art sum w1
patrol52263
Measuringknowledgemanagementperformanceinindustrialenterprises.pdf
The Learning Organization Measuring knowledge management performance in industrial enterprises : An exploratory study based on an integrated model Man Yin Rebecca Yiu, Kit Fai Pun,
Article information: To cite this document: Man Yin Rebecca Yiu, Kit Fai Pun, (2014) "Measuring knowledge management performance in industrial enterprises: An exploratory study based on an integrated model", The Learning Organization, Vol. 21 Issue: 5, pp.310-332, https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-05-2013-0021 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-05-2013-0021
Downloaded on: 24 February 2018, At: 14:23 (PT) References: this document contains references to 41 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 536 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2015),"Organizational learning, knowledge management practices and firm’s performance: An empirical study of a heavy engineering firm in India", The Learning Organization, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 14-39 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-05-2013-0024">https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-05-2013-0024</a> (2015),"Development and validation of knowledge management performance measurement constructs for small and medium enterprises", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 Iss 4 pp. 711-734 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2014-0398">https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2014-0398</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:277067 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
Measuring knowledge management performance in
industrial enterprises An exploratory study based on an
integrated model Man Yin Rebecca Yiu and Kit Fai Pun
Department of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of the West Indies,
St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies
Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to discuss an integrated paradigm that aligns the measures of knowledge management (KM) performance to attain corporate goals in organisations. It presents the main findings of an exploratory study on the use of the paradigm and the accompanied self-assessment scheme in industrial enterprises in Trinidad and Tobago (T&T). Design/methodology/approach – An integrated knowledge management (IKM) model was derived, incorporating the guiding principles of the Total Quality Management/Business Excellence Models. A host of 20 elements was advocated under 5 assessment criteria, namely, Senior management leadership, KM processes, people development, continuous improvement and results orientation. A four-level self-assessment scheme was developed for facilitating users to determine the maturity status of IKM performance in organisations. An exploratory study was conducted with respondents of 18 companies in T&T. A results-oriented methodology with a self-assessment instrument (includes a set of questionnaire and facilitative tools) was used to acquire the industry practitioners’ views on the potential applicability of the IKM model. The study compared the current with the expected organisational performance and explored the relevance of integrating KM and PM practices in these participating organisations. Findings – The findings provided some useful data sources and managerial insights in integrating KM/PM initiatives with reference to groups of large enterprises vs small- and medium-sized companies in T&T. Empirical evidence showed that the self-assessment analysis could help participating organisations utilise their resources and keep up with improvement progress. The objectives, emphasis and administrative context of the KM/PM integration could be changed with varying resources, constraints and maturity status of organisations. Research limitations/implications – Future research could validate the self-assessment paradigm of KM performance in enterprises across various industry sectors, with the emphasis on human– technology– organisation interactions. Originality/value – It is anticipated that adapting the IKM model and using it for regular self-assessments could help industrial enterprises to enhance their KM and PM capabilities for attaining improvement goals. The results could facilitate information sharing of best practices and create conditions conducive to continuous performance improvement.
Keywords Organizational performance, Knowledge management, Measurement, Self assessment, Industrial enterprises
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm
TLO 21,5
310
Received 20 May 2013 Revised 5 May 2014 Accepted 11 August 2014
The Learning Organization Vol. 21 No. 5, 2014 pp. 310-332 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-6474 DOI 10.1108/TLO-05-2013-0021
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
1. Introduction Knowledge management (KM) is a trans-disciplinary approach to improving organisational outcomes through maximising the use of knowledge (Yiu and Sankat, 2008). Recent literature has identified various principles and attributes in connection with KM (Wang and Ahmed, 2005; Dufour and Steane, 2007; Pillania, 2009) and performance measurement (PM) (Kanji, 2010; Kaplan and Norton, 2000; Neely, 2005). Many practitioners and researchers have postulated different models, frameworks and approaches pertinent to KM, PM and their integration (Heisig, 2009; Khatibian et al., 2010). There is an increasing need to integrate KM with PM in the pursuit of continuous improvement and organisational goals.
There has been a growing concern about the KM adoption and PMs in industrial enterprises (Yiu and Sankat, 2008; Zack et al., 2009). A significant amount of literature on the subject exists. However, little is known of how KM relates to the operations of industrial enterprises in the Caribbean region. This paper adopts a generic definition of industrial enterprises. An industrial enterprise is an organisation created for business ventures and engaged in the activity of providing goods and services involving financial, commercial and industrial aspects (Free Dictionary, 2013). The issue of how to measure the success of KM initiatives in industrial enterprises is one to be explored, with reference to those operating in the business environments in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (T&T). The country covers an area of 5,128 square kilometers, consisting of two main islands, T&T, and is one of the most developed nations in the Caribbean (Wikipedia, 2013). Its economy is strongly influenced by the petroleum industry, and both tourism and manufacturing are also important. In November 2011, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development removed T&T from its list of developing countries (Gopie, 2011).
This paper explores the link between KM and PM, and identifies the performance enablers of KM practices. It then discusses the need, and describes the development of an Integrated Knowledge Management (IKM) model for measuring organisational performance in industrial enterprises. The essential ingredients of the model are explained and related to the self-assessment and benchmarking practices in industry. Accompanying the model, a four-level self-assessment scheme is introduced to facilitate the integrative KM efforts. Moreover, this paper presents the main findings of an exploratory evaluation on the use of the model and the scheme, and discusses the amalgamation of self-assessments for attaining the KM performance goals in organisations. The paper is intended to facilitate the illustration on how the model be evaluated in an exploratory (trial) base using the empirical evidence acquired from the industrial enterprises operating in the business environments in T&T. It also sheds light of future research on validating the self-assessment paradigm of KM performance in enterprises across various industry sectors.
2. KM and performance enablers Sallis and Jones (2002) regard KM as a systematic method for managing individual, group and organisational knowledge using the appropriate means and technology. Lytras and Pouloudi (2003) describe KM as a holistic approach to management studies and practice. According to Malhotra (2005), KM embodies organisational processes that seek synergistic combination of data and information-processing capacity of information technologies and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings.
311
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
Nowadays, enterprise success and continuity depends on the ability of its knowledge innovation and KM performance (Heisig, 2009; Ma and Yu, 2010; Khatibian et al., 2010).
Gordon and Grant (2005) performed an analysis of KM literature from 1986 to 2004, and found that the publications were minimal prior to 1996, but began increasing steadily thereafter. Pun and Nathai-Balkissoon (2011) conducted a similar literature search on KM and organisational learning (OL). Yiu et al. (2013) also presented a review of the literature addressing the KM concepts, approaches and frameworks, and the factors affecting the KM practices in organisations over a period from 1997 to 2010. Recent PM literature gives much prominence to emerging PM systems for assessing enterprise performance. The impact of KM on an organisation’s performance is strongly tied to the ability of an organisation to identify where KM will be of most value. Pun and White (2005) argue that a major question for management is how well these PM systems support the effectiveness and efficiency of business operations and KM processes in organisations.
Recent studies (Zack et al. (2009); Anantatmula and Kanungo, 2010; Pun and Nathai-Balkissoon, 2011) advocated that the usage of KM would be heavily dependent on both the quality of the metrics and whether output generated by these metric management would provide tangible value addition to the organisations. Organisations are engaging in KM to leverage knowledge both within their organisation, and externally, to their shareholders and customers (Yiu et al., 2013). KM performance measures are to validate the effectiveness of KM practices, development and deployment in quantitative and/or qualitative metrics. This fits well into philosophies of total quality management (TQM).
Pun and Lau (2003) argue that various quality and business excellence (BE) models/ awards [such as Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) and European Quality Award (EQA)] have their respective requirements that can be served as evaluation criteria for assessing a company’s performance. These models/awards have been increasingly used by organisations (Chin et al., 2003; Yiu, 2012). The TQM-BE philosophies underlying these awards demand supportive leadership patterns. Policy and strategy would be based on quality principles, systematically deployed and transformed into action. An organisation has to identify and permanently review its processes. It must credibly come up with the interests of stakeholders and of the society as a whole (EFQM 2013; NIST, 2013). The philosophies also demand a structured process to determine the corporate vision and objectives. Policy and strategy shall be based on the TQM concepts and relevant information. They must be systematically deployed and transformed into operative plans (Chin et al., 2003). In addition, the philosophies assess the organisation’s proceeding on people empowerment and process management particularly in the context of KM processes. The importance to process control and to review and improvement cycles is stressed (EFQM, 2013; NIST, 2013). Several recent studies (Chin et al., 2006; Lewis et al., 2007; Pun et al., 2010) adopted the TQM-BE principles to develop PMs and self-assessment paradigms for use in industry.
By relating KM performance to TQM-BE philosophies, both MBNQA and EQA stress the importance of measurement for identifying and monitoring improvement (Pun and Lau, 2003). These two award schemes share a set of five (5) core concepts and performance enablers as depicted in Table I that would govern the KM practices and performance in organisations. Senior management leadership is the driver of KM and PM practices that leads to the sustained pursuit of stakeholder value and
TLO 21,5
312
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
Table I. The TQM-BE core
concepts and performance enablers
Core concepts Relevance to performance measures
1. Senior management leadership Top management recognises its roles and responsibilities to set directions, management principles and vision and develops strategies and policies Management should exercise its involvement and commitment in developing the management structure and environment in which the organisation and its people can excel to achieve the organization’s objectives
2. Management by processes (business/operations and KM)
Using reliable information and analysis of data make effective decisions for the current operations and planned improvements Vital components of the KM processes are the acquisition, manipulation, distribution, storage and use of knowledge KM processes stress benchmarking (sensing and acquiring new knowledge), cross-functional process improvement teams (modifying and using knowledge), training (distributing knowledge),and procedures and records (storing knowledge) More predicable results can be obtained and achieved more efficiently when the inter-related activities are managed as a process Improvements are made though sharing of information and knowledge and effective implementation of organisational strategies and policies
3. People development Through shared values, trust and empowerment, which encourages the involvement of people in all levels in the organisation to best release their full potential to be used for organisation’s benefit Achieving the highest levels of employee performance requires well-developed people education and training and adoption of ethical approach to promote people well-being and satisfaction
4. Continuous improvement The resources are planned, managed and improved with continuous review and update of strategies and policies The importance of continuous innovation with the emphasis of learning culture should be developed and maintained Excellence is dependent upon balancing and satisfying the needs of all relevant stakeholders
5. Results orientation Service quality and customer loyalty, retention and market share gain are best optimised through a clear focus on the needs of current and potential customers An organisation works more effectively when it has mutually beneficial relationships with its people and partners focusing on both financial and non-financial results and organisational effectiveness The long-term interest of the organisation and its people are best served by exceeding the expectations and regulations of the community at large
Source: Adopted with modification from Pun and Lau (2003, p. 321)
313
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
improvement in performance. With respect to achieving the performance goals, KM efforts rest on systematic management by processes, people development and continuous improvement. The results-oriented measures of progress provide a basis for channelling actions to delivering continuous improvement with the aim of fostering responsiveness to customers, new product development, organisational learning, strategic flexibility and the like (Pun and Lau, 2003; Lyons et al., 2008; Yiu, 2012).
3. Needs for integrating KM/PM initiatives and self-assessments Despite having various KM and PM models/frameworks advocated, organisations might still focus on the wrong measures, fail to know when or agree if targets are reached and/or see no consequences for missing the targets (Pun and White, 2005; de Lima et al., 2009; Yiu et al., 2013). Organisations need to determine the right data to communicate performance targets. Identification of KM determinants and performance criteria provides the basis for achieving the intended performance ends. However, the results rely on how industrial enterprises could make good use of these criteria to deploy KM practices and manage performance measures. In such context, Jennex and Olfman (2004) developed a framework for assessing KM system success/effectiveness models. Wang and Ahmed (2005) advocated a pragmatic knowledge implementation network and a knowledge value chain incorporating the KM processes and enablers. Khatibian et al. (2010) identified the determinants (including both factors and indicators) of KM and proposed a schema for prioritising and specifying the weight of each determinant in relation to the assessment of the KM maturity level in organisations. Anantatmula and Kanungo (2010) also applied the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) methodology to determine the underlying relations among various factors and developed implementation strategies for KM initiatives and performance.
In an organisational context, performance measures must be implemented at the unit, team and individual levels, and accountabilities for performance must also be defined. Specific outcomes and behaviour can then be specified and linked to consequences (Yiu et al., 2013). The integration of KM and PM plays a communication role to motivate staff, and improves control and accountability mechanisms in industrial enterprises across different sectors. Chin et al. (2003) argue that organisations must establish their PM systems with self-assessment orientation. Otherwise, this may result in fragmentation of efforts, slow response and weak productivity growth in the organisations. Self-assessment is a comprehensive, systematic and regular review of an organisation’s activities that ultimately results in planned improvement actions (EFQM, 2013). There are many self-assessment tools used by organisations to measure performance. Some are survey-based, accompanied by ratings, while others could just be audit list of questions that require written answers (Lee and Quazi, 2001).
According to Pun (2002), a reliable self-assessment tool for PM should satisfy two cardinal conditions. First, it should include what it is supposed to measure, in this case, measuring all dimensions of business that is deemed to have impact on overall organisational performance. Second, it should be able to measure them correctly, in this case providing a measurement score that is credible and comparable within industry or across industries. The assessment process helps organisations identify their strengths, shortcomings and best practices where they exist (Neely, 2005). With the common direction and an increased consistency of purpose, self-assessments can provide
TLO 21,5
314
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
organisations with opportunities to build greater unity in pursuit of improvement initiatives.
Effective KM practice depends on effective measurements and self-assessments of the performance and results (Yiu et al., 2013). By measuring the right quantities, an organisation can identify where to improve and how the limited resources can be used more effectively for performance improvement. While adopting the self-assessment principles advocated in various quality and BE awards, both MBNQA and EQA, for instance, use a point scoring system. Many researchers (Chin et al., 2003; Pun and Lau, 2003; Yiu and Sankat, 2008) argued that the point scoring system would provide an objective means for organisations to measure their KM performance.
4. Development of an IKM model 4.1 Constructs and components of the model This paper explores the common performance metrics and criteria of KM practices, and discusses an integrated paradigm that aligns the measures of KM performance to attain corporate goals in industrial enterprises. Three basic assumptions are made for the development of an IKM model and accompanied self-assessment scheme. These are:
(1) The model is not in isolation from the organisation’s business performance framework.
(2) There is direct alignment among individual work plans, team goals, business unit objectives and the organisation’s key result areas.
(3) KM performance measures would be embedded in various aspects of the organisation’s work.
Despite the diversity of specific KM/PM metrics in organisations across different industry sectors, Bose (2004) argued that it should be possible to define general types of metrics. Kanji and Moura e Sá (2002) contended that these metrics or factors could be grouped into some principles that have been systematically proven to be universally valid. For instance, various balanced scorecard techniques (Kaplan and Norton, 2000), quality and excellence awards approaches (EFQM, 2013; NIST, 2013) and the ISO type of processes (ISO, 2010) are examples that incorporate the performance/quality management principles into KM and have been empirically tested and validated in different contexts. Several research studies (Chin et al., 2003; Yiu and Sankat, 2008) had adopted the TQM/BE principles to develop self-assessment paradigms for use in industry. Based on the self-assessment method advocated by the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM, 2000, 2013) and the rational and political approaches of KM implementation suggested by Dufour and Steane (2007), the proposed IKM model has five categories of self-assessment criteria, including senior management leadership, KM processes, people development, continuous improvement and results orientation. The constructs of self-assessment constitute several core enablers and results elements that govern the operations of the IKM model. These form a holistic framework that could be integrated into the PM system of industrial enterprises, as depicted in Figure 1.
The integration of KM/PM efforts rests on senior management leadership that facilitates the KM processes and continuous improvement to meet the performance requirements. The enabler elements stress the people development on fostering KM performance. The results-oriented measures of progress provide a basis for channelling
315
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
actions to gaining competitive advantage, improving operational efficiency, nurturing cultural changes and fostering organisational learning.
4.2 Characteristics and features of the model The IKM model adopts the guiding principles embodied with the TQM/BE models (e.g. MBNQA and EQA), and has five categories of self-assessment criteria and twenty (20) sub-criteria, with a score of 1,000 points. The point values for respective criteria and sub-criteria were generated collectively from another interview study conducted in T&T (Yiu, 2012). These score points were determined using the normalised weights obtained from the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) which is analysis of the interview findings. They are taken together to calculate the overall performance index of an organisation. An item listing of criteria and sub-criteria with point values is given in Table II. These criteria and sub-criteria are derived objectively for self-assessments of KM performance on an ongoing basis. This could allow organisations (i.e. the users) to examine the dynamic relationships among the criteria/sub-criteria, the organisational resources and constraints (Yiu and Sankat, 2008; Yiu, 2012).
4.3 The self-assessment instrument and guidelines Organisations need to design their own questionnaire with respect to their performance objectives and business environments within which they operate (Yiu and Sankat, 2008). Because most IKM criteria are non-prescriptive and cannot be directly measured, they are translated into a set of performance indicators and measuring items in a set of self-assessment questionnaire. Pun (2002) advocates that the self-assessment questionnaire does not query companies about their specific approaches. Instead, companies are asked questions on whether there are approaches in place and they capture data that reflect the performance results of some of the approaches. Senior management is responsible for the design and revision of the questionnaire, taking into consideration various inputs from representatives of various stakeholders (including employees, customers and the public).
Senior Management
Leadership
KM Processes
People Development
Con�nuous Improvement
Results Orienta�on
Enablers Results
Goals
- Gaining compe��ve advantage
- Improving opera�onal
efficiency, - Nurturing
cultural changes
- Fostering organisa�onal learning
Feedback Figure 1. A systems framework of the IKM model
TLO 21,5
316
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
For the purpose of this study, a standard self-assessment questionnaire was developed incorporating the KM performance components defined by Wang and Ahmed (2005). The questionnaire contains 130 self-assessment statements or items under the five (5) categories of criteria. This score-matrix instrument serves mainly to explain the concepts and focal areas to be addressed in the design and revision of any self-assessment instrument by respective users. A 10-point numerical scale format is used for all measuring items in the questionnaire. The ratings range from 1 (i.e. “Not at all” and/or “least significant”) to 10 (i.e. “To a very large extent” and/or “most significant”). The score is able to differentiate the overall performance of an organisation with respect to the requirement of both enablers and results criteria of the IKM model. An example from the Category 2(a) criteria of the IKM model is shown in Figure 2. The particular item refers to the “Identification and Acquisition of Knowledge” under the criterion of Knowledge Management Processes. The self-assessments of these items are based on the approach, deployment, review and assessment under the enabler dimensions (EFQM, 2013; Yiu, 2012).
Table II. A score listing of the IKM
criteria and sub-criteria
Categories/items Point valuesa
1 Senior management leadership (SL) 290 1(a) Corporate Mission and Values (CMV) 50 1(b) Management involvement (MIN) 100 1(c) Management commitment (MAC) 80 1(d) Strategy/policy development (SPD) 60
2 KM processes (KP) 110 2(a) Identification/acquisition of knowledge (IAK) 20 2(b) Codification/storage of knowledge (CSK) 30 2(c) Dissemination/refinement of knowledge (DRK) 20 2(d) Application/creation of knowledge (ACK) 40
3 People development (PD) 210 3(a) People education and training (PET) 70 3(b) People well-being/satisfaction (PWS) 40 3(c) People involvement (PIN) 40 3(d) People empowerment (PEM) 60
4 Continuous Improvement (CI) 140 4(a) Learning/knowledge culture (LKC) 35 4(b) Continuous innovation (COI) 35 4(c) Review of strategy/policy (RSP) 30 4(d) Balancing stakeholders’ needs (BSN) 40
5 Results orientation (RO) 250 5(a) Customer focus (CUF) 85 5(b) Financial results (FIR) 80 5(c) Non-financial results (NFR) 45 5(d) Social responsibilities (SOR) 40 Total: 1,000
Notes: Remarks: a Point values based the global priority of combined judgements on corresponding sub-criteria from the interview findings (Yiu, 2012); the values were rounded up according to a scale of 1,000 points
317
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
4.4 A scoring method for self-assessment Figure 3 depicts the construct of EQA scoring method that was adopted in the IKM self-assessment exercise. In accordance with the EQA guidelines for self-assessments (EFQM 2000), the percentage scores (i.e. from 0 to 100 per cent) would be objectively assigned to each sub-criterion. In essence, “Results” would be represented by trends, target comparison, causes and scope. “Approach” would be examined to determine whether it is a sound one or is integrated in nature. Implemented vs systematic contents
I. Criteria Requirement: Areas to Address:
a. Searching for, and locating new information, ideas and knowledge. b. Acquiring knowledge identified to be relevant.
II. Questionnaire Version: A2 (a) Identification and Acquisition of Knowledge 1) The organisation searches
for new information, ideas and knowledge which are relevant to the organisation.
2) The organisation identifies the knowledge and associated processes for daily operations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To a very Large extent
Not at all
Figure 2. An illustrated example of questionnaire development
Figure 3. The construct of IKM self-assessment scoring method
TLO 21,5
318
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
would determine the scope of “Deployment”, whereas “Assessment and Review” would reinforce the processes of measurement, learning or improvement.
The management or authorised personnel, who would take up the role of internal assessors and/or auditors, perform the self-assessment exercise with the use of the IKM questionnaire. During the exercise, these assessors/auditors are required to examine whether respective organisations have the necessary approaches, and the extent of deployment of their approaches (EFQM, 2000). In responding to the requirements of these criteria, the assessors/auditors need to:
• understand the aims of each criterion and its sub-items; • examine the approach that has been adopted to meet the aims; • check how the approach is being deployed; • verify what measurements are being taken; and • evaluate the results and performance.
The assessors/auditors measure the performance of self-assessment items and assign scores to each matrix element and item for respective criteria and sub-criteria in accordance with the scoring guides of both “Enablers” and “Results” dimensions. They would determine the ability of the approaches to fulfil requirements, but not judge the approaches against any specific methods. The percentage scores assigned to individual criteria and sub-criteria are computed, and then recorded in the summary sheet. The maximum score for each criterion ranges from 110-290 points out of 1,000 points (Table II). They are added together to calculate the final score points or so-called the overall performance index for respective organisation.
4.5 Interpretation of self-assessment scoring results The IKM criteria are rooted in various attributes and success factors, and ultimately correspond to the quest for KM performance improvement. In performing self-assessments, organisations could score to the maximum points assigned to individual criterion. However, the IKM self-assessment is holistic in nature, and, therefore, it is advisable for users not to reject or neglect any elements from either the “Enablers” or “Results” dimensions. The totality of the IKM model has to be applied, and the score achieved would reflect the coherent effects of the self-assessments of KM performance for respective organisations.
The maximum possible score of the overall performance index is 1,000 (Yiu, 2012). Table III depicts a four-level scheme for assessing the maturity status of IKM performance in organisations. An organisation attaining an overall performance scores of 800 or above could be considered as an excellent performer (i.e. Class “A” Achievers), and those attaining a score of 600-799 as good performers (i.e. Class “B” Improvers), respectively. For those attaining a score of 400-599 would be classified as Class “C” Initiators and those scoring 399 or less are Class “D” Starters (Yiu, 2012).
The self-assessment scheme of IKM performance maturity status was developed based on the EQA guidelines (EFQM, 2000) and modified according to the similar classification as advocated by Chin et al. (2003). The IKM model and the accompanied self-assessment tools could be used on a regular basis. The four levels of maturity status provide a reference base for organisations to assess and determine their current status of performance accomplishments. The self-assessment analysis could help organisations
319
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
identify their strengths and weaknesses, as well as any issues that might have constrained KM performance improvements. Besides, it could indicate how these IKM criteria are interrelated in responding effectively to the mission, goals and requirements of respective organisations.
5. An exploratory study Building organisational capabilities to acquire, create and disseminate knowledge on a continual basis has become a key challenge for strategy and organisational design experts. While KM is well entrenched and practiced among large enterprises (LE), this is not the case in the vast majority of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Wong and Aspinwall, 2005; Ogiwara, 2009). To validate the IKM criteria for self-assessment of KM performance in industrial enterprises, an exploratory study was conducted. The survey aimed to acquire the industry practitioners’ views on the potential applicability of the IKM model (i.e. to evaluate the current versus expected organisational performance) in both large companies and SMEs in T&T. A results-oriented methodology advocated by Pun (2002) was adopted, and a set of self-assessment questionnaire was designed for this study.
Table III. A four-level scheme of IKM performance maturity status in organisations
Level/class Descriptions of IKM performance maturity status
Level 1: Class “D” Starters (399 scores or less)
These are “Starter” organisations which are not familiar with the concepts, practices and tools and techniques in KM and performance measurement. They may have some understanding (or misunderstanding) of KM performance measures and have decided that the principles and practices underpinning the concept are not for them. For instance, they may give an impression that they have adopted KM practices, but no real changes have been made
Level 2: Class “C” Initiators (400-599 scores)
These are “Initiators” which have become aware of the importance of KM and performance measurement in their organisations, but they are still in the earlier stages of putting the basic elements of KM performance measures in place. These organisations still need clear guidance of what to do in order to facilitate the adoption of concepts, practices and tools and techniques in fostering the KM/PM process
Level 3: Class “B” Improvers (600-799 scores)
These “Improvers” are moving in the right direction and have made real progress in KM performance measures. The process of improvement is typically not self-sustaining, and the KM/PM efforts may not be internalised throughout the organisation These organisations are often vulnerable to short-term pressures and various difficulties related to KM performance measures
Level 4: Class “A” Achievers (800 scores or above)
These are “Achievers” which have reached the highest level of KM performance maturity in their organisations. The kind of culture, values, trust, capabilities, relationship and employee involvement required to attain the recognised standards or specific business excellence awards have been developed Continuous improvement is self-sustaining in nature
Source: Yiu (2012, p. 190)
TLO 21,5
320
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
5.1 Survey design and response rates The self-assessment questionnaire comprises three sections. Section A asks for the respondent profiles and basic information about respective participating organisations. Section B contains five sets of IKM criteria with two scoring columns. All sub-items of criteria use the same 10-point numerical scale, and the ratings range from 1 (i.e. “Lowest or worst score”) to 10 (i.e. “Highest or best score”) in the questionnaire. The respondents were asked to circle the numbers in each column that could best represent their views on the performance status of sub-items for each criterion. The following is an example on assessing the performance of Knowledge Identification and Acquisition. This indicates that the respondent considers the practices of identifying and acquiring knowledge are in place but are not effectively performed at the organisation today (i.e. with a score of 4). It is expected that considerable improvements in such practices would be happening a year later (i.e. with a score of 7).
An illustrated example: Knowledge Identification and Acquisition What do you see today? 1 2 3 ④ 5 6 7 8 9 10 What do you expect a year later? 1 2 3 4 5 6 ⑦ 8 9 10 A systematic sampling was adopted, and a group of 49 T&T companies (which had
participated in a previous KM survey conducted by Yiu (2012)) was used. The questionnaire was mailed and addressed directly to the attention of the responsible senior personnel (such as Chief Executives, senior managers and directors) of respective organisations. Of these targeted companies, 18 valid responses were obtained, yielding a response rate of 36.7 per cent. Three responses (or 6.1 per cent) were neglected because of incomplete questionnaires. Respondents’ profiles and basic information of the companies they represent are summarised in Table IV.
In terms of industry representation, five responses were from the energy-based manufacturing sector (i.e. 27.8 per cent) and six from the non-energy manufacturing sector and other related industries (i.e. 33.4 per cent). The rest (i.e. 38.8 per cent) were seven companies providing manufacturing services (e.g. engineering support, logistics and consulting) in T&T. The survey findings show that most of the respondent companies (i.e. 77.8 per cent) established their business operations more than a decade ago. Eight completed questionnaires were collected from LE (i.e. hiring 200 people or more), and another ten replies were obtained from SMEs (i.e. hiring 1-199 people). Besides, about 44.4 per cent of respondents were local companies, and six companies (i.e. 34.4 per cent) were joint ventures with/or owned by regional and/or foreign capitals. Four respondents (i.e. 22.2 per cent) reported as state-owned organisations or government departments.
5.2 Scoring results on KM performance Table V shows the scoring records of IKM criteria for both current- and next-year organisational performance for eight participating companies in the LE group. Similarly, the scoring records for another ten participating SMEs are summarised in Table VI. These tables summarise the participating organisations’ scoring results on their KM self-assessments in the exploratory study. Some key findings and implications are presented below:
• Respondents of both LE and SME groups evaluated their organisational performance consistently with respect to the given list of criteria and elements
321
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
(items), despite that the LE group generally gave a higher score on individual items than that of SME groups did.
• Most respondents of either group scored higher on the evaluation elements of “Senior Management Leadership” criterion (such as “Corporate Mission and Values” and “Management Involvement”), followed by elements of the “Results Orientation” criterion (such as “Customer Focus” and “Financial Results”).
• The scoring patterns among elements of other three criteria “KM Processes”, “Continuous Improvement” and “People Development” varied considerably from one participant to another, indicating that both respondent groups had slightly different views on assessing the performance of individual criteria and items.
• When comparing the scores of current-year vs next-year performance, there were positive changes in most evaluation elements recorded in the survey, although there were few exceptions that the score remained unchanged and/or deteriorated. This indicated that most respondents expected improvements with respect to various evaluation criteria in the coming year.
Table IV. Respondents’ profiles and basic information of the companies
Respondent profiles (n � 18) Basic statistics
Industry Sectors Energy-based manufacturing (including petroleum and natural gas products and petrochemicals and chemicals) 5 (27.8%) Non-energy manufacturing (e.g. consumer goods, food and beverage, cement and tobacco products) 3 (16.7%) Other related industries (including printing, packaging and publishing, utilities, construction and education) 3 (16.7%) Manufacturing services (including engineering and it, logistics and warehousing and consultancy) 7 (38.8%) Total in percentage (i.e. 18/49): 36.7%
Years of establishment (years) Less than one 0 (0.0%) 1-5 2 (11.1%) 6-10 2 (11.1%) Over 10 14 (77.8%)
People hired in T&T 1-19 3 (16.7%) 20-99 3 (16.7%) 100-199 4 (22.2%) 200 and more 8 (44.4%)
Capital ownership Local ownership (T&T capital) 8 (44.4%) Local and regional joint ownership 1 (5.6%) Local and overseas joint ownership 5 (27.8%) State-owned and/or government organisations 4 (22.2%)
TLO 21,5
322
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
Table V. Self-assessment scoring
records of KM performance–the LEs
group
(n �
8) L
E -1
L E
-2 L
E -3
L E
-4 L
E -5
L E
-6 L
E -7
L E
-8 IK
M cr
it er
ia an
d it
em s
fo r
ev al
ua ti
ng pe
rf or
m an
ce st
at us
@ :
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
1. S
en io
r m
an ag
em en
t le
ad er
sh ip
1( a)
C or
po ra
te m
is si
on an
d va
lu es
5 5
6 7
7 8
9 8
7 8
7 7
8 8
6 7
1( b)
M an
ag em
en t
in vo
lv em
en t
7 8
6 7
5 6
5 4
8 9
7 7
8 8
6 6
1( c)
M an
ag em
en t
co m
m it
m en
t 4
4 6
6 7
8 5
4 8
9 7
7 6
6 6
6 1(
d) St
ra te
gy an
d po
lic y
de ve
lo pm
en t
4 4
6 8
6 7
5 4
9 10
7 8
8 8
6 6
2. K
M pr
oc es
se s
2( a)
Id en
ti fi
ca ti
on an
d ac
qu is
it io
n 6
7 4
5 7
8 9
9 7
8 5
7 7
7 8
9 2(
b) C
od ifi
ca ti
on an
d st
or ag
e 5
5 2
5 6
7 9
9 5
7 2
2 7
8 9
9 2(
c) D
is se
m in
at io
n an
d re
fi ne
m en
t 6
7 3
5 6
7 7
8 8
9 2
2 6
6 9
9 2(
d) A
pp lic
at io
n an
d cr
ea ti
on 6
7 4
6 7
8 6
7 8
9 2
2 6
6 9
9
3. P
eo pl
e de
ve lo
pm en
t 3(
a) P
eo pl
e ed
uc at
io n
an d
tr ai
ni ng
7 7
6 8
8 9
6 7
7 9
5 5
7 7
7 8
3( b)
P eo
pl e
w el
l-b ei
ng 4
4 5
7 6
7 7
8 5
8 7
7 7
7 6
7 3(
c) P
eo pl
e in
vo lv
em en
t 5
5 5
7 5
6 8
9 5
8 7
7 7
7 6
6 3(
d) P
eo pl
e em
po w
er m
en t
4 4
4 6
5 6
7 8
5 8
6 6
6 6
5 5
4. C
on ti
nu ou
s im
pr ov
em en
t 4(
a) L
ea rn
in g/
kn ow
le dg
e cu
lt ur
e 5
6 5
7 5
6 8
9 5
8 6
6 7
7 7
8 4(
b) C
on ti
nu ou
s in
no va
ti on
3 3
5 6
4 5
8 9
5 7
5 5
7 8
7 8
4( c)
R ev
ie w
of st
ra te
gi es
/p ol
ic ie
s 2
3 6
7 4
5 6
7 5
8 6
7 8
8 7
8 4(
d) B
al an
ci ng
st ak
eh ol
de r
ne ed
s 2
2 5
7 6
7 6
7 6
9 6
6 6
6 8
8
5. R
es ul
ts or
ie nt
at io
n 5(
a) C
us to
m er
fo cu
s 5
7 6
8 7
8 8
10 5
8 8
9 7
7 9
9 5(
b) F
in an
ci al
re su
lt s
5 6
3 5
5 6
5 5
5 7
9 9
7 8
8 9
5( c)
N on
-fi na
nc ia
lr es
ul ts
5 5
4 6
6 7
7 8
8 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
5( d)
So ci
al R
es po
ns ib
ili ti
es 5
6 6
8 8
9 1
1 8
9 9
9 7
7 7
8
N o te
s: @
–S co
re s
of in
di vi
du al
it em
s ba
se d
on a
10 -p
oi nt
sc al
e (i.
e. 1
� lo
w es
t sc
or e;
10 �
hi gh
es t
sc or
e) ;“
L E
-1 –L
E -8
”– T
he ei
gh t
la rg
e pa
rt ic
ip at
in g
en te
rp ri
se s;
“C u”
–C ur
re nt
-y ea
r sc
or es
of pe
rf or
m an
ce st
at us
;“ N
e” –N
ex t-
ye ar
sc or
es of
pe rf
or m
an ce
st at
us
323
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
Table VI. Self-assessment scoring records of KM performance–the SME group
(n �
10 )
SM E
-1 SM
E -2
SM E
-3 SM
E -4
SM E
-5 SM
E -6
SM E
-7 SM
E -8
SM E
-9 SM
E -1
0 IK
M cr
it er
ia an
d it
em s
fo r
ev al
ua ti
ng pe
rf or
m an
ce st
at us
@ :
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
1. S
en io
r m
an ag
em en
t le
ad er
sh ip
1( a)
C or
po ra
te m
is si
on an
d va
lu es
1 3
6 6
6 6
6 8
4 7
5 7
5 8
9 10
6 7
7 7
1( b)
M an
ag em
en t
in vo
lv em
en t
7 7
7 8
9 7
8 9
9 9
8 8
7 10
9 10
6 6
8 8
1( c)
M an
ag em
en t
co m
m it
m en
t 1
3 6
7 6
7 7
7 9
10 7
7 7
10 9
10 6
7 8
8 1(
d) St
ra te
gy an
d po
lic y
de ve
lo pm
en t
7 7
5 6
4 8
7 9
4 8
3 4
6 9
9 10
8 9
7 8
2. K
M pr
oc es
se s
2( a)
Id en
ti fi
ca ti
on an
d ac
qu is
it io
n 2
2 5
6 7
8 7
8 5
6 6
7 5
8 4
7 8
9 5
6 2(
b) C
od ifi
ca ti
on an
d st
or ag
e 6
6 7
7 2
1 3
3 5
7 6
6 5
8 4
7 5
5 4
6 2(
c) D
is se
m in
at io
n an
d re
fi ne
m en
t 4
5 6
7 4
4 5
6 5
6 8
8 7
10 5
7 6
6 4
5 2(
d) A
pp lic
at io
n an
d cr
ea ti
on 2
2 7
6 2
2 6
8 5
6 7
7 5
7 2
4 7
8 5
6
3. P
eo pl
e de
ve lo
pm en
t 3(
a) P
eo pl
e ed
uc at
io n
an d
tr ai
ni ng
1 1
4 4
7 7
6 6
3 4
8 8
6 9
4 5
4 5
5 5
3( b)
P eo
pl e
w el
l-b ei
ng 1
1 2
3 4
3 5
4 5
5 6
7 8
10 4
5 5
8 6
6 3(
c) P
eo pl
e in
vo lv
em en
t 1
2 3
4 1
1 5
5 5
5 6
7 6
10 6
8 6
7 6
7 3(
d) P
eo pl
e em
po w
er m
en t
1 2
1 1
1 1
5 5
5 5
5 6
4 10
8 9
6 7
6 6
4. C
on ti
nu ou
s im
pr ov
em en
t 4(
a) L
ea rn
in g/
kn ow
le dg
e cu
lt ur
e 1
2 2
3 8
9 6
6 6
7 5
5 7
10 5
6 5
6 6
7 4(
b) C
on ti
nu ou
s in
no va
ti on
1 1
3 4
2 2
7 7
5 7
6 6
6 10
5 6
7 7
5 6
4( c)
R ev
ie w
of st
ra te
gi es
/p ol
ic ie
s 1
1 3
3 6
4 7
8 7
8 3
3 4
6 6
6 7
7 5
5 4(
d) B
al an
ci ng
st ak
eh ol
de r
ne ed
s 3
4 5
6 7
8 5
7 5
7 5
5 7
10 6
7 7
9 6
7
5. R
es ul
ts or
ie nt
at io
n 5(
a) C
us to
m er
fo cu
s 1
2 7
7 6
8 6
7 9
10 6
6 7
10 7
8 7
8 7
7 5(
b) F
in an
ci al
re su
lt s
5 6
10 10
6 6
6 5
7 9
6 6
5 5
5 7
7 7
7 9
5( c)
N on
-fi na
nc ia
lr es
ul ts
1 2
5 5
6 6
6 7
7 8
9 9
8 10
4 7
7 7
7 7
5( d)
So ci
al re
sp on
si bi
lit ie
s 1
2 2
2 6
6 6
5 5
8 8
8 9
10 5
7 8
9 6
6
N o te
s: @
–S co
re s
of in
di vi
du al
it em
s ba
se d
on a
10 -p
oi nt
sc al
e (i.
e. 1
� L
ow es
t sc
or e;
10 �
H ig
he st
sc or
e) ;
“S M
E -1
–S M
E -1
0” –T
he te
n SM
E s;
“C u”
–C ur
re nt
-y ea
r sc
or es
of pe
rf or
m an
ce st
at us
;“ N
e” –N
ex t-
ye ar
sc or
es of
pe rf
or m
an ce
st at
us
TLO 21,5
324
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
To give a thorough assessment of performance status among participating organisations, their scores of individual elements were processed collectively with the conversion factors using AHP method (Yiu, 2012), and then converted to be:
• the enablers scores; • the results scores; and • the overall performance indices for the organisations.
Tables VII and VIII depict the summaries of current- vs next-year performance scores and indices for the LE group and SME group, respectively.
For the LE group, it was found from the self-assessment of the current-year performance that six participating organisations fell into the Class “B” Performers with the total scores from 606 to 710, whereas two companies were the Class “C” Initiators with the scores of 491 and 506, respectively. All eight LE expected that their performance status would be progressing in different magnitudes (i.e. from the lowest score of 18 to the highest score of 188) towards the next year. In particular, the LE-2 organisation was expecting an uplifting improvement from Class “C” (i.e. a current-year score of 506) to Class “B” (i.e. a next-year score of 670), whereas the LE-5 organisation was targeting an upward move of its status from Class “B” (i.e. a current-year score of 653) to Class “A” Achiever (i.e. a next-year score of 841).
For the SME group, the assessment of the current-year performance showed that six (6) participating organisations fell into the Class “B” Performers with a total score ranging from 617 to 640. Three SMEs were the Class “C” Initiators with a total score ranging from 520 and 577, whereas one organisation fell as the Class “D” Starter status with a low score of 264. It was found that all participating SMEs were expecting improvements of their performance status in different magnitudes (i.e. from the lowest score of 31 to the highest score of 281) in the forthcoming year. Among them, one aggressive company (i.e. SME-7) would target for a leap jump from a Class “B” Performer (with a score of 622) to a Class “A” Achiever (with a score of 903) in one year. However, another extreme case, SME-1 (with an anticipated next-year score of 333), would still struggle for survival with its Class “D” Starter status.
The scoring method stresses the self-assessment of current performance status and improvement potentials. However, performance improvements cannot be achieved over night and without thought. Management must understand the questions underpinning the integrated system on which self-assessment of performance is being made. What has not been implemented cannot be assessed, and zero scoring is self-defeating and de-motivating. The entire organisation or individual functions can be discouraged as a result of low scores (like LE-1 and SME-1), or there can be a tendency to score higher against the IKM criteria (e.g. the LE-5 and SME-7 cases of expecting the next-year scores of performance status). Both over-optimistic and markedly pessimistic pictures can be created. It is therefore advisable that a proper familiarisation session and relevant training on the use of any self-assessment tools or questionnaires should be provided. Ideally, organisations need to design their own self-assessment tool or questionnaire with respect to their performance objectives and business environments within which they operate. This exploratory study served as a modified KM performance measure exercise.
325
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
Table VII. Summary of self- assessment scores and performance indices–the LEs group
(n �
8) L
E -1
L E
-2 L
E -3
L E
-4 L
E -5
L E
-6 L
E -7
L E
-8 IK
M cr
it er
ia fo
r ev
al ua
ti ng
pe rf
or m
an ce
st at
us :
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
1. Se
ni or
m an
ag em
en t
le ad
er sh
ip 52
1 55
5 60
0 69
4 61
0 71
1 56
6 46
9 80
3 90
4 70
0 72
1 74
6 74
6 60
0 61
7 2.
K M
pr oc
es se
s 57
3 64
5 32
8 53
7 65
4 75
4 75
5 81
0 70
0 82
8 25
5 29
1 64
5 67
2 88
3 90
1 3.
P eo
pl e
de ve
lo pm
en t
51 9
51 9
50 4
70 5
61 9
72 0
68 5
78 6
56 4
83 4
60 5
60 5
67 2
67 2
60 5
65 7
4. C
on ti
nu ou
s im
pr ov
em en
t 30
0 34
6 52
1 67
5 48
3 58
2 70
0 80
0 52
9 80
3 57
5 59
7 69
3 71
8 72
9 80
0 5.
R es
ul ts
or ie
nt at
io n
50 0
61 6
46 8
66 8
63 4
73 4
57 4
66 0
60 2
80 2
86 6
90 0
73 6
76 8
83 6
88 4
S co
ri ng
su m
m ar
y: 6.
E na
bl er
s sc
or e
(I te
m s
1- 4)
: 36
5 38
9 38
9 50
3 44
7 52
1 48
9 50
2 50
2 64
0 43
9 45
2 52
5 53
2 50
0 52
8 7.
R es
ul ts
sc or
es (I
te m
5) :
12 6
15 5
11 7
16 7
15 9
18 4
14 4
16 5
15 1
20 1
21 7
22 6
18 2
19 3
21 0
22 2
T ot
al sc
or e
po in
ts :
8. Su
m of
It em
s 6
an d
7: 49
1 54
4 50
6 67
0 60
6 70
5 63
3 66
7 65
3 84
1 65
6 67
8 70
7 72
5 71
0 75
0 P
er fo
rm an
ce cl
as s#
: C
C C
B B
B B
B B
A B
B B
B B
B 9.
D if
fe re
nc e
be tw
ee n
C u
an d
N e
sc or
es :
53 16
4 99
34 18
8 22
18 40
N o te
s: Sc
or es
of in
di vi
du al
cr it
er ia
ar e
pr es
en te
d in
a po
in t
sc al
e ou
t of
1, 00
0; “L
E -1
–L E
-8 ”–
T he
ei gh
t (8
) la
rg e
pa rt
ic ip
at in
g en
te rp
ri se
s w
hi ch
ar e
nu m
be re
d in
or de
r of
th ei
r ac
hi ev
ed sc
or es
on cu
rr en
t- ye
ar pe
rf or
m an
ce ;
“C u”
–C ur
re nt
-y ea
r sc
or es
of pe
rf or
m an
ce st
at us
; “N
e” –N
ex t-
ye ar
sc or
es of
pe rf
or m
an ce
st at
us ;
# –C
la ss
ifi ca
ti on
:“ A
”– 80
0 sc
or es
or ab
ov e;
“B ”–
60 0-
79 9
sc or
es ;“
C ”–
40 0-
59 9
sc or
es ;“
D ”–
39 9
sc or
es or
le ss
TLO 21,5
326
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
Table VIII. Summary of self-
assessment scores and performance indices–the
SME group
(n �
10 )
SM E
-1 SM
E -2
SM E
-3 SM
E -4
SM E
-5 SM
E -6
SM E
-7 SM
E -8
SM E
-9 SM
E -1
0 IK
M cr
it er
ia fo
r ev
al ua
ti ng
pe rf
or m
an ce
st at
us :
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
C u
N e
1. Se
ni or
m an
ag em
en t
le ad
er sh
ip 43
2 52
2 61
5 69
6 63
5 70
4 71
7 82
8 71
1 87
3 61
7 67
2 64
5 94
5 90
0 10
00 63
2 70
6 76
2 78
3 2.
K M
pr oc
es se
s 34
6 36
4 64
5 64
5 32
8 31
9 51
8 60
9 50
1 62
7 67
3 69
1 53
7 80
0 32
6 59
0 64
5 70
0 45
5 58
2 3.
P eo
pl e
de ve
lo pm
en t
98 14
7 25
8 29
6 35
8 33
9 53
3 51
4 43
3 46
7 63
8 70
5 58
0 96
7 55
3 67
1 51
5 65
2 56
7 58
6 4.
C on
ti nu
ou s
im pr
ov em
en t
15 7
21 0
33 2
41 1
57 8
59 0
61 8
51 6
56 8
72 1
43 2
48 2
61 1
91 4
55 0
62 8
65 0
73 2
55 4
63 2
5. R
es ul
ts or
ie nt
at io
n 22
8 32
8 68
0 68
0 59
6 66
6 60
0 60
4 73
6 90
0 68
6 68
6 68
6 84
0 55
0 73
4 71
6 76
4 68
4 74
8
S co
ri ng
su m
m ar
y: 6.
E na
bl er
s sc
or e
(I te
m s
1- 4)
: 20
6 25
1 34
9 39
3 37
6 39
3 42
7 48
7 43
2 52
1 44
7 47
8 45
4 69
3 49
0 58
4 45
3 52
0 46
8 50
2 7.
R es
ul ts
sc or
es (I
te m
5) :
58 82
17 1
17 1
14 9
16 7
15 0
15 2
18 5
22 5
17 2
17 2
16 8
21 0
13 8
18 4
18 0
19 2
17 2
18 8
T ot
al sc
or e
po in
ts :
8. Su
m of
It em
s 6
an d
7: 26
4 33
3 52
0 56
4 52
5 56
0 57
7 63
9 61
7 74
6 61
9 65
0 62
2 90
3 62
8 76
8 63
3 71
2 64
0 69
0 P
er fo
rm an
ce cl
as s#
: D
D C
C C
C C
B B
B B
B B
A B
B B
B B
B 9.
D if
fe re
nc e
be tw
ee n
C u
an d
N e
sc or
es :
69 44
35 62
12 9
31 28
1 14
0 79
50
N o te
s: Sc
or es
of in
di vi
du al
cr it
er ia
ar e
pr es
en te
d in
a po
in t
sc al
e ou
t of
1, 00
0; “S
M E
-1 –S
M E
-1 0”
–T he
te n
SM E
S w
hi ch
ar e
nu m
be re
d in
or de
r of
th ei
r ac
hi ev
ed sc
or es
on cu
rr en
t- ye
ar pe
rf or
m an
ce ;
“C u”
–C ur
re nt
-y ea
r sc
or es
of pe
rf or
m an
ce st
at us
; “N
e” –N
ex t-
ye ar
sc or
es of
pe rf
or m
an ce
st at
us ;
# –C
la ss
ifi ca
ti on
:“ A
”– 80
0 sc
or es
or ab
ov e;
“B ”–
60 0-
79 9
sc or
es ;“
C ”–
40 0-
59 9
sc or
es ;“
D ”–
39 9
sc or
es or
le ss
327
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
It was revealed from this exploratory study, the scoring analysis could help organisations utilise their resources and keep up with improvement progress for both LE and SME groups, respectively (as shown in most cases, in Table VII and VIII). The objectives, methodological emphasis and administrative context of the KM/PM integration could be changed with varying resources and constraints, as well as the maturity status of participating companies. For instance, while support from top management is crucial to success, improvement initiatives often come from middle and lower levels of an organisation. Recognition and encouragement of these initiatives are often keys to KM performance. Moreover, people training and education is an investment in the corporate commitment that allows the IKM/PM efforts and corporate philosophy to be embraced.
5.3 Relevance of KM and PM practices The exploratory study further investigated the relevance of integrating KM and PM practices in participating organisations. In “Section C” of the self-assessment questionnaire, respondents were asked to comment on three general statements using the same 10-point numerical scale. Table IX describes the three statements and shows the results obtained from both respondent groups. Results showed that many respondents provided a wide range of responses towards the agreements (or disagreements) of three statements, irrespective of their business nature and organisation size. However, the LE group generally gave a higher score on individual items than that of SME group did. The combined mean scores of the first statement was 6.06 (with standard deviation, SD � 2.92) and the third statement was 6.67 (with SD � 2.32), respectively.
Respondents from both LE and SME groups generally agreed upon the first and the third statements. They considered that their organisations could use PM to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of performance actions. They also agreed that the IKM criteria and items would point toward assessing their KM performance status/accomplishments. Nevertheless, combined mean score of the second statement was 5.06 (with SD � 3.42) and which was less significant than that for other two statements. If looking into respective group separately, the SME group generally considered the adoption of KM processes that could facilitate their PM efforts in their
Table IX. Relevance of PM and KM processes to KM performance measures
LE group (n � 8)
SME group (n � 10)
Combined (n � 18)
Relevance of statementsa: Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
1) PM is a process used to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of actions in your organisation 6.6 3.45 6.0 2.33 6.06 2.92 2) The KM processes are adopted to facilitate PM in your organisation 4.4 3.50 5.9 3.36 5.06 3.42 3) The IKM criteria and items would point toward assessing the KM performance status/ accomplishments of your organisation 7.0 2.05 6.3 2.71 6.67 2.32
Notes: a –Sores of statements based on a 10-point scale (i.e. 1 � Lowest score; 10 � Highest score); “n”–Number of respondents; “SD”–Standard deviation
TLO 21,5
328
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
organisations (i.e. mean � 5.9; SD � 3.36), whereas the LE group has indicated their reservations on the adoption of KM processes (with mean � 4.4; SD � 3.5). It showed that the respondents shared factual views towards the integration of KM and PM in their organisations. The findings provided some useful data sources and managerial insights in integrating KM/PM initiatives with reference to both LE and SME groups in T&T.
6. Conclusion The premise for the need for KM is based on a paradigm shift in the business environment where knowledge is central to organisational performance (Yiu et al., 2013). Many KM performance criteria represent elements that facilitate the integration of KM/ PM initiatives. Modified from the self-assessment method advocated by EFQM (2000), the proposed IKM model forms a single framework that integrates the PM system of industrial enterprises. It adopts the guiding principles embodied with the TQM/BE models and stresses the results-oriented assessments on five categories of IKM criteria, namely, senior management leadership, KM processes, people development, continuous improvement and results orientation.
Accompanying the model, a self-assessment scoring scheme was developed to evaluate the IKM efforts. Unlike that of the MBNQA and EQA, the weights for criteria and sub-elements of the IKM model were generated collectively from the perspectives of practitioners in industries based in T&T. The exploratory study was conducted to examine the design and efficacy of the proposed IKM model based on two groups of LEs and SMEs in T&T. Despite the relatively small sample, many respondents also agreed upon the causal relationship between PM/KM processes and KM performance in their respective organisations. The IKM model incorporates the criteria and results-oriented scoring method that provides an objective guide for identifying appropriate KM performance indicators in organisations. The results validated the model, and affirmed that the accompanied self-assessment scheme and tools could help organisations to profile their strengths and weaknesses and identify improvement opportunities. It is anticipated that adapting the IKM model and using it for regular self-assessments could help industrial enterprises to enhance their KM and PM capabilities for attaining improvement goals. The results could facilitate information sharing of best practices and create conditions conducive to continuous performance improvement.
Nevertheless, there is no one “right” way to implement KM. The possibility of enriching the theories and extending the applications of KM performance measures needs to be explored. Many companies focused on PM would have adopted some kind of quality or BE models in their system. There would be a research venue for investigating into whether these companies should implement a separate KM model or integrate the KM paradigm into their current system. The future of KM would lie in better integration with the common business processes and a concentration on the interface among human, technology and organisation. Comparative evaluations and case studies are suggested to examine the processes and determinants of KM performance measures in organisations across various industry sectors. Future research could thus validate the core KM/PM criteria identified for LE vs SMEs of varied operations nature, separately and collectively, along with the self-assessment paradigm of KM performance in T&T towards a wider regional and global context.
329
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
References Anantatmula, V.S. and Kanungo, S. (2010), “Modeling enablers for successful KM
implementation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 100-113.
Bose, R. (2004), “Knowledge management metrics”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 457-468.
Chin, K.S., Pun, K.F. and Lau, H.C.W. (2003), “Development of a knowledge-based self-assessment system for organisational performance”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 443-455.
Chin, K.S., Yeung, I.K. and Pun, K.F. (2006), “Development of a web-based system for assessing supplier quality performance”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 743-765.
de Lima, E.P., da Costa, S.E.G. and Angelis, J.J. (2009), “Strategic performance measurement systems: a discussion about their roles”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 39-48.
Dufour, Y. and Steane, P. (2007), “Implementing knowledge management: a more robust model”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 68-80.
EFQM (2000), “The EFQM Excellence Model: Assessor Training Modules”, MC Modules (Company) V1/E, European Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels.
EFQM (2013), European Foundation for Quality Management available at: www.EFQM.org/ (accessed 1 May 2013).
Free Dictionary (2013), Industrial Enterprises, available at: www.thefreedictionary.com/ industrial�enterprise (accessed 1 May 2013).
Gopie, R. (2011), “Are we developed?, Trinidad Express Newspaper - Commentaries (3 November 2011)”, available at: Trinidadexpress.com (accessed 30 May 2012).
Gordon, R. and Grant, D. (2005), “Knowledge management or management of knowledge? Why people interested in knowledge management need to consider Foucault and the construct of power”, Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organisation Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 27-38.
Heisig, P. (2009), “Harmonisation of knowledge management: comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 4-31.
ISO (2010), ISO 9001: Quality Management Systems – Requirements, International Organisation of Standardisation, Geneva.
Jennex, M.E. and Olfman, L. (2004), “Accessing knowledge management success/ effectiveness models”, Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa Village, HI.
Kanji, G.K. (2010), An Integrated Approach of Organisational Excellence, available at: www.gopal-kanji.com (accessed 1 February 2010).
Kanji, G.K. and Moura e Sá, P. (2002), “Kanji’s business scorecard”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 13-27.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2000), The Strategy-Focused Organisation: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Khatibian, N., Hasan gholoi pour, T. and Jafari, H.A. (2010), “Measurement of knowledge management maturity level within organisations”, Business Strategy Series, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 54-70.
TLO 21,5
330
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
Lee, P.M. and Quazi, H.A. (2001), “A methodology for developing a self-assessment tool to measure quality performance in organisations”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 118-141.
Lewis, W.G., Pun, K.F. and Lalla, T. R. M. (2007), “Measuring employees’ perception in small and medium-sized enterprises: a self-assessment scale”, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 229-238.
Lyons, K., Acsente, D. and van Waesberghe, M. (2008), “Integrating knowledge management and quality management to sustain knowledge enabled excellence in performance”, VINE, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 241-253.
Lytras, M.D. and Pouloudi, A. (2003), “Project management as a knowledge management primer: the learning infrastructure in knowledge-intensive organisations: projects as knowledge transformations and beyond”, The Learning Organisation, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 237-250.
Ma, Z. and Yu, K.H. (2010), “Research paradigms of contemporary knowledge management studies: 1998-2007”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 175-189.
Malhotra, Y. (2005), “Integrating knowledge management technologies in organisational business processes: getting real enterprises to deliver real business performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Neely, A. (2005), “Performance measurement system and relationships with performance results: developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1264-1277.
NIST (2013), Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, available at: www.nist.gov/ (accessed 1 May 2013).
Ogiwara, N. (2009), Knowledge Management: Case Studies for Small and Medium Enterprises, Asian Productivity Organisation, Tokyo.
Pillania, R.K. (2009), “Demystifying knowledge management”, Business Strategy Series, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 96-99.
Pun, K.F. (2002), “Development of an integrated TQM and performance measurement system for self-assessment: a method”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 759-777.
Pun, K.F. and Lau, C.W. (2003), “Integration of total quality management and performance measurements in government departments: an empirical study in Hong Kong”, International Journal of Business Performance Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 316-335.
Pun, K.F. and Nathai-Balkissoon, M. (2011), “Integrating knowledge management into organisational learning: a review of concepts and models”, The Learning Organisation, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 203-223.
Pun, K.F. and White, A.S. (2005), “A performance measurement paradigm for integrating strategy formulation: a review of systems and frameworks”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 25-46.
Pun, K.F., Chin, K.S. and Yiu, M.Y.R. (2010), “An AHP approach to assess new product development performance: an exploratory study”, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 210-218.
Sallis, E. and Jones, G. (2002), Knowledge Management in Education: Enhancing Learning and Education, Kogan Page, London.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2005), “The knowledge value chain: a pragmatic knowledge implementation network”, Handbook of Business Strategy, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 321-326.
Wikipedia (2013), Trinidad and Tobago, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ (accessed 1 May 2013).
331
Knowledge management performance
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
Wong, K.Y. and Aspinwall, E. (2005), “An empirical study of the important factors for knowledge-management adoption in the SME sector”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 64-82.
Yiu, M.Y.R. (2012), “An investigation into an integrated knowledge management approach for industrial enterprises”, MPhil thesis (unpublished), Faculty of Engineering, The University of the West Indies, St Augustine.
Yiu, M.Y.R. and Sankat, C.K. (2008), “A self-assessment model for evaluating knowledge management performance”, The Journal of the Associations of Professional Engineers of Trinidad and Tobago, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-47.
Yiu, M.Y.R., Sankat, C.K. and Pun, K.F. (2013), “In search of the knowledge management practices in organisations: a review”, West Indian Journal of Engineering, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 103-116.
Zack, M., McKeen, J. and Satyendra, S. (2009), “Knowledge management and organisational performance: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 392-409.
About the authors Man Yin Rebecca Yiu is a Management Consultant and has been involving in several research works and development projects in the Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering at The University of the West Indies, T&T. She holds an MPhil in Industrial Engineering and a master’s degree in Information Systems. Ms. Yiu is a senior member of the Hong Kong Society for Quality, and a Professional member of both the Hong Kong Institute of Company Secretaries and the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. She is also a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Trinidad and Tobago. Her research interests are in the areas of industrial engineering, KM and information systems.
Kit Fai Pun is presently a Professor of Industrial Engineering of the Faculty of Engineering and the Chair and Campus Coordinator for Graduate Studies and Research at The University of the West Indies. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in Australia, Europe, Hong Kong and T&T. Pun is a member of Caribbean Academy of Science and a Fellow/member of several professional bodies and learned societies. He is also the Chairperson of the Technology Management Council of the IEEE Trinidad and Tobago Section (2003-2013), and was the past chairman of the Mechanical and Industrial Division of the Association of Professional Engineers of Trinidad and Tobago (2004-2009). His research interests and activities include industrial engineering, engineering management, quality systems, PM, innovation and information systems. Kit Fai Pun is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
TLO 21,5
332
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
This article has been cited by:
1. Hongbo Lyu, Zhiying Zhou, Zuopeng Zhang. 2016. Measuring Knowledge Management Performance in Organizations: An Integrative Framework of Balanced Scorecard and Fuzzy Evaluation. Information 7:4, 29. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by R
oc he
st er
I ns
ti tu
te o
f T
ec hn
ol og
y A
t 14
:2 3
24 F
eb ru
ar y
20 18
( P
T )
