community management functions (e.g. by trainings)
52
Continuous engagement of role models (e.g. moderators, team officers, sponsors, etc.)
53
High network capacity
54
An integrated user interface
55
Users are as possible always online in virtual rooms
56
Automatic adaption of available functions to connected hardware and differing network capacities
if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful

competitive performance for the organization.
They are the few key areas where things must
go right for the business to flourish. If results in
these areas are not adequate, the organizations
efforts for the period will be less than desired.
the Jennex/olfman KM Success

assessment framework
KM/KMS success measurement is crucial from an
organizational as well as an academic perspective,
as the evaluation of KM initiatives is essential to
understand how KMS should be built and implemented. Several KM/KMS success/ effectiveness
models have been proposed in order to support
the successful execution of KM initiatives and

ensure KM/KMS success.
Jennex and Olfman developed a model assessment framework based on comparing existing
KM/KMS success models to KM/KMS success
factors. It determined the degree to which the
models have a theoretical foundation, as well as
whether the models could be applied to both approaches (the one based on process and tasks, as
well as the one based on infrastructure and generic
systems) in order to implement a KMS.
In the following two sections, the main results of Jennex and Olfmans research will be
highlighted.
245
Figure 3. continued
Layer
System
Orientation
Process
Pillar

ID
Description
57
Adequate compromise between simplicity and clarity of navigation and search vs. depth and breadth orientation
guides
58
Unerring illustration of the established language use including sufficient terminological accuracy
59
Consistent use of taxonomy according to classification, navigation, and creation of search indices
60
Involvement of all user groups in order to define targets
61
Glossary and taxonomy are closely restricted to central terms (in order to avoid a technological overload)
62
Convenient integration into information systems
63
Periodically passing maintenance processes for adopting the dynamical development of language use
64
Integration of standardized terminologies (e.g. for specific industries)
65
Continuous and well arranged configuration of layout and navigation
66
Speed of screen composition and performance of functions
67
Continous examination and actualization of layout and navigation
68
Convenient preparation of search results
69
Comfortable classification of information objects (as a basis for a attribute-based inducing and search)
70
Appropriate pull-personalization for all users and push-personalization options for advanced users
71
Adequate usage of search engines for dynamically generated navigation structures, topic maps, taxonomy
extracts and taxonomy maintenance
72
Automatic link control for the correction of broken links
73
Navigation and search consider multiple languages
74
Integrated search for content, competences, and collaboration rooms
75
Centralization of different search indices in order to perform comprehensive search processes
76
Search engines search in connected sources
77
Marksmanship and speed of search functions
78
Singular authentication for all integrated applications (single sign on)
KM/KMS Success factors

The current KM literature contains reams of
studies and research work that address and deal
with KM/KMS success factors. Jennex and Olfman constructed a critical success factor (CSF)
framework by reviewing the existing literature.
Several studies that focus on KM/KMS success
were found and a total of 78 KM initiatives or
organizations were investigated. They identified success factors that were mentioned in the
literature, combined them into composite CSFs.
and ranked the composite CSFs according to the
number of authors mentioning the factors.
246
The outcome was a set of 12 KM/KMS CSFs.

CSFs SF1 to SF4 are considered the key CSFs,
as they were mentioned in more than 50% of the
investigated success factor studies. Figure 5 lists
the set of CSFs in their rank order (SF1 to SF4
are highlighted by the red frame).
KM/KMS Success Models

Theoretical or process-orientated success models
classify success in a broader context in order to
also encompass causal connections, indirect impacts, and back coupling. Current KM literature
mentions several success models, for example,
Figure 4. Relationship between KPIs and the dimensions of integration
247
Figure 5. The 12 success factors of Jennex and Olfman
the KM Value Chain of Bots/De Bruijn, the KM

Success Model of Massey, Montoya-Weiss and
ODriscoll, the Lindsey KM Effectiveness Model,
the KMS Success Model of Maier, and Coopers
Evolutionary Model for KM Success.
Additionally, Jennex and Olfman themselves
present a KMS Success Model that is based on
the DeLone/McLean IS Success Model. The 12
CSFs of Jennex and Olfman can be applied to
the various success models to a greater or lesser
extent. Referring to the top four success criteria,
the KM Value Chain, Lindseys KM effectiveness
model, Maiers KMS Success Model as well as the
Evolutionary Model for KM Success of Cooper
are not as good reflecting the observed data as
the KM Success Model of Massey et al. and the
KMS success model of Jennex/Olfman. The only
difference between the model of Jennex/Olfman
and the model of Massey et al. is SF5 culture.
Because SF5 would be the next most important
success factor, the Jennex Olfman KM success
model is considered the best fit and will be used in
248
the rest of this paper. The results of the comparison

of KM/KMS success factors and KM/KMS success models are stated through Figure 6.
tHe releVance of integration

for KM/KMS SucceSS
a comparison of Success factors
and Key Performance indicators
The Jennex/Olfmann KM success model meets
the requirements of both the KM approach based
on tasks and processes and the one based on
infrastructure and generic systems, which is the
crucial and vital principle of an integrated KMS.
The success model also has a theoretical basis
the DeLone/McLean IS Success Model. Finally,
the Jennex/Olfman success model allegorizes
the KMS CSFs the best. It is suggested that one
reason for the close fit between the CSFs and
the Jennex/Olfman success model is that both
Figure 6. KM/KMS Success Models versus KM/KMS Success Factors
KM approaches are addressed. In other words,

it supports the integration of both perspectives.
This again suggests that integration aspects and
KM/KMS success are interlocked.
The extent to which the 12 CSFs and the Jennex/Olfman model account for integration aspects
will be examined by comparing the 78 KPIs of
Riempps measurement model to the 12 CSFs.
Riempp has further classified his KPIs into one
of the eight architecture interfaces (Figure 7).
Each KPI of Riempps architecture was verified as to whether it could be allocated to none,
one, or more than one of the Jennex and Olfman
CSFs. A total of 76 of 78 critical KPIs could be
assigned to one, and frequently to two or three of
the Jennex and Olfman CSFs. Figure 8 illustrates
this mapping graphically.
discussion of conceptual findings

Based on this comparison of CSFs to KPIs, the
following main findings can be derived:
1.
There are definite interdependencies between

the Riempp KPIs and the Jennex and Olfman
CSFs. A more detailed analysis of the assignment results indicates that certain measures
have to be executed in order to achieve the
12 Jennex and Olfman CSFs. These actions
are in turn reflected in the 76 Riempp KPIs.
On the one hand this means the 12 Jennex and

Olfman CSFs can be broken down into 76 smaller
KPI elements that represent the measures that have
to be introduced. On the other hand, the 76 KPIs
249
Figure 7. Classification of KPIs into the architecture for integrated KMS
Figure 8. Graphical illustration of the key performance indicator assignment
of Riempps architecture for integrated KMS can

be accounted for by the 12 CSFs.
250
In order to achieve, for instance, SF4 of Jennex/

Olfmans model (Motivation and commitment of
users, including incentives and training), several
Figure 9. Quantitative illustration of the key findings of the assignment
of Riempps KPIs need to be embraced. Incentive

systems have to be implemented (KPI 4), a simple
transfer of knowledge between competences and
searching employees needs to be ensured (KPIs
2, 5, 9, 28, 37), experts and KM roles have to
engage themselves (KPIs 42, 49, 52, 55), training
and further education need to conducted (KPIs
10, 20, 33, 51), and so forth.
Going a step further, the comparison implies
that the achievement of the 12 Jennex/Olfman
CSFs results from the achievement of the 76
Riempp KPIs. Consequently, the 76 KPIs incorporating integration success need to be attained
to achieve KMS success.
2.
An extensive amount of Riempps KPIs can

be clearly assigned to either SF1, SF2, SF3,
SF4, SF5, SF8, or SF10. The KPIs that can
be allocated to SF1 and SF10 (technical success factors) refer to horizontal integration,
while those that can be assigned to SF2, SF3
and SF8 (strategic success factors) refer to

vertical integration.
Finally, the KPIs allotted to SF4 and SF5
(cultural and personal success factors) apply
comparably to horizontal integration, integration
of KM processes and roles in the KMS, as well as
to cultural integration. The other Riempp KPIs,
those which could be assigned to SF6, SF7, SF9,
SF11, and SF12, could not be grouped as precisely.
However, all of the remaining KPIs also refer to
the different dimensions of integration.
Based on these results, it can be stated that the
12 Jennex/Olfman CSFs correspond more or less
equally to the different integration dimensions of
Riempps architecture for integrated KMS.
Figure 9 provides a more detailed view of the
assignment of the relevant success factors to the
different dimensions of integration. The first three
columns of the table refer to the 12 Jennex and
Olfman CSFs. Column 1 shows the ID of each
success factor, column 3 describes each factor
251
roughly, and column 2 illustrates how the Jennex/

Olfman CSFs were grouped based on the outcome
of the comparison (compare main finding 2).
The following columns of the table refer to
Riempps architecture of integrated KMS. Column
4 shows which Riempp KPIs were assigned to
which Jennex/Olfman CSFs and column 5 outlines
the number of assigned factors. Finally, columns
6 to 9 indicate to which specific dimension of
integration the single Jennex/Olfman CSFs and,
hence, the assigned Riempp KPIs refer. The columns 6, 7, 8, and 9 basically legitimate the grouping of CSFs in column 2.
The results of the comparison show that
achievement of the 12 Jennex/Olfman CSFs
results from an achievement of the 76 Riempp
KPIs. The logical conclusion is that organizations
need to cope with Riempps KPIs in order to attain KM/KMS success. The fact that the KPIs of
Riempps architecture for integrated KMS largely
indicates integration success leads to the following basic assumption: Integrated KM determines
KM/KMS success.
observations from an international

consulting company case
This case study was conducted in the context of
a merger between two international consulting
firms. A KM initiative was launched within the
scope of the post-merger integration activities at
the acquired company. The primary focus of the
initiative was the introduction and announcement
of new KMS functionalities and tools, as well as
the integration and adjustment of existing KM
structures.
The measurement and evaluation of the success of the initiatives are ideally suited to verify
the assumption that integrated KM determines
KM/KMS success. The verification process consists of two consecutive steps:
Firstly, the achievement of Riempps KPIs was
verified by means of a structured survey and a
structured interview. The survey consisted of 41
252
questions, mainly focused on cultural, personal,

and strategic success factors. The questionnaire
was distributed to 50 employees directly involved
in the KM initiative and 17 analyzable questionnaires were returned (a return rate of 34%). Both
survey and questionnaire can be viewed in the
appendix (Table 1 and Table 2).
The structured interview was conducted with
the chief technology architect of the acquired company. It consisted of 25 questions and focused on
technical success factors. The survey as well as the
interview dealt with those of Riempps KPIs that
can be assigned to CSFs SF1, SF2, SF3, SF4, SF5,
SF8 and SF10 the ones that can be described as
being either a technical, strategic or cultural and
personal success factor. The main results of the
first step are summarized in Figure 10.
The results lead to three assumptions:
1. The technical success factors were
achieved due to horizontal integration
on the system layer.
2. The cultural and personal success factors were achieved due to horizontal
and cultural integration, as well as to
the integration of the KM processes
and roles in the KMS.
3. The strategic success factors were
not achieved due to a lack of vertical
integration across the three layers.
These three assumptions were validated by
five semi-structured interviews with the initiators and key managers of the KM initiative (the
interview guide can be examined through table
3 in the appendix). This constitutes the second
step of the case study. The results and insights
of the first step were investigated and discussed
in more detail.
All questions focused more or less equally on the
following factors:
Figure 10. Attainment degree of the success factors of Jennex/Olfmans model
(1) Technical aspects (especially regarding

the integration of the KMS into the
corporate portal).
(2) Personal and cultural aspects (especially regarding the horizontal integration of KM processes, the integration
of the KM processes with the KMS,
and the operational and organizational
structure).
(3) Strategic aspects (especially regarding
the transparency and communication
of the KM strategy and KM goals, as
well as the knowledge structure).
The elementary and most meaningful results
of the verification of the three assumptions are
discussed below:
1.
Horizontal integration on the system layer

was achieved by integrating the IT infra-
structure along the four horizontal pillars

(content, collaboration, competence, and
orientation) of Riempps architecture. Data
storages are integrated with each other per
pillar, thus allowing the standardization of
diverse applications. On the application
level, integration basically appears in the
complexity of internal and external applications. An integrated regulation framework
can be ensured by a standardized and continuously used taxonomy, which also forms the
basis for a pillar of comprehensive indexing
in order to allocate an overall search function.
A complex portal solution is available and
KM functions and applications, as well as the
corresponding content are deeply integrated.
The integration of portal applications mainly
refers to an integrated search for content,
competences and collaboration rooms, as
well as the aligned use of search engines.
253
2.
3.
254
The presentation level of KMS is realized

by the use of the graphical user interface
of the companys portal, whose uniform
configuration ensures an integrated working
environment for its users.
The cultural and personal success factors
refer to the motivation and commitment of
users, as well as a companys predominant
organizational culture. These factors were
achieved due to horizontal integration on the
process level, cultural integration, as well as
the integration of KM processes and roles in
the KMS. In respect of motivation and commitment, it is noteworthy that all employees
participate in KM activities voluntarily,
but show a high intrinsic motivation. The
companys knowledge competencies and
KM experts are also highly motivated and
engaged. They regularly present themselves
as role models in diverse communities. In
this context, the enormous freedom of scope
for creation, collaboration, documentation,
and reflection needs to be mentioned. All of
these points can be ascribed to the processes
and roles successful integration with the
KMS and companys culture. Various training and further education measures (physical
training, as well as audio and web cast sessions) were introduced in the beginning of
the post-merger integration phase to support
these developments. Another positive aspect
was the active usage of content management functions and competence directories
by authors, competencies, and searching
employees, as well as the satisfactory assessment of the feedback opportunities between
these employees. This was ensured through
a satisfactory horizontal integration on the
process level.
The strategic success factors focus on the
overall knowledge strategy, the knowledge
structure in an organization, and the aligned
articulation of KM goals. The achievement
of these success factors failed due to the
lack of vertical integration across the three

layers (strategy, process and system layer)
of the architecture. The KM topic was not
tightly integrated into the overall change
management process of the post-merger
integration activities. No comprehensive
information policy, concrete authorization
system, or employee incentive system have
been introduced. There was also no clear
and definite objective for the KM areas
content, competence and community management. The KM goals are not consistent
with the overall organizational goals and
the understanding of the KM and KMS
meaning, aims, and objectives needs to be
communicated more clearly throughout the
company.
Summarizing the investigation, it can be stated
that the attainment or failure of the success factors
depends on the degree of integration. The basic
assumption has therefore been strengthened.
The necessity for an integrated and holistic
view is outlined by the case study horizontal
integration, cultural integration, and the integration of KM processes and KM roles into the KMS
support the usage and frequency of use of the
KMS, but do not ensure that the KMS is used in
the most effective and efficient way.
In order to control the usage of KMS to
strengthen the organizations performance and
the achievement of strategic goals, a companys
overall strategy and goals need to be aligned to
KM strategy and KM goals. In terms of vertical
integration, KM strategy and goals need to be
transparent and clearly communicated so that all
employees act in concert and walk into the same
direction. Hence, the described KM initiative
can be evaluated as unsuccessful. The technical
and cultural conditions required for success were
established, but the strategic aspects were largely
disregarded.
concluSion, liMitationS,
and furtHer reSearcH
The overall goal of this paper to analyze and
investigate the coherences, connections, and
interdependencies between KM success and an
integrated and holistic perspective on KM has
been achieved. The CSFs of Jennex/Olfmans
model were identified as widely accepted factors
as they are, firstly, based on the cognitions of accredited and valued KM publications and studies
referring to a total of 78 KM initiatives. Secondly,
they can be applied to all elemental KM success
models. The 78 KPIs of Riempps model focus on
different dimensions of integration and evaluate
successful KM in terms of integration success.
In summary, the literature review and comparison of CSFs and KPIs show that it is feasible to
focus on achieving Riempps KPIs, hence concentrating on integration. In the end, this approach
will lead to an achievement of the 12 Jennex/
Olfman CSFs and ensure KM initiatives success.
The results support that in order to achieve KM
success, understood as a multidimensional concept
as defined by Jennex, Smolnik and Croasdell
(section 3.1), all elements of the integrated KMS
architecture need to be addressed in a structured
and integrated approach.
The case study supports these findings. The
KMS are indeed used intensively by the employees. However, due to a lack of transparency
regarding the KM strategy and goals and a lack of
vertical integration, the KMS are not used in the
most efficient way in terms of an improvement of
the companys performance. A broad consideration
of all the integration dimensions is necessary to
execute KM initiatives successfully.
It would be tempting to conclude and not
only to assume that integrated KM determines
KM success. In order to do so, more real-life cases
need to be conducted. This can be regarded as a
limitation of the findings in this article, as well
as an area for further research work.
Additionally, effort should be made to develop

an integrated KM success model. The framework can either focus fully on Riempps architecture for integrated KMS or on selected aspects.
In respect of the frameworks configuration, an
absolutely new model could be developed, or an
existing model for example, the Jennex/Olfman
success model could be extended appropriately.
referenceS
Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and
Benefits, Communications of the AIS, 1.
Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107136.
doi:10.2307/3250961
Anantatmula, V., & Kanungo, S. (2006). Structuring the Underlying Relations among the
Knowledge Management Outcomes. Journal
doi:10.1108/13673270610679345
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003).
Managing Knowledge in Organizations An
Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging
Themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571582.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.571.14424
Bals, C., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2007). A
Case for Integrated Knowledge Management. In
Proceedings of the 4th Conference Professional
Knowledge Management: Experiences and Visions. Berlin, Germany: GITO.
Bots, P., & De Bruijn, H. (2002). Effective Knowledge Management in Professional Organizations.
In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer
Society Press.
255
Chong, S., & Choi, Y. S. (2005). Critical Factors

in the Successful Implementation of Knowledge
Management. Journal of Knowledge Management
Practice In the Knowledge Garden, 6.
Cooper, L. P. (2006). An Evolutionary Model for
KM Success. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii
IEEE Computer Society Press.
Damodaran, L., & Olphert, W. (2000). Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Knowledge Management Systems. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 19(6), 405413.
doi:10.1080/014492900750052660
Daniel, D. R. (1961). Management Information
Crisis. Harvard Business Review, 39(5), 111112.
Davenport, T., De Long, D., & Beers, M. (1998).
Successful Knowledge Management Projects.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 4357.
doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The Evelen Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management. California
Gruber, M. (2000). Der Wandel von Erfolgsfaktoren Mittelstndischer Unternehmen. Wiesbaden:
DUV.
Jennex, M. E. (2005). Knowledge Management
Systems. International Journal of Knowledge
Jennex, M. E. (2007, November 9). Knowledge
Management in Support of Education. First
International Conference on Education Reform,
Khon Kaen, Thailand.
256
Jennex, M. E., Croasdell, D., & Smolnik, S.

(2008). Towards Measuring Knowledge Management Success. In Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii
IEEE Computer Society.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B., & Kwok-Kee, W. (2005).
Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories An Empirical Investigation.
29(1), 113143.
Management Effectiveness: A Task Contingent
Organizational Capabilities Perspective. Eight
Americas Conference on Information Systems,
(pp. 2085-2090).
Maier, R. (2002). Knowledge Management Systems Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management. Berlin,
Germany: Springer.
Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., &
ODriscoll, T. T. (2002). Knowledge Management
in Pursuit of Performance: Insights from Nortel
Networks. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 26(3), 269289. doi:10.2307/4132333
41(4), 103117.
McKeen, J. D., Zack, M. H., & Singh, S. (2006).
Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance: An Exploratory Survey. In Proceedings
System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Ncker, R. (1999). Erfolg von Unternehmen aus

Betriebswirtschaflicher Sicht. Unternehmerisch
erfolgreiches Handeln,(pp. 53-66).
Riempp, G. (2004). Integrierte Wissensmanagement-Systeme Architektur und Praktische
Anwendung. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Rockert, J. (1979). Chief Executives Define Their
Own Data Needs. Harvard Business Review,
57(2), 8193.
Schmalen, C., Kunter, M., & Weindlmaier, H.
(2005). Theoretische Grundlagen, Methodische
Vorgehensweise und Anwendungserfahrung in
Projekten fr die Ernhrungsindustrie. In Proceedings der 45. Tagung fr Gesellschafts- und
Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues Gttingen.
Erfolgsfaktorenforschung.
Smolnik, S. (2006). Wissensmanagement mit
Topics Maps in Kollaborativen Umgebungen
Identifikation, Explikation und Visualisierung von
Semantischen Netzwerken in Organisationalen
Gedchtnissen. Berlin, Germany: Shaker.

Holistic KM View: An holistic KM view
integrates people, processes, and technology. The
KMS is created by combining content, organizational processes, users and technical solutions to
facilitate the capture, storage, retrieval, transfer,
and reuse of knowledge to improve organizational
and individual decision-making.
Integrated KMS Perspective: An integrated

KMS is design to fit an infrastructure and generic
KM perspective (KM in the large) as well as process or task based KM approach (KM in the small).
An Architecture for Integrated KMS: An
architecture for integrated KMS consists vertically
of three layers (strategy, process, and system) and
horizontally of four pillars (content, competence,
collaboration, and orientation). All these elements
are influenced by the organizational culture.
An Integrated Measurement System: The
integrated measurement system verifies the target achievement of (1) knowledge transparency
creation, (2) knowledge exchange promotion,
(3) knowledge development control, and (4)
knowledge efficiency ensurance by taking quality
improvements as well as time and cost reductions
into consideration.
Knowledge Management (System) Success: KM and KMS success are a multidimensional concept. Each includes capturing the right
knowledge, getting the right knowledge to the
right user, and using this knowledge to improve
organizational and/or individual performance. It
is measured using the dimensions of impact on
business processes, impact on strategy, leadership,
and knowledge content.
Critical Success Factors: Critical success
factors thus are the limited number of areas in
which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the
organization. They are the few key areas where
things must go right for the business to flourish.
257
aPPendix
Table 1. Employee survey
Answer
style
Process Layer
1) Have introdutory courses, measures for further education or other trainings, which addressed content
management process flows, been performed within the last 6 months?
Yes/No
2) Briefly think of how long it usually takes in order to gather an information within the portal. Can you
assess a performance increases compared to the initial situation prior to the merger?
Yes/No
3) Is your content management performance assessed on the basis of target agreements or savored by
means of honors?
Yes/No
Numberbased
4) Assess the feedback opportunities of users on active authors within the portal.
5) Have introdutory courses, measures for further education or other trainings, which addressed the handling of content management functions, been performed within the last 6 months?
System Layer
Content Management
Question
6) Assess the possibilities of a comprehensive content creation in the content management area. Examples
for comprehensive content creation are rich-text formatting, grouping and linking of information objects,
etc.
7) Have you ever been motivated by other employees input in such a way, that yourself became an
author?
Process Layer
System Layer
Numberbased
Yes/No
Numberbased
8) Asses comfort and usability of the portal user interface.
Competence Management
Yes/No
9) Have introdutory courses, measures for further education or other trainings, which addressed competence management process flows, been performed within the last 6 months?
Yes/No
10) Assess the success of integrating the topic area knowledge management into the overall change management process activated by the merger
Numberbased
11) Have you been adverted to in how far the functionalities of a competence management system (e.g.
expert functions) can deliver a surplus to your work? Assess the quality and degree of communication with
regards to that topic accordant to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
12) Does a definite goal with regards to competence management exist and is this goal clearly communicated by means of appropriate media (e.g. newsletter)?
Yes/No
13) Does a guard against fear of the glassy employee exist by means of a definite authorization system
and comprehensive information?
Numberbased
14) Have introdutory courses, measures for further education or other trainings, which addressed the handling of competence management functions, been performed within the last 6 months?
Yes/No
15) Assess the possibility of contacting and the establishment of contact to important competences accordant to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
16) Assess the usage of the competence directory within the portal. Self-criticaly assess the quality and
quantitiy of your own entries as well as the frequency of use.
Numberbased
17) Assess the comfortability of navigation-, search- and analysis options as well as the effectiveness of
visualization of competence management functions.
Numberbased
258
Table 1. continued
Answer
style
Question
18) Assess the application of information and communication systems in support of existing collaboration
and community functions (e.g. Communities of Practice, virtual team rooms, etc.)
Process Layer
System Layer
Process Layer
System Layer
Management of orientation
Collaboration Management
19) Do definite and clearly communicated goals for Communities and virtual team rooms exist?
Numberbased
Yes/No
20) Assess the proportion of community members and members of virtual team rooms who are experts
accordant to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
21) Assess the IT-solution which is applied for realization and the support of communities and virtual team
rooms.
Numberbased
22) Assess the engagement and the collaboration frequency of role models (e.g. moderator, team officer,
project officer, etc.) in communities and virtual team rooms.
Numberbased
23) Assess the intrinsic motivation of group memebers with regards to the advancement of a community
or virtual team room.
Numberbased
24) Have introdutory courses, measures for further education or other trainings, which addressed the handling of collaboration management functions, been performed within the last 6 months?
Yes/No
25) Is your effort in communities or virtual team rooms pushed through the motivating behaviour of supervisors?
Yes/No
26) Assess the integration of community functions and virtual team room environments into the daily
work environment accordant to your satisfaction.
27) Are you always online while your PC is on power?
Numberbased
Yes/No
28) Assess convenience and comfortability of the operability of collaboration functions.
Numberbased
29) Assess the integration of orientation functions (search and retrieval, navigation, etc.) into existing
information systems.
Numberbased
30) Assess the adequacy of the compromise between convenience articulateness of navigation and search
versus depth and breadth of orientation functions.
Numberbased
31) Assess the illustration of the established language use in combination with adequate terminological
percision accordant to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
32) Assess the patency of the application of taxonomies in classfication, navigation and building of search
indices.
Numberbased
33) Assess the appropriateness of push- and pull-personalization in knowledge management systems.
Numberbased
34) Assess the composition of layout and navigation with accordance to patency and clearness.
Numberbased
35) Assess the quality of conditioning of search results according to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
36) Assess the speed and accuracy of search functions accordant to your satisfaction.
Numberbased
259
Table 2. Guidelines of structured interview

Question
Answer
style
1) Convenient integration of information objects in task execution.
Given?
Yes/No
2) Integrability with other applications by standardized interfaces.
Given?
Yes/No
3) Comfortable creation and revision of information objects in the daily work

environment using familiar tools (e.g. WYSIWYG)
Given?
Yes/No
4) Disassocation of content, structure, presentation, and application logic.
Given?
Yes/No
5) Information objects are ideally stored in an integrated, database-based

information memory, which is applicable across all platforms.
Given?
Yes/No
6) Rendering for all possible file formats for various clients.
Given?
Yes/No
7) Creation and preservation of maintenance processes.
Given?
Yes/No
8) Back-end integration with existing human resources management systems

in order to avoid inconsistencies.
Given?
Yes/No
9) Front-end integration with systems of the daily work environment.
Given?
Yes/No
10) High network capacity
Given?
Yes/No
11) Automatic adoption of available functions to connected hardware and

different network capacities.
Given?
Yes/No
Discussed Critical Success Factor

Process
Layer
Content
Management
Competence
Management
Collaboration
Management
System
Layer
Process
Layer
System
Layer
System
Layer
Process
Layer
Management of
orientation
260
System
Layer
12) An integrated user-interface.
Given?
Yes/No
13) Glossary and taxonomy are closely restricted to central terms.
Given?
Yes/No
14) Periodically passing maintenance processes for adopting the dynamical

development of language use.
Given?
Yes/No
15) Integration of standardized terminologies.
Given?
Yes/No
16) Continuous examination and actualization of layout and navigation.
Given?
Yes/No
17) Adequate usage of search engines for dynamically generated navigation

structures, topic maps, taxonomy extracts, and taxonomy maintenance.
Given?
Yes/No
18) Automatic link control for the correction of broken links.
Given?
Yes/No
19) Navigation and search consider multiple languages.
Given?
Yes/No
20) Integrated search for content, competences, and collaboration rooms.
Given?
Yes/No
21) Centralization of different search indices in order to perform comprehensive search processes.
Given?
Yes/No
22) Search engines search in connected sources.
Given?
Yes/No
23) Comfortable classification of information objects (as a basis for an

attribute-based indecing and searching).
Given?
Yes/No
24) Singular authentication of all integrated applications.
Given?
Yes/No
Table 3. Guidelines of semi-structured interview

Topic
Question
a) Do you consider the KM initiative as successful? Please take the following four factors as a standard for your
appraisal:
1) Overall
KM/KMS success
- Increase of project resources (including human resources and financial resources)

- Increased amount of knowledge and knowledge use
- The survivability of the project is not dependent on few core competences
- A coherence to the financial success of the company
The employees who participated at the employee survey quote that they have been trained with regards to process
flows and the handling of knowledge management system functions.
a) In how far have the introduced measures been supported by means of horizontal integration?
The employees who participated at the employee survey assess the key performance indicators below as being
achieved:
2) Horizontal integration
- Agile usage of authors so that searching employees can find content easily and get motivated to become authors
themselves.
- Active usage of the competence registry
- Feedback opportunities between users and authors
- Free space for formation, collaboration, documentation, and reflection
b) Give examples in how far the introduced measured have been supported by means of horizontal integration.
Also agree to cultural aspects.
The employees who participated at the employee survey assess the key performance indicators below as being
achieved:
3) Integration of
KM processes and
roles in the KMS
- Active usage of role models and competences

- Active engagement of popular experts acting as role models and precursors
a) How have experts and competences been motivated in order to achieve this state? Give examples.
b) Has this state rather been achieved due to an orientation the companies structure and processes or the existence of a KM beneficial culture?
The employees who participated at the employee survey assess the following key performance indicators as not
being achieved:
- Cleary communicated and transparent content and competence management goals.
- Clearly communicated community goals which are consistent with organizational goals.
- Comprehensive information and a definite authorization system
4) Vertical integration
- Integration of the topic area KM into the overall change management process.
- Creation and preservation of incentives (e.g. awards)
a) Does a definite KM strategy and KM goal exist?
b) Are KM processes geared towards KM strategy and KM goals?
c) Assess the achievement degree of vertical integration. Do you consider vertical integration activities as being
completed?
d) Do you believe that the above key performance indicators have not been achieved to due to a lapse of a critical
integration degree?
5) Decisiveness of
integration
6) Measurement
system
a) Do you consider an overall and holistic view on KM (i.e. a consideration of all central dimensions of integration) as being material to KM/KMS success?
a) How do you measure the usage of knowledge management systems as well as the benefit of knowledge use?
b) How do you ensure that the correct knowledge (i.e. current, helpful, relevant, and reliable knowledge) is collected?
261
262
Chapter 14
Strategies for Successful

Implementation of KM in
a University Setting
Vittal S. Anantatmula
Western Carolina University, USA
Shivraj Kanungo
George Washington University, USA
abStract
Research has identified enabling factors and inhibitors for implementing knowledge management successfully and to accomplish its strategic objectives. However, it is important to understand how these
factors interact with each other to improve or inhibit the performance. With this in mind, this chapter
presents a model, based on a research study, to determine underlying relations among these factors and
develop strategies implementing KM initiatives.
introduction
Knowledge accumulated over centuries is often
manifested in the form of ethics, culture, as well
as technological, social, and economic developments of a society. At the organizational level, its
growth in terms of wealth, collaborative working
culture, business processes, and productivity are
true reflections of its accumulated knowledge. In
short, knowledge is linked to progress in practically every aspect of our lives. In the current
economy, advances in information technology
and communication systems have encouraged,
and in some instances, compelled organizations
to develop and institutionalize process for the

creation, transfer, and management of knowledge.
It is, therefore, not surprising that research
recognizes knowledge as a key economic resource.
In particular, knowledge creation and subsequent
sharing of this new knowledge and innovation
are critical for organizations to gain and retain
competitive advantage. Clearly, knowledge is
considered a critical resource for sustaining competitive advantage.
what is Knowledge?
Before we define knowledge, it is important to
understand the most commonly used terms - data,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch014
Strategies for Successful Implementation of KM in a University Setting
information, and knowledge - which are often

used while referring to knowledge.
The term data is used to refer to facts. Further, data consist of unprocessed facts (Edwards
& Kidd, 2003). Unprocessed facts are organized
to generate information; when used by someone
to solve a problem, information in turn becomes
personal knowledge (Ellis 2003). Data can be
transformed into information by organizing and/
or processing them to derive meaningful and logical conclusions. Therefore, deriving information
from data is associated with a purpose (Edwards
& Kidd, 2003).
Knowledge is derived from thinking, and it
is a combination of information, experience and
insight. Insight, in particular, is developed with
the use of tacit knowledge. Deriving knowledge
from information also requires human judgment,
and is based on context and personal experience.
It is, therefore, logical for information to be
considered a subset of knowledge as it denotes
understanding of the data. However, this understanding is personal, since one can view unique
but different patterns in the information, which
become the personal knowledge. When we document such personal knowledge in some form or
other, it becomes explicit knowledge, an intellectual asset that can be shared among people
with organization.
Additionally, as we move from data to information and then to knowledge, the context
and meaning tend to increase. Obviously, data,
information, and knowledge fall into a transformation of hierarchy or progression (Edwards &
Kidd, 2003).
We can make a distinction between information and knowledge using the basis of how they
are created. Information is created by deduction
whereas knowledge is created by induction (Fernandes 2000). Further, uncertainty grows as we
progress from data to information to knowledge
(Berztiss, 2001). Berztiss observed that there is no
uncertainty in data, some uncertainty in information, and even more uncertainty in knowledge.
As a resource, knowledge increases its value
with the use. Ironically, knowledge tends to remain
dormant, and not very useful, until it is reflected
in action (Rad & Anantatmula 2005).
Therefore, managing knowledge in organizations is a challenge not only because it is hard to
identify but also because it is even more difficult
to value and deploy relevant knowledge to gain
a competitive advantage in the market place
(Dutta, 1997).
Though not a new concept, knowledge management (KM) has gained prominence due to advances
in information technology and its extensive use in
organizations. Obviously, KM is often perceived
as information management by many organizations; it is often associated with technological
solutions such as intranets and databases (Marr,
2003). Early research on KM, however, suggested
that importance of technological factors is far less
compared to people and organizational factors
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998). People are instrumental in creating knowledge as it is derived from
thinking. Furthermore, a majority of personal or
organizational knowledge remains tacit.
It is imperative to understand that KM is a
broader concept than simply the use of technology and tools. The primary focus of KM is to
utilize information technology and tools, business
processes, best practices, and the organizational
culture to develop and share knowledge within an
organization so as to connect those who possess
knowledge to those who need the knowledge
(Anantatmula, 2005). Ultimately, the purpose of
KM is to leverage the knowledge for productive
purposes. It is in this process that IT plays a supporting role for effective KM implementation.
Research has shown that the nature of causes
and effects in the context of evaluating the IT ef-
263
fectiveness are separated in time (Soh and Markus,

1995). In KM, which has far broader scope than
IT, the gap between investment in KM and its
effectiveness is likely to be exaggerated because
of the difficulty associated with measuring its
effectiveness (Anantatmula, 2005). Furthermore,
just as the relationship between cause and effect
in IT is complex and indirect, the relationship
between the enablers of KM and their outcomes
are even more intractable and complex.
As a direct consequence of the complexity associated with KM (McElroy, 2000), many
organizations that have employed KM initiatives, remain unclear about the extent to which
they have been successful in experiencing the
anticipated outcomes, and why. Several organizations implementing KM rely primarily on IT
tools (Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate,
& Kyriakidou, 2004) and, as a result, may not
achieve desired results.
The purpose of this chapter was to identify
enablers of KM using literature review and to use
these enablers to develop a model for successful
implementation of KM initiatives. This model
allows us to address the complexity associated
with KM initiatives by identifying barriers and
enablers to KM that are unique to any organization. Additionally, this chapter demonstrates
how widely varying mental models of the causal
chain of influencers of KM effectiveness can be
integrated to provide a clearer understanding in
a complex organizational context.
In the following section, we review past studies
to identify enablers of KM implementation. Next,
using these factors, we develop a research methodology using Interpretive Structural Modeling
(ISM) to determine the underlying relationships
among the factors. For this purpose, we used
surveys and interviews of KM professionals. We
obtain results that, when understood from the final
integrated perspective, resolve many counterintuitive findings from the analysis. Based on these
results, we suggest strategies and recommendations for the successful implementation of KM.
264
literature reView
Past studies have shown that it is difficult to assess
return on investment of knowledge management
systems (KMS). Contending that the impact of
KMS on the organization depends on the evolutionary stage of the KMS, Cooper (2006) suggests
at the system level, completion is considered success. Likewise, effectiveness/efficiency of tasks,
cost savings through process improvements and
competitive advantage are considered indicators
of success at task, process, and organizational
levels respectively (Cooper, 2006). However, these
results can be obtained only through successful
KM implementation.
The complexity associated with KM is not only
due to the multiplicity of the enablers of KM but
also due to the intertwined nature of how these
enablers interact amongst each other. The following discussion helps highlight the proliferation
of factors that have been identified as important
determinants of KM success.
KM Success factors
Technology and IT are used interchangeably in
this section based on as and how they are referred
to in different research studies.
Culture and technology are commonly found
in several studies as enablers of KM since organization culture plays a pivotal role in knowledge
creation, sharing, collaboration, and leverage
whereas technology facilitates easy and effective
knowledge transfer. Elliott and ODell (1999)
considered culture, technology, infrastructure,
and measurement as four key enablers of KM
and maintained that each is essential and they
work together to yield sustainable success of
KM. Culture promotes collaboration and sharing
of knowledge; technology speeds up the knowledge transfer but creates information overload;
infrastructure includes organization structure,
technology, processes, and people networks to
ensure knowledge flow; and measurement should
focus on the impact of knowledge on organization

performance (Elliott & ODell 1999). Leadership
plays an important role in ensuring the effectiveness and combined effort of the four enablers
identified by Elliott and ODell and research has
shown that leadership along with technology,
culture, and measurement are considered the
enablers of KM (Ward & Aurum 2004).
Measurement, as a key factor for measuring and
promoting success, has appeared in other research
studies as well. Measures associated with a KMS
can be used as one of the means to understand how
it should be developed and implemented (Jennex
& Olfman 2004).
KM success factors can be viewed as facilitating factors for a KM initiative and some success
factors include leadership, investing in people,
and developing supporting organizational conditions like technical infrastructure and secured
knowledge structure (Chourides, Longbottom &
Murphy 2003; Jennex & Olfman 2004).
Culture and technology are found in several
other research studies as well. Contending that
KM success is driven by KM infrastructure and
process capabilities, a research study by Gold,
Malhotra and Segars (2001) proposed that technology, structure, and culture drive the infrastructure
capability. This research study involving around
300 senior executives identified that an information sharing culture is critical for effective KM.
A research effort aimed to explore the relation between KM drivers and organizational KM
performance (Yu, Kim & Kim 2004), based on
66 Korean firms, found that KM drivers such as
learning orientation, knowledge sharing intention,
knowledge management system quality, reward,
and knowledge management team activity were
significantly related to the organizational knowledge management performanceknowledge
quality and user knowledge satisfaction. Yu et al.s
study identified three main enabler dimensions
and nine enablers. They are:
As IT enables the acquisition of greater amounts
of information thereby providing a greater amount
Table 1. KM dimensions and enablers (Yu et al.,

2004)
KM dimension
KM enabler
Organizational characteristics
- learning orientation
- communication
- knowledge sharing
- flexibility
IT
- KMS quality
- KMS functionality
Managerial support
- top management support

- KM reward
- KM team activity
of data related to organizational processes (Alavi

& Leidner 2001), it provides opportunities for
creating and expanding knowledge. However,
most of the IT tools of KM are developed for
explicit knowledge (Koh, Ryan & Prybutok 2005)
and identified three critical enablers.
Strategic alignment and focus

System and data integration
Security and privacy policies
Another research study (Hariharan 2005) - acknowledging that KM would help share knowledge and eliminate reinvention - proposed seven
enablers of KM. They are:
Strategic focus
Alignment with objectives
KM organization and roles
Standard KM processes
Culture and people engagement
Content under scrutiny
Between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge, the former represents a lions share of total
knowledge. Based on the contention that much
of the tacit knowledge - a greater component of
organizational knowledge - is found in social interactions, and different social contexts facilitate
different modes of knowledge integration, Lang
(2004) suggested that social capital and social
265
context are enablers of knowledge integration,

which is influenced by the characteristics of
knowledge involved and the characteristics of
social context in which they occur. We must
keep in mind that social context is influenced by
organization culture.
Lee and Choi (2003) identified seven enablers
namely, collaboration, trust, learning, centralization, formalization, T-shaped skills, and IT and
support. Of these, trust is part of an organizations culture and is translated into activities such
as increased collaboration and communication.
Trust is considered a significant factor and in
the absence of trust, knowledge sharing will not
take place and organizations refrain from sharing
critical information across the enterprise (Robbins
2005). Thus, trust fits into the roles of inhibitor
and enabler.
In the current global economy, outsourcing is
a common practice to acquire quality services and
expertise at a lower cost. Consequently, virtual
project teams are integral to many projects in the
current economy. Knowledge transfer in virtual
teams for system development will have different
dynamic environment than the conventional one
for communications. Arguing that virtual teams
may need highly skilled individuals, Sarker, Sarker, Nicholson and Joshi (2005) using a research
study, found that knowledge transfer in virtual
teams is influenced by participating individuals
extensive participation in conversations (communication), being perceived as credible using
trustworthy behavior (credibility), and having
collectivist value (culture).
KM enablers Summary
of literature review
Based on the literature reviewed thus far, we
summarize the following KM enablers, which
are listed as KM factors in Table 2 along with
sources of reference.
The literature review has helped us to develop
a list of the main factors that past research has
266
identified as influencing KM success. However,

an attempt to formally classify or organize those
factors is not made intentionally. The rationale
for this approach is that while past research helped
to identify KM factors, understanding how these
factors interact and influence each other remains
the critical issue in developing strategies for successful KM implementation. Past research has
not addressed this concern and thus, we are motivated to address this issue in the next section
using an appropriate research methodology.
reSearcH MetHodologY
To accomplish our research goal of understanding
interactions and influences among the enablers
of KM to develop successful KM strategies, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) developed
by Warfield (1973) is employed. In general, ISM
involves structuring of goals and objectives into
a hierarchical framework. However, we adopted
this method to develop an understanding of the
shared underlying mental model in which these
factors (Table 2) operate. ISM is considered the appropriate research method because human brains
have limits in coping with complex problems
associated with significant number of elements
and relations among elements (Waller, 1975);
also, ISM uses interactive discussion method to
collect data, which forces the participant in the
research study to carefully analyze links between
these factors.
ISM is a process that helps groups of people
in structuring their collective knowledge and
modeling interrelationships in a way to enhance
the ability of understanding complexity. In other
words, it helps to identify structure within a system
of related elements and provides opportunity to
analyze it from different perspectives.
Figure 1 was presented to the respondents and
they were asked to fill out the white cells of the
matrix shown in the figure with the following
instructions:
Table 2. Summary of literature review

KM Enabler
Reference
Strategic focus
Leadership
Top management support
Measurement of results
Elliott & ODell (1999),Okunoye & Karsten (2002),Ward & Aurum (2004),Hariharan (2005),Koh,
Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
Top management involvement

Content quality
Elliott & ODell (1999),Alavi & Leidner (2001),Okunoye & Karsten (2002),Ward & Aurum (2004),Yu,
Kim, & Kim (2004),Jennex & Olfman (2004),Hariharan (2005),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
Elliott & ODell (1999),Hariharan (2005)
Lee & Choi (2003),Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004),Hariharan (2005),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004),Hariharan (2005)
Collaboration
Elliott & ODell (1999),Gold, Malhotra, & Segars (2001),Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004),Lang (2004),Robbins (2005)
Formalization
Lee & Choi (2003),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
Communication
Budgetary support
Lee & Choi (2003),Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004),Hariharan (2005),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
Elliott & ODell (1999),Gold, Malhotra, & Segars (2001),Okunoye & Karsten (2002),Lee & Choi
(2003),Lang (2004),Ward & Aurum (2004),Hariharan (2005), Sarker,Sarker, Nicholson, & Joshi
(2005),Edwards & Kidd (2003)
Standard KM processes
Okunoye & Karsten (2002),Ward & Aurum (2004),Jennex & Olfman (2004),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok,
(2005)
Culture
Technology infrastructure
Okunoye & Karsten (2002),Hariharan (2005),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005),Edwards & Kidd (2003)
Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004), Sarker,Sarker, Nicholson, & Joshi (2005)
Yu, Kim, & Kim (2004),Koh, Ryan, & Prybutok, (2005)
Enter 1 when the row influences the

column
Enter 2 when the column influences the
row
Enter 3 when there is no relation
Enter 4 when row and column influence
each other
For example, the cell (1, 2) represents the question, Does strategic focus lead to KM leadership
or vice-versa? and the response (1, 2, 3 or 4) is
entered in the cell (1, 2). The contextual relation
is established based on a pair-wise assessment of
all the thirteen factors as shown in Figure 1 and
majority of the respondents agreeing to a specific
relation between any two elements. With the use
of this methodology, one can (a) identify the direct
and indirect relationships between attributes of
project performance and (b) show how to include
softer variables in the analysis.
We have interviewed using the survey instrument shown in Figure 1 to collect the data from
a selected group of faculty and staff from two

academic institutions. Participants in the study
were actively involved in university-initiated
KM efforts and KM research. Participants were
academicians and administrators of information
systems division at these universities.
Detailed ISM methodology to develop the
directional graph is explained in Appendix A.
The contextual relation is established based on
a pair-wise assessment of all the seven factors
as shown in Figure 1, and the majority (75%) of
the respondents agreeing to a specific relation
between any two elements. With the use of this
methodology, one can (a) identify the direct and
indirect relationships between attributes of project
performance and (b) show how to include softer
variables in the analysis.
267
Figure 1. ISM for data collection
reSultS and diScuSSion

Using the software, the values of 1, 2, 3 and 4 are
translated into binary values to develop directional
graph, shown in Figure 2. Actual computational
results were shown in Appendix B.
Results obtained using ISM represent the
mental models of those who participated in the
study. From that perspective, these results are
subject to interpretation, hence the name interpretive structural modeling. It can be seen that each
of these relations (arrows in the diagram) are
tenable. While the contextual development of this
structure in terms of relevance to an academic
environment is important, configuration of these
268
elements and the resultant model might be different for business organizations. Nevertheless,
generic insights are relevant.
generic insights
Results shown in Figure 2 suggest that top management involvement, KM leadership, and the culture
of the organization are the factors that serve as
driving forces to build a successful KM effort.
With the top management involvement, KM initiatives will gain support and active participation
of the senior executives of the organization and a
greater commitment from rest of the organization.
Top management involvement would also ensure
Figure 2. Model for KM enablers
strategic focus of KM initiatives, which ultimately

leads to desired results.
Citing research studies, we initially argued that
the nature of cause and effect in IT is separated
in time and it is more exaggerated in the context
of KM. Our research findings shown in figure 2
identify various levels in KM to reach intermediate targets such as content quality, collaboration,
and strategic focus. These results make it obvious
that the separation between cause and effect in
KM systems is more pronounced. For instance,
our results show that collaboration can be accomplished after standard KM processes, technology
infrastructure, and communication systems are in
place. Establishing and using standard processes,
technology infrastructure, and communication
systems is gradual and time-consuming. Furthermore, the resultant collaboration and content
quality will gradually transition into knowledge
transfer among people. Needless to say, actual
impact on business performance, which is of
interest to organizations, is a far-reaching goal.
Results also demonstrate the importance of

developing other supporting factors such as leadership and budget before developing technology
infrastructure for KM. However, in reality, organizations make use of existing IT infrastructure
for KM implementation without fine-tuning part
of it to serve the purpose of KM.
inductive approach
From an organizational standpoint, importance of
these results lies in the emergence of the logical
flow of causal influences. This flow is not only
logically consistent but is also a view that is
shared by the authors of this chapter. The contextual relevance of this approach has significant
implications for practice and in this case, it is an
educational institution setting.
Our results show that two factors - the competent leadership of KM initiative combined with
the support from the top management should be
present that would lead to budgetary support for
269
KM initiatives. Budgetary support would assist in

developing technology infrastructure for sharing,
and archiving knowledge. Figure 2 also shows that
top management support would also lead managers
involved in KM initiative to formalize KM-related
functions and consequently, develop standard
processes. Since, resource integration, efficient
and effective use of resource utilization, implementation of plans to bring stability - important
tenets of management - help manage complexity
associated with these processes, standardization of
these processes is aimed at improving efficiency
and effectiveness. The next logical step would to
measure results of these processes to determine
the success of KM initiatives. Results show and
it makes logical sense that standard process promote quality of the content that is available for
knowledge transfer.
Organization culture that encourages open and
transparent communication among the employees
of the organization would lead to increased collaboration and knowledge sharing at hierarchical
levels of the organization, which leads to knowledge sharing. Increased communication with the
aid of standard processes, and technology infrastructure make it easy and enhance collaboration.
givens, Means, and ends

Figure 2 can also be interpreted in terms of givens,
means and goals in a KM effort. The elements at
the bottom of the Figure can be considered as the
set of givens. These givens, from a management
standpoint can be considered to be aspects that
are there or not there. It is generally difficult to
cultivate them in a medium or short term. In our
model, KM leadership, top management support
and top management involvement are considered
a set of givens. Ends tend to be the elements
at the top of the model. Collaboration, content
quality, measurement of results and strategic focus
are the ends in the KM effort in the context of a
university. The means are the elements that can
be controlled, manipulated or developed to form
270
the link between the givens and the ends.

Communication, technology infrastructure, standardized processes, culture, budgetary support and
formalization of the KM effort are all aspects that
can be changed, increased or decreased in order
to accomplish the ends.
From the standpoint of enablers and barriers,
this approach allows us to understand how each
of these elements can behave as an enabler as well
as an inhibitor to the KM effort. For instance, in
Figure 2, the weakness of an element makes it
an inhibitor while the strength of that very same
element makes it an enabler. As a case in point,
strong and effective KM leadership leads to
budgetary support and formalization of the KM
effort. However, weaknesses in KM leadership
will dilute the support for budgetary support and
the formalization of KM processes. This approach
goes to show the dual nature of elements in terms
of whether they are enablers or inhibitors in the
KM effort. It also goes to show that it may not
be useful to normatively classify elements as
facilitators or inhibitors.
These results have several implications. In order to build a successful KM initiative, universities
need to secure top management involvement first.
Next, the selection of a competent and committed
leader is important for the initiative because the
leader plays a critical role in securing funds and
building technology infrastructure to accomplish
KM goals and objectives. Universities must recognize that developing a culture that promotes
communication and trust among the employees
would facilitate accomplishing KM goals such
as collaboration and knowledge sharing among
employees. However, developing and nurturing a
culture of openness and trust is usually a gradual
process. Once a KM system is implemented, it
is imperative that the system should maintain
the strategic focus, and quality of the content for
meaningful collaboration among the employees.
Finally, instead of trying to evaluate knowledge
directly, which may not be easy, we recommend
assessing its contribution to business performance

and processes.
future direction
As participants represented academic institutions,
results are not easily generalizable across all types
of organizations as purpose of KM investments
is dependent on the type of organization. For
instance, KM investments in academic institutions are likely to focus added value to academic
research, teaching, and effective administration
whereas in a for-profit commercial organization,
KM investments are assessed from the standpoint
of increasing revenue; return on investment is
likely to assume greater importance. Consequently, these results should be viewed from that
perspective and we must understand that these
discussions and conclusions would be appropriate
to universities.
Due to the limited number of participants in the
research effort, future efforts should involve more
stakeholders from different types of organization
to improve the validity of these results. Such an
approach would provide a robust shared mental
model that would generally applicable. Further, in
order to add more value, we intend to incorporate
the strength of the relationships between elements
by allowing for user to provide a weight for each
relationship.
concluSion
Our approach to understand how various enablers
can act as either enabler or barrier to the KM effort
using ISM based on whether they are present or
absent in an organization. Further, we have shown
that a qualitative approach not only allows us to
retain the richness of the complexity associated
with the interactions among elements, but also
allowed us to identify elements that can act as
the givens, means and goals in the KM effort.
With the research results, we have identified the

importance of strategies and suggested avenues
for successful KM implementation.
referenceS
25(1), 107136. doi:10.2307/3250961
Anantatmula, V. (2005, April-June). Outcomes of
Knowledge Management Initiatives. International
Anantatmula, V., & Kanungo, S. (2006).
Structuring the Underlying Relations among
the Knowledge Management Outcomes.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4).
doi:10.1108/13673270610679345
Bertzsis, A. T. (2001). Dimensions of the Knowledge Management Process. IEEE Computer
Society, 1529-4188/01, 432-441.
Bro, R. F. (1974). Interpretive Structural Modeling
as Technology for Social Learning. Conference on
Decision and Control, November 20-22. Phoenix,
AZ: IEEE.
Chourides, P., Longbottom, D., & Murphy, W.
(2003). Excellence in Knowledge Management: An Empirical Study to Identify Critical
Factors and Performance Measures. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(2), 2945.
doi:10.1108/13683040310477977
Conradi, R., & Dyba, T. (2001). An Empirical
Study on the Utility of Formal Routines to Transfer
Knowledge and Experience. ESEC/FSE. Vienna:
ACM.
Cooper, L. (2006). An Evalutionary Model for
KMS Success. HICSS39. IEEE Computer Society.
271
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Dutta, S. (1997). Strategies for Implementing
Knowledge-based Systems. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 44(1), 7990.
doi:10.1109/17.552810
Edwards, J. S., & Kidd, J. B. (2003, February).
Knowledge Management Sans Frontiers. The
Journal of Operational Research Society. Special
Issue on Knowledge Management and Intellectual
Capital, 54(2), 130139.
Elliott, S., & ODell, C. (1999). Sharing knowledge & best practices: The hows and whys of
tapping your organizations hidden reservoirs of
knowledge. Health Forum Journal, 42(3), 3437.
Fernandes, A. A. (2000). Combining inductive
and deductive inference in knowledge management tasks. In Eleventh International Workshop
on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pp.
1109-1 114, IEEE Computer Society Press, 2000.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F.,
Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of
innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank
Quarterly, 82(4), 581629. doi:10.1111/j.0887378X.2004.00325.x
Hariharan, A. (2005). Implementing seven KM
enablers at Bharti. Knowledge Management Review, 8(3), 89.
Hart, W. L., & Malone, D. (1974). Goal Setting
for a State Environmental Agency. Conference on
Decision and Control, November 20-22. Phoenix,
AZ: IEEE.
272
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2004). Accessing

Knowledge Management Success/Effectiveness
Models. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. HICSS37.
Kanungo, S., & Bhatnagar, V. (2001). Beyond generic models for information system quality: The
use of interpretive structural modeling. Systems
Research and Behavioral Sciences.
Koh, E. C., Ryan, S., & Prybutok, V. R. (2005).
Creating Value through Managing Knowledge in
an E-Government to Constituency (G2C) Environment. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
45(4), 3241.
Lang, J. C. (2004). Social context and social
capital as enablers of knowledge integration.
doi:10.1108/13673270410541060
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: An integrative view and empirical
examination. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 20(1), 179.
Liao, C., & Chuang, S. (2006). Exploring the
Role of Knowledge Management for Enhancing
Firms Innovation and Performance. HICSS39.
Marr, B. (2003). Known quantities. Financial
Management Journal, 26-27.
McElroy, M. W. (2000). Integrating complexity
theory, knowledge management and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management,
4(3), 195203. doi:10.1108/13673270010377652
McKeen, J. D., Zack, M. H., & Singh, S. (2006).
Performance: An Exploratory Survey. HICSS39.
Okunoye, A., & Karsten, H. (2002). ITI as Enabler

of Knowledge Management: Empirical Perspective from Research Organisations in subSaharan
Africa. HICSS32. IEEE Computer Society.
Robbins, S. (2005). We need a new vocabulary. Information Systems Management, 22(1), 8990. do
i:10.1201/1078/44912.22.1.20051201/85744.12
Sarker, S., Nicholson, D. B., & Joshi, K. D. (2005).
Knowledge Transfer in Virtual System Development Teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 48(2), 201218. doi:10.1109/
TPC.2005.849650
Soh, C., & Markus, M. L. (1995). How IT creates business value: A process theory synthesis.
In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International
Conference on Information Systems, (pp. 29-41).
Waller, R. J. (1975). Application of Interpretive

Structural Modeling to Priority-Setting in Urban
Systems Management. Portraits of Complexity
(Battelle Monograph No. 9) (Baldwin, M., Ed.).
Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute.
Ward, J., & Aurum, A. (2004). Knowledge Management in Software Engineering Describing the
Process. ASWEC 2004. IEEE Computer Society.
Warfield, J. N. (1973). Intent Structures. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 3(2).
Yu, S., Kim, Y., & Kim, M. (2004). Linking Organizational Knowledge Management Drivers
to Knowledge Management Performance: An
Exploratory Study. HICSS37. IEEE Computer
Society.
273
aPPendix a: iSM MetHodologY

ISM analyzes a system of elements and resolves these in a graphical representation of their directed
relationships and hierarchical levels. The elements may be objectives of a policy, goals of an organization, factors of assessment, etc. The directed relationships can be in a variety of contexts (referred
to as contextual relationships), such as Element (i) is greater than; is achieved by; will help
achieve; is more important than; Element (j). The following is a brief description of the different
steps of ISM:
274
Identification of Elements: The elements of the system are identified and listed. This may be
achieved through research, brain storming, etc.
Contextual Relationship: A contextual relationship between elements is established, depending
upon the objective of the modeling exercise.
Structural Self Interaction Matrix (SSIM): This matrix represents the respondents perception
of element to element directed relationship. Four Symbols are used to represent the type of the
type of relationship that can exist between two elements of the system under consideration. These
are:
1. for the relation from element Ei to Ej, but not in the reverse direction;
2. for the relation from Ej to Ei, but not in the reverse direction;
3. for an interrelation between Ei and Ej (both directions);
4. to represent that Ei and Ej are unrelated.
Reachability Matrix (RM): A Reachability Matrix is then prepared that converts the symbolic
SSIM Matrix into a binary matrix. The following conversion rules apply:
If the relation Ei to Ej = V in SSIM, then element Eij = 1 and Eji = 0 in RM
If the relation Ei to Ej = A in SSIM, then element Eij = 0 and Eji = 1 in RM
If the relation Ei to Ej = X in SSIM, then element Eij = 1 and Eji = 1 in RM
If the relation Ei to Ej = O in SSIM, then element Eij = 0 and Eji = 0 in RM

The initial RM is then modified to show all direct and indirect reachabilities, that is if Eij = 1 and
Ejk = 1 then Eik = 1.
Level Partitioning: Level partitioning is done in order to classify the elements into different
levels of the ISM structure. For this purpose, two sets are associated with each element Ei of the
system - A Reachability Set (Ri) that is a set of all elements that can be reached from the element
Ei, and an Antecedent Set (Ai), that is a set of all elements that element Ei can be reached by.
In the first iteration, all elements, for which Ri = RiAi, are Level I Elements. In successive iterations, the elements identified as level elements in the previous iterations are deleted, and new elements are selected for successive levels using the same rule. Accordingly, all the elements of the
system are grouped into different levels.
Canonical Matrix: grouping together elements in the same level develops this matrix. The resultant matrix has most of its upper triangular elements as 0, and lower triangular elements as 1. This
matrix is then used to prepare a Digraph.
Digraph: Digraph is a term derived from Directional Graph, and as the name suggests, is a
graphical representation of the elements, their directed relationships, and hierarchical levels. The
initial digraph is prepared on the basis of the canonical matrix. This is then pruned by removing
all transitivities, to form a final digraph.
Interpretive Structural Model: The ISM is generated by replacing all element numbers with the
actual element description. The ISM therefore, gives a very clear picture of the system of elements
and their flow of relationships.
275
aPPendix b: reSearcH reSultS

Reachability Matrix
Element 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 2: 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Element 3: 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Element 4: 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Element 5: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 6: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Element 7: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Element 8: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
Element 9: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Element 10: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Element 11: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Element 12: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Element 13: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Canonical matrix
Element 01: Level 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 05: Level 1: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 09: Level 1: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 10: Level 1: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 06: Level 2: 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 07: Level 2: 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 12: Level 2: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 04: Level 3: 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Element 11: Level 3: 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Element 13: Level 3: 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Element 02: Level 4: 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Element 03: Level 4: 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Element 08: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
Modified Reachability Matrix

Element 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 2: 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
Element 3: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
Element 4: 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Element 5: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 6: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Element 7: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Element 8: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
Element 9: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Element 10: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Element 11: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
Element 12: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Element 13: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Direct Reachability Matrix

Element 01: Level 1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 05: Level 1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 09: Level 1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 10: Level 1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 06: Level 2: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 07: Level 2: 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 12: Level 2: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 04: Level 3: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 11: Level 3: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 13: Level 3: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 02: Level 4: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Element 03: Level 4: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Element 08: Level 5: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Element Level
1 1, 5, 9, 10,
2 6, 7, 12,
3 4, 11, 13,
4 2, 3,
5 8,
276
277
Chapter 15
DYONIPOS:
Proactive Knowledge Supply

Silke Wei
Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria
Josef Makolm
Doris Ipsmiller
m2n consulting and development gmbh, Austria
Natalie Egger
abStract
Traditional knowledge management is often combined with extra work to recollect information which
is already electronically available. Another obstacle to overcome is to make the content of the collected
information easily accessible to enquiries, as conventional searching tools provide only documents and
not the content meaning. They are often based on the search for character strings, usually resulting in
many unnecessary hits and no or less context information. The research project DYONIPOS focuses on
detecting the knowledge needs of knowledge users and automatically providing the required knowledge
just in time, while avoiding additional work and violations of the knowledge workers privacy, proposing a new way of support. This knowledge is made available through semantic linkage of the relevant
information out of existing artifacts. In addition DYONIPOS creates an individual and an organizational
knowledge base just in time.
tHe Knowledge ManageMent

ProceSS Model according to
ProbSt
Knowledge is a particular property which increases
through division. Knowledge loss implies a high
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-709-6.ch015
risk for organizations, making it very important to

keep the existing knowledge. It can be classified
into two types, explicit and the implicit knowledge.
Explicit knowledge is knowledge which has been
documented and is easy to communicate. The implicit knowledge is the knowledge which can be
found in someones head. This knowledge cannot
be simply or formally described. Making existing
DYONIPOS
explicit and implicit knowledge useful is one of

the major objectives of an organization. In the
past, several knowledge management tools were
developed to structure knowledge and to make
knowledge transparent and available.
The Knowledge Management Process Model
(Probst, Raub, & Romhardt, 2006) of Gilbert
Probst has many common components of a management process. Probst builds up knowledge
management on six core processes and completes
these processes through a start and an evaluation process. The component definition makes it
possible to structure the knowledge management
process into different logical phases, making
it possible to intervene within a process where
some knowledge lack had occurred. Hence the
component definition supplies a raster to search
for the causes of knowledge problems. The core
processes are:
knowledge identification,
knowledge acquisition,
knowledge development,
knowledge distribution,
knowledge storage and
knowledge application.
The process starts with the definition of

knowledge objectives that gives the knowledge
management a direction and ends with the evaluation and measurement of the gathered knowledge.
To define the knowledge objectives, it is important
to identify the knowledge which is important
for the future, defining it as the so called critical knowledge. In the first process step called
knowledge identification, the existing internal
and external data and knowledge sources as well
as the abilities are localized and evaluated, relating it to their importance for a particular task
handling. This is possible through the acquisition
of so called yellow pages such as knowledge
landscape, where it becomes obvious who owns
which knowledge and how to gain new knowledge.
Gilbert Probst and Kai Romhardt state that without
278
human resources only through technology the

necessary transparency of an organization cannot
be established (Probst, Romhardt, n.d.). Humans
need to transfer the knowledge using, for example,
discussions via knowledge platforms. Within the
knowledge acquisition process an organization
collects knowledge from other businesses, stakeholders or external knowledge owners because
through the flood of information, organizations are
not able to allocate the know-how internally. The
knowledge development component is based on
the research of processes which are responsible for
the creation of new abilities, new products, better
ideas and more efficient processes. The knowledge
needs are then linked with the knowledge sources
during the knowledge distribution process e.g.
to transfer best practice experiences. Through the
sub-process knowledge storage it is ensured that
the identified knowledge which is important as
well as experiences from the application environment are registered, then becoming available for
further problems and tasks. In the knowledge
application process an observation of knowledge
is used in business processes in order to solve
particular problems. The organization has to assure
that the gathered knowledge will be provided in an
appropriate manner and timing. Thereby the data
quality plays an important role, being supplied
using user-friendly interfaces resulting in reliable data. The final step includes the knowledge
evaluation which is responsible for the continuous
adjustment between the knowledge objectives and
the evaluated results of the sub-processes. This
evaluation is very difficult because no consensus
is reached on a consistent measure.
The knowledge management interpreted according to Probst and Romhardt proposes additional work for the knowledge workers because
they have to search for the knowledge they need.
They have to know where they can find this
knowledge and how to access it. First the existing knowledge has to be collected and should be
structured before the knowledge can be accessed.
These process steps also create additional work.
DYONIPOS
While handling knowledge management processes, a knowledge worker needs a certain level
of freedom to perform his tasks. Common systems
often face obstacles by action-taking or decisionmaking. The unnecessary work concerning the
search and collection of knowledge which includes
also paperwork, makes the knowledge management processes slower and more difficult. The
implementation of user-unfriendly applications
can be reduced through integration of important
stakeholders in the development process (Makolm,
Wei, Reisinger, 2007). According to Probst, the
knowledge workers do not know, where they can
find the knowledge they need or which person
they can contact (Probst, Romhardt, n.d.). The
model implies a lot of effort because all phases in
the system have to be executed. Not all of these
proposed steps seem to be equally important to
collect knowledge. In addition it is not ensured that
a knowledge worker hands over his knowledge to
further persons or organizational levels. In sum
it can be said that the best management system
is not useful if the employees do not support the
system by providing their know-how and using
the system.
The self-acting system DYONIPOS Dynamic
Ontology based Integrated Process Optimisation
is based on a totally new approach. DYONIPOS
produces no additional work because the knowledge is delivered automatically, in a proactive
way and just in time considering the knowledge
needs of the users. Furthermore the DYONIPOS
project ensures innovative results through the
integration of all important stakeholders in the
development process by means of a joint venture
of research, economy and public administration. A
premise of DYONIPOS is that no additional work
should be generated for the knowledge workers.
Knowledge is extracted out of existing artifacts
as produced by its users and the structuring is
carried out automatically.
This article is structured as follows: section
1 provides a short introduction into the topic of
knowledge management by describing and pon-
dering the knowledge management process model

according to Gilbert Probst studies. In section 2
the relations between the research objectives and
e-Government, taken as a case study, are presented
as well as the knowledge management process
with and without the support of DYONIPOS.
Section 3 presents the premises and challenges
of the projects that are listed and in section 4 a
description of DYONIPOS technologies is done.
Section 5 specifies the project settings, the results
of the first and the second test phase as well as
the next development steps. The article concludes
with the presentation of the success factors, risks
and benefits of DYONIPOS project.
Knowledge ManageMent
and e-goVernMent
Knowledge is relevant information in context;
this is the short underlying definition of knowledge
within the research project DYONIPOS. Public
sector knowledge has always played a central
role because of its economical importance and
supplying of public services without knowledge is
not possible at all. Fact is that knowledge workers
need more and more knowledge to perform their
daily work and even more knowledge is needed
for the execution of several tasks and the ad-hoc
part of processes increases constantly. In addition
knowledge acquisition becomes more complex
because the amount of information rises steadily
and heterogeneous systems are in use. Furthermore
the multitude of located information hinders the
selection of the knowledge really needed. This
yields thereto that existing knowledge gaps always
grow correspondently and that existing information which supports a task is not used. Often the
knowledge workers are not aware of knowledge
gaps as well as of existing information. It is also
very time-consuming to search for information in
the amount of different sources and to formulate
and propose enquiries to conventional searching
tools. These searching tools often deliver not the
279
DYONIPOS
wished results displaying unimportant information and missing those necessary. The unwished
information can only be deleted after reviewing
and considering as not important. In e-Government
scenarios, specifically, the use of information and
communication technologies to improve and exchange services is critical, as it implies in better
quality work to the people and economy.
as done until now?
A typical knowledge worker task would be to
shortly process a topic which is very important
and interesting for him. He neither knows where
the corresponding information about this topic
is stored nor which colleagues he can ask in this
regard. To get an overview about the required
information, a knowledge worker usually searches
in different sources (e.g. several server devices,
the own hard drive, on the internet, e-mail archive,
specific applications for example the electronic
record system (ELAK1), etc.) by using different
searching tools. Thereby he has to dispose each
search enquiry separately. Knowledge workers
dedicate much time and effort with search for
and analysis of information. A questioning within
the project DYONIPOS had the following result:
key-users spend daily between 2.1% and 60%
of their working time with enquiries (average
value: 16.1%). This search and analysis time can
be reduced significantly (Makolm, Wei, 2007).
Knowledge Management with

Support of dYoniPoS
Through the use of DYONIPOS, a knowledge
worker does not need to search actively in different
sources with different searching tools. DYONIPOS provides the knowledge autonomously where
and when it is needed, suitable to the corresponding working context of the knowledge worker.
DYONIPOS learns from the users interactions
with his systems, from the activities he performs
280
and from his analysis of the information resources

accessed. Hence DYONIPOS deduces the working
context [KRGL6], (Krll, Rath, Weber, Lindstaedt,
Granitzer, 2007).
DYONIPOS recognizes for example if the
knowledge worker prepares a presentation with
certain content or if he looks for certain information on the internet. The individual knowledge
base is developed out of the extracted concepts,
relationships and the user interactions. The
system identifies the need of information out
of the detected context and takes automatically
optimized enquires to the semantic consolidated
knowledge base. The individual assistant DYONIPOS searches for relevant information, e.g.
for documents, web sites, electronic records, for
colleagues who can help to tackle the current
task, for organizations that are engaged with the
topic as well as for associated concepts in general.
DYONIPOS provides these information resources
automatically to the user. A user can also search
specifically for information and check resources
upon similarities. If desired, DYONIPOS clusters
for example the relevant resources automatically
to topics and creates an interactive 3D-figure, the
so called topic landscape.
If a knowledge worker uses DYONIPOS he
does neither know where the relevant knowledge is
stored nor has he to search for it. Furthermore the
knowledge workers get information from which
they didnt know that it exists in the organization
at all. Through the use of DYONIPOS, knowledge workers do not have to search in different
sources with several searching tools. Further,
the supplied information (associated concepts
like the knowledge owner, association graph,
topic landscapes) facilitates the screening of the
search results. Transaction and process costs can
be reduced considerably through the reduction of
the searching time. Explicit knowledge enquiries
cease to exist. In addition, this leads to an optimization of the performed workflows. Double work
can be reduced because similar existing work is
displayed automatically; maybe this work can
DYONIPOS
be adopted after execution of small changes. In

addition DYONIPOS makes a contribution to the
reduction of e-mail avalanches because knowledge
does not have to be exchanged per e-mail any
longer; the organizational knowledge is directly
offered and available for all knowledge workers.
PreMiSeS
DYONIPOS follows the premise to produce no
extra work for the knowledge workers and to generate knowledge out of existing artifacts (e.g. texts)
so that no additional post-capture of knowledge is
necessary. A further premise is that DYONIPOS
proactively provides knowledge workers with
detected and context-sensitive knowledge. This
means that DYONIPOS recognizes changes of
the users context and provides automatically
that knowledge required in the actual context.
Furthermore DYONIPOS builds up on the fly
an individual and an organizational knowledge
base which relies on the artifacts produced by
the users and on websites released by users to
the organizational knowledge base. DYONIPOS
supports the knowledge workers in a manner that
they can autonomously perform their work. The
information which is necessary for the fulfillment
of their work is offered proactively and contextsensitively. The information contains on the one
hand individual knowledge which has been generated from the knowledge workers themselves and
on the other hand organizational knowledge which
has been generated by other knowledge workers. Organizational knowledge is the knowledge
which is explicitly released in the organizational
knowledge base or the knowledge which lies in the
by DYONIPOS integrated repositories. Through
the proactive and context-sensitive knowledge
provision, the quality of services that is delivered
is increasingly optimal because the knowledge
workers are provided adequately with knowledge
available in the organization.
tHe underlYing tecHnologieS

In the project DYONIPOS semantic and knowledge discovery technologies were used to develop
the proactive assistant (Rath, Krll, Andrews,
Lindstaedt, Granitzer, Tochtermann, 2006). The
technological challenges of the project DYONIPOS were the semantic integration of heterogeneous data sources, the semantic harmonization of
extracted entities, the automatically self-learning
recognition of the user-context, the deduction of
information needs of the knowledge worker, the
proactive provision of needed information and
information sources coming from the personal
and the organizational knowledge base as well
as the provision of various possibilities of the
successional analysis of the relevant hits. The
data is virtually mapped and semantically consolidated out of heterogeneous databases via
modular connectors in semantic structures. For
the representation of the semantic structures
RDF(S) and the ontology language OWL was
used. The technological bases of the innovative
approaches are formed of the m2n - Intelligence
Management application framework of the m2n
consulting and development gmbh as well as the
knowledge discovery framework Know-Miner
of the Know-Center Graz. The m2n Intelligence
Management application performs model-based
data integration, flexible linkage of highly modular
services in the form of various program flows as
well as the graphical design of the user-interface.
Know-Miner provides effective knowledge
discovery techniques like the recognition of entities, vectorization, clustering, association indexes
and classification approaches on the basis of a
semantic index. For the acquisition of a users
work-context the DYONIPOS Task Recognizer
a java program was implemented.
Different sensors of the Context Observer
Module observe the activities of the knowledge
worker based on keyboard entries and mouse
clicks (events). DYONIPOS uses a key-logger
to map the events of the user and stores all rec-
281
DYONIPOS
ognized events in an event protocol (Rath, Krll,

Lindstaedt, Granitzer, 2007). For the reduction of
the immense amount of data the mapped events
are filtered. All irrelevant data, for example the
mouse moves that contain no relevant information, is deleted. After that, the relevant events are
bundled to so called event blocks. This is possible
through a relation analysis. At this moment, generic application-based and web browser-based
rules are implemented (Rath, 2007). These rules
assign events, for example on the basis of the
file-name as well as the names of the application
of the currently opened window. Further rules can
be added with little effort (Krll, Rath, Granitzer,
Lindstaedt, Tochtermann, 2006), (Krll, Rath,
Weber, Lindstaedt, Granitzer, 2007).
In a next step the event blocks are assigned to
tasks. This happens under the use of k-nearestneighbour-classification, a support vector machine
which is based on graph-kernels [KRWL06].
Furthermore tasks can be recognized through
clustering because of similarities between content
and structural characteristics as well as the scatter/
gather approach.
RDF is the key technology of DYONIPOS.
All events, event blocks as well as all tasks are
encoded through RDF-Triples. This means that all
data for example of integrated applications, documents, presentations, e-mails etc. are structurally
stored. Through the creation of semantic linkages
between the contents of different repositories,
new knowledge can be made accessible. Newly
recognized resources are for example names of
experts or topics of an organization. Through the
supply of expert names also implicit knowledge
is made accessible. DYONIPOS also offers this
newly accessible knowledge proactively and
context-sensitively. It has to be noted that only
names of official DYONIPOS users are displayed.
These users are listed in a so called whitelist.
These technologies brought besides new possibilities of representation, analysis and knowledge
management also new challenges. Through the
automatic recognition, development and deposit-
282
ing of person-related data, questions concerning

data protection and privacy were brought up. These
questions were discussed with the Austrian data
protection commission and with the staff council
of the Federal Ministry of Finance.
Parallel implementation of the funded research
project and the use-case project made it possible
to exchange ideas between research and practice
constantly; this was useful for both projects. Furthermore the inclusion of all stakeholders such
as researchers, users, IT-experts and also the staff
council in the development process assures that
the results of the research project DYONIPOS
can and will be transformed optimally and in
real time into a practical application (Makolm,
Orthofer, 2007).
tHe deVeloPMent
ProceSS of dYoniPoS
The prototype DYONIPOS was developed in a
joint venture of research, economy and public
administration. The development occurred in two
projects, the research project and the use-case
project DYONIPOS. These projects complete each
other through knowledge transfer and cooperation.
The DYONIPOS research consortium consists of
the m2n consulting and development gmbh2, the
Know-Center Graz3, the Institute for Information
Systems and Computer Media (IICM) of the Graz
University of Technology4 as well as HPAustria5.
The objective of the research project was to design
and to develop the pilot software DYONIPOS. The
research project started on January 2nd, 2006 and
was completed by the first quarter of 2008. It was
funded by the semantic systems program within
FIT-IT, an Austrian research program provided by
the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and
Technology (BMVIT)6.
At the beginning the major objective was to
design and to develop the first prototype DYONIPOS. After this, the first prototype was tested
within the first step of the parallel implemented
DYONIPOS
use-case project. The use-case project is structured

into three phases, the first test, the second test
and the final test. Through these tests key-users
had the chance to actively take part in the design
process of the software. Within the research project two refinement steps were planned. All tests
served as a basis to support the improvement of
the DYONIPOS functions. In December 2007
the second test of a fundamental new version of
the prototype was started. The final test of the
prototype was scheduled for the end of July 2008.
After the final test DYONIPOS will be finished.
A second research project the DYONIPOS II
funded by COMET (an Austrian research program)
follows the first research project for a further
development of DYONIPOS and to transfer the
pilot software into a productive and user-friendly
application. Therefore a refinement project will
be carried out within the Directorate General of
Information Technology (DG-IT) of the Austrian
Federal Ministry of Finance. It is again the aim
of the refinement project to bring the scientific
results of the research project DYONIPOS II
to practical use. Further on, a roll-out project is
planned. The objective of the roll-out project is
that DYONIPOS will support approximately 100
employees of the DG-IT till the middle of 2009.
Within the first DYONIPOS project the prototype was improved by incorporating the wishes
and needs of the key-users. In the first test, the
basis of the information collection consisted of
questionnaires and protocols. Within the second
test the key-users could report failures that occurred during the test per e-mail and Wiki or via
a Bugtracking-Tool. Furthermore the staff department informed about important project results
and their opinion was obtained concerning data
protection or data security of the project.
the first test Phase

The first test took place from April to May 2007.
Ten key users participated in the first test of the
pilot software. In this test period, all key-users used
the client software DYONIPOS which was stored

on each key-users computer. In this first phase the
test included only the client components and no
server installation. Initial courses of instruction in
groups as well as individual courses aligned with
the abilities of the particular key-user took place
to show the key-users the handling of DYONIPOS
in practice and to prepare the key-users optimally
for the tests. In addition the functional spectrum
of DYONIPOS was presented practically. Before
and during the test the executives and key-users
were informed per e-mail about important project
results. The first test was used to collect information about the daily work of a knowledge worker
and this gathered data was semantically enriched
through the manual assignment of details about
the processes, tasks and events of the key-users.
They made proposals which detected events
respectively event blocks should be composed
into a task and which tasks should be summarized
to a process. Furthermore they performed the
naming of the tasks respectively the processes.
A personal knowledge base was built from the
resources and activities that were adjoined by the
key-users, serving as a basis to teach DYONIPOS
the operation methods of the key-users. After the
refinement of the first version, the assignment of
event blocks to a task respectively the assignment
of tasks to a process were taken autonomously
by DYONIPOS. In addition the key-users were
asked to test the first version of the software by
checking the functionalities as well as the graphical user interface of DYONIPOS critically and to
give constructive suggestions for an improvement.
Requirements were collected directly by the
key-users, thus developers gained a realistic insight
into the daily knowledge work. The key-users
documented their experiences with the software
during the test phase as well as the suggestions
for improvement by filling out a questionnaire
and by keeping a test protocol. The feedback
of the key-users was continuously positive. The
analysis of the questionnaires, protocols and the
log files leads to the following results which are
283
DYONIPOS
in turn implications for the further development

of the DYONIPOS system.
The first result was that huge parts of the
knowledge work were carried out via the computer. Exceptions were individual discussions and
conceptual thinking work. MS Word, GroupWise,
MS Excel, Internet, MS Internet Explorer, ELAK,
SQL-Navigator and further specific applications
were the most frequently used software applications. Reasons for the interruption of work are
often telephone calls, appointments or urgent
e-mails. The time which users spent for searching and collecting information varied from a few
minutes up to several hours a day. Frequently
required information are often documents stored
on the own hard drive and information provided
via the internet. Further sources are server drives
but also other knowledge owners like colleagues
or friends; very important is also the participation
in seminars.
Specific wishes of the key-users were that
the DYONIPOS window should be visible even
if other program windows are maximized open,
extension of searching functionalities e.g. the
search for documents within a period or a point
of time or the possible usage of wildcards. Some
key-users wanted more features to adjust the
software; others wished more support and suggestions from the DYONIPOS system. In addition
there were interface requirements, concerning
inconsistency of the start and stop button, a reminder to switch-on DYONIPOS again in case a
user had switched off the system, and about the
parallel implementation of English and German
terms in the user interface which was perceived
as being distracting.
Several suggestions related to the creation of
tasks were made. For example an extra button
was wished to create a task. In the first vision
of the software, tasks could only be created
through searching and choosing the function
in a pull-down menu. The key-users perceived
the logging of DYONIPOS on the one hand too
much and on the other hand too less. The log-
284
ging of each intermediary step, for example the

click through cascaded folders, was perceived
as unimportant. The declaration of the whole
URL of the last opened web site is wished and
not only the information about the homepage.
Furthermore displaying the subject of an e-mail
in addition to the e-mail address would be helpful. After setting-up the DYONIPOS software,
operational performance problems of the system
software and other applications were supposed.
All enumerated challenges had to be managed
within the first refinement process. The first test
proceeded very well due to the engagement of
the key-users and offered a solid basis for further
development and extended implementation of the
second prototype DYONIPOS. To integrate more
applications, additional sensors were developed
and the graphical user interface was adapted
according to the requirements of users to gain a
user-friendly application.
tHe Second teSt PHaSe

The second test phase was started in January
2008 and took approximately two months. A
fundamentally improved version of the prototype
DYONIPOS which establishes an organizational
knowledge base with new functionalities and
which also includes artifacts stored on the server
as well as electronic records was tested by 13
key-users. In the second test, the former manual
assignment of event blocks to tasks worked automatically. A key-user just observed this assignment
by doing corrections of wrongly assigned event
blocks and by confirmations of correctly assigned
event blocks.
Results of the second test phase were the
following helpful key-user suggestions: For a
knowledge worker more detailed context information of an information resource would be
helpful. Furthermore the direct opening of search
results in the concerned operational application
saves time. Additionally the analysis of individual
DYONIPOS
search results could be beneficial. Another main

point was that the training of the tasks is too timeconsuming. Also the conclusions were drawn, that
the detection of tasks is absolutely sufficient to
support the knowledge worker with the appropriate knowledge. Therefore the second prototype
enabled the classification of detected resources and
the visualization of associated concepts displayed
through a star-shaped graph and topic landscapes.
In the topic landscape, resources that are thematically similar are mapped closely together. Further
the selection of different resources was possible as
well as to display how similar they are. In addition DYONIPOS allows the selection of artifacts
according to sources e.g. file system, KOMPASS
(a proprietary database containing the staff and
their roles and authorizations), electronic records
(ELAK) and Web.
Through the identified information needs, the
DYONIPOS task recognizer also indicates associated persons with certain concepts. The graph
that showed these concepts was, as mentioned
above, mapped star-shaped for example with the
name of a person in the centre. In the association
graph, persons, organizations etc. were identified
and connected with several topics linked to the
information needed. Furthermore it was displayed,
showing company and its respective department
where the user works and his contact details. In
the graph also information about other projects
assigned to that user and with what concepts he
was associated was exhibited. Links to further
information were also available by clicking on
a symbol, relating for example if the person is
responsible for semantic technologies.
next Steps
Finally the third test phase was scheduled to start
in Mai 2009. The implemented user requirements
as well as research results from the first and the
second test phase were successfully implemented
in the system, becoming available for this phase.
In the third testing phase, the key-users also will
test the whole functionalities of DYONIPOS, ending with an evaluation and documentation of the
use-case results in a final project report. Parallel
to the final test, first preparations for the refinement of the prototype DYONIPOS into productive
software will be made. The roll-out including
e.g. the set-up of an adequate infrastructure will
start on the first of June 2009.
This paper reflects the status of the DYONIPOS
project per February 2009. In the meanwhile the
project was finished successfully and DYONIPOS
is productively used in the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance. Further usage in other organizations is in discussion.
SucceSS factorS, riSKS

and benefitS of dYoniPoS
The previous success of the project relies on a
highly successful joint venture between research,
economy and public administration and the modern project structure which allows the parallel
implementation of a research and use-case project. Such project structures have been proven as
successful for the work on uncertain and highly
dynamic questions. Through the parallel structure
on the one hand the direct application of new technologies is proved in practice and on the other hand
practice guides research in a successful direction
to create user-friendly applications. The testing of
this joint venture approach was another objective
of the project DYONIPOS. This approach will be
used further on in the DG-IT at the ministry of
finance because of the huge success which could
be drawn through the know-how transfer between
research and practice. In the research and the
use-case project, a notable high part of the communication was carried out per electronic media.
Cross-organizational distributed project teams
(located in the cities Vienna, Linz, and Graz) were
established between the project partners research,
economy and public administration because of the
modular project structure. These project groups
285
DYONIPOS
communicated per e-mail as well as via several

internet applications (Bugtracker, Wiki). Through
the use of these technologies good results in a
short time could be reached.
Like every knowledge management project,
also this project had risks and barriers that had to
be handled. The main risk was that the staff of the
Directorate General of Information Technology of
the Federal Ministry of Finance would not accept
or use DYONIPOS. This risk was treated through
comprehensive key-user tests and by involvement
of all stakeholders in the software development
process. The objective of all concerned parties was
that a user-friendly application could be developed
and be used intuitively without a big training
effort. Furthermore, an information campaign
will be started before the roll-out project begins.
DYONIPOS will be published in several newspapers, subscribed e-mail lists, in the intranet and on
the internal screen saver. It is also beneficial for
outsiders to publish the experiences of the project
because they can learn from the mistakes and the
success made within the project. A further reason
for the rejection of users could be data protection
or privacy concerns. It is important to inform users
about transparency, data protection and privacy
principles and agreements with the staff council
and to provide trust. DYONIPOS only provides
knowledge that would also be available for the
users without using DYONIPOS. Additional
provided knowledge must be explicitly released
by the user. Furthermore users can remove themselves from the system without the indication of
any reasons.
DYONIPOS enables the reduction of process
costs because through the use of DYONIPOS
knowledge workers can reduce the time that
they spend on searching for relevant information,
saving time to conduct other tasks. Additionally, knowledge workers of the Austrian Federal
Ministry of Finance can react faster and more
exactly on questions of customers (citizens and
businesses) because DYONIPOS also supports the
active semantically-based search for and analysis
286
of information. Through the implementation of

DYONIPOS in the public administration, administrative services can be provided optimally. For this
reason, DYONIPOS helps to strengthen Austria
as a business location. It is possible, especially
through the use of DYONIPOS in the DG-IT of the
Federal Ministry of Finance, that e-Government
solutions are implemented efficiently. The virtuality of cooperation was increased fundamentally
through the use of DYONIPOS, particularly because of the proactive exchange of organizational
knowledge as well as by the display of knowledge
owners. DYONIPOS delivers knowledge to the
knowledge workers that is useful for them. The
virtual cooperation is fostered through the contextsensitive display of knowledge owners. These are
potential conversational partners who can provide
information in a concrete work situation.
referenceS
Krll, M., Rath, A., Granitzer, M., Lindstaedt, S.,
& Tochtermann, K. (2006). Contextual Retrieval
in Knowledge Intensive Business Environments.
GI-Workshop Information Retrieval.
Krll, M., Rath, A., Weber, N., Lindstaedt, S., &
Granitzer, M. (2007). Task Instance Classification
via Graph Kernels, Mining and Learning with
Graphs. Italy: ICDM Workshop.
Makolm, J., & Orthofer, G. (2007). Holistic
Approach, Stakeholder Integration and Transorganizational Processes: Success Factors of FinanzOnline. In E-Taxation: State & Perspectives,
E-Government in the Field of Taxation: Scientific
Basis, Implementation Strategies, Good Practice
Examples. Series Informatics, 21, 389-402.
DYONIPOS
Makolm, J., & Wei, S. (2007). Forschung und

Praxis Hand in Hand. In Zeitschrift des Telematik-Ingenieur-Verbandes TIV, Telematik 1/2007
TELEkommunikation & InforMATIK, Knowledge
Worker Productivity, Web2.0 und Semantic Web:
Was bringt`s fr Unternehmen? (p. 12). Use Case
DYONIPOS.
Makolm, J., Wei, S., & Reisinger, D. (2007). Proactive Knowledge Management: The DYONIPOS
Research and Use Case Project. In Proceedings
of the first Conference on Theory and Practice
of Electronic Governance ICEGOV 2007. (p.
85). Macao.
Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhard, K. (2006). Wissen managen: Wie Unternehmen ihre wertvollste
Ressource optimal nutzen. Berlin, Germany:
Gabler Verlag.
Probst, G., & Romhardt, K. (n.d.). Bausteine des
Wissensmanagements - ein praxisorientierter
Ansatz. Retrieved from http://wwwai.wu-wien.
ac.at/~kaiser/seiw/Probst-Artikel.pdf.
Rath, A. (2007). A Low-Level Based Task And Process Support Approach for Knowledge-Intensive
Business Environments. In Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on Enterprise Information System Doctoral Consortium DCEIS 200 (pp.
35-42). Madeira, Portugal. June 12, 2007.
Rath, A., Krll, M., Andrews, K., Lindstaedt,

S., Granitzer, M., & Tochtermann, K. (2006).
Synergizing Standard and Ad-Hoc Processes. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management.
Vienna, Austria: LNCS Springer.
Rath, A., Krll, M., Lindstaedt, S., & Granitzer, M.
(2007). Low-Level Event Relationship Discovery
for Knowledge Work Support. In Proceedings of
the 4th Conference on Professional Knowledge
Management, ProKW2007 Productive Knowledge Work: Management and Technological
Challenges. Potsdam, Germany. GITO-Verlag.
Berlin, March 28.30, 2007.
endnoteS
1
2
3
4
Abbreviation of elektronischer Akt which

means the Austrian electronic records management system.
http://www.m2n.at
http://en.know-center.at/
http://www.iicm.tu-graz.ac.at/rootcollectio
n?timestamp=1188552118992
http://welcome.hp.com/country/uk/en/welcome.html
http://www.bmvit.gv.at/en/index.htm
287
288
Compilation of References
Aaker, D. A. (1998). Strategic marketing management.

New York: John Wiley.
Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & Day, G. S. (1998). Marketing
research. New York: John Wiley.
Aaker, D. (1989). Managing Assets and Skills: the Key
to a Sustainable Competitive Advantage. California
Ackermann, F., Franco, L. A., Gallupe, R. B., & Parent,
M. (2005). GSS for Multi-Organizational Collaboration:
Reflections on Process and Content. Group Decision
and Negotiation, 14(4), 307331. doi:10.1007/s10726005-0317-4
ActKM discussion forum. (2006). On Governance. Retrieved 20 February, 2006, from http://www.actkm.org.au
Agarwal, R., Krudys, G., & Tanniru, M. (1997). Infusing learning into an information systems organization.
European Journal of Information Systems, 6(1), 2540.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000257
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual
foundations and research issues. Management Information
Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107133. doi:10.2307/3250961
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2005). An
Empirical Examination of the Influence of Organizational
Culture on Knowledge Management Practices. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191224.
doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222220307
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems: Emerging Views and Practices from the
Field. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, USA: IEEE
Computer Society Press.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits,
Communications of the AIS, 1.
Almashari, M., Zairi, M., & Alathari, A. (2002). An Empirical Study of the Impact of Knowledge Management
on Organizational Performance. Journal of Computer
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Amabile, T. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do.
Amar, A. (2002). Managing Knowledge Workers. Westport: Quorum Books.
Anantatmula, V. S. (2005). Outcomes of Knowledge
Initiatives. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 5067.
Anantatmula, V., & Kanungo, S. (2006). Structuring the
Underlying Relations among the Knowledge Management
Outcomes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4),
2542. doi:10.1108/13673270610679345
Anantatmula, V. S. P. (2007). Linking KM effectiveness

attributes to organizational performance. VINE: The
Journal of information and knowledge management
systems, 37(2), 133-149.
Anantatmula, V., & Kanungo, S. (2005). Establishing
and Structuring Criteria for Measuring Knowledge
Management Efforts. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural
equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Anson, R., Bostrom, R. P., & Wynne, B. (1995). An
Experiment Assessing GSS and Facilitator Effects on
Meeting Outcomes. Management Science, 41(2), 189208.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.41.2.189
April, K. A. (2002). Guidelines for developing a K-strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 445456.
doi:10.1108/13673270210450405
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing
Knowledge in Organizations An Integrative Framework
and Review of Emerging Themes. Management Science,
49(4), 571582. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.571.14424
Arnett, D. B., Laverie, D. A., & Meiers, A. (2003).
Developing parsimonious retailer equity indexes using
partial least squares analysis: A method and applications.
Journal of Retailing, 79, 161170. doi:10.1016/S00224359(03)00036-8
Arthur Andersen. (1996). The knowledge management
practices book: A guide to whos doing what in organizational knowledge management. Arthur Andersen
Consulting.
Ashok, G. (1999). Business driven research & development: managing knowledge to create wealth. West
Lafayette: Ichor Business.
Asoh, D. A., Belardo, S., & Crnkovic, J. (2005). Computing the Knowledge Management Index: Validation of
the instrument. Paper presented at the 16th Information
Resources Management Association Conference (IRMA
2005), San Diego, California.
Asoh, D., Belardo, S., & Crnkovic, J. (2002). Modeling
and constructing the Knowledge Management Index of
organizations. Paper presented at the 6th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics
(SCI 2002), Orlando, FL.
Asoh, D., Belardo, S., & Crnkovic, J. (2004). The relationship between the Knowledge Management Index and
organizational performance: A preliminary empirical
analysis. Paper presented at the 15th International Information Resource Management Association Conference
(IRMA 2004), New Orleans, Louisiana.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing
Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421458.
Bahmanziari, T., Pearson, J. M., & Crosby, L. (2003). Is
trust important in technology adoption? A policy capturing approach. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
43(4), 4654.
Bajwa, D. S., Lewis, L. F., & Pervan, G. (2003). Adoption of Collaboration Information Technologies in
Australian and US Organizations: A Comparative Study,
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved April 17, 2009 from
http://www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings/
hicss/2003/1874/01/187410017c
Bakker, M., Leenders, R. T. A. J., Gabbay, S. M., Kratzer,
J., & Van Engelen, J. M. L. (2006). Is trust really social
capital? Knowledge sharing in product development
projects. The Learning Organization, 13(6), 594605.
doi:10.1108/09696470610705479
Bals, C., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2007). A Case for
Integrated Knowledge Management. In Proceedings of
the 4th Conference Professional Knowledge Management: Experiences and Visions. Berlin, Germany: GITO.
289
Bals, C., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2007). Assessing

User Acceptance of a Knowledge Management System in
a Global Bank: Process Analysis and Concept Development. In Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The
Partial Least Square (PLS) approach to casual modeling:
Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration.
Technology Studies, 2(2), 285309.
Barna, Z. (2003). Knowledge Management: A Critical EBusiness Strategic Factor (Unpublished Masters Thesis).
San Diego State University.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99120.
doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based view a
useful perspective for strategic management research?
Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 4156.
doi:10.2307/259393
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a
source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of
Management Review, 11(3), 656665. doi:10.2307/258317
Barquin, R. C., Bennet, A., & Remez, S. G. (2001).
Knowledge Management: The Catalyst for Electronic
Government. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.
Barth, S. (2000, October). KM Horror Stories. Knowledge
Management Magazine, 3, 3740.
Bayyavarapu, H. B. (2005). Knowledge management
strategies and firm performance. London, Ontario: The
University of Western Ontario.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Organizational Knowledge Management: A contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(1), 2355.
Bertzsis, A. T. (2001). Dimensions of the Knowledge
Management Process. IEEE Computer Society, 15294188/01, 432-441.
290
Berztiss, A. T. (2002). Capability Maturity for Knowledge

Management. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications
(DEXA02)
Bierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic Knowledge
Strategies in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry. Strategic
Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 123-135.
Binney, D. (2001). The knowledge management
spectrum - understanding the KM landscape.
doi:10.1108/13673270110384383
Birkinshaw, J., & Sheehan, T. (2002). Managing the
Knowledge Life Cycle. MIT Sloan Management Review,
44(1), 7583.
Blomqvist, K., & Sthle, P. (2000). Building organizational trust. Paper presented at the 16th IMP-conference. from http://www.impgroup.org/paper_view.
php?viewPaper=37
Bock, G.-W., Sahbherwal, R., & Qian, Z. (2008). The effect
of social context on the success of knowledge repository
systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
55(4), 536551. doi:10.1109/TEM.2008.927824
Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: A review
of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 4160.
doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00053
Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual Capital: An Exploratory
Study that Develops Measures and Models. Management
Decision, 36, 6376. doi:10.1108/00251749810204142
Bose, R. (2004). Knowledge management metrics. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(6), 457468.
doi:10.1108/02635570410543771
Bots, P., & De Bruijn, H. (2002). Effective Knowledge
Management in Professional Organizations. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Boudreau, M., Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2001).

Validation of IS research: A state-of-the-art assessment.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 124.
doi:10.2307/3250956
Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. (2001). Effects on Customer
Service Perceptions and Outcome Behaviors. Journal of
Service Research, 3(February), 241251.
Braganza, A., Hackney, R., & Tanudjojo, S. (2007).
Organizational knowledge transfer through creation,
mobilization and diffusion: a case analysis of InTouch
within Schlumberger. Information Systems Journal.
Bragge, J., & Merisalo-Rantanen, H. (2009). Engineering
E-Collaboration Processes to Obtain Innovative End-User
Feedback on Advanced Web-Based Information Systems.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
10(3), 196220.
Bragge, J., Merisalo-Rantanen, H., Nurmi, A., & Tanner,
L. (2007). A Repeatable E-Collaboration Process Based
on ThinkLets for Multi-Organization Strategy Development. Group Decision and Negotiation, 16(2), 363379.
doi:10.1007/s10726-006-9055-5
Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, G. J., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003).
Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Support Systems. Journal of
Briggs, R. O., & de Vreede, G. J. (2001). ThinkLets:
Building Blocks for Concerted Collaboration, (Version
1.0), Tucson: GroupSystems.com.
Bro, R. F. (1974). Interpretive Structural Modeling as
Technology for Social Learning. Conference on Decision and Control, November 20-22. Phoenix, AZ: IEEE.
Brockman, B. K., & Morgan, R. M. (2003). The role
of existing knowledge in new product innovativeness
and performance. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 385420.
doi:10.1111/1540-5915.02326
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing act: How

to Capture Knowledge without Killing It. Harvard Business Review, 78(3).
Brown, R. B., & Woodland, M. J. (1999). Managing
knowledge wisely: A case study in organizational behavior.
Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8(2), 175198.
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Gant, D. B. (2006). Understanding the Factors Influencing the Value of Personto-Person Knowledge Sharing. 39th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bryne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with
AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bueno, E. (1998). El Capital Intangible como Clave Estratgica en la Competencia Actual. Boletn de Estudios
Econmicos, 53, 207229.
Cabrita, M. R., & Bontis, N. (2008). Intellectual Capital
and Business Performance in the Portuguese Banking
Industry. International Journal of Technology Management, 43(1-3), 212237. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2008.019416
Capon, (1992). Profiles of Product Innovators among large
U.S. Manufacturers. Management Science, 38, 157169.
Carlile, P., & Rebentisch, E. S. (2003). Into the Black
Box: The Knowledge Transformation Cycle. Management Science, 49(9), 11801195. doi:10.1287/
mnsc.49.9.1180.16564
Carlsson, S. A., & Sawy, O. A. El, Eriksson, Inger and
Raven, Arjan. (1996). Gaining Competitive Advantage
Through Shared Knowledge Creation: In Search of a
New Design Theory for Strategic Information Systems.
In Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on
Information Systems. Lisbon, Portugal. (pp. 1067-1076).
Brooking, A. (1996). Intellectual Capital. Core Asset for

the Third Millennium Enterprise. London: International
Thomson Business Press.
291
Carlucci, D., & Schiuma, G. (2007). Exploring Intellectual

Capital Concept in Strategic Management Research. In
Joia, L. A. (Ed.), Strategies for Information Technology
and Intellectual Capital (pp. 1028). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management
influences innovation and competitiveness? Journal of
Carnevale, D. G., & Wechsler, B. (1992). Trust in the
public sector. Administration & Society, 23, 471494.
doi:10.1177/009539979202300404
Carson, E., Ranzijn, R., Winefield, A., & Marsden, H.
(2004). Intellectual Capital. Mapping Employee and Work
Group Attributes. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(3),
443463. doi:10.1108/14691930410550390
Carvalho, R. B., & Ferreira, M. A. T. (2001). Using information technology to support knowledge conversion
processes. Information Research, 7(1). Retrieved May 10th,
2009 from http://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper118.html
Chan, I., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2005). Getting knowledge
management right: lessons from failure. International
Chan, Y. E., Huff, S. L., & Copeland, D. G. (1998). Assessing realized information systems strategy. Strategic
Information Systems, 6, 273298. doi:10.1016/S09638687(97)00005-X
Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A Comparison of Bifactor and Second-Order Models of Quality of
Life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189225.
doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
Chen, F., Romano, N., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). A Collaborative Project Manamgent Approach and a Framework
for Its Supporting Systems. Journal of International
Technology and Information Management, 15(2), 116.
Chen, A.-P., & Chen, M.-Y. (2005). A review of survey
research in knowledge management performance measurement: 1995-2004. Paper presented at the I-KNOW 05.
292
Chilton, M. A., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2008). The dimensions of tacit & explicit knowledge: A description and
measure. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 7591.
Chilton, M. A., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2007). The dimensions of tacit & explicit knowledge: A description and
measure. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS
2007), Hawaii, USA.
Chin, W. W. (2005). PLS Graph. Soft Modeling, Inc.
Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention
in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs. The Data Base
for Advances in Information Systems, 26(2&3), 4263.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to
structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed.),
Modern Methods for Business Research (pp. 295336).
Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation
modeling analysis with small samples using Partial Least
Squares. In Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed.), Modern Methods
for Business Research (pp. 307341).
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2002). An empirical investigation
of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance.
Information & Management, 40(5), 403417. doi:10.1016/
S0378-7206(02)00060-5
Chong, S., & Choi, Y. S. (2005). Critical Factors in the
Successful Implementation of Knowledge Management.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice In the
Knowledge Garden, 6.
Choo, C. W. (1998). The Knowing Organization. New
Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (2002). Strategic management
of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. New
Chourides, P., Longbottom, D., & Murphy, W. (2003).
Excellence in Knowledge Management: An Empirical Study to Identify Critical Factors and Performance
Measures. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(2), 2945.
doi:10.1108/13683040310477977
Chua, A., & Lam, W. (2005). Why KM projects fail: a

multi-case analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management,
9(3), 617.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A First Course

in Factor Analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach (revised

and updated). New York: Dell Publishing.
Conradi, R., & Dyba, T. (2001). An Empirical Study on

the Utility of Formal Routines to Transfer Knowledge
and Experience. ESEC/FSE. Vienna: ACM.
CIC (2003). Modelo Intellectus: Medicin y Gestin del

Capital Intelectual (Serie Documentos Intellectus No.
5). Madrid: Centro de Investigacin sobre la Sociedad
del Conocimiento (CIC).
Clark, K. B., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1995). The product development challenge. Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Clawson, V. K., Bostrom, R. P., & Anson, R. (1993).
The Role of the Facilitator in Computer-Supported
Meetings. Small Group Research, 24(4), 547565.
doi:10.1177/1046496493244007
Coff, R. W. (1997). Human Assets and Management
Dilemmas: Coping with Hazards on the Road to ResourceBased Theory. Academy of Management Review, 22(2),
374402. doi:10.2307/259327
Cohen, D. (1998). Toward a knowledge context: Report
on the first annual U.C. Berkeley forum on knowledge and
the firm. California Management Review, 40(3), 2240.
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). Good Company. How
Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Harvard Business School Press.
Comer, J. M., Machleit, K. A., & Lagace, R. R. (1989).
Psychometric assessment of a reduced version of INDSALES. Journal of Business Research, 18(4), 291302.
doi:10.1016/0148-2963(89)90023-4
Commission, 911 (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report:
Final Reort of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W.W. Norton
& Company Ltd.
Commission, 911 (2005). Final Report of the 9/11 Public
Discourse Project, December 5, 2005. Retrieved January
12, 2006, from http://www.9-11pdp.org
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures

of trust, organizational commitment and personal need
non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
53, 3952.
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational
Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization
Science, 10(4), 381400. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.4.381
Cooper, R. G. (1984). The impact of new product strategies:
what distinguishes top performers? Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 1(2), 151164.
Cooper, L. P. (2006). An Evolutionary Model for KM
Success. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society
Press.
Corso, M., Martini, A., Paolucci, E., & Pellegrini, L.
(2003). Knowledge management configurations in Italian
small-to-medium enterprises. Integrated Manufacturing
Systems, 14(1), 4656. doi:10.1108/09576060310453344
Crnkovic, J., Belardo, S., & Asoh, D. (2004). The Knowledge Management Index as a micro level organizational
diagnostic tool: Analysis and illustrations with data from
a pilot study. Paper presented at the 9th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics (SCI
2004), Orlando, Florida.
Cross, R., & Baird, L. (2000). Technology Is Not Enough:
Improving Performance by Building Organizational
Memory. Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 4154.
Culbert, S. A., & McDonough, J. J. (1986). The politics
of trust and organizational empowerment. Public Administration Quaterly, 10, 171188.
293
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and

practice. Boston: Elsevier.
Damodaran, L., & Olphert, W. (2000). Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Knowledge Management Systems.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 19(6), 405413.
doi:10.1080/014492900750052660
Daniel, D. R. (1961). Management Information Crisis.
Darroch, J. (2003). Developing a measure of
knowledge management behaviors and practices.
doi:10.1108/13673270310505377
Davenport, T. H., DeLong, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998).
Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T. H., Thomas, R. J., & Cantrell, S. (2002).
The mysterious art and science of knowledge-worker
performance. Sloan Management Review, 44, 2330.
Davenport, T. H., & Grover, V. (2001). Special issue:
Knowledge management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 34.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease
of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13,
319340. doi:10.2307/249008
Day, G. S. (1999). Market Driven Strategy. New York:
The Free Press.
Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988, April). Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive superiority.
De Furia, G. L. (1997). Facilitators guide to the interpersonal trust surveys. Pfeiffer & Co.
De Furia, G. L. (1996). A Behavioral Model of Interpersonal Trust. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns
University, Springfield, LA.
294
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural

barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of
Management Executive. Ada, 14(4), 113127.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural
barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of
Management Executive, 14(4), 113127.
De Tienne, K. B., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C., & Harris, S. (2004).
Toward a Model of Effective Knowledge Management
and Directions for Future Research: Culture, Leadership
and CKOs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 10(4), 2643.
de Vreede, G.-J., Briggs, R. O., & Massey, A. P. (2009).
Collaboration Engineering: Foundations and Opportunities: Editorial to the Special Issue on the Journal of
the Association of Information Systems. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 10(3), 121137.
de Vreede, G.-J., Fruehling, A., & Chakrapani, A. (2005).
A Repeatable Collaboration Process for Usability Testing.
In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Retrieved April 17, 2009 from
hicss/2005 /2268/01/22680046.pdf
Delahaye, D. (2003). Knowledge Management in a SME.
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(3),
604614.
Delmonte, A. J., & Aronson, J. E. (2004). The Relationship
Between Social Interaction And Knowledge Management
System Success. Journal of Knowledge Management
Practice, 5.
Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information
Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable.
Information Systems Research, 3, 6095. doi:10.1287/
isre.3.1.60
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone
and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A
Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 19(4), 930.
den Hengst, M., & Adkins, M. (2007). Which collaboration patterns are most challenging: A global survey of
facilitators. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved
May 4, 2009 from csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/
hicss/2007 /2755/00/27550017b.pdf
den Hengst, M., Dean, D., Kolfchoten, G., & Chakrapani,
A. (2006). Assessing the Quality of Collaborative Processes. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Retrieved April 17, 2009
from http://www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/ proceedings/hicss/2006/2507/01/250710016b.pdf
den Hengst, M., van de Kar, E., & Appelman, J. (2004).
Designing mobile information services: user requirements
elicitation with GSS design and application of a repeatable process. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Retrieved
April 17, 2009 from http://www2.computer.org/plugins/
dl/pdf/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/01/205610018c.pdf
Denning, S. (1998). What is knowledge management? from
http://www.stevedenning.com/Find_what_is_km.html
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and

applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dhaliwal, J., & Benbasat, I. (1996). The use and effects
of knowledge-based system explanations: Theoretical
foundations and a framework for empirical evaluation. Information Systems Research, 7(3), 342362. doi:10.1287/
isre.7.3.342
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001,
May). Index construction with formative indicators:
An alternative to scale development. JMR, Journal of
Marketing Research, xxxxvlll, 269277. doi:10.1509/
jmkr.38.2.269.18845
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The
tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Dinur, A. (2002). Intrafirm knowledge transfers in multinational corporations: Considering critical context.
Temple University.
Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The Measurement of
End-User Computing Satisfaction. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12, 259275. doi:10.2307/248851
Dennis, A. R., & Vessey, I. (2005). Three knowledge

management strategies: knowledge hierarchies, knowledge markets, and knowledge communities. MIS Quaterly
Executive, 4(4), 399412.
Dooley, K. J., Corman, S. R., & McPhee, R. D. (2002). A

Knowledge Directory for Identifying Experts and Areas
of Expertise. Human Systems Management, 21, 217228.
Dennis, A., & Wixom, B. (2001). Investigating the

moderators of the group support system use with metaanalysis. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(3), 235257.
Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1997). Why Computers

May Never Think Like People. In Ruggles, R. (Ed.),
Knowledge Management Tools (pp. 3150). Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dennis, A. R., Tyran, C. K., Vogel, D., & Nunamaker, J.

F. (1997). Group Support Systems for Strategic Planning.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(1),
155184.
Dudezert, A. (2006). Approaches and Methods for Valuing

Knowledge Management Performance. In Boughzala, I.,
& Ermine, J.-L. (Eds.), Trends In Enterprise Knowledge
Management. International Scientific and Technical Encyclopedia. doi:10.1002/9780470612132.ch6
DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A Foundation for

the Study of Group Decision Support Systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589609. doi:10.1287/mnsc.33.5.589
Desouza, K. C., & Raider, J. J. (2006). Cutting corners:
CKOs and knowledge management. Business Process
Management Journal, 12(2).
Dupuy, F. (2000). Why Is It So Difficult to Reform Public

Administration? Government of the Future. Paris: OECD
Publications.
295
Dutta, S. (1997). Strategies for Implementing Knowledgebased Systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(1), 7990. doi:10.1109/17.552810
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies:
Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1), 215234.
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001). Group Decision and
Negotiation in Strategy Making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 119140. doi:10.1023/A:1008710816126
Engestrom, Y., Engestrom, R., & Karkkainen, M. (1995).

Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work
activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319336.
doi:10.1016/0959-4752(95)00021-6
Ericsson, F., & Avdic, A. (2003). Knowledge Management
Systems Acceptance. In Coakes, E. (Ed.), Knowledge
Management: Current Issues and Challenges (pp. 3951).
Hershey, PA: IRM Press.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning

behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44(2), 350384. doi:10.2307/2666999
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., &

Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the Use of Exploratory
Factor Analysis in Psychological Research. Psychological
Methods, 4(3), 272299. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual Capital.

Realizing your Companys True Value by Findings its
Hidden Brainpower. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The Eleven Deadliest

Sins of Knowledge Management. California Management
Review, 40(3), 265276.
Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature

and direction of the relationship between constructs
and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155174.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155
Edwards, J. S., & Kidd, J. B. (2003, February). Knowledge
Management Sans Frontiers. The Journal of Operational
Research Society. Special Issue on Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital, 54(2), 130139.
Ehms, K., & Langen, M. (2002). Holistic Development
of Knowledge Management with KMMM. Retrieved 5
December, 2004, from www.knowledgeboard.com/cgibin/library.cgi?action=detail&id=5180
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global
computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40(1), 84110. doi:10.2307/2393701
Elliott, S., & ODell, C. (1999). Sharing knowledge
& best practices: The hows and whys of tapping your
organizations hidden reservoirs of knowledge. Health
Forum Journal, 42(3), 3437.
296
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A premier for Soft

Modeling. Akron, OH: The University of Akron.
Fernandes, A. A. (2000). Combining inductive and deductive inference in knowledge management tasks. In
Eleventh International Workshop on Database and Expert
Systems Applications, pp. 1109-1 114, IEEE Computer
Society Press, 2000.
Fink, K., & Ploder, C. (2008). Integration Concept for
Knowledge Processes, Methods & Software for SMEs. In
Gupta, J., Sharma, S., & Rashid, M. (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of Enterprise Systems. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Fink, K., & Ploder, C. (2007). Knowledge Process
Modeling in SME and Cost-Efficient Software Support: Theoretical Framework and Empirical Studies. In
Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.), Managing Worldwide Operations and Communications with Information Technology.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Fink, K. (2009). Knowledge Measurement Barriers. Paper
presented at the 15th American Conference on Information
Systems, San Francisco.
Fink, K., & Ploder, C. (2006). The Impact of Knowledge

Process Modeling on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. In K. Tochtermann & H. Maurer (Eds.), Proceedings of
I-KNOW 06: 6th International Conference on Knowledge
Management (pp. 47-51). Graz: J.UCS.
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). An Assessment of
Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 15(3), 7150.
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2000). Group Support
Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of Case and Field
Studies. Journal of Management Information Systems,
17(3), 112157.
GAO. (2005). High-Risk Series, An Update, January,

2005, Document # GAO-05-207. Retrieved February 2,
2005, from http://www.gao.gov/sp
Garud, R. (1997). On the distinction between know-how,
know-what and know-why. In Huff, A., & Walsh, J.
(Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management (pp. 81101).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gasson, S. (2005). The dynamics of sensemaking, knowledge, and expertise in collaborative, boundary-spanning
design. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
10(4).
Focus, H. R. (2007). Why culture can mean life or death

for your organization. HRFocus, 84, 9.
Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry, J. F. Jr. (2006).

Creating a market orientation: a longitudinal, multifirm,
grounded analysis of cultural transformation. Journal of
Marketing, 70, 3755.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. (1982). Two structural

equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer
exit-voice theory. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research,
19, 440452. doi:10.2307/3151718
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000).

Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines
for research practice. Communications of the Association
for Information Systems, 4(Article 7), 1-77.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural

equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 3950. doi:10.2307/3151312
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2005). SPSS for Windows Step

by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 12.0 Update,
5th Edition.
Fornell, C., Lorange, P., & Roos, J. (1990, Oct.). The

cooperative venture formation process: A latent variable
structural modeling approach. Management Science, 36,
12461255. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.10.1246
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated

paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. JMR, Journal of Marketing
Research, 25, 186192. doi:10.2307/3172650
Fornell, C. R. (1982). A Second Generation of Multivariate

Analysis.: Vol. I. Methods. New York: Praeger.
Gerjuoy, E. (1993). Uncertainty Principle. In Parker, S.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Physics (pp. 14901491). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Freeze, R., & Kulkarni, U. (2007). Knowledge

Management Capability: Defining Knowledge Assets. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(6).
doi:10.1108/13673270710832190
Germain, R., Droge, C., & Daugherty, P. J. (1994). The

Effect of Just-in-time selling on organizational structure:
an empirical investigation. JMR, Journal of Marketing
Research, 31, 471483.
Galford, R., & Drapeau, A. S. (2003). The enemies of

trust. Harvard Business Review.
Geus, A. (1997). The Living Company. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.
GAO. (2004). GAO Strategic Plan for 2004-2009, Document # GAO-04-5334SP. Retrieved December 20, 2005,
from http://www.gao.gov/sp.html
297
Ginsberg, M., & Kambil, A. (1999). Annotate: A Webbased Knowledge Management Support System for
Document Collections. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE
Glazer, R. (1991). Marketing in an Information-Intensive
Environment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an
Asset. Journal of Marketing, 55, 119.
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing Effective Knowledge
Transfer: An Integrative Framework and Some Practice
Implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1),
2330. doi:10.1108/13673270210417664
Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities
Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(1), 185214.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). TaskTechnology Fit and Individual Performance. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19(2), 213236.
doi:10.2307/249689
Gopal, A., Bostrom, R. P., & Chin, W. W. (1992). Applying
adaptive structuration theory to investigate the process
of group support systems use. Journal of Management
Grant, G. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge
integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375387.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory
of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Special
Issue), 109122.
Grant, R. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). The impact of
computerized performance monitoring on service work:
Testing a casual model. Information Systems Research,
2(2), 116142. doi:10.1287/isre.2.2.116
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implication for strategy. California
298
Green, H. (2000). Information Theory and Quantum

Physics. Berlin: Springer Publisher.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P.,
& Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in
service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581629.
doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
Gribbin, J. (1999). Q is for Quantum. New York: A
Touchstone Book.
Griffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source
credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 104120.
doi:10.1037/h0024833
Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research
agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(1), 517.
Gruber, M. (2000). Der Wandel von Erfolgsfaktoren Mittelstndischer Unternehmen. Wiesbaden: DUV.
Guo, Z., & Sheffield, J. (2006). A paradigmatic and
methodological examination of KM research: 2000 to
2004. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2006),
Hawaii, USA.
Gupta, M. (1992). Intelligence, Uncertainty and Information. In Ayyub, B., Gupta, M., & Kanal, L. (Eds.),
Analysis and Management of Uncertainty. Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Gurteen, D. (1998). Knowledge, Creativity and Innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 513.
doi:10.1108/13673279810800744
Gustafsson, J., & Balke, G. (1993). General and Specific
Abilities as Predictors of School Achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407434. doi:10.1207/
s15327906mbr2804_2
Hackett, B. (2000). Beyond Knowledge Management:
New ways to work and learn.: The Conference Board.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hair, J. F. A., Rolph, E., Tathan, R. L., & Black, W. C.
(1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F. Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black,
W. C. (2004). Anlisis Multivariante. Madrid: PearsonPrentice Hall.
Hall, R. (1992). The Strategic Analysis of Intangible
Resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 135144.
doi:10.1002/smj.4250130205
Hall, R. (1993). A Framewok Linking Intangible Resources
and Capabilities to Sustainable Competitive Advantage.
Strategic Management Journal, 14, 607618. doi:10.1002/
smj.4250140804
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). Competindo pelo
futuro. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Campus.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). Whats
Your Strategy For Managing Knowledge? Harvard Business Review, (March-April): 106116.
Hansen, M. T., & Nohria, N. (2004). How to Build Collaborative Advantage? MIT Sloan Management Review,
46(1), 2230.
Hansen, M., Nohira, N., & Tierney, T. (2001). In In, H.
B. R. (Ed.), Whats your strategy for managing knowledge? (pp. 6186). Boston: Harvard Business Review on
Organizational Learning.
Harigopal, U., & Satyadas, A. (2001). Cognizant Enterprise Maturity Model (CEMM). IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part C, Applications
and Reviews, 31(4), 449459. doi:10.1109/5326.983928
Hatami, A., Galliers, R. D., & Huang, J. (2003). Exploring

the Impacts of Knowledge (Re) Use and Organizational
Memory on the Effectiveness of Strategic Decisions:
A Longitudinal Case Study. 36th Hawaii International
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step by step approach to using SAS
for factor analysis and structural equation modeling.
Cary, N.C: SAS.
Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1999). Strategic
alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organisations. IBM Systems Journal, 38(2/3), 472.
Henderson, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(2), 416.
Hendriks, P., & Vriens, D. (1999). Knowledge-based
systems and knowledge management: friends or foes?
Information & Management, 35(2), 113125. doi:10.1016/
S0378-7206(98)00080-9
Henselewski, M., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2006).
Evaluation of Knowledge Management Technologies for
the Support of Technology Forecasting. In Proceedings
of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences. Hawaii, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Herschel, R., & Yermish, I. (2008). Knowledge Transfer:
Revisiting Video. International Journal of Knowledge
Management, 4(2).
Hibbard, J. (1997, Oct.). Knowing what we know. InformationWeek, 653, 4654.
Hariharan, A. (2005). Implementing seven KM enablers

at Bharti. Knowledge Management Review, 8(3), 89.
Hinds, P., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Why organizations dont

know what they know: cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise. In Ackerman, M.,
Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (Eds.), Sharing expertise: beyound
knowledge management (pp. 326). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Hart, W. L., & Malone, D. (1974). Goal Setting for a

State Environmental Agency. Conference on Decision
and Control, November 20-22. Phoenix, AZ: IEEE.
Hoffer, J. A., Prescott, M. B., & McFadden, R. R. (2005).

Modern Database Management (7th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
299
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2000). An Investigation

of Factors that Influence the Management of Knowledge in
Organizations. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 235261. doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00046-9
Holsapple, C. W., & Whinston, A. B. (1996). Decision
Support Systems A Knowledge-Based Approach. Minneapolis, St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
Iivari, J. (2005). An empirical test of the DeLone-McLean

Model of information system success. The Data Base for
Advances in Information Systems, 36(2), 826.
Im, S., & Workman, J. P. (2004). Market Orientation, Creativity, and New Product Performance in High-Technology
Firms. Journal of Marketing, 68, 114132.
Holsapple, C., & Wu, J. (2008). Does Knowledge Management Pay Off? Paper presented at the HICSS-41.
Im, S. K., Grover, V., & Sharma, S. (1998). The use

of structural equation modeling in research. (Report).
Columbia: University of South Carolina.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit

indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 155. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
International Standards Organization. (2006). ISO/IEC

16085:2006: Systems and software engineering - Life
cycle processes - Risk management. Geneva: International
Standards Organization.
Huber, G. P. (1984). Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Sytems. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 8(3), 195204. doi:10.2307/248666
Ionescu, L. M., Burstein, F., & Zyngier, S. (2006). Knowledge Management Strategies in Australia (No. 2006/01).
Caulfield East: Knowledge Management Research Program, Monash University. Document Number.
Huber, G. P., Davenport, T. H., & King, D. (1998). Some

Perspectives on Organizational Memory, Unpublished
Working Paper for the Task Force on Organizational
Memory, In F. Burstein, G. Huber, M. Mandviwalla, J.
Morrison, and L. Olfman, (eds.), Presented at the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Hubert, C. (2002). Knowledge Management: Its About
Engaging Your Culture, Not Changing It Retrieved
July, 17, 2004, from www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/site/
content?docid=107492
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in
strategic management research: A review of four recent
studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195204.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AIDSMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7
Hult, T. G., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does Market Orientation Matter? A Test of the Relationship Between Positional
Advantage and Performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 22(September), 899906.
Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation,
Marketing Orientation and Organizational Learning:
An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of
300
IT Governance Institute. (2001). Board Briefing on IT

Governance. Rolling Meadows, Il. Information Systems
Audit and Control Foundation.
Itami, H., & Roehl, T. (1987). Mobilizing Invisible Assets.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding
the antecedents of effective knowledge management: The
importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision
Sciences, 34(2), 351384. doi:10.1111/1540-5915.02328
Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003,
September). A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and
consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research,
30, 199218. doi:10.1086/376806
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market Orientation:
Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing,
57, 5370.
Jennex, M. E. (2005). What is Knowledge Management?
International Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(4),
15.
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2005). Assessing Knowledge

Management Success. International Journal of Knowledge
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2006). A Model of Knowledge Management Success. International Journal of
Jennex, M. E. (2006). Culture, Context, and Knowledge
Management. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 15.
Jennex, M. E., & Croasdell, D. (2005). Knowledge Management: Are We A Discipline? International Journal of
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2005). Assessing knowledge
management success. International Journal of Knowledge
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2006). A Model of Knowledge Management Success. International Journal of
Jennex, M. E. (2005). Knowledge Management Systems.
International Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2),
14.
Jennex (Ed.). (2007). Knowledge Management in Modern
Organizations. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Jennex, M. E. (2000). Using an Intranet to Manage
Knowledge for a Virtual Project Team, Internet-Based
Organizational Memory and Knowledge Management
(Schwartz, D. G., Divitini, M., & Brasethvik, T., Eds.).
Idea Group Publishing.
Jennex, M. (2005). The issue of system use in knowledge
management systems. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
Jennex, M. E. (2007, November 9). Knowledge Management in Support of Education. First International
Conference on Education Reform, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2000). Development Recommendations for Knowledge Management/ Organizational
Memory Systems. In Proceedings of the Information
Systems Development Conference.
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2002). Organizational

Memory/Knowledge Effects on Productivity, A Longitudinal Study. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE
Computer Society.
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2003). A Knowledge Management Success Model: An Extension of DeLone and
McLeans IS Success Model. Paper presented at the Ninth
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2004). Accessing Knowledge Management Success/Effectiveness Models. In
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences. HICSS37. IEEE Computer Society.
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. Pituma, P., and Yong-Tae, P.,
(1998). An Organizational Memory Information Systems
Success Model: An Extension of DeLone and McLeans
I/S Success Model. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Jennex, M. E., Croasdell, D., & Smolnik, S. (2008). Towards Measuring Knowledge Management Success. In
Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society.
Jennex, M. E., Olfman, L., & Addo, T. B. A. (2003). The
Need for an Organizational Knowledge Management
Strategy, 36th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, HICSS36, IEEE Computer Society.
Jennex, M. E., Smolnik, S., & Croasdell, D. (2007).
Towards Defining Knowledge Management Success. In
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved April 6, 2009 from
hicss/2007/2755/00 /27550193c.pdf
Jennex, M. E., Smolnik, S., & Croasdell, D. T. (2007).
Towards defining knowledge management success. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2007), Hawaii, USA.
301
Jennex, M., & Zyngier, S. (2008). Security as a Contributor

to Knowledge Management Success. Information Systems
Frontiers: A Journal of Research and Innovation, 9(5),
493504.
Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. A. (2002). Why
all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Industrial
and Corporate Change, 11(2), 245262. doi:10.1093/
icc/11.2.245
Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (1998). Lisrel 8: Users
reference guide. Chicago: SSI.
Kaen, F. R. (1995). Corporate finance: concepts and
policies. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
Kankanhalli, A., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2005). Knowledge
management metrics: A review and directions for future
research. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 2032.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B., & Kwok-Kee, W. (2005).
Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories An Empirical Investigation. Management
Information Systems Quarterly, 29(1), 113143.
Kanungo, S., & Bhatnagar, V. (2001). Beyond generic
models for information system quality: The use of interpretive structural modeling. Systems Research and
Behavioral Sciences.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the
Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to
Strategic Management: Part 1. Accounting Horizons,
15(1), 87104.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard
Measures that drive Performance. Harvard Business
Review, 70, 7179.
Kavanagh, M., & Thite, M. (2009). Human Resource
Information Systems. Los Angeles: Sage P.
Kelleher, D., & Courtney, N. (2003). PD 7502 Guide
to Measurements in Knowledge Management. London:
British Standards Institution.
302
Keskin, H. (2005). The relationships between explicit

and tacit oriented KM strategy, and firm performance.
Journal of American Academy of Business, 7(1), 169175.
Khalifa, M., Yu, A. Y., & Shen, K. N. (2008). Knowledge
management systems success: a contingency perspective.
doi:10.1108/13673270810852430
Kilmann, R. (2001). Quantum Organization. Palo Alto,
CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and
organizational learning. Sloan Management Review,
35(1), 3751.
Kim, S., & Hagtvet, K. A. (2003). The impact of misspecified item parceling on representing latent variables in
covariance structure modeling: A simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 101127. doi:10.1207/
S15328007SEM1001_5
King, W. R., Marks, P. V., & McCoy, S. (2002).
The Most Important Issues in Knowledge Management. Communications of the ACM, 45(9), 9397.
doi:10.1145/567498.567505
King, W. R. (2006). Maybe a knowledge culture isnt
always so important after all! Information Systems Management, 23(1), 8889. doi:10.1201/1078.10580530/457
69.23.1.20061201/91776.10
King, W. R. (2007). A Research Agenda for the Relationships Between Culture and Knowledge Management.
Knowledge and Process Management, 14(3), 226236.
doi:10.1002/kpm.281
Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. (2005).
Market orientation: a meta-analytic review and assessment
of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of
Kivijrvi, H. (2008). Aligning Knowledge and Business
Strategies within an Artificial Ba. In Abou-Zeid, E.-S.
(Ed.), Knowledge Management and Business Strategies:
Theoretical Frameworks and Empirical Research. Hersey,
PA: Information Science Reference.
Kline, T. J. B., & McGrath, J.-L. (1998). Development

and validation of five criteria for evaluating team performance. Organization Development Journal, 16(3), 1927.
Kline, T. J. B., & McGrath, J.-L. (1999). A Review of the
Groupware Literature: Theories, Methodologies, and a
Research Agenda. Canadian Psychology, 40(3), 265271.
doi:10.1037/h0086842
Know-Net. (2000). The approach, from http://www.
know-net.org
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm,
combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383398. doi:10.1287/
orsc.3.3.383
Kogut, B. (2000). The Network as Knowledge: Generative
Rules and Emergence of Structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 405425. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10970266(200003)21:3<405::AID-SMJ103>3.0.CO;2-5
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning. Organization Science,
7(5), 502518. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.502
Koh, E. C., Ryan, S., & Prybutok, V. R. (2005). Creating
value through managing knowledge in an e-Government
to constituency (G2C) environment. Journal of Computer
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Marketing Orientation: The Construct, Research Proposition and Managerial
Implications. Journal of Marketing, 30, 118.
Kolfschoten, G. L., Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, G. J.,
Jacobs, P. H. M., & Appelman, J. (2006). A Conceptual
Foundation of the ThinkLet Concept for Collaboration
Engineering. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 64(7), 611621. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.002
Kolfschoten, G. L. (2007). Theoretical Foundations for
Collaboration Engineering, Dissertation, Delft University
of Technology, 269.
Kong, E. (2008). The Development of Strategic Management in the Non-Profit Context: Intellectual Capital
in Social Service Non-Profit Organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 281299.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00224.x
Koskinen, K. U. (2003). Evaluation of Tacit Knowledge
Utilization in Work Units. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 6781. doi:10.1108/13673270310505395
Koskinen, K. U. (2001). Tacit Knowledge as a Promoter
of Success in Technology Firms. 34th Hawaii International
KPMG. (2002/2003). Insights from KPMGs European
Knowledge management Survey 2002/2003. KPMG
Knowledge Advisory Services, The Netherlanders.
KPMG Consulting (2000). Knowledge Management
Research Report.
Kramer, R. M. (2007). Organizational Trust: A Reader.
USA: Oxford University Press.
Krll, M., Rath, A., Granitzer, M., Lindstaedt, S., &
Tochtermann, K. (2006). Contextual Retrieval in Knowledge Intensive Business Environments. GI-Workshop
Information Retrieval.
Krll, M., Rath, A., Weber, N., Lindstaedt, S., & Granitzer, M. (2007). Task Instance Classification via Graph
Kernels, Mining and Learning with Graphs. Italy: ICDM
Workshop.
Kulkarni, U., Ravindran, S., & Freeze, R. (2006). A
Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Development and Empirical Validation. Journal of
doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222230311
Kulkarni, U., & Freeze, R. D. (2004). Development and
Validation of a Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Model. In Proceedings on the Twenty-Fifth
International Conference on Information Systems,
Washington DC
303
Lai, H., & Chu, T. (2002). Knowledge Management: A

Review of Industrial Cases. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(5), 2639.
Lai, J.-Y., Wang, C.-T., & Chou, C.-Y. (2008). How Knowledge Map and Personalization Affect Effectiveness of
KMS in High-Tech Firms. In Proceeding of the 41st Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved
April 6, 2009 from http://www2.computer.org/plugins/
dl/pdf /proceedings/hicss/2008/3075/00/30750355.pdf
Lakshman, C. (2007). Organizational knowledge leadership: a grounded theory approach. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 28(1), 5175.
Lam, W., & Chua, A. (2005). Knowledge Management
Project Abandonment: An Explanatory Examination of
Root Causes. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 16, 723743.
Lang, J. C. (2004). Social context and social capital as enablers of knowledge integration. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 89105.
doi:10.1108/13673270410541060
Lavergne, R., & Earl, R. L. (2006). Knowledge Management: A Value Creation. Journal of Organizational
Culture. Communication and Conflict, 10(2), 4360.
Lee, K. C., Lee, S., & Kang, I. W. (2005). KMPI: Measuring knowledge management performance. Information &
Management, 42, 469482. doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.10.003
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management
enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An
integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of
Leitner, K. (2005). Managing and Reporting Intangible
Assets in Research Technology Organisations. R &
D Management, 35, 125136. doi:10.1111/j.14679310.2005.00378.x
Leliaert, P. J. C., Candries, W., & Tilmans, R. (2003).
Identifiying and Managing IC: A New Classification. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2), 202214.
doi:10.1108/14691930310472820
304
Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The Impact of Market

Knowledge Competence on New Product Advantage:
Conceptualization and Empirical Examination. Journal
of Marketing, 62, 1329.
Liao, C., & Chuang, S. (2006). Exploring the Role of
Knowledge Management for Enhancing Firms Innovation
and Performance. HICSS39. IEEE Computer Society.
Liebman, J. S. (1998). Teaching Operations Research:
Lessons from Cognitive Psychology. Interfaces, 28(2),
104110. doi:10.1287/inte.28.2.104
Liebowitz, J., & Suen, C. Y. (2000). Developing knowledge
management metrics for measuring intellectual capital.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 5467.
Liebowitz, J. (2003-2004). A Knowledge Management
Strategy for the Jason Organization: A Case Study. Journal
of Computer Information Systems, 44(2), 15.
Lin, H.-F. (2007). A stage model of knowledge management: an empirical investigation of process and effectiveness. Journal of Information Science, 33(6), 643659.
doi:10.1177/0165551506076395
Lin, T., & Huang, C. (2008). Understanding knowledge
management system usage antecedents: An integration
of social cognitive theory and task technology fit. Information & Management, 45(6), 410417. doi:10.1016/j.
im.2008.06.004
Lindsey, K. (2002). Measuring Knowledge Management Effectiveness: A Task Contingent Organizational
Capabilities Perspective. Eight Americas Conference on
Information Systems, (pp. 2085-2090).
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman,
K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the
question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent Variable Models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M. (1958). A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance
and individual performance, 1920-1957. Psychological
Bulletin, 55(6), 337372. doi:10.1037/h0042344
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York: John
Wiley.
MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct
conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323326. doi:10.1177/0092070303031003011
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005).
The problem of measurement model misspecification in
behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(4), 710730. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.710
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002).
Theres no place like home? The contributions of work
and nonwork creativity support to employees creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4),
757768. doi:10.2307/3069309
Maier, R. (2002). Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge
Management. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Mki, E. (2008). Exploring and Exploiting Knowledge.
Research on Knowledge Processes in KnowledgeIntensive Organizations, (Doctoral Dissertation). Helsinki
University of Technology.
Makolm, J., & Wei, S. (2007). Forschung und Praxis
Hand in Hand. In Zeitschrift des Telematik-IngenieurVerbandes TIV, Telematik 1/2007 TELEkommunikation
& InforMATIK, Knowledge Worker Productivity, Web2.0
und Semantic Web: Was bringt`s fr Unternehmen? (p.
12). Use Case DYONIPOS.
Makolm, J., & Orthofer, G. (2007). Holistic Approach,
Stakeholder Integration and Transorganizational Processes: Success Factors of FinanzOnline. In E-Taxation:
State & Perspectives, E-Government in the Field of
Taxation: Scientific Basis, Implementation Strategies,
Good Practice Examples. Series Informatics, 21, 389-402.
Makolm, J., Wei, S., & Reisinger, D. (2007). Proactive

Knowledge Management: The DYONIPOS Research and
Use Case Project. In Proceedings of the first Conference
on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance ICEGOV 2007. (p. 85). Macao.
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. (2003). Role of Commitment
and Motivation as Antecedents of Knowledge Management Systems Implementation. In Proceedings of the 36th
Mandviwalla, M., Eulgem, S., Mould, C., & Rao, S. V.
(1998). Organizational Memory Systems Design. Unpublished Working Paper for the Task Force on Organizational
Memory, Burstein, F., Huber, G., Mandviwalla, M., Morrison, J., and Olfman, L. (eds.), Presented at the 31st Annual
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 7187.
doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Markus, M. L. (2001). Toward a Theory of Knowledge
Reuse: Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors
in Reuse Success. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1), 5793.
Marr, B. (2003). Known quantities. Financial Management Journal, 26-27.
Martin, J. H., Martin, B. A., & Minnillo, P. R. (2009).
Implementing a market orientation in small manufacturing
firms: from cognitive model to action. Journal of Small
Business Management, 47(1), 92115.
Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & ODriscoll, T.
M. (2002). Knowledge in the pursuit of performance:
insights from Nortel Networks. Management Information
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Rentz, J. O. (2000). A
refinement and validation of the MARKOR scale. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 527539.
doi:10.1177/0092070300284005
305
Matthai, J. M. (1989). Employee perceptions of trust,

satisfaction, and commitment as predictors of turnover
intentions in a mental health setting, Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Vanderbilt University.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust
as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 2459.
doi:10.2307/256727
McDermott, R., & ODell, C. (2001). Overcoming Cultural
Barriers to sharing Knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 7685. doi:10.1108/13673270110384428
McDermott, R. (1999). Why Information Technology
Inspired but Cannot Deliver Knowledge Management.
Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004).

Review: Information Technology and Organizational
Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business
Value. Management Information Systems Quarterly,
28(2), 283322.
Menon, A., & Rajan, P. V. (1992). A model of marketing
knowledge use within firms. Journal of Marketing, 56, 53.
Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511490040
Microsoft (1999). Practicing Knowledge Management.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Fall and Rise of Strategic
Planning. Harvard Business Review, (January-February):
107114.
McElroy, M. W. (2000). Integrating complexity theory,

knowledge management and organizational learning.
doi:10.1108/13673270010377652
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. W., & Lampel, J. (1998).

Strategy Safari; the complete guide through the wilds of
strategic management. London: Pearson Educational.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns of Strategy Formulation.

Management Science, 24(9), 934948. doi:10.1287/
mnsc.24.9.934
McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2004). Strategic Management

of e-Business. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
McKeen, J. D., Zack, M. H., & Singh, S. (2006). Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance: An
Exploratory Survey. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce:
An Integrative Typology. Information Systems Research,
13(3), 334359. doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
McKnight, H. D., & Chervany, N. L. (2000, August
10-13). What is Trust? A Conceptual Analysis and an
Inderdisciplinary Model. Paper presented at the Americas
Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Long
Beach California.
306
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of Strategies,

Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal,
6(3), 257272. doi:10.1002/smj.4250060306
Mittleman, D. D., Briggs, R. O., Murphy, J., & Davis,
A. (2008). Toward a Taxonomy of Groupware Technologies, Presented at 14th Collaboration Researchers
International Workshop on Groupware, Retrieved April
17, 2009 from http://ihop.typepad.com/docs/ criwg2008.
pdf and Appendix from http://ihop.typepad.com/docs/
webfacilitationtools.xls.
Moon, Y. J., & Kym, H. G. (2006). A Model for the Value
of Intellectual Capital. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 23(3), 253269.
Muhammed, S., Doll, W. J., & Deng, X. (2008). Exploring
the Relationships among Individual Knowledge Management Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Computer
Society Press.
Murray, P. (1998). The Cranfield/Information Strategy

Knowledge Survey; Europes State of the Art in Knowledge
Management. London: The Economist Group.
Murthy, U. S., & Kerr, D. S. (2000). Task/Technology
Fit and the Effectiveness of Group Support Systems:
Evidence in the Context of Tasks Requiring Domain
Specific Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual
Myers, P. (Ed.). (1996). Knowledge management and
organizational design. Boston: ButterworthHeinemann.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of market
orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 2035.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1995). Market Orientation
and the Learning Organization. Journal of Marketing,
59(3), 6374.
Natarajan, G., & Shekhar, S. (2000). Knowledge management: Enabling Business growth. New Delhi: Tata
McGraw-Hill.
Neely, A. (2007). Business Performance Measurement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488481
Nelson, K. M., & Cooprider, J. G. (1996). The Contribution of Shared Knowledge to IS Group Performance. MIS
Quaterly, 20(4), 409432. doi:10.2307/249562
Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G.,
Yagei, M., & Dean, D. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Business Research, 57, 209224. doi:10.1016/
S0148-2963(01)00303-4
Niederman, F., Beise, C. M., & Beranek, P. M. (1996).
Issues and Concerns about Computer-Supported Meetings:
the Facilitators Perpsective. Management Information
Nissen, M., & Jennex, M. (2007). Toward Multidimensional Conceptualization of Knowledge. In Jennex, M. E.
(Ed.), Knowledge management in Modern Organizations
(pp. 278284). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Ncker, R. (1999). Erfolg von Unternehmen aus Betriebswirtschaflicher Sicht. Unternehmerisch erfolgreiches
Handeln,(pp. 53-66).
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 1437.
doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1997). The knowledgecreating company. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The KnowledgeCreating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 1437.
doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D.
R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic Meeting Systems
to Support Group Work. Communications of the ACM,
34(7), 4061. doi:10.1145/105783.105793
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Briggs, R. O., & Romano, N., Jr.
(2001). A Framework for Collaboration and Knowledge
Management. In Proceeding of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Retrieved April
17, 2009 from http://www2.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/
proceedings /hicss/2001/0981/01/09811060.pdf
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw Hill.
ODell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew what
we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review, 40(3), 154174.
ODell, C. (2004). The executive role in knowledge
management: American Productivity and Quality Center.
APQC.
307
ODell, C., Wiig, K., & Odem, P. (1999). Benchmarking

unveils emerging knowledge management strategies.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 6(3), 202211.
doi:10.1108/14635779910288550
OECD. (2000). Knowledge Management in the Learning
Society. France: OECD Publisher.
OECD. (2003). Knowledge Management: Measuring
Knowledge Management in the Business Sector-First
Steps. Paris & Ministry of Canada: Center for Educational
Research & Statistics Canada (OECD).
Okunoye, A., & Karsten, H. (2002). ITI as Enabler of
Knowledge Management: Empirical Perspective from
Research Organisations in subSaharan Africa. HICSS32.
Pearl, J. (1990). Bayesian Decision Methods. In Shafer, G.,

& Pearl, J. (Eds.), Readings in Uncertain Reasoning (pp.
345352). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Pearson, T. (1990). Measurement and the Knowledge
Revolution. In Cortada, J., & Woods, J. (Eds.), The
Knowledge Management Yearbook. Boston: ButterworthHeinemann.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the
firm. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. (2003). Unraveling the
Resource-Based Tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), 309323. doi:10.1002/mde.1126
Peters, T. (1998). O Crculo da inovao. So Paulo,
Brazil: Harbra.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee

creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607635.
doi:10.2307/256657
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (1999). Knowing what to do

is not enough: Turning knowledge into action. California
Olson, E. (1995). Organization for Effective New Product

Development: The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 59, 4862.
Pfeffer, J. (2005). Understanding the Role of Power in

Decision Making. In Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y.
S. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (6th ed., pp.
289303). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
OPM, Office of Personnel Management. (2004, June).

FedScope. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved
December 20, 2005, from http://www.fedscope.opm.
gov/index.asp
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index
(TRI). Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307320.
doi:10.1177/109467050024001
Pauleen, D., & Mason, D. (2002). New Zealand Knowledge Management Survey: Barriers and Drivers of KM
Uptake Retrieved January 10, 2004, from http://www.
nzkm.net/mainsite/NewZealandKnowledgeManagementSurveyBarriersandDriv.html
Paulzen, O., & Perc, P. (2002). A maturity model for quality
improvment in knowledge management. In Proceedings of
the 13th Australasian Conference on Information Systems
(ACSIS), 243-253.
308
Pike, S., Gran, R., & Marr, B. (2005). Strategic Management of Intangible Asset and Value Drivers in R &
D Organizations. R & D Management, 35(2), 111124.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00377.x
Ping, R. A. Jr. (2004). On assuring valid measures for
theoretical models using survey data. Journal of Business Research, 2004, 125141. doi:10.1016/S01482963(01)00297-1
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L. (1989). The Impact
of Technological Support on Groups: An Assessment of
the Empirical Research. Decision Support Systems, 5(2),
197216. doi:10.1016/0167-9236(89)90007-9
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(5), 879903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. London:

Routledge.
Polanyi, M. (1975). Personal Knowledge. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Politis, J. D. (2003). The connection between trust and
knowledge management: what are its implications for
team performance. Journal of Knowledge Management,
7(5), 5566. doi:10.1108/13673270310505386
Pomerol, J., Brezillon, P., & Pasquier, L. (2002). Operational knowledge representation for practical decisionmaking. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(4), 101115.
Porter, M. (1995). Vantagem Competitiva. Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil: Campus.
Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The Core Competence
of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 90, 7991.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Tautology in the
Resourced-Based View and the Implications of Externally
Determined Resource Value: Futher Comments. Academy
of Management Review, 26, 5766. doi:10.2307/259394
Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhardt, K. (2000). Managing
Knowledge; Building Blocks for Success. Chichester, UK:
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhard, K. (2006). Wissen
managen: Wie Unternehmen ihre wertvollste Ressource
optimal nutzen. Berlin, Germany: Gabler Verlag.
Probst, G., & Romhardt, K. (n.d.). Bausteine des Wissensmanagements - ein praxisorientierter Ansatz. Retrieved from http://wwwai.wu-wien.ac.at/~kaiser/seiw/
Probst-Artikel.pdf.
Quaduss, M., & Xu, J. (2005). Adoption and difussion
of knowledge management systems: Field studies of factors and variables. Knowledge-Based Systems, 18(2001),
107-115.
Rao, M. (2002, August, 23). Eight Keys to Successful KM

practice Retrieved February, 1, 2003, from http://www.
destinationkm.com/articles/default.asp?ArticleID=990
Rath, A. (2007). A Low-Level Based Task And Process
Support Approach for Knowledge-Intensive Business
Environments. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Enterprise Information System Doctoral
Consortium DCEIS 200 (pp. 35-42). Madeira, Portugal.
June 12, 2007.
Rath, A., Krll, M., Andrews, K., Lindstaedt, S., Granitzer,
M., & Tochtermann, K. (2006). Synergizing Standard and
Ad-Hoc Processes. In Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management. Vienna, Austria: LNCS Springer.
Rath, A., Krll, M., Lindstaedt, S., & Granitzer, M. (2007).
Low-Level Event Relationship Discovery for Knowledge
Work Support. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on
Professional Knowledge Management, ProKW2007
Productive Knowledge Work: Management and Technological Challenges. Potsdam, Germany. GITO-Verlag.
Berlin, March 28.30, 2007.
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General,
118(3), 219235. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.118.3.219
Reed, K. K., Lubatkin, M., & Srinivasan, N. (2006). Proposing and Testing an Intellectual Capital-Based View of
the Firm. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 867893.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00614.x
Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge
sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knowledge
documentation. Omega, 36, 206220. doi:10.1016/j.
omega.2006.06.005
Ribire, V. (2001). Assessing Knowledge Management
Initiative Successes as a Function of Organizational
Culture. Unpublished D.Sc. Dissertation, The George
Washington University, Washington DC.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge

Management: a Strategic Agenda in Long Range Planning. London: Elsevier Science Ltd. 385-391.
309
Ribire, V. (2005). The critical role of trust in knowledge

management (Le rle primordial de la confiance dans
les dmarches de gestion du savoir). Unpublished PhD
dissertation (Management Sciences) Universit Paul Czanne, Aix en Provence (France) - available on Proquest.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge
Riempp, G. (2004). Integrierte WissensmanagementSysteme Architektur und Praktische Anwendung. Berlin,
Germany: Springer.
Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2007). Management Tools
and Trends 2007. Bain & Company.
Rigdon, E. E. (1998). Structural equation modeling. In
Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business
Research (pp. 251293).
Robbins, S. (2005). We need a new vocabulary. Information Systems Management, 22(1), 8990. doi:10.1201/1
078/44912.22.1.20051201/85744.12
Rockert, J. (1979). Chief Executives Define Their Own
Data Needs. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 8193.
Rogers, S. B., McDonald, K. D., & Brown, V. A. (2005).
CFOs Positioned to Drive BI Integration. Financial
Executive, 21(7), 46.
Rolland, N., & Chauvel, D. (2000). Knowledge Transfer
in Strategic Alliances. In Despres, C., & Chauvel, D.
(Eds.), Knowledge Horizons (pp. 225236). ButterworthHeinemann. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7506-7247-4.50014-8
Ronen, Y. (1988). The Role of Uncertainties. In Ronen,
Y. (Ed.), Uncertainty Analysis (pp. 239). Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Roos, G., & Roos, J. (1997). Measuring your Companys
Intellectual Performance. Long Range Planning, 30(3),
413426. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(97)90260-0
Rouse, M. J., & Daellenbach, U. S. (1999). Rethinking

Research Methods for the Resource-Based Perspective:
Isolating Sources of Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 487494.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199905)20:5<487::AIDSMJ26>3.0.CO;2-K
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge
management in practice. California Management Review,
40(3), 8089.
Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution
of knowledge, group network structure, and group
performance. Management Science, 46(5), 612625.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.5.612.12052
Sage, A. P., & Rouse, W. B. (1999). Information Systems
Frontiers in Knowledge Management. Information Systems
Frontiers, 1(3), 205219. doi:10.1023/A:1010046210832
Saint-Onge, H. (1996). Tacit Knowledge. The Key to the
Strategic Alignement of Intellectual Capital. Strategy and
Leadership, 24, 1014. doi:10.1108/eb054547
Sako, M. (2006). Does trust improves business performance? In Kramer, R. M. (Ed.), Organizational Trust:
A Reader (pp. p267p294). Oxford University Press.
Santhanam, R., & Hartono, E. (2003). Issues in Linking
Information Technology Capability to Firm Performance.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(1),
125153.
Sarker, S., Nicholson, D. B., & Joshi, K. D. (2005).
Knowledge Transfer in Virtual System Development
Teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 201218. doi:10.1109/TPC.2005.849650
Satyadas, A., Harigopal, U., & Cassaigne, N. P. (2001).
Knowledge Management Tutorial: An Editorial Overview.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.
Part C, Applications and Reviews, 31(4), 429437.
doi:10.1109/5326.983926
Savage, C. M. (1996). Fifth generation management:
co-creating through virtual enterprising, dynamic teaming and knowledge networking. Boston: ButterworthHeinemann.
310
Scharmer, C. O. (2001). Self-transcending Knowledge:

Organizing Around Emerging Realities. In Nonaka, I., &
Teece, D. J. (Eds.), Managing Industrial Knowledge (pp.
6890). London: Sage Publications.
Segars, A. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of

measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the
context of information systems research. Omega. International Journal of Management Science, 25(1), 107121.
Schein, E. H. (2001). Defining organizational culture.

In Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 369379). Fort
Worth, FL: Harcourt College.
Sethi, V., & King, W. R. (1991). Construct measurement in information systems research: An illustration in
strategic systems. Decision Sciences, 22(3), 455464.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb01274.x
Schmalen, C., Kunter, M., & Weindlmaier, H. (2005).

Theoretische Grundlagen, Methodische Vorgehensweise und Anwendungserfahrung in Projekten fr die
Ernhrungsindustrie. In Proceedings der 45. Tagung fr
Gesellschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues
Gttingen. Erfolgsfaktorenforschung.
Schoorman, D. F., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An
integrative model of organizational trust: Past, Present and
Future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344354.
Schultze, U., & Stabell, C. (2004). Knowing What You
Dont Know? Discourses and Contradictions in Knowledge Management. Journal of Management Studies,
41(4), 549573.
Schultze, U., & Leidner, D. (2002). Studying knowledge
management in information systems research: Discourses
and theoretical assumptions. Management Information
Schulz, M., & Jobe, L. A. (2001). Codification and tactiness as knowledge management strategies: An empirical
exploration. [Article]. The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 12(1), 139165. doi:10.1016/
S1047-8310(00)00043-2
Schwarz, R. (2002). The Skilled Facilitator. A Comprehesive Resource for Consultants, Facilitators, Managers,
Trainers and Coaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavioral path model of individual innovation in
the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3),
580607. doi:10.2307/256701
Seddon, P. A. (1997). Respecification and Extension of the
Delone and Mclean Model of Is Success. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 240153. doi:10.1287/isre.8.3.240
Shaw, R. B. (1997). Trust in the Balance. Building Successful Organizations on Results, Integrity, and Concern.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sher, P. J., & Lee, V. C. (2004). Information technology
as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic capabilities through
knowledge management. Information & Management,
41(8), 933945. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.06.004
Sheskin, D. J. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. (3 ed.). Boca Raton,
FL: Chapman & Hall/CRS.
Shevlin, M., Miles, J. N. V., Davies, M. N. O., & Walker,
S. (2000). Coefficient alpha: A useful indicator of reliability? Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 229237.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00093-8
Shin, M. (2004). A framework for evaluating economics of knowledge management systems. Information &
Management, 42, 179196.
Simon, H., & Kaplan, C. (1989). Foundations in Cognitive
Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sistare, H. (2004). Government Reorganization: Strategies
and Tools to Get it Done, 2004 Presidential Transition
Series. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business
of Government.
Skyrme (1998). Measuring the Value of Knowledge.
Metrics for the Knowledge-Based Business. London:
Business Intelligence.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market OrientationPerformance
Relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(January), 4655.
311
Slywotzky, A. (1996). Value Migration. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.
Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing Organizational Memory With Information Systems. Information
Systems Research, 6(2), 85117. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.85
Smith, R. G., & Farquhar, A. (2000). The road ahead for

knowledge management, an AI perspective. AI Magazine,
21(4), 1740.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity.

New York: Academic Press.
Smith, T. W. (1983). The hidden 25 percent: An analysis

of nonresponse on the 1980 general social survey. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 47(3), 386404. doi:10.1086/268797
Stenmark, D. (2001). Leveraging Tacit Organizational

Knowledge. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 924.
Smith, H. A., McKeen, J. D., & Singh, S. (2007). Tacit

Knowledge Transfer: Making It Happen. Journal of Information Science & Technology, 3(3), 5072.
Stewart, T. (1997). Intellectual Capital. The New Wealth

of Organizations. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Smits, M., & deMoor, A. (2004). Measuring Knowledge

Management Effectiveness in Communities of Practice.
Paper presented at the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
Smolnik, S. (2006). Wissensmanagement mit Topics Maps
in Kollaborativen Umgebungen Identifikation, Explikation und Visualisierung von Semantischen Netzwerken
in Organisationalen Gedchtnissen. Berlin, Germany:
Shaker.
Soh, C., & Markus, M. L. (1995). How IT creates business value: A process theory synthesis. In Proceedings
of the Sixteenth International Conference on Information
Systems, (pp. 29-41).
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated ratings scales construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Organizational knowledge, learning
and memory: three concepts in search of a theory. Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 9(1), 6378.
Spitzer, D. (2007). Transforming Performance Measurement. New York: American Management Association.
Standards Australia. (2005). AS 5037-2005 Knowledge
management - a guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: Standards
Australia.
Stehr, N. (2003). The Governance of Knowledge. New
York: Transaction Publishers.
312
Stewart, T. (1991). Brainpower. Fortune, 123, 4450.

Stivers, B. P., Covin, T. J., Hall, N. G., & Smalt, S. W.
(1998). How nonfinancial performance measures are used.
Management Accounting (USA), 79(8), 4448.
Storey, J., & Barnett, E. (2000). Knowledge management Initiatives: Learning from Failure. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(4), 145156.
doi:10.1108/13673270010372279
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Communications
of the ACM, 13, 380427.
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The Influence
of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 450463.
Sun, P. Y.-T., & Scott, J. L. (2005). An investigation of
barriers to knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge
Sveiby, K. (1997). The New Organizational Wealth:
Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The New Organizational Wealth
Managing and Measuring Knowledge-based Assets. San
Francisco: Berrett-Kehler Publishers, Inc.
Sveiby, K. E. (2001, July 2004). Methods for Measuring
Intangible Assets. Retrieved August, 3, 2004, from http://
wwwsveiby.com/articles/IntangibleMethods.htm
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999).

Knowledge Management and innovation:networks and
networking. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4),
262275. doi:10.1108/13673279910304014
Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001).
Using Mentoring and Storytelling to Transfer Knowledge
in the Workplace. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1), 95114.
Swart, J., & Kinnie, N. (2003). Sharing knowledge in
knowledge-intensive firms. Human Resource Management Journal, 13, 60.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. H. (2009). Trust in Coworkers
and Trust in Organizations. [Article]. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 4566. doi:10.3200/JRLP.143.1.45-66
Tanriverdi, H. (2005, June). Information technology relatedness, knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms. Management Information
Tanudjojo, S., & Braganza, A. (2005). Overcoming Barriers To Knowledge Flow: Evidence-Based Attributes
Enabling The Creation, Mobilization, and Diffusion of
Knowledge. Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii.
Tapscott, D. (2006). Winning with the Enterprise 2.0, IT
and Collaborative Advantage, New Paradigm, Retrieved
April 17, 2009 from http://newparadigm.com/media/
Winning_with_the_Enterprise_2.0.pdf
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge
assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, And
Intangible Assets. California Management Review, 40(3).
Teoh, K. K., & Avvari, M. (2004). Integration of TAM
Based Electronic Commerce Models for Trust. Journal of
American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 404410.
Thomas, B. D. (2006). An Empirical Investigation of

Factors Promoting Knowledge Management System
Success. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech University,
Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/
theses/available/etd-07072006-105657/unrestricted/
Thomas_Bobby_Diss.pdf
Tiwana, A. (2002). The Knowledge Management Toolkit:
Orchestrating IT, Strategy, and Knowledge Platforms (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tiwana, A. (2000). The Knowledge Management Toolkit:
Practical Techniques for Building Knowledge Management System. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tiwana, A., & Mclean, E. R. (2005). Expertise Integration
and Creativity in Information Systems Development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 1343.
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1995). The Discipline Of
Market Leaders. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Triandis, H. C. (1980). Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values.
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is Organizational Knowledge? Journal of Management Studies,
38(7), 973993. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00268
Tsui, E. (2005). The role of IT in KM: Where are we now
and where are we heading? Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 36. doi:10.1108/13673270510584198
Tunney, R. J. (2003). Implicit and Explicit Knowledge
Decay at Different Rates: A Dissociation Between Priming
And Recognition in Artificial Grammar Learning. Experimental Psychology, 50(2), 124130. doi:10.1026//16183169.50.2.124
Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is More than Knowledge: Implications of the Reversed Hierarchy for Knowledge Management and Organizational Memory. In Proceedings of
the Thirty-Second Hawaii International Conference on
Systems Sciences. Hawaii, IEEE Computer Society Press,
Los Alamitos, CA.
313
Turban, E., & Aronson, J. E. (2001). Decision Support

Systems and Intelligent Systems (6th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Turban, E., Aronson, J. E., Liang, T.-P., & Sharda, R.
(2007). Decision Support and Business Intelligence
Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Van De Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 570607.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
Van den Berghe, L., & De Ridder, L. (1999). International
Standardisation of Good Corporate Governance: Best
Practices for the Board of Directors. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Van Grembergen, W., De Haes, S., & Van Brempt, H.
(2007). Strong Consensus on the Most Important Business and IT Goals. COBIT Focus, 3, 13.
Vance, D. M. (1997). Information, Knowledge and Wisdom: The Epistemic Hierarchy and Computer-Based
Information System in Americas Conference on Information Systems. Indianapolis. In Proceedings of the Third
Waller, R. J. (1975). Application of Interpretive Structural

Modeling to Priority-Setting in Urban Systems Management. Portraits of Complexity (Battelle Monograph No.
9) (Baldwin, M., Ed.). Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial
Institute.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational
Memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 5791.
doi:10.2307/258607
Ward, J., & Aurum, A. (2004). Knowledge Management in
Software Engineering Describing the Process. ASWEC
2004. IEEE Computer Society.
Warfield, J. N. (1973). Intent Structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 3(2).
Weber, F., Wunram, M., Kemp, J., Pudlatz, M., & Bredehorst, B. (2002). Towards a common KM framework in
Europe. In Proceedings of Unicom Seminar. Standardization in Knowledge Management.
Weber, M. (2005). Bureaucracy. In Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J.
S., & Jang, Y. S. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory
(6th ed., pp. 7378). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and

subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological
Methods, 3(2), 231251. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.231
Weerdmeester, R., Pocaterra, C., & Hefke, M. (2003).

D 5.2. Knowledge Management Maturity Model (No.
ST-2002-38513): INFORMATION SOCIETIES TECHNOLOGYo. Document Number.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises. Management Science, 35(8), 942962.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.942
Weill, P., & Ross, J. (2004). IT governance: how top performers manage IT decision rights for superior results.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Verhoef, P. C., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2009). Understanding the marketing departments influence within the firm.
Welch, J. (1993, Jan 25). Jack Welchs lessons for success.

Fortune, 127, 8691.
von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133153.
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). Review: The ResourceBased View and Information Systems Research: Review,
Extension, and Suggestions for Future Research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28(1), 107142.
314
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the

Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171180.
doi:10.1002/smj.4250050207
Wick, D. (1995). The Infamous Boundary: Seven Decades
of Controversy in Quantum Physics. Boston: Birkhuser.
Wick, C. (2000). Knowledge management and leadership
opportunities for technical communicators. Technical
Communications, 47(4), 515529.
Wiig, K. M. (2004). People-focused Knowledge Management: How Effective Decision Making Leads to Corporate Success. Burlington, MA: Elesevier Butterworth
Heinemann.
Wiig, K., & Jooste, A. (2004). Chapter 45: Exploiting
knowledge for productivity gains. In C. W. Holsapple
(Eds.), Handbook on knowledge management vol.2:
Knowledge directions, 289-308. New York: Springer
Science and Business Media.
Williams, S. (2004). Building and repairing trust Retrieved
October, 2008, from http://www.wright.edu/~scott.williams/LeaderLetter/trust.htm
Yu, S.-H., Kim, Y.-G., & Kim, M.-Y. (2004). Linking

Organizational Knowledge Management Drivers to
Knowledge Management Performance: An Exploratory
Study. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International
Yung, Y. F., Thissen, D., & McLeod, L. D. (1999). On
the Relationship Between the Higher-Order Factor Model
and the Hierarchical Factor Model. Psychometrika, 64(2),
113128. doi:10.1007/BF02294531
Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing Codified Knowledge.
Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 4558.
Wilson, R., & Keil, F. (1999). The MIT Encyclopedia

of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a Knowledge Strategy.

Wong, K. (2005). Critical success factors for implementing

knowledge management in small and medium enterprises.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(3), 261279.
doi:10.1108/02635570510590101
Zack, M. H., & Michael, S. (1998). Knowledge Management and Collaboration Technologies, from http://www.
lotus.com/services/institute.nsf/550137bfe37d25a18525
653a005e8462/000021ca
Workman, J. P., Homburg, C., & Gruner, K. (1998). Marketing organization: an integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62, 2141.
Zack, M. H., & Street, C. (2007, June). A Framework for

Assessing the Impact of Knowledge on Firm Performance.
Paper presented at The International Conference on
Organizational Learning, Knowledge, and Capabilities,
University of Western Ontario
Wu, J., & Wang, Y. (2006). Measuring KMS success: A

respecification of the Delone and Mcleans model. Information & Management, 43(6), 728739. doi:10.1016/j.
im.2006.05.002
Wu, J. (2008). Exploring the link beween knowledge management performance and firm performance. Lexington,
Kentucky: University of Kentucky.
Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument to measure
user perceived service quality of information presenting
web portals. Information & Management, 42, 575589.
doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(04)00073-4
Yoshioka, T., Herman, G., Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W.
J. (2001). Genre taxonomy: A knowledge repository of
communicative actions. ACM Transactions on Information
Systems, 19(4), 431456. doi:10.1145/502795.502798
Zack, M. H., McKeen, J. D., & Singh, S. (2006). Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance: An
Exploratory Survey. Paper presented at the Thirty-Ninth
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Hawaii.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does Trust
Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and
Interpersonal Trust on Performance. Organization Science,
9(2), 141159. doi:10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
Zand, D. E. (1997). The leadership Triad - Knowledge,
Trust, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Zhu, K. (2004). The complementarity of information
technology infrastructure and e-commerce capability: A
resource-based assessment of their business value. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 21(1), 167202.
315
Zigurs, I., & Buckland, B. K. (1998). A Theory of Task/

Technology Fit and Groups Support Systems Effectiveness. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22(3),
313334. doi:10.2307/249668
Zigurs, I., Buckland, B.K., Connolly, J.R., & Wilson,
E.V. (1999). A Test of Task-Technology Fit Theory of
Group Support Systems. The Data Base for Advances in
Information Systems, 30(3,4), 34-50.
Zyngier, S., Burstein, F., & McKay, J. (2005). Governance

of Strategies to Manage Organizational Knowledge - a
mechanism to oversee knowledge needs. In Jennex, M.
(Ed.), Knowledge Management Case Book. Hershey, PA:
Idea Group Books.
Zyngier, S. (2005). Knowledge Management Governance.
In Schwarz, D. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Management. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Zohar, D. (1997). Rewiring the Corporate Brain. Using

the New Science to Rethink How We Structure and Lead
Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Zyngier, S. (2002). Knowledge Management Obstacles in

Australia. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Information Systems, Gdansk, Poland.
Zolingen, S. J., Van, Streumer, J. N., & Stooker, M.

(2001). Problems in Knowledge Management: A CaseStudy of a Knowledge-Intensive Company. International
Journal of Training and Development, 5(3), 168184.
doi:10.1111/1468-2419.00130
Zyngier, S. (2007). Knowledge Management Governance:

a Framework for Knowledge Management Benefits Realization. Paper presented at the 8th International Research
Conference on Quality, Innovation and Knowledge Management, New Delhi, India.
Zyngier, S. (2008). Risk management: Strengthening

Knowledge Management. International Journal of
Knowledge Management, 4(3).
Zyngier, S., & Burstein, F. (2009). Knowledge management governance as a mechanism for sustainable organizational knowledge creation and transfer. International
Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 6.
Zyngier, S. (2003). The role of information technology in

knowledge management strategies in Australia: Recent
trends. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 2(2), 165178. doi:10.1142/S0219649203000061
Zyngier, S., Burstein, F., & Rodriguez, M.-L. (2003).
Knowledge Management Strategies in Australia. In Hasan,
H., & Handzic, M. (Eds.), Australian Studies in Knowledge Management. Woolongong, Australia: University
of Wollongong Press.
316
Zyngier, S., Burstein, F., & McKay, J. (2004). Knowledge

management governance: a multifaceted approach to
organizational decision and innovation support. Paper
presented at the Decision Support in an Uncertain World:
Proceedings of the 2004 IFIP WG8.3 International Conference on Decision Support Systems (DSS2004), Prato, Italy.
Zyngier, S., Burstein, F., & McKay, J. (2006). The
Role of Knowledge Management Governance in the
Implementation of Strategy. Paper presented at the 39th.
Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS39), Hawaii.
317
About the Contributors
Murray E. Jennex is an associate professor at San Diego State University, editor in chief of the
International Journal of Knowledge Management, co-editor in chief of the International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, and president of the Foundation for Knowledge
Management (LLC). Dr. Jennex specializes in knowledge management, system analysis and design, IS
security, e-commerce, and organizational effectiveness. Dr. Jennex serves as the Knowledge Management
Systems Track co-chair at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. He is the author
of over 100 journal articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings on knowledge management,
end user computing, international information systems, organizational memory systems, ecommerce,
cyber security, and software outsourcing. Dr. Jennex conducts research for the National Center for Border Security Issues on risk management and technology integration. Dr. Jennex is a former US Navy
Nuclear Power Propulsion officer and holds a BA in chemistry and physics from William Jewell College,
an MBA and an MS in software engineering from National University, an M.S. in telecommunications
management and a PhD in information systems from the Claremont Graduate University. Dr. Jennex is
also a registered professional mechanical engineer in the state of California and a Certified Information
Systems Security Professional (CISSP) and a Certified Secure Software Lifecycle Professional (CSSLP).
Stefan Smolnik is an assistant professor of information and knowledge management at EBS University of Business and Law, Germany. He holds a doctoral degree from University of Paderborn/Germany.
Before joining EBS, he worked as a research and teaching assistant at this universitys Groupware
Competence Center. Stefan Smolnik has done research on the success and performance measurement
of information and knowledge management systems, which has included several benchmarking studies. In addition, he is interested in the successful organizational implementation of social software.
His work has been published in well reputed international journals and conference proceedings such
as the Business & Information Systems Engineering journal, the International Journal of Knowledge
Management, the Business Process Management Journal, the Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, and the Proceedings of the Annual International Conference
on Information Systems.
***
Derek Ajesam Asoh, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Information Systems and Applied Technologies, College of Applied Sciences and Arts, Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He
holds a PhD in Information Science (inter-disciplinary) from the University at Albany (SUNY) New
York. His research interests include data mining, educational technologies, entrepreneurship, health
informatics, knowledge management, systems management technologies, and statistical modeling.
His publications have appeared in Health Care Management Review and Methods of Information in
Medicine. His research has also been presented at several conferences including Hawaii International
Conference on Systems Sciences, Information Resources Management Association, Organizational
Systems Research Association, and Systemic, Cybernetics and Informatics. Dr. Asoh currently teaches
application development environments, computing in business administration, and database processing. His industry experiences include working as consultant and project coordinator for a number of
international organizations, including the United Nations Office for Project Services, United Nations
Development Program, and United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
Vittal S. Anantatmulas research is focused on integrating knowledge management and project management, knowledge management effectiveness, project management performance, and leadership. Dr.
Anantatmula is an Associate Professor and the Director of Graduate Programs in Project Management
in the College of Business, Western Carolina University. Dr. Anantatmula has more than ten publications
in journals such as Journal of Knowledge Management, International Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems (VINE), International Journal of
Knowledge and Learning, and Project Management Journal. He has co-authored two books on project
management. Dr. Anantatmula has presented more than 20 papers in prestigious and international conferences. Prior to joining Western Carolina University, he was with the George Washington University
teaching and directing a graduate degree program. Dr. Anantatmula has worked in the petroleum and
power industries for several years as an electrical engineer and project manager. As a consultant, he
worked with the World Bank, Arthur Andersen, and other international consulting firms. Dr. Anantatmula holds B.E. (Electrical Engineering) from Andhra University, MBA from IIM-MDI, MS and
D.Sc. in Engineering Management from the George Washington University. He is a certified Project
Management Professional and Certified Cost Engineer.
Salvatore Belardo, PhD is Associate Professor of Management Science and Information Systems
at the University at Albany. He holds a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering and MBA, Masters, and PhD in Management Information Systems. Professor Belardo has been a visiting professor at
the Copenhagen School of Business, the University of Passau (Germany), University of Del Salvador
(Argentina), DUXX Graduate School of Business Leadership (Mexico), and Zurich Graduate School of
Business Administration (Switzerland). He has published in Management Science, Decision Sciences,
IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, and the Journal of Management Information Systems; and has been recognized as one of the most prolific authors of decision support systems-related
research. Interfaces Journal has recognized him as one of the top ten most cited authors. Dr. Belardo
edited Simulation in Business and Management, and is co-author of Trust: The Key to Change in the
Information Age, and Innovation Through Learning: What Leaders Need to Know in the 21st Century.
Johanna Bragge holds a PhD in Management Science from the Helsinki School of Economics, and
currently acts there as a professor of Information Systems Science. In her dissertation she applied decision and negotiation analytic methods while pre-mediating an escalated dispute regarding energy taxation in Finland. Dr. Bragge is the coordinator and main facilitator of HSEs Electronic Decision-making
and Groupwork Environment. Her current research interests include themes related to e-collaboration,
318
digital marketing, and text mining. She has published, among others, in Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Group Decision and Negotiation, and European Journal of Operational Research.
Rodrigo Baroni de Carvalho is a professor in the Master in Business Administration of Fumec
University, Minas Gerais, Brazil. He has a PhD in Information Science from the Federal University of
Minas Gerais (UFMG). Part of his PhD was done at the Faculty of Information Studies, University of
Toronto, Canada with the supervision of professor Chun Wei Choo. His master degree was in Information
Science and the bachelor degree was in Computer Science both from UFMG. Before being a full-time
professor, he has worked for 16 years as system analyst and IT project manager mainly in the financial
industry. His main research interests are knowledge management, KM software, ERPs, portals, technology acceptance, software engineering and information science.
Gregorio Martn de Castro is Assistant Professor of Business Administration at University Complutense de Madrid, Spain. He is also a Research Associate at the CIC Spanish Knowledge Society
Research Centre. Professor Martn de Castro holds an expert Diploma in Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management from IUEE and Insead, France, and he was a Fellow at Real Colegio ComplutenseHarvard University from 2004 to 2005, and he was also a Fellow at Manchester Institute of Innovation
Research (University of Manchester) in 2009. He is author and co-author of several papers and books
on the Resource-Based View, Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management.
Jakov (Yasha) Crnkovic, PhD is an Associate Professor and Chair of the ITM Department, University
at Albany (SUNY), New York. He completed his education at the University at Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
His post-doc activities were in CERN (Geneva, Switzerland) and Middlesex University (London, GB).
Prior to joining SUNY, he was professor at the University of Miami, Florida, University at Belgrade
(Yugoslavia), College of Saint Rose (Albany, New York). He was leading project manager and team
member in many projects for The Traffic Research Institute and the Faculty of Economics Research
Institute (Belgrade, Yugoslavia.) His research interests: DSS, OR/OM, Knowledge Management, BPM,
and IT education. He has published over 30 journal papers, authored and co-authored 18 textbooks (in
Serbian and English languages), published 15 chapters in various IS/IT books, and presented over 40
refereed conference papers. He is visiting professor, he participated in research projects and consulting
activities in many countries.
David T. Croasdell is an Associate Professor of Management Information Systems in the Accounting and Computer Information Systems Department at the University of Nevada, Reno. He has a
Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology, a Master of Science degree in Business Computing Science and
a Doctorate of Philosophy in Management Information Systems. Dr. Croasdells research interests are
in Distributed Knowledge Systems, Knowledge Networks, Knowledge Management, Organizational
Memory, and Inquiring Organizations. He has over 40 publications in a wide variety of outlets. Before
embarking on his academic career, Dr. Croasdell worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory where he
managed a computer based training laboratory and supervised computer assisted software engineering
efforts across multiple local area networks. While at Los Alamos he held a number of positions. Among
his posts were two positions in the Environment and Earth Sciences Division where he developed
training programs for safety and environmental protection.Xiaodong Deng is an Associate Professor
319
of Management Information Systems at Oakland University. He received his PhD in Manufacturing

Management and Engineering from The University of Toledo. His research has appeared in Journal
of Management Information Systems, Decision Sciences, Information and Management, Information
Resources Management Journal, and Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. His research interests are
in post-implementation information technology learning, information systems benchmarking, and information technology acceptance and diffusion.
William J. Doll is a Professor of MIS and Strategic Management at the University of Toledo. Dr.
Doll holds a doctoral degree in Business Administration from Kent State University. He has published
extensively on information system and manufacturing issues in academic and professional journals
including Management Science, Journal of Management Information Systems, Communications of the
ACM, MIS Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Decision Sciences, Journal of Operations
Management, Information Systems Research, Omega, and Information & Management.
Natalie Egger is project assistant at the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance. Her main activities
are in the field of e-Procurement and she is responsible for the project administration of the EU-project
PEPPOL (Pan European Public Procurement Online). She also deals with cross-organizational processes
and e-Government topics.
Cid Gonalves Filho is a professor in the Master in Business Administration of Fumec University,
Minas Gerais, Brazil. He has a PhD in Administration from the Federal University of Minas Gerais,
Brazil. He was visiting Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA. His master
degree was in Information Science (UFMG) and his graduate area was Electric Engineering (UFMG).
He is the chief editor of Revista FACES, an English-Portuguese academic journal dedicated to management studies. His main research interests are marketing, product development, knowledge management,
CRM and innovation.
Kerstin Fink is University Professor for Information Systems and dean of studies at the University
of Innsbruck - School of Management. Kerstin Fink conducts research in the field of knowledge management and measurement with special focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. She was visiting
researcher at Stanford University and the University of New Orleans and is currently guest professor at
the University of Linz. Kerstin Fink was awarded with the Tyrolean Chamber of Commerce Prize, the
Otto-Beisheim Prize and the Innsbruck Scientific Award for excellent research in the field of Knowledge
Management.
Ronald Freeze is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems in the Accounting and Information
Systems Department at Emporia State University in Kansas. He received his Ph.D. from Arizona State
University. His current research interests include Knowledge Management, Capability assessment and
SEM modeling. Rons emphasis in his research is the measurement and validated contribution of knowledge to organizational performance. Ron teaches Object Oriented Programming, Micro-Computing
Applications, Software Analysis & Design and Business Computing at the undergraduate level. His
publications have appeared in the Journal of Management Information Systems and Journal of Knowledge
Management. Ron has also presented and had proceedings published from the ACIS, ECIS, AMCIS,
ICIS and HICSS international conferences.
320
Doris Ipsmiller is CEO of m2n consulting and development gmbh. She founded the company
in 1999 while being staff member of the Johannes Kepler University in Linz. Apart from widespread
project experience, primarily in the public and industry sector, Doris Ipsmiller has lectured on topics
of knowledge management and knowledge organisation in academic institutions like the Johannes Kepler University Linz and the University of Applied Sciences, Berlin. She has held speeches at various
events and conferences, has co-organized special tracks and tutorials at diverse conferences and has
published titles on topics concerning agile business process development, applied ontology management
and ontology based application development.
George Leal Jamil is a professor in the Master in Business Administration of Fumec University,
Minas Gerais, Brazil. He has a PhD in Information Science from the Federal University of Minas Gerais
(UFMG). His master degree was in Computer Science (UFMG) and his graduate area was Electric Engineering (UFMG). He wrote 13 books in the information technology and strategic management areas.
Yearly, he manages the doctoral consortium of the International Conference on Information Systems
and Technology Management at the University of Sao Paulo (USP). His main research interests are
information systems management, strategy, knowledge management, software engineering, marketing
and IT adoption in business contexts.
Shivraj Kanungos research focuses on evaluating and assessing IT value in organizations, software
process improvement, and the relationship between organizational culture and IT value. He is presently
Associate Professor of Management Science at the George Washington University. Previously, he held
the Dalmia Chair in Management of Information Technology at the Indian Institute of Technology at
Delhi. He consults extensively with industry and has published his research in leading journals. His
books include CMMI Implementation: Embarking on High Maturity Practices (Tata-McGrawHill, with
A. Goyal), Making Information Technology Work (Sage), Computer and Network Technologies and
Applications, (Tata-McGrawHill, with B. N. Jain) and Information Technology at Work: A Collection
of Managerial Experiences (HPC). Journals that have published his research include System Dynamics
Review, Decision Support Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, Strategic Information
Systems, International Journal of Information Management, International Journal of Information Systems, Software Process: Improvement and Practice, Information Technology and People, Computers
in Human Behavior, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, and International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction. Dr. Kanungo earned his integrated bachelors and masters degree (Master of
Management Studies, 1986) from Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India, the M.S.
degree (1988) in Management Information Systems from Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville,
IL and the Ph.D. degree (1993) in Information and Decision Systems from The George Washington
University, Washington DC.
Hannu Kivijrvi is a professor in Information Systems Science at the Helsinki School of Economics.
He received his PhD in Management Science. His research interests include knowledge management,
business IT alignment, decision support systems in financial, production and marketing planning, IT
Governance, and investments in information systems. His publications have appeared in a number of
journals, including European Journal of Information Systems, European Journal of Operational Research, Journal of Decision Systems, Decision Support Systems, Managerial and Decision Economics,
International Journal of Production Economics, and Interfaces.
321
Uday Kulkarni is an Associate Professor of Information Systems at the W. P. Carey School of

Business at Arizona State University. He got his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Professor Kulkarni teaches graduate courses in Business Intelligence and Business IT Strategy and has
received several teaching awards. His research interests lie in the area of knowledge management metrics development and assessment, decision-making support using data and knowledge based systems,
and application of knowledge based/AI techniques to business processes. His research has appeared
in journals such as IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, Decision Support Systems, Decision Sciences, European Journal of Operations
Research, and Journal of Management Information Systems.
Jos Emilio Navas Lpez is Professor of Business Administration at University Complutense de
Madrid, Spain. He is author and co-author of several books and papers on Technology Management,
Strategy, the Resource-Based View, Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management. He held the first
Knowledge Management Chair in Spain at I.U. Euroforum Escorial.
Josef Makolm is head of IT-Audit in the Directorate General for Information Technology at the
Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance. He has over 30 years of experience in research, consulting and
managing projects. His main activities and responsibilities are topics in e-Government, e-Taxation,
e-Participation, e-Procurement, Knowledge Management, Interoperability and Multiple Use. He has
published articles and books on these topics. He is member of the board of the Austrian Computer
Society, co-leader of the Forum e-Government, head of workgroups in the Forum e-Government and
the Austrian BLSG-Cooperation and lecturer at Danube University Krems. At present, he is project
manager of the research and of the awarded use case project DYONIPOS (Dynamic Ontology Based
Integrated Process Optimization) and the program leader of the Austrian part of the EU-project PEPPOL.
He is responsible for Workpackage 2 Virtual Company Dossier - a project for borderless collection
of business certificates and attestations.
Shahnawaz Muhammed is Director of Innovative Learning Center and Assistant Professor at the
School of Business, The American University of Middle East, Kuwait. Dr. Muhammed teaches information systems and operations management courses in his current position. His research interests include
knowledge management, knowledge representation, information systems for knowledge management
and knowledge management in supply chains. He has previously taught at Fayetteville State University,
USA. He holds B.Tech. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Calicut, India and PhD in
Manufacturing Management from The University of Toledo, USA. His prior work experience includes
engineering design, software development and software testing. He is a Certified Supply Chain Professional (CSCP) by APICS.
Kevin J. OSullivan is an Assistant Professor of Management at New York Institute of Technology. He has over 16 years of experience IT experience in multinational firms and consulting both in
the private and public sector in American, Middle Eastern, European and Far Eastern cultures. Dr.
OSullivan has delivered professional seminars to global Fortune 100 organizations on subjects such
as global collaboration, knowledge management, information security and multinational information
systems. His research and development interests include knowledge management, intellectual capital
security and information visualization. He serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Information
322
and Knowledge Management and as associate editor of VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems.
Lorne Olfman is Dean of the School of Information Systems and Technology at Claremont Graduate University, Fletcher Jones Chair in Technology Management, and Co-Director (with Terry Ryan)
of the Social Learning Software Lab (SL2). His research interests are in designing effective collaboration, learning and knowledge management technologies. To this end, Lorne and his SL2 colleagues
are conducting research on a variety of topics including the design of an intelligent online discussion
board, the development of an integrated set of tools to facilitate The Claremont Conversation for the
21st Century, and the design of a virtual dialogue system. Lorne has been integrating the use of wiki
technology into his research and teaching for the past couple of years.
Alexander Orth works as a consultant with Accenture focusing on the Financial Services industry.
His areas of expertise cover among others Business & IT Strategy, IT Transformation, Post-Merger
Integration, Organizational and Human Performance, Performance Measurement as well as IS & IT
Success. He holds a Master degree in Business Administration from European Business School (EBS),
Wiesbaden/Oestrich-Winkel, Germany. Mr. Orth has been working within the research field of Knowledge Management throughout his studies; he has particularly focused on Knowledge Management Success and Success Measurement. His work has been published in the Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences 2009.
Elsa Rhoads, D.Sc., is the Knowledge and Performance Architect for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a civilian federal agency in Washington, DC. Prior to her appointment in
2000, Rhoads was a Branch Chief in the Information Resources Management Department. Rhoads is
a Board member of the Knowledge Management Working Group of the Federal CIO Council. Before
joining PBGC in 1993, Rhoads enjoyed a career in management and information technology consulting
in Chicago. She was also the founder and president of Rhoads Group, an IT consulting and software
development organization. Rhoads holds an M.P.A. degree, and served as an adjunct professor in the
Public Administration program at Roosevelt University, Chicago.
Vincent M. Ribire, After teaching for the past 10 years at American University (Washington, DC)
and later on at the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) in New York and in the Kingdom of Bahrain,
Vincent is now the Managing Director of the South Asian branch of the Institute for Knowledge and
Innovation (IKI) of Thailand hosted by Bangkok University (http://iki.bu.ac.th) as well as an Assistant
Professor at the Graduate School of Bangkok University. Vincent received his Doctorate of Science in
Knowledge Management from the George Washington University, and a PhD in Management Sciences
from the Paul Czanne University, in Aix en Provence, France. Vincent teaches, conducts research and
consults in the area of knowledge management, innovation management and information systems. Over
the past years, he presented various research papers at different international conferences on knowledge
management, organizational culture, information systems and quality as well as publishing in various
refereed journals and books.
Pedro Lpez Sez is Assistant Professor of Business Administration at University Complutense de
Madrid, Spain, and he was a Fellow at Real Colegio Complutense-Harvard University from 2004 to
323
2005. Professor Lpez Sez is also a Research Associate at the CIC Spanish Knowledge Society Research Centre and he is author and co-author of several papers and books on the Resource-Based View,
Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management.
Michael Stankosky, DSc, is Professor of Systems Engineering, Lead Professor of Knowledge Management, and co-founder and co-director of the Institute of Knowledge and Innovation at the George
Washington University. In those capacities, he oversees the research and education of all academic
activites relating to Knowledge Management and Innovation. He collaborates with 12 adjunct faculty,
25 doctoral researchers, as well as with numerous scholars and practitioners from around the world.
His latest book, Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management, summarizes some of these efforts.
Miriam Delgado Verde is Assistant Professor of Business Administration at University Complutense
de Madrid, Spain. She was a Fellow at Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (University of
Manchester) from 2008 to 2009. She is author and co-author of several papers on the Resource-Based
View, Intellectual Capital and Technological Innovation.
Silke Wei is project assistant at the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance. She is responsible for the
analysis of information, communication and transaction processes as well as participative stakeholder
integration on the basis of web 2.0 technologies for the development of new e-Government structures.
She is assistant leader of the workgroup organization in the Forum e-Government of the Austrian
Computer Society.
Suzanne Zyngier PhD is a Senior Lecturer and is the Executive Director Masters of Business Information Management & Systems in the School of Business, Latrobe University, Australia. She has held
academic appointments at Monash University and Swinburne University of Technology. Her research
centers on the governance of knowledge management strategies. This has resulted in the development
of a KM governance framework detailing the relationship of governance to the effective implementation
of KM processes, and in defining the roles and tasks involved at each point of governance: planning and
development of the KM strategy and the implementation of that strategy. Prior to joining academia her
previous career was as an experienced knowledge management and information services analyst where
she conducted her own business as a consultant to the professional, corporate and not-for profit sectors.
Since 2001 her research has been concerned with knowledge management understandings and practices
in the corporate and government sectors, and includes comparative study of knowledge management
status between Australian and European financial services institutions. Suzanne has published her work
in Information Systems Frontiers, the International Journal of Knowledge Management and in
Information and Knowledge Management. She has also published several technical reports, several
book chapters and has presented papers on her research at international conferences and to industry.
324
325
Index
A
allowing for mutual influences (AI) 201
assimilative knowledge 216
authority 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,
65, 68, 71, 72
B
balanced scorecard metric 153
Belardos matrix 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 169
business capital 181, 187
business environment 32, 33
business processes 262, 263
business strategy 52, 53, 56
C
clarifying mutual expectations (CE) 201
codification 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199,
200, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207
cognitive components 15
cognizant enterprise maturity model (CEMM)
129, 148
collaboration 213, 214, 215, 219, 220, 221,
222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229,
230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236
collaboration centered strategy 213, 215, 223
collaboration engineering (CE) 213, 215, 220,
222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 231,
233, 235, 237
collaboration engineers 235
collaboration processes 230, 231, 235
collaborative working culture 262
company valuation 14
competitiveness 32, 33, 48
competitor knowledge management 32, 35
conceptual knowledge 106, 107, 109, 111, 113,

114, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123
conditional knowledge 216
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 130, 136,
137, 138, 142, 145
content meaning 277
contextual knowledge 106, 107, 109, 111, 113,
114, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123
corporate culture 193
creativity 112, 123
critical knowledge 278
critical success factors (CSF) 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 35,
108, 109, 153, 155, 164, 169, 170, 243,
244, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 255,
257
cross-validation 151, 152, 160, 161, 162, 164,
168
cross-validation nomological network 161
cultural knowledge 216
culture 154, 155, 160, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266,
268, 270
customer knowledge management , 32, 35
D
data 130, 132, 134, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142,
144, 149, 262, 263, 265, 266, 267, 268
declarative knowledge 216
DeLone and McLean (D&M) IS success model
3, 17
descriptive knowledge 216
DYONIPOS (Dynamic Ontology based Integrated Process Optimisation) research
project 277, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283,
284, 285, 286, 287
Index
E
economic value added metric 153
ELAK (electronic records) 284, 285
emergent strategy 53, 55
evaluation 55, 68
expertise 130, 132, 133, 136, 138, 140, 142,
143, 146, 147, 149
exploitation 33
exploration 33
F
facilitators 230, 231, 234, 235
firm performance measures 5
G
governance 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65,
66, 67, 68, 72
group support systems (GSS) 214, 215, 221,
222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230,
231, 235
H
Sciences (HICSS 2006) 1, 2, 14
Sciences (HICSS 2007) 1, 12, 13
Sciences (HICSS 2008) 1
HICSS knowledge management foundations
workshop 14
holistic KM view 238, 257
human capital 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,
146, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 186, 188
I
index values (IV) 242
individual innovativeness 106, 110, 112, 113,
114, 115, 120, 123
individual knowledge 107, 109, 110, 113, 121,
216
individual performance 107, 108, 112, 122
information quality 17, 18
infrastructure 264, 265, 267, 269, 270
326
innovation 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,
44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 106, 107, 109, 110,
112, 113, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124,
125
intangible asset monitor metric 153
intangible assets 128, 129, 131
integrated KMS architecture 257
integrated KMS perspective 257
integrated measurement system 257
intellectual assets 58, 70
intellectual capital 91, 93, 179, 180, 181, 182,
183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 216
intellectual capital-based view (ICV) 179, 180,
187, 189
intellectual capital, resource-based view (RBV)
of 179, 180, 181
Intellectus Model 181, 182
International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM) 4, 16, 30
interpretive structural modeling (ISM) 264,
266, 267, 268, 271, 274, 275
IT effectiveness 263
J
Jennex and Olfman KM Success Model 3, 11
Jennex and Olfman's success assessment framework 239, 245, 246, 248, 249, 251
Journal of Management Information Systems
(JMIS) 192
K
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index 184, 185
key performance indicators (KPI) 242, 243,
247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 255
KM academics 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10
KM capability 128, 129, 130, 134, 135, 146
KM capability improvement 128
KM, enablers of 264, 265, 266
KM governance 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 64
KM initiatives 238, 239, 240, 243, 244, 245,
246, 252, 254, 255, 261, 262, 264, 268,
269, 270
KM initiative success 192, 194, 196, 197, 198,
199, 200, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208,
212
Index
KM/KMS success 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

11
KM/KMS success measurement 2
KM leadership 51
KM leadership through governance 51, 52, 53,
54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68
KM leadership through management 51
KM maturity models 56, 64
KM practitioners 1, 4, 5, 51, 57, 58
KM processes 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 251,
252, 253, 254, 261
KM strategy 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62,
64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 213, 215, 223, 224,
225, 226, 230, 238, 240, 241, 242, 253,
254, 255, 261
KM students 1, 4, 5
KM success 51, 52, 61, 107, 108, 109, 110,
112, 113, 120, 121, 122, 123
KM Success and Measurement minitracks 1
KM success as process measure 3
KM systems (KMS) 239, 240, 241, 242, 243,
244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252,
253, 254, 255, 257, 261
KM technology 238
know-how 216
knowledge 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 213, 215, 216, 217,
219, 225, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234,
235, 236, 262, 263, 266, 271, 272, 273
knowledge access 109
knowledge acquisition 278, 279
knowledge application 109, 278
knowledge assets 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 137,
145, 146, 147, 149
knowledge audits 91
knowledge capabilities (KC) 128, 130, 131,
132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139,
140, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147
knowledge capacity 216
knowledge capture 109
knowledge community 195
knowledge content 108, 109, 110, 122
knowledge creation 109
knowledge development 278
knowledge distribution 278
knowledge documents 130, 132, 133, 137, 138,

139, 142, 144, 146
knowledge evaluation 278
knowledge, explicit 15, 16, 52, 53, 65, 68, 72,
129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 181, 213, 215,
216, 217, 219, 263, 265, 277, 278
knowledge flows 129, 131
knowledge hierarchies 195, 209
knowledge identification 278
knowledge, implicit 277, 278, 282
knowledge integration 265, 266, 272
knowledge-intensive organizations 214
knowledge landscape 278
knowledge lifecycle 129, 130, 131, 132, 133,
134
knowledge management cycle 193
Knowledge Management Foundations workshop 1
knowledge management index (KMI) 150,
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158,
159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167,
168, 169, 170, 176, 177
knowledge management (KM) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32,
33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45,
46, 47, 50, 91, 93, 94, 98, 100, 101, 104,
128, 130, 131, 136, 147, 148, 149, 192,
193, 195, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214,
215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 223, 229, 230,
233, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268,
269, 270, 271, 272, 277, 278, 279, 282,
286
knowledge management (KM): direct intellectual capital (DIC) methods 93
knowledge management (KM): knowledge
potential measurement method 91, 93,
94, 98, 100, 101, 104
knowledge management (KM): market capitalization methods (MCM) 93
knowledge management (KM): return on assets
(ROA) methods 93
knowledge management (KM): scorecard (SC)
methods 93
327
Index
knowledge management (KM) success 106,

107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 120, 121,
122, 123, 124, 125, 126
knowledge management (KM) success models
14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28, 29, 30
knowledge management (KM) system success
238, 239, 244, 248, 255, 257
knowledge management performance index
(KMPI) 153, 173
knowledge management processes (KMP) 153,
154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 168,
169, 170
knowledge management process model 277,
278
knowledge management success measures 106,
122
knowledge management systems (KMS) 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 107, 108, 109,
122, 126, 193, 195, 205, 208, 264, 265,
271
knowledge markets 195, 209
knowledge mass 98, 104
knowledge measurement 91, 92, 93
knowledge measurement systems 91, 94
knowledge objects 131
knowledge organizations 91, 92
knowledge position 98, 100, 104
knowledge potential 91, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99,
100, 101, 102, 104
knowledge potential framework 91
knowledge quality dimension 18, 20
knowledge repositories 131
knowledge repository success (KRS) 197
knowledge sharing 109, 129, 134, 146, 147,
192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 205, 206,
207, 210, 211, 219, 235
knowledge sharing intention 265
knowledge stocks 179, 180
knowledge storage 278
knowledge strategy 2
knowledge submission process 21
knowledge, tacit 15, 16, 21, 52, 53, 72, 91, 94,
132, 133, 134, 181, 193, 196, 198, 206,
213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 224, 234,
236, 263, 265
328
knowledge transfer initiatives 214

knowledge velocity 91, 100, 104
knowledge workers 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98,
99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 277, 278,
279, 280, 281, 283, 284, 285, 286
know-what 216
know-when 216
know-who 216
know-why 216
KOMPASS database 285
L
latent descriptor factors 130, 134
leadership culture 8
learning orientation 265
lessons learned 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138,
139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146
linguistic knowledge 216
M
management support 21, 22, 26, 27
market intelligence 34, 47
market knowledge 32, 33, 34, 35, 42, 47
market knowledge management 32, 34, 47
market knowledge models 32
market orientation 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49
market orientation, behavioral perspective 34
market orientation, cultural perspective 34
market share 33, 34
market value added metric 153
measurement 53, 55, 66, 68, 264, 265, 270
meeting expectations (ME) 201
N
new product performance 32, 38
O
operational knowledge 106, 107, 109, 111,
112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121,
122, 123, 125
organizational culture 184, 192, 193, 194, 195,
207, 238
organizational knowledge 33, 38, 48, 91, 94,
104, 107, 216, 217
Index
organizational learning (OL) 132

organizational memory 33
organizational memory information systems
(OMS) 16, 17
organizational memory (OM) 15, 19, 23, 24
organizational performance 32, 34, 37, 47
organizational performance (OP) 150, 151,
152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 161, 162, 168,
169, 170, 178
organizational trust 192
organizational trust survey (OTS) 201, 202
outsourcing 266
P
partial least squares (PLS) 161, 162, 165, 166,
169, 171, 172, 173
performance 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113,
115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123,
125, 127
personalization 192, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199,
200, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207
presentation knowledge 216
procedural knowledge 216
profitability 33, 49
Q
quantum mechanical thinking 91, 93, 94, 95
quantum organizations 91, 94, 95, 96, 103, 105
quantum-relativistic paradigm 94, 95
R
reasoning knowledge 216
reducing controls (RC) 201
relational capital 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185,
186, 187, 188
resource-based view of the firm 216
resource description framework (RDF) 281,
282
return on investment (ROI) 33, 51, 56, 68, 69
Riempps integrated KMS architecture 239,
240, 241, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255
Riempps performance measurement system
239
risk management 55, 65, 68, 69
sales 33, 34
self-transcending knowledge 216
semantic linkage 277
service quality dimension 17, 21
sharing relevant information (SI) 201
Skandia navigator metric 153
small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) 91,
101, 102, 103, 105
social capital 181, 195, 197, 207, 208, 265, 272
social context 265, 266
social network analysis (SNA) 7, 8
strategic alliances 185, 187
strategic resources 179
structural capital 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186,
187, 188
structural equation modeling (SEM) 32, 49,
106, 115, 150, 153, 159, 160, 161, 162,
163, 164, 165, 168, 169
T
tacit embodied knowledge 216
task knowledge 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112,
113, 114, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123
taxonomies 131
technical components 15, 16
technology 262, 263, 264, 265, 269, 270
technology broker metric 153
technology knowledge management 32
ThinkLet technique 213, 230, 231, 233, 236
trustworthiness 192, 194, 195, 197, 198, 200,
201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210,
211, 212
V
virtual project teams 266
W
Web ontology language (OWL) 281
329

Strategies For Knowledge Management Success

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategies For Knowledge Management Success

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategies for Knowledge

Exploring Organizational Efficacy

InformatIon scIence reference

Director of Editorial Content:

Published in the United States of America by

Preface ................................................................................................................................................. xiv

Detailed Table of Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................................................. xiv

Find a need or an opportunity that KM satisfies, supports, or resolves.

Section 1: Knowledge ManageMent SucceSS

Section 3: KM StrategieS in Practice

KM approach an integrated view of KM strategy, KM processes, KM technology, and company

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition

A knowledge strategy that identifies users, sources, processes, storage strategy,

However, these CSFs do not define KM/KMS

To provide a basis for company valuation,

Besides these reasons from an organizational

KM Success and effectiveness

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition

and imply the same construct or variable. This is

the value that these systems and processes provide

KM and KMS Success

This perspective views KM success as a process

Another perspective is that KM and KMS success

KM and KMS Success as Separate

KM Success as a Process Measure

KM Success as an outcome Measure

Product and service quality,

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition

Proximity to customers and customer

KM Success as combined Process

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition

outcome measures and is NOT just process or just

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition

KM success is the ability to leverage knowledge resources to achieve actionable outcomes.

Table 3 summarizes opinions on five suggested

coming from practitioners. This is interesting

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition

Impact on business process measures

KM process effectiveness and efficiency measures

KM system effectiveness and efficiency measures

Learning culture measures

Overall n = 103, researcher n = 70, practitioner

of the comments and adjusting the measures based

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition

strength of ties. Additional issues were raised with

CSFs reveals conflicts that can affect the success

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition

Also, there are a few points of consensus that

KM success and KMS success may not be

Additionally, it is possible that there is a different focus on KM success between practitioners

Korean firms. Cross and Baird propose that KM

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition

three KM projects and also observed senior

refers to. This dimension refers to the impact of

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition

reflected in a decrease in the quantity and quality

KM and KMS success are likely different

KM success is likely a multidimensional

Additionally, a base definition of KM success

KM success and effectiveness are likely

It is expected that it will take a great deal of

Towards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition