You are on page 1of 13

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

(SDB 4413)

KMS PROJECT
NGO: WORLD WILDLIFE FUND (WWF)
MALAYSIA

DR KHAIRUL SHAFEE BIN KALID


GROUP D

NAME STUDENT
ID
NUR FATEN AMALEENA BINTI MOHD NOH 19640

AIMI AMIRAH BINTI KHAIRUDDIN 20133

AIMUNI BINTI SHAHARUDDIN 20368

ANIS AYUNI BINTI YUSOF 20394

NUR DIANA BINTI ROHMAT ROSE 20401


INTRODUCTION

Knowledge Management

Knowledge management was initially defined as the process of applying a systematic


approach to the capture, structuring, management, and dissemination of knowledge throughout an
organization to work faster, reuse best practices, and reduce costly rework from project to project.
Each enterprise should define knowledge management in terms of its own business objectives.
Knowledge management is all about applying knowledge in new, previously overburdened, or
novel situations.

Knowledge management is the deliberate and systematic coordination of an organization’s


people, technology, processes, and organizational structure in order to add value through reuse and
innovation. This is achieved through the promotion of creating, sharing, and applying knowledge
as well as through the feeding of valuable lessons learned and best practices into corporate memory
in order to foster continued organizational learning.

Knowledge management is the systematic management of an organization's knowledge


assets for creating value and meeting tactical & strategic requirements. It consists of the initiatives,
processes, strategies, and systems that sustain and enhance the storage, assessment, sharing,
refinement, and creation of knowledge.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this project are:

 To be able to see the current knowledge management initiative of an organization.


 To propose a knowledge management strategy for the organization.
LITERATURE REVIEW

De Vasconcelos et al. (2007) show that, in the context of digital society, knowledge
management is a useful tool for non-governmental organizations to achieve their civic mission, to
share with the society knowledge and practices, to give back. In this way, NGOs would contribute
to the development of communities and citizens. In addition, knowledge management strategies
impact positively the internal environment of an NGO. Corfield, Paton, and Little (2013) posit that
personnel evaluates and reacts positively to such approaches. Knowledge management could be a
means to facilitate learning, to develop a learning organization (Guldberg et al., 2013). Knowledge
management strategies could create an environment proper for learning, for the creation, the share
and the reuse of knowledge, for collaboration and for innovation (Bratianu, 2014; Bratianu &
Bolisani, 2015; Lefter et al., 2011).

The effectiveness of knowledge management strategies in non-commercial contexts was


investigated by Corfield, Paton, and Little (2013). Their research helps NGO implementing such
approaches, cautioning them to the need to be selective. In order to prove effective, formal
knowledge management strategies should be supported. The knowledge of the members of an
NGO is its most valuable resource (Matschke, Moskaliuk & Cress, 2012). Top-down strategies
facilitate the sharing and development of knowledge, but the voluntary involvement of staff and
experts is also valuable.

A study of Hume and Hume (2015) documents that knowledge in NGOs is mostly tacit.
Therefore, it is not formalized and documented, being related to individuals and working groups.
In this framework, knowledge sharing is opportunistic in many situations and people should be
stimulated to share. Knowledge sharing is critical for operational knowledge management (Holzer
et al., 2016).

Another relevant aspect is the insufficient resources of NGOs which limit their options for
complex knowledge management practices. In this context, the internet and new technologies offer
a strong support (Matschke, Moskaliuk & Cress, 2012). An investigation of Bebensee, Helms, and
Spruit (2012) reveals that web 2.0 is used in a knowledge management framework in nonprofits
create knowledge, to innovate and for better asset management. The internet and social media are
also systematically used by NGOs to develop and manage partnership, involving also knowledge
sharing (Rathi, Given & Forcier, 2014). The typology of knowledge sharing covers all options:
uni-directional, bi-directional and multi-directional knowledge. The sharing could be informal,
formal, as well as semi-formal. The study evidenced eight partnership categories: business
partnerships, sector partnerships, community partnerships, government partnerships, expert
partnerships, endorsement partnerships, charter partnerships and hybrid partnerships.

Even if the staff of NGOs would openly and voluntarily participate in knowledge sharing,
the role of managers and outside experts would facilitate the development of these processes.
Managers could enable a more intense learning and valorization of experience and expertise inside
and outside a nonprofit organization, mediated by personal and community narratives and
storytelling (Wenger et al., 2011).

According to Rahana Husin (n.d.), WWF has implemented its own knowledge
management strategies through the Knowledge Management Centres in WWF Malaysia. It was
built with aims to impart and enhance conservation knowledge through relevant reading materials,
online learning and provision of spaces for public engagement and education. The Knowledge
Management Centre in Petaling Jaya has a niche collection of about 7500 titles on various topics
related to conservation and environment that were collected since the establishment of WWF
Malaysia. The centre also provides reading areas, an e-learning room, an archive room and a
research area in an effort to provide an engaging learning experience.

The Knowledge Management Centres in Kota Kinabalu and Kuching, have a collection of
2800 titles and 1000 titles respectively. They serve the needs in East Malaysia for WWF-
Malaysia’s staffs, government agencies, researchers, students and the general public who wish to
know more about conservation and the environment. The Knowledge Management Centre’s
collection can be categorized into eight main groups and are mostly related to nature conservation
which are books, serials, WWF-Malaysia's Technical Reports, WWF-Malaysia's General
Publications, Non-WWF reports and documents, conference proceedings, PowerPoint
presentations and theses.
METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted in order to analyse and propose a suitable knowledge
management strategy for World Wide Fund (WWF) Malaysia. The study employed stratified
sampling method in the drawing sample size that served as a representative of the population. The
basis for selecting this type of sampling technique is to classify WWF-Malaysia employees based
on the department because their job scope is differ across departments in respect of specialization
and job offered.

Data from respondents were collected by researchers after distributing the questionnaire to
WWF-Malaysia employees through email and Facebook to solicit for their responses. In this study,
a total of 30 respondents participated from five departments which includes Marketing, Finance,
People & Strategic Operations, Communications, and Conservation departments from WWF-
Malaysia. The expected respondents from each stratum (department) is 6 but the actual respondent
rate in some department was not up to the allocation. In the part of data analysis, the study used
descriptive statistic whereby the number of respondents per department were considered.

No Stratum (Department) Expected Actual


Respondents Respondents
1 Marketing 6 7
2 Finance 6 7
3 People & Strategic Operations 6 6
4 Communications 6 4
5 Conservation 6 6
Total 30 30
Table 1: Response Rate According to the Stratum
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Management & Organisation


14
No of respondents

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Organization
Mentorship
Vision, mission and Senior managers continuously strive
programme has
strategy promoted and professionals for learning,
been implemented
by your top trained in KM unlearning and re-
for knowledge
management techniques learning for its
exchange.
employees
Strongly Disagree 8 10 6 8
Disagree 5 4 5 6
Neutral 4 1 4 2
Agree 11 11 13 10
Strongly Agree 2 4 2 4

Figure 1: KM Pillars – Management and Organization

Content & Process


16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
organisation have
systematic processes Information is readily Company provide well- Is documented
for available on required defined process for procedure centrally-
capturing,organizing, topics from current creation, capture and stored for ease of
exploiting and publications to industry acquisition of access across the
protecting key specific processes. knowledge firms?
knowledge assets
Strongly Disagree 9 8 5 5
Disagree 3 7 9 6
Neutral 10 6 7 14
Agree 5 7 8 2
Strongly Agree 3 2 1 3

Figure 2: KM Pillars – Content and Process


Infrastructure - Technology
12
No of respondents

10
8
6
4
2
0
Whatsapp or
Does hardware
Telegram Chat
Information is and software Employees are
Group) is in place
important to be technologies are reluctant to use
in order for us to
quickly found by available in your information
share information
new users on your company to technology due to
or solve each
intranet(or similar support unfamiliarity or
other’s problems
network)? employees' inexperience
across
learning?
departments.
Strongly Disagree 6 10 5 4
Disagree 7 6 10 3
Neutral 6 1 3 6
Agree 6 11 8 9
Strongly Agree 5 2 4 8

Figure 3: KM Pillars – Infrastructure-Technology

People and Culture


12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Knowledge sharing Workplace settings
Does knowledge Does corporate
across departmental and format of
sharing and learning culture affect
boundaries actively meetings encourage
are valued in your employees'
encouraged and informal knowledge
company culture? retention?
rewarded? exchange
Strongly Disagree 7 7 9 2
Disagree 6 7 3 5
Neutral 5 3 4 7
Agree 8 10 7 11
Strongly Agree 4 3 7 5

Figure 4: KM Pillars – Management and Organization


The figure above displays an overview of the respondent’s feedback about the
Knowledge Management Pillars. Firstly, Figure 1 explains about management and organization.
The result shows that all questions have an equal number of respondents who are agree and
disagree. Secondly, Figure 2 discuss about content and process. The result shows that majority of
the respondents is disagree on the statement stated in the content and process. Therefore, an action
should be taken to improve content and process of the company. Next, Figure 3 demonstrates about
infrastructure-technology. For infrastructure, majority of them are disagree on the statements
stated accept for ‘Employees are reluctant to use information technology due to unfamiliarity or
inexperience’. This is maybe due to the age factor. Last but not least, Figure 4 explains about
people and culture. For people and culture, there are an equal number of respondents who are agree
and disagree on the statement except for ‘Does corporate culture affect employees' retention?.
Majority of them agree on this statement because nowadays, many companies have understood the
importance of organization culture and its impact on employee satisfaction, increased productivity,
and profits.
PROPOSED KM STRATEGIES

A very simple way to understand the problems of organizational Knowledge Management


(KM) is through four pillars: Management and Organization, Content and Process, Technology,
People and Culture.

The traditional goal of KM is to make the best use of the knowledge that is available to an
organization, creating new knowledge, increasing awareness and understanding the process. Based
on our findings, Content and Process has been considered to be a critical components in WWF
Malaysia organization. Content and Process pillar use a standard and format for document capture
and mandating their storage on a shared site (e.g. Intranet) so that they are available to others. The
pillar also include information assets both internal and external and systems that support the
creation and administration of digital information.

Majority of the respondents disagree that their organization have a systematic processes
for capturing or gathering, organizing, exploiting and protecting key knowledge assets, including
those from internal and external sources. So to improve the organization KM strategy, they need
to improve the Content and Process pillar which is to be a critical component in their organization.
Content is in the form of digital or paper-based assets, includes data, data stores, documents, faxes,
correspondence, or any artifact that represents tangible work. While Process as a KM pillar,
answers the “how” and “why” of content management, and in doing that, turns content into
knowledge.

For the beginning to improve their Content, they need to design a plan to improve the
knowledge flow in their organization. Developing a strong framework is a huge part of knowledge
management strategy. From the framework, the organization can ensure that users maintain
consistency in content creation. They need to think of what would happen if they tasked five
different people in writing documents. They might end up with five different formats in writing
documents. The framework will streamline the creation process and keeping the content aligned
with KMS structure. Next, they can adapt their framework as needed and will provide their staff
members to remain consistent when following it.
Next, to improve their Process, organizations that are serious about better managing their
knowledge management will examine their processes with an eye toward improving their
performance:

1) Develop Basic Process Competence. At the risk of stating the obvious, one of the most
important issues to consider is the extent of the company's capability with respect to
process design, management and improvement. If a reasonable capability does not exist it
must be developed. It seems unlikely that an organization lacking in the basics of process
competence will deploy a KM initiative that will have much of an impact on process
performance.
2) Look for missing metrics. If metrics are missing, no one can know how well a process
performs. An early step might be to establish metrics for process performance and thus
establish a baseline of knowledge about the level of process performance.
3) Consider Benchmarking. Sometimes, we know how well our own processes perform, but
we do not know how that level of performance compares with others. Here we may pursue
knowledge of best practices. These can be internal or external best practices. The real point
of benchmarking is to learn from others are doing.
4) They need to put in place clear processes so that stakeholders understand how they are
expected to share and re-use information and knowledge and how they can get help.
5) They need to prepare sample questions which will help their organization to study, capture
and improve its processes. The sample of questions are as below:
a) What are the various process methodologies used?
b) How effective are the processes?
c) How do we benchmark our processes?

In conclusion, the proposed KM strategy will help to enhance the performance of the
organizations.
CONCLUSION

As a conclusion, the final goal is to see the current knowledge management initiative in an
organization. It need to make knowledge management an inseparable part of the organizational
culture, the work processes, and of the information systems. Successful implementation of
knowledge management implies that it becomes a self-sustaining cultural aspect of the
organization.

A good knowledge management strategy will diagnose the existing status of the
organization, compare this with what stakeholders want to achieve in the future, and come to an
assessment of how far apart the two are which is a gap analysis. Knowledge management auditing
is often the first step in any knowledge management initiative as it serves to inventory what
knowledge intensive resources exist within a company. This provides a snapshot of the "as is" or
current state of the organization with respect to knowledge management, and helps in measuring
progress toward organizational culture change and other knowledge management goals.

Organizations today are more universal in example, they are operating in multiple sites,
multilingual, and multicultural in nature. In this modern era, the world is more connected with the
advent of websites, smart phones, and other latest gadgets. Advancements in technology has not
only helped in better connectivity but also changed expectations. Companies are expected to have
online presence round the clock providing required information as per the customer needs.
REFERENCES

De Vasconcelos, J.B., Seixas, P. C., Lemos, P.G., & Kimble, C. (2007). Knowledge management
in non-governmental organisations. In Enterprise Information Systems VII (pp.121-130).
Dordrecht: Springer.

Corfield, A., Paton, R., & Little, S. (2013). Does knowledge management work in NGOs?: a
longitudinal study. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(3), 179- 188.

Guldberg, K.R., Mackness, J., Makriyannis, E., & Tait, C. (2013). Knowledge management and
value creation in a third sector organisation: Knowledge management and value creation
in an NGO. Knowledge and Process Management, 20(3), 113-122.

Bratianu, C. (2014). Strategies to enhance intergenerational learning in universities. In Rooney, J.,


& Murthy, U. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intellectual
Capital, Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, (pp.83-90). Reading:
Academic Conferences and Publishing International.

Bratianu, C. & Bolisani, E. (2015). Knowledge strategy: an integrated approach for managing
uncertainty. In Massaro, M., & Garlatti, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th European
Conference on Knowledge Management (pp.169-177). Reading: Academic Conferences
and Publishing International.

Bebensee, T., Helms, R., & Spruit, M. (2012). Exploring the Impact of Web 2.0 on Knowledge
Management. In Dudezert, B.A. (Ed.), Knowledge Management 2.0: Organizational
Models and Enterprise Strategies (pp.17-43). Hershey: IGI Global.

Lefter, V., et al. (2011). Intergenerational knowledge transfer in the academic environment of
knowledge-based economy. Amfiteatru Economic, 13(30), 392- 403.

Matschke, C., Moskaliuk, J., & Cress, U. (2012). Knowledge exchange using Web 2.0
technologies in NGOs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 159-176.
Hasnain, S.S., & Jasimuddin, S.M. (2012). Barriers to knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence
from the NGO (non-governmental organizations)-sector in Bangladesh. World Journal of
Social Sciences, 2(2), 135-150.

Holzer, A., et al. (2016). Gamifying Knowledge Sharing in the Humanitarian Context.

In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Symposium on Computing for Development (Art. no. 21). ACM.
Retrieved from
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3006630&CFID=987389718&CFTOKEN=890 51903.

Hume, C., & Hume, M. (2008). The strategic role of knowledge management in nonprofit
organisations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(2),
129-140.

Hume, C., & Hume, M. (2015). The critical role of internal marketing in knowledge management
in not-for-profit organizations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27(1), 23-
47.

Rahana Husin. (n.d.). WWF-Malaysia's Knowledge Management Centre. Retrieved from


http://www.wwf.org.my/media_and_information/knowledge_centre/

Rathi, D., Given, L., & Forcier, E. (2014). Interorganisational partnerships and knowledge sharing:
the perspective of non-profit organisations (NPOs). Journal of Knowledge Management,
18(5), 867-885.

Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & De Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in
communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Rapport 18, Ruud de Moor Centrum,
Open University of the Netherlands.