INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO IMPLEMENT KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.pdf

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO

IMPLEMENT KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Section 1: Foundation of the Study

Effective knowledge management system (KMS) implementation strategies may

benefit business leaders as a tool to capture and retain knowledge from departing

employees. The lack of strategies to develop and implement a KMS threatens

organizational performance, competitive advantage, and bottom-line profits due to

knowledge loss from departing employees (Levy, 2011; Massingham, 2014; Massingham

& Massingham, 2014). The need to retain, capture, and share knowledge of departing

experienced employees emphasizes how the loss of organizational knowledge can lead to

additional reductions in competitive advantage, organizational productivity, and

economic growth (Jennex, 2014; Martins & Meyer, 2012). Researchers have studied

KMS implementation failure rate (e.g., Saini, Nigam, & Misra, 2013); significant returns

of adoption of KMS and factors that influence KMS use and acceptance (e.g., Zhang,

Gao, & Ge, 2013); and the effect of implementing a KMS to help retain, transfer, and

capture critical knowledge of departing employees (e.g., Joe, Yoong, & Patel, 2013). As

Neumark, Johnson, and Mejia (2013) discovered, 38% of the U.S. public workforce will

likely retire by 2030. This exodus of experienced workers may result in a labor shortage.

Therefore, the reports of knowledge loss show that failure to implement a KMS may

cause financial and productivity losses in organizations (Neumark et al., 2013). Business

leaders may use the strategies to develop and implement a KMS to strengthen

competitiveness in the industry.

Background of the Problem

The effect of knowledge loss caused by departing employees and the inability of

organizational leaders to capture and retain knowledge in an appropriate KMS may cause

losses in sustainability and profitability. The need to capture and retain knowledge within

organizations is critical because, in 2017, 31% of 1.96 million federal employees will be

eligible to retire; these statistics reveal that experienced employees who may be retiring

will increase sharply because they belong to a generational cohort leaving the workforce

(Appelbaum et al., 2012; Martins & Meyer, 2012; U.S. Government Accountability

Office, 2014). To mitigate the loss, Appelbaum et al. (2012) suggested that leaders

implement a KMS that will facilitate the transfer, sharing, and retention of knowledge

from experienced employees to current knowledge workers to help ensure workplace

proficiency and effectiveness. If leaders do not implement KMS within the organization

effectively, employees may not have the opportunity to codify, transfer, or share their

organizational knowledge before they depart (Kim, Lee, Paek, & Lee, 2013). Information

technology (IT) managers who understand the strategies used to implement a KMS may

gain the foundation for successful KMS implementation. Jeng and Dunk (2014), who

specialized in KMS implementations, noted that some researches have focused on

technical issues and not on organizational issues; therefore, a significant need exists to

address the lack of strategy. Researchers (Margherita, 2014; Valmohammadi & Ahmadi,

2015; Zhang, Lee, Huang, Zhang, & Huang, 2005) asserted that factors to consider

during KMS implementation include user involvement, leadership support, IT

governance, organizational learning, clear strategic objectives, business process

management, and marketing. These activities are essential parts of change management

strategies. Dara and Yadav (2013) indicated a holistic approach to KMS implementation

success, and they concluded that understanding of implementation strategy are lacking.

Problem Statement

In 2017, 31% of 1.96 million federal employees will be eligible to retire, which

could result in the loss of organizational knowledge if not adequately captured in a KMS

(U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014). Fifty to ninety percent of organizational

knowledge, if not captured in a KMS, creates a knowledge gap, as well as an average

annual financial loss of $1.2 million for medium-sized enterprises (Martins & Meyer,

2012; Massingham, 2014). The general business problem that I addressed in this study

was the need for a KMS implementation strategy to capture organizational knowledge.

The specific business problem that I addressed in this study was that some IT managers

lack strategies to develop and implement a KMS.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative, single case study was to explore strategies that IT

managers could use to develop and implement a KMS. The target population was five IT

managers in northwestern Florida, United States, whom I selected because they were

experienced in implementing a KMS. The data from the study may provide IT managers

with strategies to contribute to social change because the implementation of strong

information and KMS may empower community leaders to collaborate within an

infrastructure for sharing information.

Nature of the Study

Researchers use three primary methods to conduct research. These three methods

are qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). According to

Mack, Woodsong, MacQueen, Guest, and Namey (2011), a qualitative research method is

an appropriate approach when identifying and exploring the perspectives of participants

in designing and implementing a process. Mack et al., (2011) also stated that a qualitative

research method is ideal when understanding the phenomena through the involvement of

participants.

In qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative or mixed methods, the

researcher gains knowledge through in-depth exploration of an activity or process (Baxter

& Jack, 2008), such as a KMS design; implementation; and improvement, to allow the

discovery of underlying issues and concerns that affect the success of the KMS

implementation process. The qualitative method was flexible, descriptive, and iterative in

nature (Mack et al., 2011). In contrast, using the quantitative method provides researchers

with a method to test theories by examining and comparing relationships. With this

method, researchers examine dependent and independent variables to prove hypotheses

(Bettany-Saltikov & Whittaker, 2014).

Whereas numerical data, measurements, and hypothesized relationships are

important components of quantitative research, researchers use face-to-face interviews

with participants in qualitative research. When exploring and capturing qualitative data,

managers and implementers of KMS share their real-world experiences during

semistructured interviews (see Yin, 2014). Similarly, the challenge with the mixed-

method approach includes requiring a researcher to incorporate qualitative and

quantitative approaches; however, the collection of a variety of quantitative data was not

the focus of my study. Therefore, using qualitative methodology was appropriate for my

study involving the implementation of a KMS (e.g., Yin, 2014).

With a qualitative method in mind, I considered several designs to explore KMS

implementation: the case study, phenomenology, and narrative designs. The case study

design was appropriate for my study because I identified and explored strategies

appropriate for implementing KMS. Yin (2014) noted that an inquiry is case study when

the researcher focuses on investigating a contemporary phenomenon within its real-world

context and relies on multiples sources of evidence. Case study design is an approach in

which the researcher engages with the participants and provides insights into the

activities and work-place challenges (Yin, 2014). Phenomenological studies involve

observation of the participants’ personal and lived experiences (Hudson, Duncan,

Pattison, & Shaw, 2015; Moustakas, 1994). I also evaluated the narrative design because

it involved collecting wide-ranging information related to lived experiences of

participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). A narrative design would not be appropriate for

the study because researchers use this design to explore lived experiences and to

understand how human lives fit the story (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011); however, the

purpose of my study was to gain insight from participants relating to their real-world

experiences implementing KMS. The evidence from multiple sources and outcomes, and

data from participants who experienced real-world phenomena, helped me identify the

components useful in the KMS framework that could generate users’ acceptance of KMS

use. Therefore, the case study was an appropriate design for my study.

Research Question

What strategies do IT managers use to develop and implement a KMS?

Interview Questions

1. How would you describe your KMS implementation?

2. What were the strategies that supported the KMS implementation?

3. What were the challenges seen during the KMS implementation for

addressing the strategies?

4. What metrics did you use to assess the success of the KMS strategies?

5. How did you develop the strategies used for the KMS implementation?

6. What other insights can you share that led to identifying and addressing

strategies for successful implementation of a KMS?

Conceptual Framework

Nonaka (1994) developed the organizational knowledge creation theory. In this

theory, Nonaka suggested that a knowledge conversion process conceptualizes dynamic

human activity. It involves processing and capturing knowledge and information

regarding an organization’s knowledge system (Nonaka, von Frogh, & Voelpel, 2006).

Building on Nonaka’s organizational knowledge creation theory, Nonaka et al. (2006)

explained that organizational knowledge creation theory consists of two forms of basic

knowledge: tacit (experience, perception, and skills) and explicit (language and

documentation). Knowledge conversion prompts the evolutionary paths used to identify

conditions that enable knowledge creation through the socialization, externalization,

combination, and internalization (SECI) model. This model became the central tenet of

organizational knowledge creation theory (Nonaka et al., 2006). Likewise, Nonaka et al.

suggested that organizational knowledge creation theory consists of knowledge

conversion as a construct, and they concluded that KMS reflect an organization’s

knowledge base that stores, transfers, and utilizes knowledge assets. Nonaka’s

organizational knowledge creation theory and Nonaka et al.’s explanation of SECI model

both align with my study, in which I explored the strategies that IT managers use to

develop and implement KMS.

Operational Definitions

Change management strategy: Change management strategy is the use of a

structured, well-planned strategy during system implementation, embedded with

organizational culture change, knowledge transfer, marketing concepts, and

organizational learning, to gain user acceptance and satisfaction and to accomplish

organizational change objectives (Al-Ghamdi, 2013; Chiang, 2013).

Explicit knowledge: Explicit knowledge is also known as codified knowledge, and

it is transferable in the form of formal, systemic language, such as standard operating

procedures, reports, and databases (Nonaka, 1994).

Knowledge: Knowledge is an intangible resource composed of tacit and codified

knowledge resources that are transferrable and create a capability (Massingham, 2014).

Knowledge loss: Knowledge loss is an organizational concern that encompasses

loss of contribution to the organizational memory, loss of relational knowledge with

fellow employees and customers, loss of work performance, loss of know-how, loss of

know-who, and loss of know-what (Jennex, 2014).

Knowledge management (KM): KM is the process of managing knowledge

resources (tacit and codified knowledge) focused on using knowledge for decision

making and processes for sharing, discovery, capture, storage, retrieval, and

dissemination (Jennex, 2014; Massingham, 2014).

Knowledge management system (KMS): KMS are enablers that support the

movement and flow of knowledge around the organization, particularly in the process of

knowledge sharing, acquisition, usage, retention, measurement, and preservation

(Massingham, 2014).

Knowledge transfer: Knowledge transfer is the process by which expertise,

knowledge, skills, and capabilities are communicated, translated, converted, filtered, and

rendered, from the knowledge source to knowledge workers, such as outgoing to current

employees, or from current to incoming employees, or from systems and documents to

current or incoming employees (Agarwal & Islam, 2015).

Tacit knowledge: Tacit knowledge includes knowledge encompassing personal

qualities and commitment, and it is the knowledge that an individual maintains (Nonaka

& Krogh, 2009).

Transformational leadership: Transformational leadership is a leadership style

that is associated with leaders’ engagement elements such as participation, information

delivery, and commitment, and it facilitates organizational culture change (Holten &

Brenner, 2015).

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Assumptions

Researchers use assumptions to identify preexisting beliefs about a study

(Kirkwood & Price, 2013; Simon & Goes, 2013). Assumptions are beliefs that a

researcher assumes to be true and critical to a study (Simon & Goes, 2013). I made three

assumptions in this study. My first assumption was that the five participants would

provide truthful and honest interview data. My second assumption was that recognition of

the fast-paced and high turnover environment could be due to the overall construct,

scheduled promotions, and overall mission of the organization. My third assumption was

that a semistructured interview technique would capture important aspects of the

participants’ views, experience, perceptions, and thoughts regarding the strategies of

KMS implementation.

Limitations

Limitations are potential weaknesses associated with a study (Brutus, Aguinis, &

Wassmer, 2013). Limitations such as deficiencies, circumstances, or influences are

elements that may affect the results of a study but are beyond the researcher’s control

(Kirkwood & Price, 2013; Silverman, 2013; Simon & Goes, 2013). My research study

had several limitations that revealed potential weaknesses. The first limitation was that a

participant’s view and experience might have been influenced by cultural or generational

differences. The second limitation was that target employees came from several

generations such as Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. A third limitation

was gaining access to all implementation documentation, governance documents, and

other KMS implementation information. Some files were not available in the current

KMS and were stored in electronic mails and file shares of participants.

Delimitations

Delimitations are boundaries that researchers set for the study (Denzin & Lincoln,

2011). The scope of my study was limited to participants, both men and women, with a

minimum of 5 years of experience, who were primarily involved in the KMS Microsoft

SharePoint implementation. Though the organization employed IT managers who were

geographically separated, I limited the interviews to five employees who met the criteria

of an expert at a single site. The prerequisites of the study excluded personnel who did

not meet the minimum KMS implementation, knowledge, and experience requirement

that took place in northwestern Florida from 2007 to 2012.

Significance of the Study

The results of my study have potential positive implications for both business and

society. Results from this study might be beneficial to business leaders and IT managers

because the results might provide a set of strategies and framework to facilitate

successful KMS implementation process and success factors of a KMS in the

organization. Successful KMS could affect the success of government and private

industries by helping employees capture and transfer knowledge. Managers who took

proactive measures saw an increase in knowledge accumulation and transfer, and they

also saw growth in profits (see Levy, 2011 & Massingham, 2014).

Contribution to Business Practice

This study may contribute to business practice and business knowledge. The

results from this study could provide people in organizations with empirical evidence on

successful KMS implementation to help business leaders strengthen competitiveness in

the industry, facilitate innovation, and generate sustainable evolution. Jeng and Dunk

(2014) posited that researchers have focused on only technical aspects of enterprise

implementation of KMS. Researchers might need to explore further critical success

factors such as positive culture change, knowledge creation, and organizational learning

to help IT managers implement enterprise systems successfully (Jeng & Dunk, 2014).

Knowledge-intensive managers in businesses seeking to implement KMS could

use the findings, conclusions, and recommendations from my study to provide a

knowledge infrastructure to help retain, transfer, and capture critical knowledge of

departing employees before they retire (Joe et al., 2013). Venugopal and Suryaprakasa

(2011) noted that identifying and addressing critical success factors for successful KMS

implementation could help business leaders understand the processes of knowledge

capture and knowledge systems implementation for proposing solutions to existing

worldwide business problems. After a successful KMS implementation, business leaders

could enjoy the following benefits: (a) increased innovation, (b) improved competitive

advantage, (c) improved organizational performance, (d) reduced duplication of effort,

(e) decreased waste, (f) increased automation of business processes, and (g) increased

returns from financial investment (Massingham, 2014). Users in organizations who

practice knowledge sharing may achieve higher levels of productivity and profit by using

KMS (Massingham & Massingham, 2014).

Implications for Social Change

In addition to the benefits to business, this study has potential social change

implications. Users who accept, use, and adopt a successful KMS generate an

organizational culture of knowledge sharing and knowledge-capturing (Zhang et al.,

2005). The results from the study might contribute to positive social change by providing

practitioners and IT managers from local communities and government agencies a KMS

framework to improve social conditions and enabling citizens’ access to an open-

knowledge sharing and information. Local leaders from nonprofit or local organizations

might adopt a KMS framework that could provide an effective flow of information for

people to search, process, and have access to timely, civic, and potentially life-enhancing

information (Rainie & Purcell, 2011).

A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature

To analyze how researchers have described the problems of knowledge and

productivity loss, I conducted a literature review to understand the strategies for KMS

implementation as a capability to mitigate knowledge transfer methods. This subsection

includes a review of the literature relating to strategies of successful KMS

implementation. In the review of the academic and professional literature, I discuss

related theories; KM practice; sharing and transferring of knowledge; knowledge loss;

organizational culture; change management; factors affecting KMS implementation; and

potential themes.

The review includes research materials from multiple databases accessed through

the Walden University Library and Google Scholar. The databases that I used include

AB/INFORM Complete, EBSCO, Academic Search Complete, Business Source

Complete, Emerald Insight and Management Review, ProQuest Central, Science Direct,

and SAGE Premier databases. The primary search terms used for database searches

included systems implementation success factors, knowledge management practices,

change management, organizational culture, knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer,

knowledge loss, organizational knowledge creation theory, and enterprise systems

implementation. Throughout the study, I used the terms KMS, KMS, enterprise systems,

and enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems interchangeably.

The research process for this literature review led to 186 articles, books, and

official government documents, of which approximately 104 appeared in the literature

review. A total of 162 articles (87%) were peer-reviewed and 24 were not peer reviewed.

A total of 158 (85%) references were published in or after 2013. The study included 186

references with 162 (87%) peer-reviewed references and 158 (85%) references published

in or after 2013 and 28 were published in 2012 or earlier.

Related Theories

I analyzed three conceptual frameworks: dynamic capabilities theory (Chang, Fu,

& Ku, 2015), Bass’s theory of leadership (Bass, 1990), and organizational knowledge

creation theory (Nonaka et al., 2006). I considered how these three theories establish a

foundation for understanding key elements factors relating to KMS implementation. In

this section, I presented a description of the theories comprising the conceptual

framework in the study and how they were related to the topic.

Dynamic capabilities theory. According to Chang et al., (2015), the basis of a

successful implementation of an enterprise system is the dynamic capabilities theory,

which integrates effective use of resources and leverages those resources to achieve

operational goals. Chang et al. explained that the concept of dynamic capabilities was

interrelated with the ability of senior management personnel to recognize opportunities

for business transformation. Chang et al. proposed a model of implementation consisting

of five stages: (a) establishment of the objectives, (b) assessment of the available

resources and scope, (c) process redesign and integration and organizational learning, (d)

system implementation, and (e) measurement and evaluation of performance. Although

Chang et al. recommended the use of dynamic capabilities theory for different enterprise

information systems implementations, this theory focuses on the technical and resources

components of the implementation. This study is focused on KMS implementation

strategies without focusing on technical aspects.

Bass’s theory of leadership. In my review of the Bass theory of leadership, the

second conceptual framework, I discovered a unique connection between leaders and

followers, which includes several traits (idealized influence, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) necessary to bring about

desired organizational outcomes and outstanding performance (Birasnav, 2014).

Although the guidance of leaders may have significantly influenced KMS for achieving

organizational performance, the focus of the theory is on the leadership transformation as

it applies to followers, and the theory enables followers to understand the value of a task.

Bass (1990) theorized that transactional leadership is based on interactions between

managers and employees and fosters corporate change through recruitment, selection,

promotion, training, and development. The Bass theory of leadership is partially

applicable to the study of KMS implementation. However, the Bass theory of leadership

does not address KM practices and the importance of KMS in capturing knowledge.

Therefore, the Bass theory of leadership was not best suited for the study.

Organizational knowledge creation theory. The organizational knowledge

creation theory is focused on knowledge creation through the SECI process. The theory

has emerged (Nonaka, 1994) and continues to evolve through the knowledge creation

context (Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000). In knowledge conversion, a person’s

experience is expanded through the socialization, externalization, combination, and

internalization; it is validated, connected to, and synthesized with the knowledge of other

people (Nonaka et al., 2006). Nonaka et al. (2006) identified that the formulation of the

organizational knowledge creation theory in the 1990s evolved owing to the increasing

interest in organizational knowledge in academia and the businesses arena. The

fundamental concepts from the organizational knowledge creation theory involve

promoting leadership, knowledge workers, and systems, and they have become a new

model for knowledge creation (Nonaka et al., 2006). The organizational knowledge

creation theory applies to my study because its focus was on KM and KMS—the basis of

KM activities. The research framework of the study was the foundation that allowed for

the development of a KMS implementation. The critical elements and propositions

identified in the research were essential to the KM framework based on the observed

patterns of people, process, and technology.

Song, Seung, and Uhm (2012) recommended a systematic measurement scale for

organizational knowledge creation practices from the SECI model of Nonaka’s

organizational knowledge creation theory; this scale has five knowledge creation phases:

(a) sharing tacit knowledge, (b) creating concepts, (c) justifying concepts, (d) building

prototypes, and (e) cross-leveling knowledge. Song et al. discovered that a reliable

measure emerges from the analysis of knowledge conversion and creation where

organizational knowledge creation practices and other concepts (e.g., learning culture,

information systems, and team performance) play a key role. The conversion process

emphasizes the use of organizational knowledge creation theory in the capture of

information and validates the relationship between the SECI model and knowledge

creation theory.

Human interaction, information sharing, and knowledge creation are critical to the

success of organizations. Vick, Nagano, and Santos (2013) stated that the organizational

knowledge creation theory provides the basis for discussion during the exploitation of

tacit and explicit knowledge and conversion of information to knowledge. Vick et al.

posited that employees in an organization process information and turn it into knowledge

while they use information systems to capture internal business information needs.

Although dynamic capabilities theory relates to systems implementation, the integral part

of the theory focuses on the effective use of resources and technical capabilities.

Similarly, the Bass theory of leadership involves transformation of leadership for

achieving organizational performance. The organizational knowledge creation theory was

best suited for this study because it focuses on users’ knowledge creation and capture

using KMS, and facilitates through leadership support.

Knowledge Management Practices and Knowledge Management Enablers

Several researchers (Jain & Joseph, 2013; Oliva, 2014; Ramin, Taib, Hashim,

Noordin, & Yasin, 2013) defined knowledge management (KM) comparably. KM is a

structured method focused on creating, sharing, harvesting knowledge, and leveraging it

as an organizational asset to improve organizational leaders’ abilities to deliver products

or services (Ramin et al., 2013). Like Ramin et al. (2013), Jain and Joseph (2013) defined

KM as a process used to create, capture, store, exploit, share, and apply knowledge to

benefit employees, the organization, and its customers.

Various definitions of KM and its associated practices reveal that KM is an

organizational asset. Oliva (2014) claimed that organizations could achieve competitive

advantage by having its employees adopt KM practices. KM practices facilitate

improvement of business processes. Oliva posited the main barriers to organizational KM

are definition, acquisition, dissemination, storage, application, and evaluation of

knowledge. The KM practices are delineated based on (a) alignment with organizational

strategy, (b) a cultural focus on innovation, (c) a level of competence achievement, (d) a

transparency in the definition of knowledge, and (e) upgraded tools (Oliva, 2014).

Other researchers (Jain & Joseph. 2013; Oliva, 2014; Ramin et al. 2013)

emphasized a competitive advantage for people in organizations who adopt KM practices

and value KM practices as a major contributor to their success. Hasanian, Chong, and

Gan (2015) stated that specific KM factors showed the highest predictor of success

associated with the creation of an effective knowledge-based customer relationship. KM

factors such as (a) strategy, (b) management leadership, (c) process, (d) IT, (e)

organizational infrastructure, (f) organizational culture, (g) training and education, and

(h) performance measurement influence customer knowledge creation and distribution in

an organization. This influence, in turn, improves customer satisfaction (Hasanian et al.,

2015).

Likewise, Matayong and Mahmood (2013) emphasized that the bases of

organizations’ successes in the use of KMS are as follows: (a) adoption, (b) diffusion, (c)

usage, and (d) implementation. Matayong and Mahmood further related that people in

some organizations are deficient in assimilating the KMS; they use it to innovate. As

such, investigating the strategies that determine the outcomes of models such as adoption,

diffusion, use, and implementation is important to knowledge workers in those

organizations. Ultimately, KM enablers and KM practices result in providing customers

with organized and correct data—the basis for gathering data and information—and are a

reliable channel for generating and sharing knowledge (Jain & Joseph, 2013; Oliva, 2014;

Matayong & Mahmood; 2013; Ramin et al., 2013).

Several researchers explained how KM practices affect organizational strategic

planning and management of knowledge and information (Alegre, Sengupta, & Lapiedra,

2013; Jayawickrama, Liu, & Smith, 2014). The purpose of KM is to aid business leaders

in achieving information, knowledge creation, and diffusion (Alegre et al., 2013). The

fundamental emphasis of KM is steering organizational strategic planning so business

leaders can recognize the types of knowledge that exist in business processes (Alegre et

al., 2013). Knowledge dissemination includes business processes that efficiently integrate

tacit and explicit knowledge throughout an entire organization (Alegre et al., 2013). A

KMS is a group of systems and procedures that business leaders use to manage, capture,

and store knowledge (Alegre et al., 2013). KM is a resource and capability that business

leaders can implement to support organizational strategic planning (Jayawickrama et al.,

2014). The goal is to ensure that the discovery and documentation of the required

knowledge and people involved with new projects (e.g., ERP implementation processes)

will incorporate people, products, and services (Jayawickrama et al., 2014). Business

leaders adopt KM practices and KMS as fundamental tools to facilitate KM strategy and

knowledge capture.

The need for a KMS to facilitate and create knowledge sharing is an important

influence in organizations. Kanjanabootra, Corbitt, and Nicholls (2013) suggested that

strong KM practices positively affect internal communications (ICs); KM technologies

serve as the structural mechanism to leverage KM practices. In addition, positive

organizational performance, innovation, and transformation are a stable set of

management practices that result from the maximum use of IC assets and KM

technologies (Kanjanabootra et al., 2013). Although Kanjanabootra et al. emphasized the

maximum use of ICs, Bharati, Zhang, and Chaudhury (2015) believed in the use of social

media as a KM enabler. Bharati et al. explained that the emphasis on KM has led to

improved knowledge quality in organizations, particularly in the use of social media as a

KM enabler. Bharati et al. discovered that three dimensions of social capital are as

follows: (a) structural, (b) relational, and (c) cognitive. Each is significantly associated

with organizational KM. The use of social media is a positive link between increased

interactions among knowledge workers, and it enhances the KM practices in the

organization.

Several researchers (Donate & de Pablo, 2015; Lai, Hsu, Len, Chen, & Lin, 2014;

Martín-de Castro, 2015) explained the relationships between leadership, KM, and

innovation through a different lens. The role of leadership in KM initiatives is a key

aspect of innovation strategy. Donate and de Pablo (2015) theorized that KM is critical

for the innovation process. In addition to the work done by Donate and de Pablo (2015),

Martin-de Castro (2015) expounded on the cross-fertilizing role of three different

research constructs: (a) collaborative/open innovation from strategy and innovation

management research, (b) absorptive capacity from knowledge-based view, and (c)

market orientation from marketing research. As organizational leaders recognized the

need to develop, implement, and use KMS, the employees’ performance and innovation

improve (Kanjanabootra et al., 2013; Massingham, 2014).

Innovation propels organizational leaders to stretch the bounds of limitations and

create new strategies using KM processes and KM technologies. Lai, Hsu, Len, Chen,

and Lin (2014) found that knowledge creation, knowledge storage, industry cluster

resources and relationships, market performance, and product performance were related

to the improvement of corporate innovation performance. Lai et al. (2014) indicated that

by using industrial clustering, businesses leaders had frequent interaction with employees

from downstream and upstream firms; and this increased interaction resulted in better

innovation performance. Lai et al. (2014) also noted that the internal and external KM

practices facilitated access and acquisition of resources through lower costs and improved

relationship among sub organizations.

Business leaders can take the approach of coaching, mentoring, and building trust

to help support employees in knowledge sharing before implementing a new system (Liu,

2013; Pangil & Chan, 2014). The purpose of KM, according to Liu (2013) is to generate

innovations and new ideas to respond to the changes in the competitive operating

environment. The main benefits of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are to

help business leaders manage and monitor the flow of information within an organization

(Liu, 2013). Although Donate and de Pablo (2015), Liu (2013), and Martin-de Castro

(2015) had a similar view on KM and innovation, Lai et al. (2014) discovered a different

approach. Leaders needed to develop external relationships and networks through KM,

organization learning, and intellectual capital to succeed in technological innovation. A

major strength of the study by Apak and Atay (2014) was the discovery that business

leaders did not realize the importance of KM. The concern was for business leaders to

realize that if a knowledge-based economic approach had been applied, their chances to

prove the new value of knowledge would have helped businesses survive in the global

economy. Apak and Atay (2014) further noted that there was a high correlation between

innovation capability and KM capacity in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Finally,

Apak and Atay (2014) believed that with the support of artificial intelligence and use of

modern technology, a cost-effective customer-driven design and manufacturing process

would produce an agile and optimal industrial production for small and medium

enterprises. These authors (Apak & Atay, 2014) theorized that effective KM strategies

would improve performance, growth, and innovative activities in SMEs while penetrating

the international markets.

Authors (Findikli, Yozgat, & Rofcanin, 2015; Sykes, Venkatesh, & Johnson,

2014) revealed different findings affecting the innovation, training, and KM initiatives

found in an organization. Findikli et al. (2015) discovered a strong correlation between

exploration and exploitation—some of the human resource practices associated with

organizational innovation, and KM capacity. The authors (Findikli et al., 2015) pointed

out that training and compensation were closely related to exploration and exploitation;

they also emphasized that knowledge sharing and use of KMS were beneficial to

employees (Findikli et al., 2015). Sykes, Venkatesh, and Johnson (2014) noted that

business leaders should offer training for employees to maximize the benefits and

features of the system and should support the learning process during the implementation

phase. As such, although KM and innovation were related, knowledge sharing using

KMS would also benefit employees.

Monavvarian, Asgari, Akhavan, and Ashena (2013) and Kianto, Ritala, Spender,

and Vanhala (2014) showed that KM practices and implementation involved human

factors, social capital, and intellectual capital. Monavvarian et al. (2013) suggested that

social and human factors were the most important aspect of a successful implementation

of KM. Monavvarian et al. (2013) noted that the human-social capital (SC) had the

greatest effect on KM because of the strong relationship between individuals and groups

in organizations; SC facilitates the development of intellectual capital, and enhances

knowledge capture, codification, and sharing. Kianto et al. (2014) posited that strong KM

practices have positive effects on intellectual capital (IC); and KM technologies serve as

the structural mechanism to leverage these practices. Additionally, Kianto et al. (2014)

argued that positive organizational performance resulted from the maximum use of IC

assets, innovation, and KM practices. Researchers (e.g., Luu, 2014; Marciniak Amrani,

Rowe, & Adam, 2014; Shehata, 2015) strongly believed that KM practices and KM

implementation would not be successful by relying solely on technological factors

(hardware and software) because social and intellectual capital, as well as the human side

of the KM, are key elements of KM in the organization.

Several studies (Kalyar & Rafi, 2013; Sabir & Kalyar, 2013; Wu & Chen, 2014)

exist regarding learning cultures, innovation, knowledge transfer, and influence of

organizational learning to knowledge creation. The value of organizational learning in a

knowledge-based organization plays a major role in creating knowledge. Employees with

high job satisfaction are more innovative and participative in learning cultures than

employees who are dissatisfied with their jobs (Kalyar & Rafi, 2013). Representatives

organizations with strong learning cultures encourage scientific innovation (Kalyar &

Rafi, 2013). Furthermore, opportunities for organizational learning during knowledge

transfer may be beneficial to remaining or new employees; and the result of this exchange

of knowledge could result in job satisfaction (Sabir & Kalyar, 2013). Sabir and Kalyar

(2013) emphasized how knowledge transfer could influence positive social change

because of the increased competitive advantage, higher employee retention, and job

satisfaction. Guo, Wang, and Feng (2014) explained that business leaders believe that

systems implementation will not succeed without a proper learning environment because

the culture of end users can influence its success. Guo et al. (2014) emphasized business

leaders should direct the learning of end users for them to appreciate the benefits and the

enhancements of ERP systems. An organization’s learning culture affects knowledge

transfer among individuals. Wu and Chen (2014) indicated that knowledge assets and

process capabilities produce organizational outcomes. Wu and Chen (2014) believed

organizational leaders should focus efforts on the improvement of business process

capabilities and KM-enabled performance to achieve a competitive advantage thereby

profiting from KM investments. The implementation of KM tools could transform an

organization into a learning organization where information sharing is an employee

value. Al-Aama (2014) explained that with the implementation of effective KMS,

knowledge workers within organizations could create, capture, organize, and share

knowledge among employees. Al-Aama (2014) believed that executive members in

organizations faced challenges, such as high employee turnover, drastic expansion of

digitized information (also known as big data), the need to make quick and accurate

decisions, the need to eliminate redundant efforts, and the need for collaboration among

employees. Therefore, KMS implementers would need to use a taxonomy composed of

numerous KM tools as an enabler to capture knowledge (Al-Aama, 2014). The use of

taxonomy and KM tools facilitated the critical processes of knowledge creation,

organization, and sharing (Al-Aama, 2014).

Diffin, Coogan, and Fu (2013) and Saini et al. (2013) found similar revelations

regarding the need for a successful KMS. To understand what makes an organization

successful, Diffin et al. (2013) explored the selection, implementation, and result of

Microsoft SharePoint technology as the framework for organizing and sharing collective

knowledge. The SharePoint implementation offered a centralized communication and

collaboration system among staff members and served as a documentation management

solution (Diffin, Coogan, & Fu, 2013). Saini et al. (2013) emphasized the importance and

need for a deeper understanding of portal implementation because, although portal

capabilities provide businesses with benefits, the solution still have a high failure rate.

The risk and cost of a failed system implementation is a huge concern for business

leaders (Saini et al., 2013). Therefore, it is critical for leaders to understand the success

factors involved in its implementation.

Although criticisms existed surrounding the difficulty of KMS implementation,

Massingham (2014) and Shehata (2015) argued that the success of KMS implementation

was achievable pending certain success factors in the strategy. Massingham (2014)

opined that KM organizational change affected the performance of KM implementation

in terms of user awareness, leadership direction, purpose, role clarity, and users’

resistance to change. The benefits of KMS implementation in organizations improved

cash flows generated by investment, input management, acquisition, and employee work

quality (Massingham, 2014). Shehata (2015) revealed six elements of KMS that had

positive influence on firm performance: (a) knowledge creation, (b) acquisition, (c)

codification, (d) diffusion, (e) transfer and, (f) measurement. Shehata (2015) explained

that KMS facilitated deployment of essential knowledge processes to improve

organizational performance. Nonetheless, KMS are KM enablers that help acquire

knowledge, convert it into a useful form, apply or use knowledge created, and reuse it

(Shehata, 2015). The introduction of KMS has enabled leaders to facilitate KM sharing

throughout organizations.

The implication for managers is to develop and implement KMS successfully to

provide organizational leaders with a competitive advantage in the marketplace

(Mathrani, Mathrani, & Viehland, 2013; Sindakis, Depeige, & Anoyrkati, 2015).

Mathrani et al. (2013) believed that enterprise systems and digital business strategy

influence the use of data in decision-making processes. Mathrani et al. (2013) also noted

that managers based their decisions on knowledge created, operational efficiencies,

knowledge captured, and information disseminated within an organization. A successful

implementation of enterprise systems resulted in process improvements, data

transformation, and financial performance improvements (Mathrani et al., 2013). KMS

were valuable to business leaders because they helped strengthen the competitiveness of

the leaders in the industry, facilitated innovation, and generated sustainable evolution

(Sindakis et al., 2015).

Enterprise systems provide a knowledge and information flow in the areas of

supply chain and customer relationship management. Aburub (2015) explained that

enterprise systems facilitated performance improvement in terms of cost reduction,

information, transparency, and quality, and more efficient business processes. Aburub

stated that enterprise systems improved relationships with suppliers, customers, and

partners. The use of enterprise systems played a significant role on executives’ business

agility (Aburub, 2015). Kosalge and Ritz (2015) stated that business leaders who

transitioned to an enterprise system managed their accounting, sales, inventory,

operations, and improved the supply chain management, inventory or warehouse

management, and customer relationship management processes. The transition to

enterprise system use resulted in the overall increase in productivity. More importantly,

Kosalge and Ritz discovered that business leaders enjoyed the following benefits from

post-enterprise system implementation: (a) process improvement and increased process

controllability, (b) improved process quality and predictability of business, (c)

organizational transparency, (d) integration of activities between departments, (e)

improved reporting, (f) discipline in operations, (g) customer/supplier network

management, (h) reduction of lead-time, (i) real-time information from products and

processes, (j) improved on-time delivery, (k) savings on transaction costs, and (l)

improved market responsiveness.

The implementation of KM enterprise systems helps knowledge workers manage

the flow of information among multiple entities. Margherita (2014) opined that enterprise

systems implemented for business process and information management contributed to

the value creation of organizations, and provided greater customer satisfaction,

productivity, speed, and a broader organizational view. García-Álvarez (2015) discovered

that information and communication technologies (ICTs) influenced KM processes,

innovation, and organizational learning within organizations. Using the SECI model,

García-Álvarez (2015) determined that ICTs captured tacit knowledge and facilitated

encoding of the dialogue between employees and customers. This dialogue aided the

conversion of knowledge from tacit to explicit, and newly created knowledge became

available for sharing (García-Álvarez, 2015). García-Álvarez (2015) further stated that

the utilization of ICTs facilitated the creation of a business model through KM processes,

and resulted in innovation and business performance. Reyes, Worthington, and Collins

(2015) revealed that top-level managers believed that enterprise KM technologies

contributed to agility, adaptability, and alignment within the organization, and improved

performance and outcomes of business operations. Technologies, such as enterprise

systems and ICTs, provided organizations with real-time access to codified knowledge

practices, business processes, and communication, and contributed to management and

capture of business operations.

Knowledge Sharing and Transfer

Influence, generational diversity, and use of KMS are essential to successful

knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer takes place through discussion among brokers in

organizations as a process to formalize knowledge transfer (Conklin, Lusk, Harris, &

Stolee, 2013). Conklin, Lusk, Harris, and Stolee (2013) emphasized that organizations

have knowledge brokers—influential leaders who serve as facilitators between

knowledge creators and users—to facilitate formal knowledge transfers. Levy (2011)

stated that organizations with retiring employees do not risk business loss and

competitive advantage if they have a process that engages in transferring and retaining

knowledge. Levy (2011) argued that knowledge continuity produced retention through its

structured documentation and integration. The capture of lessons learned and best

practices, knowledge transfer based on prioritization, and use of enterprise KMS were all

benefits of KMS.

The characteristics of each generation in the workplace influence knowledge

transfer methods. Gursoy and Karadag (2013) discovered that managers needed to

recognize the importance of differences and its influence in workplace attitudes,

interactions, job satisfaction, and productivity. Gursoy and Karadag further noted that

managers should capitalize on these differences when implementing organizational

change, decreasing tension and conflict, and fostering generational synergy in the

workplace. If managers capitalize on these strengths, KM in the context of a

multigenerational workplace—especially with a high percentage of eligible retirees—can

be useful when facilitating intergenerational knowledge transfer (Gursoy & Karadag,

2013). Cummings-White and Diala (2013) emphasized the importance of integrating KM

into an organization’s processes in combination with culture change to promote

knowledge sharing and transfer. Cummings-White and Diala (2013) further noted that

capturing, retaining, and leveraging knowledge of older workers would allow younger

workers to leverage existing organizational knowledge to foster efficiency and

productivity. Business leaders’ approaches of using communities of practice may

contribute to modifications in the practice of knowledge transfer in businesses with a

multigenerational workforce.

Business leaders realized the importance of enabling a KMS concept to encourage

managers and employees to participate in knowledge sharing. Sousa and González-

Loureiro (2015) noted that the high levels of creativity and innovation at organizational

levels were associated with the need of managers and employees to participate and share

knowledge. Sousa and González-Loureiro (2015) indicated that knowledge sharing and

reuse were difficult for managers due to the availability and use of different mechanisms

(such as documents, databases, intranets, KMS, communities of practices, and

groupware). The lack of a structured KM strategy in an organization negatively impacted

managers’ willingness to use shared knowledge.

Although Sousa and González-Loureiro (2015) believed in a standardized

capability to allow participation and sharing of knowledge, Baralou and Tsoukas (2015)

introduced another concept that captured knowledge from a synchronous and virtual

environment. Baralou and Tsoukas (2015) indicated that in addition to face-to-face

interactions, workers created and transferred knowledge through information and

communication technologies such as synchronous teleconferencing tools (like Skype),

collaborative software applications that allow users to create, share, and edit files and

electronic mails. Baralou and Tsoukas (2015) believed that knowledge is created

simultaneously through a dialogical or conversational basis and virtual communication

that is increasingly conducted via ICTs, instant messaging, and a variety of media.

Therefore, knowledge transfer through a synchronous and collaboration format is an

outcome of knowledge creation.

Wikis are an example of a collaboration tool used for knowledge capture because

of the capability to track modifications; such tracking allows individuals to view

contributions provided by other team members in a simple manner (Kiniti & Standing,

2013). Pangil and Chan also noted that a virtual team’s effectiveness is associated with

the three dimensions of trust: (a) personal-based, (b) institutional-based, and (c)

cognitive-based. This type of tool is widely used by virtual teams. Pangil and Chan

(2014) noted that with virtual teams, it is critical to sustain personal-based trust among its

members to improve the knowledge sharing practice and create a platform to facilitate

institutional-based trust. The influence of trust and knowledge sharing contribute to the

effectiveness of virtual teams.

The culture in organizations—mostly government ones—and employees’

attitudes towards knowledge sharing are positive when individuals work in hierarchical

environment (Buheji, Al-Hasan, Thomas, & Melle, 2014). Luu (2014) indicated that

employees were willing to share knowledge if organizations had a strong culture, ethic,

and competitive intelligence. Luu (2014) believed that managers and business leaders

should focus on the creation of a dynamic knowledge sharing culture and consider value-

added factors as critical influences in the success of KM implementation. The elements

discussed in the studies of Buheji, Al-Hasan, Thomas, and Melle (2014), and Luu (2014)

are significant factors of culture change or openness. Through culture change, business

leaders optimize knowledge transfer and create a pathway to building competitive

advantage.

Lee and Lim (2015) reported that KMS is an effective organizational knowledge

sharing enabler; its successful implementation impacted the level of utilization

concerning knowledge creation, reuse, and dissemination. Lee and Lim (2015) illustrated

several aspects of KMS: (a) functions, (b) quality, (c) content, (d) user interface, (e) user

satisfaction, and (f) perceived benefits. However, knowledge workers believed that if the

KMS was slow, had a weak set of functions and features, and had an inefficient search

capability; it could affect users’ acceptance and satisfaction (Lee & Lim, 2015). The

functionality and stability of a KMS influence the knowledge workers’ acceptance and

usage.

Rao, Guo, and Chen (2015) reported results consistent with the findings in Lee

and Lim’s (2015) studies. Rao et al. (2015) believed KMS enable and facilitate (tacit)

knowledge sharing in organizations. The reliability and availability of knowledge and

KMS were necessary for timely decisions and actions of managers and employees. Rao et

al. (2015) indicated that employees viewed knowledge sharing as a social process where

employees shared experiences and learned from each other. This exchange resulted in the

accumulation and acquisition of new knowledge to improve employee performance. The

influence of knowledge sharing and KMS is critical in the business processes and

structure of an organization (Rao, Guo, & Chen, 2015).

Explicit and tacit knowledge sharing practices facilitate motivation and

performance. Hau, Kim, Lee, and Kim (2013) discovered that organizational reward

systems could be counterproductive to knowledge transfer endeavors. Hau et al. (2013)

noted that organizational rewards have a negative effect on tacit knowledge transfer but a

positive effect on explicit knowledge transfer. Employee motivation towards transfer

knowledge also affects KM efforts (Evans, 2013). Evans (2013) revealed that a positive

correlation between the level of motivation and willingness to share knowledge and

knowledge transfer behavior exists. Social affiliation with a group, trust, and rewards are

factors individuals consider when they determine their willingness to transfer knowledge

(Evans, 2013). Thus, motivation among employees plays a key role in transferring

knowledge (Hu & Randel, 2014).

Hu and Randel (2014) stated that a positive relationship existed between extrinsic

motivation and knowledge sharing. Sankowska (2013) noted strong connections between

employee trust and knowledge transfer. Hu and Randel (2013) posited that organizations

with a deep-rooted culture of trust have employees who display willingness to share

knowledge. Business leaders in organizations who illustrated presence of knowledge

transfer did so based on the trust that employees had; this trust is directly related to a

strong competitive advantage (Sankowska, 2013). Therefore, motivational factors,

employee trust, and rewards positively influence knowledge sharing.

In addition to the findings of Hau et al., (2013), Evans (2013), and Hu and Randel

(2014), Wang, Wang, and Liang (2014) reported a different finding that revealed tacit

knowledge sharing significantly contributed to all components of intellectual capital—

human, structural, and relational capital—while explicit knowledge sharing significantly

contributed only to human and structural capital. Additionally, Wang et al. (2014)

indicated that human, structural, and relational capital played vital roles in improving the

operational and financial performance of businesses. The concept of tacit knowledge

sharing consistently produced similar benefits to the financial and operational

performance of an organization.

Another way to share knowledge is via discussion forums in virtual communities.

Reliable technical infrastructure with discussion forums facilitated communication and

enabled knowledge creation and knowledge sharing in virtual communities. Atapattu and

Jayakody (2014) suggested that, in addition to a reliable KMS, employee propensities

(such as teamwork, incentives, continuous learning, and openness to change) were top

determinants of KM success. As such, the practice of teamwork among knowledge

workers was a key source of the knowledge-generation process. Consumer participation

and interaction in discussion forums contributed to building trust, commitment, and

knowledge, and enhanced online relationships (Atapattu & Jayakody, 2014). Similarly,

continuous learning promoted high performance and advancement for workers who were

open to such change; these people influenced the success of KM because they were

willing to generate new knowledge, to take on new projects, and to work with teams

(Atapattu & Jayakody, 2014). Reliable KMS provide a consistent collection method for

collating, storing, and disseminating data that facilitate organizational performance and

success of KM initiatives.

Expert employees are vital to organizations. When organizational leaders ignore

lack of knowledge transfer among employees, the result may be decreased organizational

productivity and output, and loss of competitive advantage (Kim et al., 2013). Knowledge

transfer, codification, or sharing are important to business leaders who focus on reducing

productivity and competitive advantage loss, especially when expert employees depart

the organization, receive promotions, or change positions (Kim et. al., 2013). Therefore,

business leaders should recognize that losing employee experience and productivity

might result in knowledge loss.

Knowledge Loss

Knowledge loss is detrimental to organizational performance. Daghfous,

Belkhodja, and Angell (2013) stated that KM strategies, such as the implementation of

enterprise KMS, should be in place to mitigate knowledge loss. Daghfous et al. (2013)

indicated that organizations should (a) retain and disseminate architectural knowledge,

(b) improve strategic coordination among units, and (c) develop existing capabilities

through networking. Therefore, in Daghfous et al.’s (2013) study, the authors found that

organizational leaders relying exclusively on codified documents and KMS could

undermine knowledge retention and lead to knowledge loss.

In a study exploring knowledge loss, Jennex (2014) argued that the failure to

capture job-related experiential knowledge of departing employees resulted in a direct

loss to the organizational memory, loss of relational knowledge with the internal and

external social network, and compromised work performance; the ultimate result was a

decrease in organizational productivity. Martins and Meyer (2012) believed that

knowledge loss affected the economic growth of organizations that faced a huge risk

when employees left due to retirement, turnover, mergers, and acquisitions. Therefore,

managers and business leaders have expressed concern and interest regarding strategies

to help retain knowledge before experts depart their organizations. Martins and Meyer

(2012) posited that organizational factors, such as knowledge loss risks, knowledge

behaviors, and leadership and strategy implementation, influenced and validated the need

for knowledge retention.

Lacking a standardized documentation process and the inability to capture

knowledge of departing personnel using a KMS could affect a company’s survival. The

impact of loss of productivity resulting from a lack of KMS may result in decreased

customer base and reduced organizational success (Forcada, Fuertes, Gangolells, Casals,

& Macarulla, 2013). The loss of knowledge may be a factor in decreased productivity and

client satisfaction (Forcada et al., 2013). Likewise, Massingham and Massingham (2014)

found that common emergent themes practical outcomes were time and cost, capability

growth, and performance improvements. Massingham and Massingham noted seven key

organizational problems associated with the practical outcomes of knowledge loss: (a)

new staff, (b) younger staff, (c) capability gaps, (d) slow task completion, (e) work

outputs not used, (f) resource cuts, and (g) low productivity. Additionally, Massingham

and Massingham (2014) highlighted several practical outcomes from knowledge loss: (a)

learning curve, (b) experience curve, (c) strategic alignment, (d) connectivity, (e) risk

management, (f) value management, and (g) psychological contract. To ignore the

practical outcomes of knowledge loss could influence the competitive advantage of an

organization.

To justify the need for knowledge transfer programs, business leaders need to be

cognizant of workforce projections and to include the number of experienced employees

that may decrease over the next decade because of increased retirements (Neumark et al.,

2013). Neumark et al. (2013) revealed that 38% of the United States public workforce

would likely retire by 2030. Business leaders will soon face a labor shortage triggered by

an aging workforce and decreasing numbers in the next generation of workers (Neumark

et al., 2013). With the rising numbers of retirements, without adequate knowledge

transfer strategy, state and federal agencies may reduce the capability to provide services

to citizens (Pee & Kankanhalli, 2015). Failure to implement a KMS to allow for

knowledge transfer for remaining employees may result in productivity loss.

Organizational leaders who fail to avoid knowledge loss could lose sustainability

and organizational productivity. Joe et al. (2013) reiterated that business leaders should

realize how critical it is to take necessary steps to retain the expertise and knowledge of

employees before they leave. Joe et al. (2013) identified valuable concepts resulting from

knowledge loss due to departure or retirement of experts: (a) subject matter expertise, (b)

expertise about business relationships and social networks, (c) organizational knowledge

and institutional memory, (d) skill in managing business systems, processes, and value

chains, and (e) understanding of governance. The loss of valuable knowledge concepts

would affect the operations of the organization.

Change Management Strategies

Integrating a change management strategy is critical in the implementation of a

KMS. Planning efforts and setting the stage for change during KMS implementation are

equally important. The implementation of enterprise systems should include change

management strategies to enable organizational culture transformation, knowledge

transfer, and organizational learning (Chiang, 2013). An organizational change

management strategy would increase the probability of success when IT managers

implemented a KMS.

Change management strategy at an individual and organizational level should

include change readiness to facilitate knowledge acquisition, creation, and diffusion. Al-

Ghamdi (2013) reported results consistent with findings in Valmohammadi and Ahmadi

(2015). Al-Ghamdi (2013) described that effective change management strategies during

KMS implementation are critical when balancing organizational culture, readiness, user

acceptance, user training, and cost. Valmohammadi and Ahmadi (2015) explained that

the critical success factors of KM implementation were KM strategy and organizational

culture. Therefore, managers should align business strategy with organizational structure,

processes, and human resources to be successful in KM (Valmohammadi & Ahmadi,

2015). When IT managers introduce a new system to users, change management

strategies (such as training, processes, and organizational culture) provide users the

readiness to change.

The support of senior management personnel in the integration of change

management processes and methods is important to effect change—particularly in the

realm of KMS implementation. Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) noted that when

implementing change, managers should recognize the importance of alignment because it

influences organizational strategy, internal structure, jobs and attitudes, and culture. Al-

Haddad and Kotnour (2015) posited leaders should plan for the change, address the

critical factors, and most importantly, adopt a structured, methodical process to achieve

success. For managers to achieve successful organizational change during the initial

stages of KMS implementation, the importance of change management processes, change

enablers, and change methods should be considered (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015).

Similarly, the importance of how these concepts and how they are aligned with the role of

leadership in the organizations should be analyzed (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Fazey

et al. (2014) emphasized the importance of business leaders to an organization because

they facilitated a culture that supported implementing a successful ERP. Change enablers

are critical to the success of change strategy because they set a clear concept and address

critical factors that could influence change success.

Knowledge is a critical factor that can facilitates organizational change and

innovation through its influence in culture change and KMS capabilities (Bagheri,

Hamidizadeh, & Sabbagh, 2015). Bagheri, Hamidizadeh, and Sabbagh (2015) theorized

that KMS and infrastructure facilitate the capability of knowledge reuse and the sharing

of existing business practices. Managers should align KM processes, knowledge workers'

learning cultures, collaboration, and IT support by implementing organizational change to

produce performance and successful outcomes (Bagheri et al., 2015).

The role of leadership, technology, knowledge sharing, and organizational

learning are critical to the success of KMS implementation. Jacobs, Witteloostuijn, and

Christe-Zeyse (2013) indicated that change was often associated with failure and risk.

Therefore, leaders should not ignore organizational change, because diverse, cultural, and

institutional differences influence the success or failure of organizations. Jacobs et al.

(2013) believed in the role of knowledge sharing and IT when implementing

organizational change. Jacobs et al. revealed that knowledge exchange, cross-sector

collaborations, and the exchange of best practices between members of organizations

were characteristics of a successful change management program. Similarly, the role of

technology in the organizational change process is vital because experts have

acknowledged technology as an agent of change and a key contingency factor (Jacobs et

al., 2013). Jacobs et al. (2013) indicated that the role of each generation and its varied

working character, KM practices, and employee roles are unique to that generation and

could affect the success of KMS implementation. Leadership roles and the effective

management of resistance to change played an important role in the change management

process (Jacobs et al., 2013).

Permitting end users to experiment with a new system could ease uncertainties

(Nwankpa & Roumani, 2014). Nwankpa and Roumani (2014) stated that by allocating

time for end-users to identify the usefulness and become familiar with the functionalities

of an ERP system, business leaders could facilitate acceptance in and comfort with the

new software. The keys to a successful organizational change initiative are the practice of

organizational learning, an information-rich and knowledge-intensive practice, and

knowledge sharing within an organization.

Managers should adopt effective change management strategies, clear

communication, and encourage acceptance of change to allow for successful system

implementation. Holten and Brenner (2015) recognized that negative outcomes of

organizational change are often associated with absenteeism, reduced productivity, job

satisfaction, and stress. An additional result is the negative influence on an employee’s

time pressure. Given these undesirable outcomes, Holten and Brenner (2015) discovered

that managers’ change engagement styles influenced successful organizational change.

Holten and Brenner (2015) stated that managers who involved followers, communicated

clearly, shared knowledge, and discussed the implications of change were positive

influences on organizational change. Business leaders should align the organizational

change management strategies with the vision statement, mission statement, and the

organizational KM culture (Pandey & Dutta, 2013). The benefits of system

implementation are important initiatives for an organization’s development.

Organizational Culture

Organizational culture and KM enterprise systems are enablers used to assist with

KM, capture, and dissemination. Zhang et al. (2005) recommended that researchers focus

on the organizational culture as a potential cause of KMS failure implementation. Zhang

et al. (2005) indicated that leaders have not considered the importance of organizational

culture as a potential cause of KMS failure, and is a significant factor in achieving

success when implementing an enterprise system. In a similar case study, Pandey and

Dutta (2013) explained that, in an organization, its culture emerged as one of the most

critical components of effective KM practice; such an element is also the most difficult

obstacle to overcome. Pandey and Dutta (2013) indicated that the corporate mission,

vision, and values, should be embedded within the KM culture to lead a successful

change effort. Pandey and Dutta (2013) emphasized that technology was a key enabler in

the knowledge infrastructure capability and are critical in the success or failure of a

firm’s KM initiatives. Regrettably, employees in many businesses have little or no

understanding of how KM practices are key to cultivating KM culture in the organization.

When business leaders implement KM processes, knowledge workers would

likely succeed, embrace, and foster its application of KM if it were part of organizational

culture. Chang and Lin (2015) identified that cultures have positive influences on KM

processes; these influences resulted in improved corporate efficiency, effectiveness,

innovation, and customer service. Chang and Lin (2015) revealed five kinds of

organizational cultural dimensions: (a) results-oriented, (b) tightly controlled, (c) job-

oriented, (d) closed system, and (e) professional-oriented. These dimensions were

significantly associated with four kinds of KM processes: (a) creation, (b) storage, (c)

transfer, and (d) application. Chang and Lin (2015) explained that organizations with

results-oriented and job-oriented culture had a significant positive influence on the KM

process implementation while organizations with a tightly controlled culture had a

significant negative effect on the KM process implementation. When taking on a KM

project and implementing change, leaders might recognize that organizational culture

focuses on risk-taking, innovating, and challenging ideas (Chang & Lin, 2015). Business

leaders who facilitate and embrace organizational learning and KM enable open

communications and clear flow of information.

The importance of a knowledge sharing culture is critical when the cultures of

organizations foster openness and knowledge exchange among its employees. Such as

culture is comprised of developing managerial innovation capabilities, creating networks

around strategic topics, and building collaborative systems, all of which promote

innovation (Schneckenberg, 2015). Schneckenberg (2015) noted that the use of

technological solutions, such as social network platforms, web conferencing tools, or

other types of collaborative systems, was not sufficient to create innovation.

Schneckenberg (2015) further stated that culture change processes that facilitate

openness, knowledge sharing, participative decision mechanisms, silo-crossing

collaboration at team levels, and open mindsets at the individual level, are all necessary

to promote creativity and innovation. Managers should determine a KMS implementation

method that best aligns with organizational mission, structure, and culture.

Factors Affecting Enterprise Systems Implementation

The implementation of KMS is a daunting task that can be complicated if

strategies are not conceptualized. Venugopal and Suryaprakasa (2011) indicated that

critical factors to a successful portal implementation involved change management,

business process reengineering activities, project monitoring and control, use of legacy

system, and management support. Dara and Yadav (2013) noted that a holistic approach

to a KMS implementation and a greater understanding of the process was lacking. Unless

the right framework for successful implementation is developed and strategies are

identified, business decision-makers will continue to experience difficulties in capturing

intellectual property and outperforming competitors (Dara & Yadav, 2013).

Several researchers communicated with and involved the stakeholders in the ERP

systems implementation (Aubert, Hooper, & Schnepel, 2013; Azad, Shadmanfard, &

Zarifi, 2013; Tarhini, Ammar, Tarhini, & Masa’deh, 2015). Azad, Shadmanfard, and

Zarifi (2013) indicated that leaders recognized the advantages of adopting an efficient

ERP regardless of their company size or location. However, numerous business leaders

acknowledged that implementing ERP systems involved success factors to reach full

operational potential (Azad et al., 2013). Some factors could affect the ERP adoption: (a)

intelligence information, (b) customer comfort, (c) structure oriented, (d) resource

management, (e) flexible structure, (f) KM, (g) customer oriented, and (h) customer

oriented (Azad et al., 2013). A critical success factor crucial for implementing ERP

software is the collaboration of all stakeholders because it can affect the organization’s

business processes, performance, and strategic planning (Tarhini et al., 2015).

Additionally, the ERP project involves many operations and affects the entire

organization such as (a) human resources, (b) financial management, and (c) manufacture

management (Tarhini et al., 2015). Aubert, Hooper, and Schnepel (2013) believed that

when implementing ERP systems, business leaders should employ a project manager and

technical staff to communicate the goals and objectives of the organization to internal and

external stakeholders.

Adopting an ERP software is a multifaceted process that encompasses more than

just a software upgrade. Business leaders should strategically align their strategies,

processes, and supply functions with the functions of ERP systems (Aubert et al., 2013).

ERP system is a complex technology innovation (Ram, Corkindale, & Wu, 2013).

Accomplishing a successful ERP system implementation can ensure that organizational

leaders achieve sustainability and a competitive advantage in the marketplace (Ram, et

al., 2013). Tarhini et al., (2015) were convinced that the success of an organization in

ERP adoption involved the integration of business processes and collaboration with

stakeholders. Narayanaswamy, Grover, and Henry (2013) explained that information

systems projects are complex, and the IT or project manager must adapt to project

challenges. An effective KMS influences business processes, provide value to

organizational performance, and produce efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness

within the business operations.

KMS are valuable tools to users because these types of systems enable KM

practices within the organization. Valmohammadi and Ahmadi (2015) discovered several

critical factors affected the organizational performance based on the balanced KM

scorecard approach: (a) leadership role, (b) organizational culture, (c) strategy, (d)

processes and activities, (e) training and education, (f) informational technology, and (g)

motivation and rewards system. Valmohammadi and Ahmadi (2015) believed that the use

of KMS is a fundamental supporting block of KM practices because they provide users a

tool to record, capture, store, access, and transfer knowledge within an organization.

Therefore, KM practices had an overall positive impact on the organization. Such

positive influence highlighted the growth and learning dimension of KMS

implementation strategies.

In addition to the KM scorecard, business leaders adapted the KM Assessment

Tool. Jain and Jeppesen (2013) found that to assess the correlation of KM practices with

leaders’ cognitive styles, leaders used a KM Assessment Tool with five dimensions: (a)

process, (b) leadership, (c) culture, (d) technology, and (e) measurement. Knowledge

workers who utilized the KM Assessment Tool showed a positive relationship with KM

leadership, culture, and measurement (Jain & Jeppesen, 2013).

In a similar study, De Toni, Fornasier, and Nonino (2015) indicated that users’

acceptance, reliability, and perception of enterprise systems’ quality impacted their use

and longevity over time. The higher percentage of users, number of years since

implementation time, reliability, and utility correspond to user acceptance (De Toni,

Fornasier, & Nonino, 2015). Shehata (2015) noted the components that emerged as

critical success factors when deploying KMS were: (a) organizational learning, (b)

learning styles, and (c) effective integration between KMS and organizational learning.

When managers understand critical success factors of system implementation, these

efforts drive firm performance.

Abdinnour and Saeed (2015) discovered that employees’ perceptions about an

enterprise system’s capability, value, and timing were negative during preimplementation

phase. However, their perceptions were far worse during the postimplementation phase.

Abdinnour and Saeed (2015) believed that managing user perceptions and resistance of

enterprise systems during the pre-implementation phase could be minimized. Garg and

Chauhan (2015) revealed that the people factor, which includes education and training,

change management, users’ acceptance, and involvement in testing and troubleshooting,

showed the most significant effect on the success of enterprise systems implementation.

In addition, organizational factors such as top-level management support, the vision of

the organization, business process reengineering, ERP product selection, and enterprise-

wide communication plans, influenced the success of enterprise systems implementation.

Garg and Chauhan (2015) explained that the success factors for the implementation of

enterprise systems were the need for (a) a defined vision and business plan before the

implementation, (b) a phased implementation as an IT strategy, (c) user involvement and

education, and (d) ERP teamwork, scope and expectation management, communication,

and budget control. Garg and Chauhan (2015) emphasized that these success factors

could provide executives and IT managers the necessary insight on how to reduce failure

rate of enterprise systems implementation. Overall, the authors (Garg & Chauhan, 2015)

proposed the value and nature of success factors in KMS implementation due to the

complexity of enterprise systems and user expectation.

As organizational leaders continue to seek out new ways to compete, KM is an

aspect to consider. KMS could be a factor in their decisions. Ramin et al. (2013)

suggested that a successful KMS implementation included leadership support and change

management processes. Similarly, communities of practice and technology infrastructure

should be able to support the knowledge transfer within an organization (Ramin et al.,

2013). Furthermore, Ramezani et al. (2013) explained that the distinct critical factors

when implementing KM in an organization were the presence of an appropriate

organizational culture and an existing system for knowledge documentation, recording,

registration. Additionally, a motivational system for workforces (HR) and appropriate

management and planning for KM realization are needed.

Although Ramezani et al. (2013) and Ramin et al., 2013 introduced critical

success factors of KMS implementation, Behesti, Blaylock, Henderson, and Lollar (2014)

recommended a different approach. Ramezani et al. (2015) indicated the critical success

factors were: (a) current hardware and software infrastructures and standard executive

processes in the KM field, (b) presence of specialized teams including expert personnel,

existing systematic relationship with beneficiaries of the research organization. Behesti et

al. (2014) discovered that the implementation of an ERP system was instrumental in

reducing redundancy and improving efficiency, productivity, and performance within an

organization. Behesti et al. (2014) posited that the implementation of an ERP was a key

enabler in improving operational efficiency; it resulted in faster response rate to the

customer needs of large, global manufacturing firms. Schniederjans and Yadav (2013)

discovered that technology, organization, and environment framework integrated critical

success factors and influenced system implementation. Schniederjans and Yadav believed

that the proposed conceptual model provided a holistic approach to focus on

organizational culture, change management, and trust between members of organizations.

Researchers attempted to describe the social aspect and interaction of end users in

their adoption of enterprise systems (Grosswiele, Roglinger, &Friedl, 2013; Zhang et al.,

2013). Zhang et al. (2013) evaluated several factors that influenced the use and

acceptance of the ERP system in the organization. These factors included (a) training, (b)

communication, and (c) subjective norm. Zhang et al. (2013) found that training had

limited influence on the adoption of an ERP. Instead, effective communication strategy

had a significant impact in user acceptance. Zhang et al. (2013) noted that

communication should include face-to-face talks, newsletters, and guides to provide

employees avenues to understand the new system and the changes the ERP would bring

to their job. Understanding the ERP usability ideas must be a collaborative effort between

the decision-makers, leadership, and the IT managers (to regulate the system

components), while reducing negative impact on information and cost (Grosswiele et al.,

2013).

Conversely, Norton, Coulson-Thomas, and Ashurst (2013) reported that the top

critical success factor to a successful implementation of an enterprise system is senior

management support involvement. Norton et al. (2013) also believed that the

identification of critical success factors (CSFs) would provide a pathway for business

leaders to experience success with future implementations. Marciniak Amrani, Rowe, and

Adam (2014) posited that business leaders needed to implement effective ERP system

strategies. To improve business processes, organizational leaders should employ effective

implementation strategies when upgrading software or adding new systems, as

technological changes occur in the business environment (Marciniak et al., 2014).

Although Marciniak et al. (2014) believed in effective system strategies, system

inefficiency might be related to over-extended personnel resources, process breakdown,

or system incompatibilities. Singer and Becker (2013) indicated that pertinent resources

are tasked to sustain workflow system inefficiencies instead of improving systems. Over-

extended resources have an impact on user content availability and create problems with

the customer relationship. Effective integrated IT solutions allow for information and

knowledge sharing capability as well as minimize system failure by capturing and

retrieving the appropriate component knowledge (Motawa & Almarshad, 2013).

Managers who understand the strategies of KMS implementation could direct all

functions of an organization effectively (Marciniak et al., 2014; Motawa & Almarshad,

2013).

Potential Themes

In my review of literature, I saw common themes and insight about enterprise

KMS implementation. KMS have the potential to add value to an organization if IT

managers possess the tools and strategies for its successful implementation. Compared to

similar technologies that an organization may implement, KMS engender greater user

involvement, acceptance, and organizational learning. As Zhang et al. (2005) indicated,

the effect of employees’ opinions about the usefulness of the system and strong social

influence were much more powerful and had a greater impact than training or

communication.

Likewise, a new KMS does not necessarily translate into an absolute solution for

executives of an organization who are looking to improve its business process and

competitive advantage. As Lupton and Beamish (2014) noted, the organizational leaders’

communication and involvement in the knowledge sharing, and the importance of the

role managers plays in facilitating, promoting, training, and practicing diffusion to

promote interaction within the organization are critical in the success of KMS use.

Enterprise systems are beneficial to business leaders who are planning to stay

competitive. Farzaneh, Vanani, and Sohrabi (2013) stated that investing in an ERP is a

global phenomenon. Business leaders from multiple industries should gain insights and

understand the benefits of new technologies and what ERP systems can offer their

organizations to achieve competitive gain (Farzaneh et al., 2013). Farzaneh et al. (2013)

concluded that the data and information from studies and other resources could help

business leaders in the ERP planning and decision-making processes. Furthermore,

Jenatabadi, Huang, Ismail, Satar, and Radzi (2013) posited that business leaders investing

in ERP systems have the advantage of sharing real-time data and information. Jenatabadi

et al. (2013) noted that organizational enhancements, such as ERP systems

implementation, could support decision-making and align business processes to improve

and facilitate a collaborative environment. Leaders from all types of organizations and in

all geographic regions should pursue successful implementation of KMS to facilitate

storing and sharing of information and to improve business processes.

Transition

In Section 1, I introduced the issues surrounding the lack of KMS implementation

strategies and the problem encountered by organizations in terms of knowledge loss from

departing employees resulting from lack of KMS. I established that the nature of the

study required the adoption of qualitative method and a single case study design. I also

discussed the research question, interview questions, conceptual framework, significance

of the study, and literature review. In the literature review, I synthesized and summarized

the works of some previous researchers relevant to the case study. Section 2 of the study

covered the (a) restatement of the purpose statement, (b) role of the researcher, (c)

research participants, (d) research method and design, (e) population and sampling, (f)

ethical research, (g) data collection instruments, (h) data collection techniques, (i) data

organization techniques, and (j) reliability and validity of the study. Section 3 contained

the analysis of the data, findings, conclusions, reflections, and recommendations about

strategy of successful KMS implementation.

Section 2: The Project

Section 2 includes the role of the researcher, the study design, and a description of

the strategies that IT managers use to develop and implement a KMS. This section also

includes a reiteration of the purpose statement, participant selection, data collection

instruments and techniques, data organization, and data analysis. Last, in Section 2, I

present the means for assuring study reliability and validity.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative, single case study was to explore strategies that IT

managers use to develop and implement a KMS. The target population was five IT

managers in northwestern Florida because they were experienced in implementing a

KMS. Data from the study may provide IT managers with strategies to allow social

change because the implementation of a strong information and KMS may empower

community leaders to collaborate within an infrastructure for sharing information.

Role of the Researcher

As the researcher, my role was to identify and minimize any bias that may affect

the collection and analysis of the data (Marshall & Rossman, 2014). I was the primary

collection instrument for selecting participants, collecting and organizing data,

classifying themes, and recognizing ethical issues such as confidentiality and biases.

Before interacting with participants, I obtained approval from Walden University’s

institutional review board (IRB). I collaborated and interacted with the participants

through semistructured, face-to-face interviews and collected secondary data from

documents and archival records pertaining to strategies of successful KMS

implementation.

As a certified knowledge manager with 25 years of knowledge and information

management experience, I have extensive knowledge about the topic. I did not have a

current working relationship with any of the participants. The participants for the

research were IT managers. Each of the participants was experienced in developing

strategies to implement KMS successfully. Their successes generated my desire to

explore and seek the knowledge of expert IT managers and knowledge workers who had

extensive KMS implementation experience. Glowalla and Sunyaev (2014) conducted

semistructured interviews with IT experts for strategic decision-making qualities to

explore and discover strategies use when implementing ERP systems. Receiving

knowledge from the experienced IT managers and knowledge workers may guide other

IT managers in different organizations with less experience in different aspects of KMS

implementation.

To ensure the research met ethical standards, I upheld the principles of the

Belmont Report, which underlie all human research. The Belmont Report (National

Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral

Research, 1979) comprised an account of ethical values and instituted guidelines for the

protection of humans. When followed, the precepts of the report safeguard participants

and researchers. To protect the rights of human subjects, researchers may use different

approaches, such as using an informed consent process or protecting the confidentiality

and privacy of participants (Yin, 2014). I ensured that each participant signed an

informed consent form that covered elements such as potential risks and benefits,

voluntary nature of the study, privacy, and confidentiality. The participants’ identities and

privacy remain protected with the use of unique identifiers and generic organizational job

description information (e.g., IT Manager 1, IT Manager 2).

Moustakas (1994) suggested epoché or suspension of judgment to mitigate bias

and minimize errors and bias in research. I had no preconceived notions (biases) while

interviewing because the state of epoché prevailed. The role of the researcher also

involves detecting and eliminating bias in the research process (Marshall & Rossman,

2014). To reduce bias, I used journaling as a tool to document the process of data

collection and analysis, and I identified preconceptions that may have influenced research

results.

I conducted semistructured interviews using an interview protocol that included

the interview questions (see Appendix A). Foley and O’Conner (2013) recommended that

to help achieve commonality, consistency, and reliability, qualitative researchers rely on

interview protocols. My use of an interview protocol (see Appendix C) and National

Institutes of Health (NIH) certification ensured that each participant received the same

standardized approach based on guidelines for the protection of human subjects. The

interview questions functioned as initial prompts. Some participant responses required

further prompting. Marshall and Rossman (2014) and Yilmaz (2013) indicated that

researchers use a list of questions as the guide for further probing once the interview

activity begins. I used the interview protocol found in Appendix C as a guide during the

interview process to prevent overlooking or averting any necessary steps.

Participants

The eligibility requirements for participants in this study included the following

criteria: (a) participants must have been from a small-sized organization located in

northwestern Florida, (b) participants must have been employed with the organization

from 2007 to 2012, (c) participants were members of the KMS implementation team, and

(d) the participants were at least 18 years of age. The participants’ personal experiences

provided insight and helped me comprehend the details surrounding my research

questions and problem. Yin (2014) stated that a specific sample size is not established or

critical for case study designs. Instead, a researcher’s confidence in the findings will

establish the sample size (Trotter, 2012). In addition, Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006)

noted that data saturation for qualitative research is achievable with small sample sizes.

Interviews with important stakeholders provide a holistic dataset and limit alternate

interpretations (Yin, 2014).

The strategy for gaining access to participants involved snowball or chain

sampling—a form of purposive sampling (Patton, 1990). Snowball or chain sampling

allows researchers to gather information-rich cases through the identification of an index

person who provides names of potential participants or typical cases (Patton, 1990;

Robinson, 2014; Trotter, 2012). Based on my membership with the Air Force

Association, I gained access to a publicly available list of attendees and communications

experts at a cyber security conference regularly held in National Harbor, Maryland.

Through phone conversations with these experts, I was provided a list of referred

participants who were experienced IT managers and who successfully implemented a

KMS in northwestern Florida. In snowball or chain sampling, researchers select

participants with the potential for detail-rich responses because of the knowledge,

experience, and relevance to the research topic that the participants bring (Masso,

McCarthy, & Kitson, 2014; Patton, 1990). I purposively selected the five participants for

interviews based on their involvement in a KMS implementation.

Establishing a working relationship with participants should include processes

and principles of Rubin and Rubin (2012), Yilmaz (2013), and Yin (2014). The strategies

and processes for establishing a working relationship with participants began with e-mail

exchanges and followed by telephone conversations. I assessed participants’

characteristics based on their experiences and involvement in a successful KMS

implementation. The selection of the participants who matched the case study profile and

criteria were based on the reference list provided by the IT managers and

communications experts from the cyber security conference.

Research Method and Design

Several research methods and designs are available to researchers. The problem

that I described in this study was the loss of organizational knowledge if it was not

adequately captured in a KMS; this loss could create a knowledge gap as well as a

potential profit loss for businesses (Massingham, 2014). Qualitative research was

appropriate for explaining what, where, why, and how issues occur with individuals and

organizational processes; this type of research allows access to a participant’s view of a

phenomenon (Marshall & Rossman, 2014; Yin, 2014).

Research Method

Three research methods commonly used by researchers are qualitative,

quantitative, and mixed methods (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011;

Marshall & Rossman, 2014). I chose a qualitative research method for this study instead

of quantitative or mixed methods to allow flexibility and documentation of findings when

participants’ views and experiences were relevant (see Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Myers,

2013). Qualitative researchers use open-ended questions and observations to build themes

that help them interpret any implications of the data (Yin, 2014). Interviews and

document review are essential to triangulating participant behavior, opinions, and views.

Thus, a qualitative method was the most feasible for my research. A researcher’s

experience and knowledge could help in understanding the resultant underlying themes

and are key components of qualitative research (Trafimow, 2014). A qualitative method

was most appropriate for exploring strategies that IT managers used for KMS

implementation.

Neither a mixed-methods approach nor quantitative methods approach was

appropriate for my study. In contrast to qualitative studies, a quantitative method does not

allow for flexible exploration of strategies within a given case (Yin, 2014). By stating

hypotheses in advance, researchers employ quantitative methods to test theories as they

examine relationships between dependent and independent variables (Baxter & Jack,

2008; Bettany-Saltikov & Whittaker, 2014). The quantitative research method was not

appropriate for my study because I was not using questionnaires, testing theories, or

examining relationships. Amayah (2013) used questionnaires and multiple regression

techniques to investigate motivators, enablers, and barriers to understand knowledge

sharing; these techniques were not part of the focus in my study. The focus of my study

was to explore strategies for KMS implementation based on participants’ experiences.

Mixed-methods studies include a combination of qualitative and quantitative

methods to study a phenomenon where variables (either sequentially or concurrently) are

present in a single study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2013;

Ozawa & Pongpirul, 2014). Accordingly, a mixed-method approach was not appropriate

for my study because there my study did not have quantitative variables. Therefore, a

qualitative method was most appropriate to explore the themes and implications of data

relating to strategies of KMS implementation.

Research Design

Researchers who choose a qualitative methodology could use one of the several

types of research designs including phenomenology, ethnography, and case studies

(Moustakas, 1994; Scarduzio et al., 2011; Taplay, Jack, Baxter, Eva, & Lynn, 2014;

Tomkins & Eatough, 2013). My research design was a single case study. For my study,

this design was most appropriate to answer the research questions. I chose this design

because, as a researcher, I had the opportunity to explore the strategies that IT managers

used for KMS implementation. Zhang et al. (2005) theorized that case studies are

appropriate when evaluating information and implementation of KMS. Researchers using

case studies explore single or multiple phenomena and may involve observation of

participants in their natural settings to understand how, what, and why the phenomenon

has occurred (Yin, 2014). By using a single case study method, I gained insight into the

how, what, and why of the phenomenon relating to strategies of KMS implementation.

My goal was to explore the how, what, and why of a condition (see Yin, 2014) at one

point in time.

Other designs that were available were phenomenology and ethnography.

Phenomenology is an approach and manner of thinking about things that involves

observation of personal and lived experiences, as well as interaction with the participants

as they describe their individual experiences (Ivey, 2013; Moustakas, 1994; Tomkins &

Eatough, 2013). Phenomenology did not fit my study because my purpose was not to

observe the personal and lived experiences of the participants, but instead to explore the

participants’ real-world experiences. Scarduzio et al. (2011) described ethnographic

design involving the long-term study of a group by sense making and storytelling. The

goal of my study was to explore the how and why of KMS implementation at one point in

time and did not involve a group’s storytelling and long-term study. A long-term

approach using an ethnographic design was not appropriate for the study.

To ensure data saturation, a researcher engages with the participants by using

probing questions through semistructured interviews, document collection, and screening.

Morse (2015) indicated that data saturation is reached through triangulation when

interviews and documents no longer provide new or additional information. Guest et al.

(2006) stated that for qualitative studies, data saturation might be possible with a small

sample size of participants and when the documents no longer offer new or additional

information. Ando, Cousins, and Young (2014) suggested that a sample size of six

participants is adequate for developing themes leading to saturation. Similarly, Thomas

(2015) studied two IT leaders based on predetermined criteria that ensured data

adequacy. Therefore, there is no firm or exact number of participants in a case study to

achieve data (Yin, 2014).

Population and Sampling

The sampling population for my study comprised of Department of Defense civil

service and contractor employees from one organization in northwestern Florida. The

population for the study consisted of five participants: two IT managers with business

process and requirements analysis specialization and three IT managers with SharePoint

specialization. The sampling method for the study was snowball or chain sampling.

Snowball or chain sampling is a strategic process using identified research informants

within a select target population to disclose other potential participants for the research

study (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013; Patton, 1990). Snowball or chain sampling is

particularly useful when the research population is difficult to locate (Elo et al., 2014).

Therefore, by choosing snowball or chain sampling, a form of purposive sampling, I had

access to participants who met the predetermined criteria. Masso et al. (2014) and Patton

(1990) explained that snowball or chain sampling allows a researcher to select

participants who might offer detail-rich responses, based on knowledge, experience, and

relevance to the research question. Likewise, Robinson (2014) noted that snowball or

chain sampling involves the notion that the researcher’s knowledge of the population may

be used to select and target specific participants to include in the sampling. I used

snowball or chain sampling technique to gain access to a group of experienced

participants who possessed the predetermined criteria for this case study.

Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, and Fontenot (2013) studied approximately, six to 10

participants for qualitative case studies. Similarly, Shoup (2015) used a snowball or chain

sampling with seven participants in the case study involving patients’ fulfillment

strategies during an altering healthcare setting. Thomas (2015) also used a snowball

sampling of two IT leaders based on predetermined criteria to ensure data adequacy.

Moreover, no firm or an exact number of participants exists in a case study to achieve

data saturation (Yin, 2014).

Elo et al. (2014) reemphasized data saturation as the point at which the data

collection process no longer offers any new or relevant information. Guest et al. (2006)

explained that achievement of data saturation is when no new information emerges in the

research and can be achieved with a small sample size sharing the same information.

Fusch and Ness (2015) posited that a researcher achieves data saturation when no new

coding, themes, and information are introduced, and the researcher can replicate the

result. To ensure data saturation, I performed member checking by conducting

semistructured interviews with participants until I reached a point where no new data or

themes emerged.

This qualitative, single case study involved five IT managers who met the

predetermined criteria and provided detailed perspectives vis-à-vis my central research

question. Demonstrating the criteria for selecting participants was an elemental part of

showing that participants had the appropriate knowledge and experience to offer valuable

insights on the research topic (Thomas, 2015). The eligibility requirements for

participants in the study included four criteria: (a) participants must have been from a

small-sized organization located in northwestern Florida, (b) participants must have been

employed with the organization from 2007 to 2012, (c) participants were members of the

KMS implementation team, and (d) participants were at least 18 years of age.

Robinson (2014) suggested that one-on-one interviews facilitate deeper

exploration of subjective and sensitive topics because such interviews allow participants

to provide in-depth responses to research questions. These interviews allowed me to gain

an understanding of the strategies that IT managers used to develop and implement the

KMS, also known as Enterprise SharePoint Portal, from participants’ perspectives. I

conducted the semistructured interviews, after participants had their assigned office

hours, at a location selected by the participants other than their regular offices. I

explained to participants that any information provided (i.e., responses to interview

questions) would be kept confidential. I assured participants that I would not use their

personal information for any purposes outside this research study. In addition, I did not

include their name or anything else that could identify or link them in this study’s

report(s). Case studies with interviews are usually held at a mutually agreeable location

(Covell, Sidani, & Ritchie, 2012; Yin, 2014). When conducting semistructured

interviews, researchers should select a setting in which the participant feels safe to share

his or her experiences (Anyan, 2013; Doody & Noonan, 2013). The interviews occurred

at a mutually agreed time and ensured the comfort of the participant, to avoid interruption

and to protect the privacy of the participant.

Ethical Research

Ethical issues may appear while conducting qualitative studies (Gibson, Benson,

& Brand, 2013; Mitchell & Wellings, 2013). Rubin and Rubin (2012) suggested that

researchers should follow the informed consent process to reveal all aspects of a

qualitative research study to participants. To ensure an ethical approach to this study, I

ensured the participants’ confidentiality and transparency.

Participants were assured that they were free to participate if they so wished;

however, procedures would be in place if they choose to withdraw from the study. By

obtaining informed consent, ensuring confidentiality, and protecting participants’ rights

to privacy, I mitigated any potential harm to the participants (Goyal, Rahman, & Kazmi,

2015). To accomplish objectives, such as obtaining informed consent, ensuring

confidentiality, and protecting participants’ rights to privacy, I put into place several

procedures including a withdrawal option. These procedures were: (a) the study

contained a consent form, as required by the Walden IRB, to promote ethical clarity, (b)

by signing the consent form, participants declared their commitments to participate, (c)

I articulated a withdrawal option for the participants so that they could exit the

interview at any time, and (d) each participant received an explanation of the

withdrawal option during a phone call, in an introductory email, and on the consent

form. Randall-Arell and Utley (2014) recommended that withdrawal may be established

via telephone, e-mail, or refusal to answer any interview question. Participants

understood they could submit an email or any other form of communication to me to

withdraw from the study. I explained that each participant could withdraw from the

study before, during, or even after the interviews were completed. One of the IT

managers who agreed to participate in this study withdrew after signing the consent

form because of illness. I will maintain the file of this one participant who was not able

to participate along with other participants who participated during this research process

for a minimum of five years. After that time, I will destroy all evidence of participation.

No incentives or rewards were offered to the participants. A password-protected

external hard drive solely under my control contains the interview data and document

analysis. Only I have access to the data and know the identities of the participants. By

keeping participants’ identities confidential, I am also protecting the information they

provided (Mitchell & Wellings, 2013). In addition to the password-protected hard drive, I

stored the completed consent form of each participant in a locked filing cabinet for five

years. After five years, I will destroy all recordings and interview notes related to the

participants by shredding or deleting. I obtained approval from the Walden University

IRB to comply with ethical requirements before I conducted the interviews.

The study appendices relevant to ethical research included an interview question

form (see Appendix A), Walden University IRB approval memorandum (see Appendix

B), consent form, and interview protocol) (see Appendix C). The case study file included

(a) a unique identifier for each participant’s personal information, (b) interview data, (c)

documentation review data, and (d) my data interpretation documents for member

checking. Confidentiality and anonymity are crucial to present the findings of the

research to ensure all participant privacy (Killawi et al., 2014). Participants received

identifiers in the form of IT Manager 1, IT Manager 2, and so forth.

Data Collection Instruments

The researcher is the principal data collection instrument in a case study; he or she

utilizes interviews, document analysis, and other means as active conduits in conducting

the study (Houghton, Casey, Shaw, & Murphy, 2013; Marshall & Rossman, 2014).

Therefore, I was the primary data collection instrument for this study. A detailed review

of documentation and semistructured interviews helped me discover underlying themes in

this study (St. Pierre & Jackson, 2013).

Semistructured Interviews

Glowalla and Sunyaev (2014) conducted semistructured interviews with IT

experts to explore and discover strategies when implementing ERP systems. Six

semistructured interview questions served as a tool for data collection in this study.

Morse (2015) posited that a systematic approach to the interview question process also

enhances the reliability and validity of a study. Six open-ended interview questions

helped me gain insights into the perspectives of the participants regarding strategies that

led to them to successful KMS implementation. Yin (2014) suggested a replicable

process to support reliability. Hence, by utilizing the same list of questions for each

participant during the semistructured interviews, internal consistency was promoted and a

semistructured interview protocol are recommended when a researcher desires to follow a

prearranged list of questions in a conversational format (Yin, 2014).

Documentation

Multiple data sources supported by relevant research, experience with a case

study, and an audit trail all promote validity in a study (Reddy, 2015; Yin, 2014).

Supplemental data sources for the study were publicly available documentation. I

gathered additional documentation that participants were willing to share after the

interview. I conducted systematic Internet searches for other pertinent documents relating

to the participant’s organization through websites, fact sheets, and marketing brochures.

By conducting such systematic Internet searches, I uncovered pertinent supporting

documents for participant responses. Documentation is helpful in supporting and

verifying evidence from other sources (Yin, 2014).

I maintained reliability and validity in the study by using the interview protocols

and relevant documentation. Yin (2014) indicated that researchers used an interview

protocol when conducting a study. I documented the snowball or chain sampling list of

participants for confirmability. Houghton et al., (2013) stated that in qualitative research,

the researcher could enhance credibility by using triangulation to confirm and ensure data

were complete. I used data triangulation through document analysis and participant

interviews. Diverse participants promote validity and methodological triangulation in a

case study (Heale & Forbes, 2013; Morse, 2015). I interviewed participants with different

levels of managerial skills to establish diversity in the skill set.

Rubin and Rubin (2012) identified several related facts to support a reliable, valid,

systematic data examination. Member checking is an important part of a qualitative study

because it enhances the reliability and validity of the research (Simon & Goes, 2013).

The standardized format of the interview questions, follow-up questions, member

checking of interviews and use of documentation analysis (Houghton et al., 2013; Yin,

2014) warrant transferability and confirmability of the study. I ensured confirmability by

disclosing to participants the purpose, data, and processes of the study. To maintain

reliability and validity in this study, I kept an audit trail and provided full disclosure of

interview transcripts and data interpretation to participants. By following the interview

protocol (see Appendix C), I conducted semistructured interviews using a semistructured

interview protocol and asked the same interview questions (see Appendix A).

Data Collection Technique

The process I used for collecting participant data included face-to-face

semistructured interviews with an interview protocol (see Appendix C). An LGV10

digital voice recorder recorded the participants’ responses for later transcription. I asked

each participant for permission to use the digital recording device during the interview.

Other tools I utilized during data collection included a notebook to take notes, mechanical

pencils for note taking, an LGV10 cellular phone with the voice recorder to archive

electronic voice and text files securely, and a watch to monitor the time as a courtesy to

participants during the interview.

Semistructured Interviews

The initial contact with participants, via email and telephone included a brief

overview of the study, a request to participate, and a description of the semistructured

interview procedure. Once each participant confirmed participation, I made an

appointment for the interview, sent the participant the consent form, and requested that

the participant read and sign the form electronically before the interview. The email

notified participants that they could reschedule the interview or withdraw from the study

at any time. The email also included the interview questions to help participants prepare

for the interviews. Participants also received information regarding the use of interview

protocol (see Appendix C), which served as the guidepost throughout the interview

process. Each participant reviewed, signed, attached the scanned form, and replied to my

email.

Data collection processes involved face-to-face open-ended questions and

semistructured interviews using a semistructured interview protocol to enhance the

research technique (Myers, 2013; Yin, 2014). The semistructured interview began at the

agreed upon time and at the prechosen location. The interview started with an overview

of the study. The LGV0 voice recorder facilitated the digital recording of the interviews.

Using the same list of six questions, and using a semistructured interview protocol

technique, I maintained internal consistency. Yin (2014) stated that case study interviews

were focused and usually required only an hour. The duration of each session was 15-30

minutes. After each interview, I verbally summarized my notes to each participant. Each

participant approved and validated the summarized content of my data interpretations.

Thereafter, I sent the recorded interviews to a professional transcription service to

transcribe the interviews. The person at the professional transcription service signed a

letter of confidentiality agreement (see Appendix D) before I utilized his or her services.

Finally, each participant received the written summary of my data interpretations and the

transcribed interview for member checking.

The advantage of using a semistructured interview protocol technique was to

capture important aspects of participants’ views, experiences, perceptions, and thoughts

(Baxter & Jack, 2008). A semistructured interview protocol technique allowed for more

in-depth data collection and comprehensive understanding of KMS implementation. In

addition, information gathered from interviews supplemented other collected

documentation. A detailed review of documentation and interviews provided a thorough

construct of data collection for triangulation (Heale & Forbes, 2013). Denzin and Lincoln

(2011) posited that researchers collect data systematically and interpret data obtained

from interviews or observations. The semistructured interview technique was

advantageous to the study because I could achieve in-depth explanations of beliefs and

experiences from the participant’s perspective relating to KMS implementation.

The semistructured interview technique had disadvantages. Trust was the

groundwork for the researcher and participant to establish rapport, and implied that the

interview setting was safe and comfortable for the interviewee to share personal

information (Yin, 2014). Other major disadvantages of face-to-face interviews are time,

cost, travel, and scheduling conflicts because interviews can be expensive and time-

consuming (Doody & Noonan, 2013).

Documentation

Another data collection technique I used to gather participant data included

collecting documentation to corroborate data from interviews. A detailed review of

documentation helped me discover underlying themes and categories (St. Pierre &

Jackson, 2013). Documentation such as written policies, standard operating procedures,

business rules and best practices manuals, and brochures helped me develop a deeper

understanding of the strategies involved in the successful KMS implementation.

Gathering additional documentation had several advantages. Documentation is

stable and can undergo repeated reviews at the convenience of the researcher (Yin, 2014).

Researchers might be able to review documents repeatedly and have access to the behind

the scenes look at a program. In certain cases, a participant might be unable to articulate

or did not recall relevant information during an interview unless written documents were

reviewed (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Researchers might have access to a reliable source of

background information and could discover information that might not have been noted

or available during the interview. Documentation might include quality and very detailed

information to help researchers with the topic in question. Managers might store

documents in an electronic repository such as a database, for convenient storage or

retrieval whenever needed (Levy, 2011).

The disadvantages of using documentation might include limited access. Yin

(2014) indicated some crucial documentation might not be readily available because they

were not stored electronically. If the documents were in paper form, access could be

withheld. Yin (2014) also noted that it might be time-consuming for researchers to

collect, review, and analyze many documents because the documents might cover a long

span of time, and many events or settings.

Simon and Goes (2013) stated that member checking is a participant validation

technique to ensure credibility and accuracy. After the face-to-face interview with the

participants, I had the interviews transcribed using a third party professional transcription

service. Then I reviewed the relevant documents. Each participant had the opportunity to

review the transcripts and my interpretations to ensure accuracy and validity.

Each participant received the transcribed interview and my data interpretations for

member checking. Researchers might use member checking to provide participants an

opportunity to add new or additional information on the issue under study (Houghton et

al., 2013). Marshall and Rossman (2016) explained that participants could elect to either

agree or disagree that the summarization accurately manifests their views and

experiences. Once the participants reviewed the transcribed interview, they accepted and

concurred with the contents of my script.

Data Organization Technique

The data collection instruments for the research included semistructured

interviews and documentation. The systems for keeping track of data included an LG-

V10 Voice Recorder, Audacity for Windows audio recorder software, a journal, several

notepads, and NVivo 11 qualitative data analysis software. After ensuring I had a signed

consent form for each participant, I audio recorded the interviews. I organized the data

using a reflective journal to protect those hand-transcribed and recorded notes. I analyzed

and synthesized the data from my notes. I used NVivo 11 qualitative data analysis

software to file, store, and organize the data to allow its quick access and manipulation

(Houghton, Casey, Shaw, & Murphy, 2013). An electronic repository, such as a database

or Universal Serial Bus (i.e., USB flash drive), is a popular and convenient method of

storing information; moreover, information is readily available and can be retrieved when

needed (Levy, 2011). I organized the data according to categories and themes, and

participant responses to the research questions. With qualitative data analysis, the

researcher was required to recognize emergent themes from (a) the literature review and,

(b) data collection. Coding was the finding of themes from text (St. Pierre & Jackson,

2013). Gajic, Stankovski, Ostojic, Tesic, and Miladinovic (2014) used coding to identify

new categories, themes, or theoretical concepts during the data organization process in a

qualitative study involving critical factors to implement a successful ERP system. To

develop codes and identify themes, several approaches are available to researchers:

coding data by recognizing segments of data and designating names to them, grouping

codes into broader categories, and analyzing the categories through text, graphs, charts,

or graphics as appropriate and eliminating redundancies (St. Pierre & Jackson, 2013).

Raw data will remain in a safe storage for 5 years before being destroyed by me.

The completed consent form for each participant, scanned and written data from

participants, and other documentation were stored in a password-protected external

hard drive and locked filing cabinet for a minimum of 5 years, and will be destroyed as

required by the university. After 5 years, I will destroy all recordings and interview

notes related to participants by shredding and deleting.

Data Analysis

In qualitative research, structured analysis was the process of analyzing data to

discover patterns (Reynolds, 2014). I used methodological data triangulation for this

study. Houghton et al. (2013) stated that in qualitative research, the researcher could

enhance credibility by using triangulation to confirm data and to ensure data are

complete. The methodological triangulation consisted of data collected from face-to-face,

semistructured interviews, which included recorded and transcribed interviews and

additional documentation. Methodological triangulation in a case study involves the use

of several methods of data collection to promote validity (Heale & Forbes, 2013; Morse,

2015). For a proper analysis of data, I used Yin’s (2011) five-phase logical and sequential

process: a) compiling, (b) disassembling, (c) reassembling, (d) interpreting, and (e)

concluding.

Compiling

I compiled all the data collected from the semistructured interviews, additional

documentation from the participants, and publicly available documents from the

company website. I organized the data by separating similar ideas in groups. By

organizing the data, I could sort according to categories and themes based on participant

responses to the research questions. To categorize the data, I examined the transcripts and

memos, and listened to recorded interviews, as my approach to become familiarized with

the data. To generate the initial code from the preliminary analysis, I organized the data

into similar categories or ideas into groups, and connected the themes. Coding was the

discovery or creation of themes from the text (St. Pierre & Jackson, 2013). I used NVivo

11 qualitative data analysis software because it presented numerous functions—including

querying and theme identification—that were not available via manual analysis. The

identification of applicable categories or themes in interviews and document permits

researchers to merge evidence (Reynolds, 2014). NVivo software is a product that can

assist researchers with managing and analyzing data (Rodik & Primorac, 2015). This

process helped me search for themes.

Disassembling

Once I determined, labeled, and established codes to show patterns, I identified

themes and descriptions, and disassembled the data to create broader groupings. The

discovery of broader groupings allows researchers to combine evidence (Reynolds,

2014). After separating the data into groupings and assigning names to the groupings,

researchers combine codes into broader categories, and finally, present an analysis of the

categories through text, graphs, charts, or graphics (St. Pierre & Jackson, 2013). Yin

(2014) found that categorization of narratives allowed for data mining and organization

of themes via tables or figures.

Reassembling

After I disassembled the data, I reassembled and regrouped the data into themes

and broader groups. The intent was to synthesize the data and understand the strategies IT

managers used to develop and implement successful KMS. Using a qualitative

methodology requires openness to interpretation, analysis, and varied possibilities of

presentation (Reynolds, 2014; Yin, 2014). In this phase, I eliminated redundancies and

summarized emergent themes in the responses and case documents. Qualitative data

analysis allows a researcher to explore possible themes that occur in data collection

(Miles et al., 2013). I used NVivo11 software to help me with the querying, sorting, and

arranging of the different data elements into various themes.

Interpreting

After reassembling the data into themes, I interpreted the information. The NVivo

11 analysis software allowed me to discover themes that I might have missed if I were to

have used manual codification and categorization. I evaluated the emergent categories

and themes from transcripts, documentation from the participants, and from

organizational websites. I converted the data to narratives to summarize the themes that

existed in the raw information, to allow for comprehensive review. By following the

methods described by Reynolds (2014), Verdonk, Räntzsch, de Vries, and Houkes

(2014), and Yin (2014), could present a high-quality analysis and evaluation, and produce

a report.

Concluding

Once I analyzed the data, I compared the thematic findings to the themes I

discovered during the literature review and arrived at a conclusion. Part of arriving at a

conclusion was the ability to compare my findings and understand the conceptual

framework. The interview questions and document analysis allowed me to discover and

connect themes related to the conceptual framework of the study.

Because I interpreted the elements of dynamic capabilities theory, I reviewed

Chang et al.’s (2015) explanation of the theory, based on a resource-based view that

evaluated an enterprise's current resources, and I determined that this theory did not

support this study’s implementation strategies. In comparing the themes, I also

discovered that the Bass theory of leadership, although a unique connection that existed

between leaders and followers were reported by Birasnav (2014), did not support the

study. I compared my findings to the conceptual framework, understood how the

fundamental concepts from the organizational knowledge creation theory, and composed

the essential elements of knowledge creation, as reported by Nonaka et al. (2006). After

analyzing the data and comparing the findings with related theories, I developed

conclusions and explored how training, customer focus, policy and governance,

leadership and management support, and communication and marketing strategies were

factors that supported the strategies for successful KMS implementation.

Reliability and Validity

Yin (2014) indicated that researchers might evaluate the quality of research

design based on four tests. Testing for reliability shows repeatability of test procedures,

such as data collection methods. Validity testing includes external and internal validity

measures (Yin, 2014). Thomas and Magilvy (2011) explained that researchers establish

rigor to prove trustworthiness. To demonstrate rigor, researchers should establish

consistent methods to replicate a study thereby establishing credibility, transferability,

dependability, and confirmability of research results (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011).

Dependability

Researchers who conduct qualitative studies focus on dependability to

demonstrate the trustworthiness in their research (Marshall & Rossman, 2014). Marshall

and Rossman (2014) explained that dependability is a crucial factor in conducting

research, and researchers should include mechanisms for ensuring dependability. Yin

(2014) emphasized that case study protocols and databases are appropriate for researchers

to demonstrate dependability. Choudhari, Adil, and Ananthakumar (2013) theorized that

the value of adopting a case study protocol in analyzing the decision and strategic choices

ensure dependability. I followed the guidelines of a case study data protocol (see

Appendix C) to ensure the dependability of the study findings. I developed and followed

a case study protocol (see Appendix C) that included (a) an overview of the study, (b) a

brief description of the protocol purpose, (c) a description of the data collection process,

(d) a case study report outline, and (e) a list of the research questions. Additional

components of the case study protocol included a summary of techniques and data

analysis tools. I created and maintained a case study files for the study of strategies IT

managers use to develop and implement KMS. The case files contained (a) interview

notes, (b) copies of transcripts, and (c) initial and drafts copies of the study findings.

Using the case study files enhanced the dependability of the study by providing other

researchers or investigators with insight into the resources, data, and products used to

support the findings (Yin, 2014).

Credibility

Simon and Goes (2013) stated that member checking is a participant validation

technique to ensure credibility and accuracy, and aids in establishing trustworthiness.

Approaches for establishing credibility include member checking, triangulation, and

constant observation (Houghton et al., 2013). For member checking, the objective is for

participants to provide feedback after a detailed review of interview transcripts and the

inferences the researcher makes from the data (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011). Through

member checking, I could confirm the accuracy of the gathered interview data. Member

checking is a technique that aids researchers to achieve credibility, validate accuracy, and

give completeness regarding participants’ responses (Acharya, Prakash, Saxena, &

Nigam, 2013; Simon & Goes, 2013). Member checking allows participants to capture

exact responses and meaning (Houghton et al., 2013).

Houghton et al. (2013) indicated that researchers could enhance credibility by

using triangulation to confirm data and to ensure data are complete. Data collected from

face-to-face semistructured interviews included recorded and transcribed interviews, and

additional publicly available documentation that were included in the comprehensive data

analysis. Methodological triangulation in a case study involves the use of several data

collection methods to promote validity (Heale & Forbes, 2013; Morse, 2015).

Transferability

To ensure the integrity of qualitative research, researchers implement

transferability (Marshall & Rossman, 2014; Singh, 2014). Transferability in qualitative

research refers to the detailed descriptions of the population studied, sources of evidence

collected, demographics, and boundaries of the study (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011). From

the perspective of qualitative research, transferability is a responsibility of the researcher

(Houghton et al., 2013). I kept a detailed and accurate record of the steps I followed in

the study framework and maintained an audit trail. I presented detailed descriptions of the

sampling criteria, document review, and interview protocol to enable duplication and

transferability of the study. Furthermore, the participants offered rich data for the study

that allowed interpretation of the findings for possible transferability to other similar

perspectives.

Confirmability

Confirmability is the extent to which research outcomes are confirmable by others

and whether the data collected supports the research findings (Venkatesh, Brown, &

Bala, 2013). Houghton et al., (2013) and Kemparaj and Chavan (2013) recommended

maintaining an audit trail as a method of demonstrating the development of each decision

and strengthening the confirmability of a study. I kept an audit trail to provide full

disclosure of interview transcripts and data interpretation to participants to maintain

confirmability in the study. Cope (2014) reiterated that an audit trail is essential to

qualitative research to improve and uphold confirmability of a study. Throughout the

research process, I maintained an audit trail to document my actions during the

collection, analysis, and presentation of data. Additionally, Berger (2013) emphasized

that using various methods when maintaining an audit trail would facilitate researchers

with an innate understanding and familiarization. Berger (2013) further stated that when

employing multiple tools to maintain an audit trail, a researcher should use source

triangulation comprising audio recorded interviews, transcriptions, observation, and

organizational documents to ensure rigor. During the data collection process, I kept a

record of all sources I used, such as audio recorded interviews, transcriptions,

observation, organizational documents, and notes of my personal views. As suggested by

Cope (2014) and Berger (2013), I used an audit trail and multiple methods of maintaining

evidence of audit trail to improve confirmability of the study.

Data Saturation

A researcher achieves data saturation when no new codes, themes, or information

are introduced, and he or she can replicate the results (Fusch & Ness, 2015). Morse

(2015) explained that data saturation is reached through triangulation when interviews

and documents no longer provide new or additional information. Elo et al. (2014)

emphasized that data saturation is the point at which the data collection process no longer

offers any new or relevant data.

Transition and Summary

In Section 2, I introduced the methodology and strategies of the study and restated

the purpose statement. I justified the use of qualitative single case study design as the

most appropriate for the study. I also discussed the role of the researcher and the criteria

for the selection of participants. Furthermore, I explained the research method and

design, population and sampling, ethical research, data collection instruments, data

collection techniques, data organization techniques, and reliability and validity of the

study. Section 3 contains the findings, application to professional practice, and

implications for social change. In Section 3, I also discuss recommendations for actions

and further studies, and I offered reflections on the study.

Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative, single case study was to explore the strategies that

IT managers used to develop and implement a KMS. The population for this study

consisted of five IT managers from a small-sized organization in northwestern Florida. I

gathered data for this single case study from semistructured interviews and additional

documentation. NVivo 11 software served as the tool to organize, code, and group data

into themes. Based on methodological triangulation of interview data and documentation

review, six thematic categories emerged to allow for adequate discussion of the strategies

that the IT managers used to implement a successful KMS.

Presentation of Findings

This single case study included one overarching research question: What

strategies do IT managers use to develop and implement a KMS? I found six main

themes from the analysis: (a) training, (b) customer focus, (c) policy and governance, (d)

leadership and management support, (e) communication and marketing, and (f) business

process management. During the analysis, I found that the aforementioned themes

confirmed the phenomenon focused on the strategies of successful KMS implementation.

Vaismoradi, Jones, Turunen, and Snelgrove (2016) wrote that researchers find related

themes that encompass a phenomenon under study during analysis.

Emergent Theme 1: Training

The first theme to emerge from participants’ responses was the power of user

training as a strategy that the IT managers used to implement a KMS. All five participants

pointed out that user training was the key to their projects’ success. Training enabled

users to recognize and appreciate system benefits.

When users receive appropriate training, they are more open to adapting or

accepting system usage (Keong et al., 2012). Participants explained that training should

be customized based on the users’ abilities and needs, such as awareness and basic and

advanced training. IT Manager 3 also noted that employing different training techniques

based on the aptitude or technological familiarity of users was essential due to a

generational gap. IT Manager 2 explained that training delivery techniques were created

to support geographically separated users. IT Manager 5 noted that training and education

were part of the adoption process, not only to learn the technology, but also to ensure a

change occurred in business practice. IT Manager 6 added that training techniques and

training delivery consisted of classroom lecturing or hands-on experience by stating, “We

developed robust training programs that reached across the command at all levels.” Some

training was supplemented with computer-based training or user involvement. IT

Manager 1 also noted that the creation of policies was helpful, especially for new

customers or new employees, so that they could easily follow directions on how and

when to use the KMS. Based on the IT managers’ testimonies, training played a major

role in their teams’ successful KMS implementation.

Emergent Theme 2: Customer Focus

The second theme to emerge from participants’ responses was customer focus. IT

Managers 5 and 6 noted that one of the key strategies used to successfully implement a

KMS was to ensure that customers were provided with the appropriate level of training

and prompt customer support when needed. IT Manager 1 emphasized that managing and

providing seamless customer support played a key role in the implementation: “We

developed a framework that identified what the customers needed, and from that, we

organized the department into towers and how to serve the customers.” Kim, Cavusgil,

and Cavusgil (2013) theorized that during the deployment and adoption of ERP systems,

the focus of IT managers on customers might influence the elimination of key barriers

and user resistance. Creating, maintaining, and building a long-lasting relationship with

customers may reduce the risk of user resistance during the KMS implementation. The IT

managers affirmed that customer focus and support strengthened the customer

relationship during the KMS implementation. The strong customer relationship

contributed to the success of the KMS implementation.

Emergent Theme 3: Policy and Governance

The third theme to emerge from participants’ responses was policy and

governance. All participants believed that without written guidance and procedures, IT

managers could not successfully direct the use and acceptance of KMS. IT Manager 2

emphasized, “We created a lot of policy letters, manuals, and regulations which ensured

all users followed the business rules for using the system.” Business leaders

implementing KMS must establish procedures, methods, and measures to execute

organizational objectives successfully (Abu-Shanab et al., 2015). The development of

manuals as a user guide explained the how-to of the KMS. IT Manager 5 highlighted that

his or her KMS implementation was a downward directed policy by a senior level official

and played a huge role in the successful implementation. IT Manager 3 explained that the

creation of policies, procedures, and governance was especially helpful during the data

migration efforts, when directing users to move data from file shares to the KMS. Policy

and governance played a significant role in the KMS implementation because it provided

standardization and order to the project.

Emergent Theme 4: Leadership and Management Support

The fourth theme to emerge from participants’ responses was leadership and

management support. Four of the five participants indicated that leadership support

played a significant role when effecting change management. IT Manager 1 indicated that

leadership support facilitated change management, especially when faced with the

generational gap and user resistance.

Ram et al. (2013) envisioned that 50% of system implementations were

unsuccessful because business leaders failed to facilitate change management in their

organizations. Executives and stakeholders recognized the need for employing change

management when endorsing and supporting an enterprise system implementation

(Ahmad et al., 2013). IT Manager 5 emphasized that when the KMS team briefed senior

leaders, the KMS initiative became popular and widely accepted, and the manger stated,

“When you’re face to face with a head of a department or head of an organization, you

have to repeat back what the senior leader’s philosophy was or what the senior leader’s

guidance was.” IT Manager 5 also highlighted the importance of the feedback loop with

senior leaders as major contributor to the team’s success. Leaders can expect employee

loyalty, support, and buy-in if they display open communication with employees; open

communication can help alleviate or minimize resistance to change, especially when

employees understand the vision and reason for the change and how it can affect their

jobs or responsibilities in the organization (Wolf, 2011). The IT managers emphasized

the importance of leadership and management support in implementing KMS because it

showed that when leaders in the organizations facilitate change and lead by example, the

users follow.

Emergent Theme 5: Communication and Marketing

The fifth theme to emerge from participants’ responses was communication and

marketing. Four of the five participants highlighted the importance of team meetings,

marketing, and routine communication with users. According to Maklan, Peppard, and

Klaus (2015), IT-representative-led marketing initiatives provide robust customer insight

and customer decision-making trends that contribute to performance, create value, and

increase profitability.

IT Manager 1 indicated that communication, information campaign, and

marketing strategies influenced user behavior concerning user acceptance and KMS

adoption. IT Manager 2 explained that mass briefings, town hall meetings, and travel to

geographically separated users contributed to some of the initiatives conducted as part of

communication strategy. IT Manager 3 highlighted that communicating with customers

to ensure training and support were provided was important during the initial, mid-term,

and final phase of KMS implementation. IT Manager 5 added, “We did a lot of

marketing, so that we could get the word out.” Communication and marketing enabled

the IT Managers to advertise the implementation and the benefits of the KMS to all users.

Emergent Theme 6: Business Process Management

The sixth and final theme to emerge from participants’ responses was business

process management. Four of the five participants stressed the importance of integrating

and automating business processes during the KMS implementation. Tarhini et al. (2015)

emphasized the importance of integrating the business processes of an organization while

adopting different technologies. IT Manager 2 stated that identifying business processes

for integration to the KMS helped create the communication strategy. IT Manager 3

believed that KMS was instrumental in streamlining business process, provided

continuity, and contributed to mission effectiveness. IT Manager 3 confirmed,

“Streamline the processes, that was the strategy, and establish business procedures, and

business processes; we also needed to create a set of continuity.” IT Managers 5 and 6

noted that focusing on and automating users’ business processes were keys to the success

of KMS implementation because users were expecting efficiency as a result.

Enterprise systems are applications that integrate and automate business

processes, such as human resources, budgeting, and customer service activities

(Schniederjans & Yadav, 2013). Four of the participants highlighted that integrating

business process management during KMS implementation not only contributed to

operational efficiency, but also provided organizational agility and growth, innovation,

and process improvement. Through KMS, the automation and integration of business

processes was a significant boost for the successful implementation.

Other Relevant Findings

In addition to the aforementioned themes, the lessons learned and change

management initiatives from participants supported their success. IT Managers 5 and 6

stated that the KMS teams were successful because they benchmarked from other

implementers and gathered lesson learned and best practices. Gaining insight from

previous experiences and passing on the lessons gathered during the project’s lifecycle to

future project managers are critical factors in propelling ERP success (Olszak & Ziemba,

2012). Highlighting the lessons learned were essential components of successful

implementation. IT Managers 1 and 3 agreed that change management initiatives were a

primary factor when persuading users to use the KMS. All five participants highlighted

that KMS facilitated the capture of knowledge from retiring employees—something that

was instrumental for the organization and mission effectiveness.

After each participant explained strategies used to implement a KMS

successfully, each highlighted the importance of metrics and validation of success. All

participants agreed that success of KMS implementation was measured by (a) using the

number of hits to the KMS, (b) number of end users and site owners that were being

trained, (c) number of remote accounts requests, (d) number of sites or communities that

were being created, (e) number of documents migrated, (f) number of business processes

automated, and (g) feedback from all users. While implementing a KMS, essential

baseline metrics on existing procedures are obtained to aid in the evaluation of the

implementation outcomes (Pérez  López & Alegre, 2012). The importance of

measurement and monitoring of metrics indicated and validated success or failure status

of KMS implementation.

Comparison of Findings With Other Peer-Reviewed Studies

Training and education was the first theme that I discovered in this study. This

theme is consistent with the work of Sykes et al., (2014) who found that business leaders

should offer training for employees to maximize the benefits and features of the system.

When implementers provide training, users can familiarize themselves with features and

develop proficiency with system capabilities. This theme also reinforced Garg and

Chauhan’s (2015) findings that the people factor, which includes education and training,

showed the most significant effect on the success of enterprise systems implementation.

The second theme that I identified in the study was customer focus. Customer

focus is important when implementing KMS. By providing agile and rapid customer

service, and attending to user needs during a KMS implementation, customer relationship

results in long-lasting trust of the users toward the organization. This theme was

consistent with Schniederjans and Yadav’s (2013) findings, which revealed that ERP

systems that integrate several business processes, such as customer service activities,

become successful.

The use of policy and governance was the third theme that I found and

highlighted the significance of standardization. Abu-Shanab et al. (2015) reported that

when business leaders implement a KMS, procedures, methods, and measures become a

standard strategy to execute objectives. Business leaders influence KMS implementation

when decisions and business practices are documented in the form of policy or

governance and standard operating procedures are associated with organizational

objectives and standardization in the organization.

Leadership and management was the fourth theme that I found in the research

data. This theme is consistent with the work of Kanjanabootra et al. (2013) and

Massingham (2014), who claimed that as organizational leaders recognize the need to

develop, implement, and use KMS, the employees’ performances and innovations

improve. The successful introduction of change is based on effective transformational

leadership. When leaders display commitment and support, they walk the talk and

motivate employees during the change process (French & Bell, 1971).

The fifth theme that emerged from this study was communication and marketing,

which are initial steps in establishing rapport with the users. Risselada, Verhoef, and

Bijmolt (2014) emphasized that marketing and social influence play a role in the adoption

of new high-technology products. This effect is the strongest during the initial direct

marketing at the time of a new product entering the market.

Finally, the integration of business processes in the KMS implementation was the

sixth theme that I identified in this study. This theme supported Alegra et al.’s (2013)

findings that business leaders should recognize the types of knowledge that exist in

business processes. Streamlining and automating of business processes create

efficiencies; as such, KMS helps with integrating and disseminating tacit and explicit

knowledge throughout an entire organization. In addition, this theme highlighted

Margherita’s (2014) research outcomes that enterprise systems implemented along with

automating business processes provided greater customer satisfaction, productivity, and

speed, as well as a broader organizational view.

Comparison of Findings to the Conceptual Framework

The findings from this study are consistent with the conceptual framework of

organizational knowledge creation theory. Nonaka et al. (2006) theorized that the

organizational knowledge creation theory is based on KMS and the organization’s

knowledge assets. The information from the interviews and IT managers’ additional

documentation resulted in findings consistent with the holistic view of organizational

knowledge creation theory that involved processing and capturing of knowledge and

information into an organization’s knowledge system (Schniederjans & Yadav, 2013). As

Song et al. (2012) indicated, knowledge conversion, creation, knowledge sharing

practices, and other concepts (e.g., learning culture, information systems, and team

performance) are reliable measures that emerge from knowledge creation theory. In

addition, the fundamental concepts from the organizational knowledge creation theory of

promoting leadership, knowledge workers, and systems are consistent and aligned with

the findings of my research. The strategies that the participants used (training, customer

focus, policy and governance, leadership support, communication and marketing, and

business process management) highlighted foundational elements of the organizational

knowledge creation theory.

Nonaka et al. (2006) stated that the fundamental elements of the organizational

knowledge creation theory involve promoting leadership, knowledge workers, systems,

and processes. I demonstrated conceptual and literature alignment by illuminating

experiences of interviewees. The emergent themes provided elements related to strategies

that IT managers used to successfully implement a KMS implementation.

Comparison of Findings to Existing Literature on Business Practice

The findings from this study are consistent with those of Venugopal and

Suryaprakasa (2011), who noted that business leaders who recognized critical success

factors for successful KMS implementation facilitate effective business practices within

the organization. Consistent with the outcome of the study, Venugopal and Suryaprakasa

wrote that when business leaders understand the processes of knowledge capture and

importance of effective knowledge systems implementation, solutions to existing

worldwide business problems become imminent. The findings of my study indicated that

KMS implementation improve business practices in the organization through the

integration of KM and business processes, training, communication and marketing,

customer focus, and leadership support. These effective business practices increased the

senior leaders’ integration of people, processes, and technologies to achieve efficiency,

improve organizational performance, automate business processes, and maintain

continuity within the organization.

The results of the study in the areas of integrating people and processes and its

advantages to the business performance were consistent with Bagheri et al.’s (2015)

research. Bagheri et al. identified that KMS facilitate the capability of knowledge reuse

and the sharing of effective business practices through alignment of KM processes,

knowledge workers’ learning cultures, collaboration, IT support, and organizational

change to produce successful outcomes.

The strategies that the participants used such as training, customer focus, policy

and governance, leadership and management support, communication and marketing, and

business process management were identified (see Table 1). One hundred percent of the

participants stated that training, customer focus, and policy and governance were primary

success factors in the KMS implementation, 80% of the participants believed that

leadership support, communication and marketing, and business process management

played a huge role in their KMS implementation success (see Table 2). Based on all the

comments from participants, KMS was an enabler to capture undocumented knowledge

from retiring or relocating employees and provided continuity for new employees.

Table 1

Central Research Question and Primary Themes (N = 5)

What were the strategies that supported the

KMS implementation?

Primary theme

IT Manager 1

Training

Customer focus

Policy and governance

Communication and marketing

IT Manager 2

Training

Customer focus

Policy and governance

Leadership & management support

Communication and marketing

Business process management

IT Manager 3

Training

Customer focus

Policy and governance

Leadership & management support

Communication and marketing

Business process management

IT Manager 5

Training

Customer focus

Policy and governance

Leadership & management support

Communication and marketing

Business process management

IT Manager 6

Training

Customer focus

Policy and governance

Leadership & management support

Business process management

Note. IT, information technology; KM, knowledge management.

Table 2

Strategies That IT Managers Used in Successful KMS Implementation

Themes

Participants who

identified theme

% occurrence

Training

100%

Customer focus

100%

Policy and governance

100%

Leadership and management support

80%

Communication and marketing

Business process management

80%

Note. IT, information technology; KMS, knowledge management system.

Applications to Professional Practice

I explored strategies that could positively influence business leaders and IT

managers because the results provide a set of strategies to facilitate a successful KMS

implementation process in an organization. Findings from this study may induce the

elimination of critical barriers to the implementation and adoption of KMS. Successful

implementations of KMS can impact nearly all organizational tasks and provide

significant benefits and advantages to businesses (e.g., Ahmad & Cuenca, 2013; Ram,

Wu, & Tagg, 2014). After business personnel create a successful KMS implementation,

several organizational benefits exist: (a) increased innovation, (b) improved competitive

advantage and organizational performance, (c) reduced duplication of effort and

redundancies, (d) decreased waste, (e) increased automation of business processes, and

(f) increased returns from financial investment (Massingham, 2014). With a successful

KMS implementation, business leaders can enjoy improved cash flow generated by

investment, input management, acquisition; they can also experience higher productivity,

and greater employee work quality (Massingham, 2014). The findings of the study might

help business leaders by enhancing their knowledge in promoting the importance of

integrating people, process, and technology. Such changes might result in facilitating

knowledge transfers from retiring to current employees thereby eliminating the risk of

knowledge loss and inefficiency.

Implications for Social Change

Deokar and Sarnikar (2014) emphasized that generating positive social change

requires mission, vision, and value statements related to overall organizational structure.

Deokar and Sarnikar noted that KMS implementation involves more than simply an

innovative application; it includes every aspect of KM culture embedded in the

organization as part of its corporate mission, vision, and values. Practitioners and IT

managers from local communities and government agencies must consider strategic

objectives when they decide what strategies to use when implementing a KMS.

Community leaders may create positive social change through the implementation of

successful KMS thereby enabling citizens access to diverse supply of information, a

sophisticated collaboration infrastructure for sharing information, and access to local

information that address the concerns of community members (Rainie & Purcell, 2011).

In addition, leaders from nonprofit or local cultural organizations would benefit

from a successful KMS framework to improve social conditions and allow citizens to

have access to open knowledge sharing and potentially life-enhancing information.

According to Carttar and Markham (2015), leaders from large nonprofit organizations

value KMS because they understand that KMS improves processes, accelerates social

impact, creates partnerships and collaboration, strengthens external relationships, and

improves connections between organizations, beneficiaries, and funders. According to

International Fund for Agricultural Development (2007), a specialized agency of the

United Nations, a successful KMS strategy and framework is ideal for rural communities,

nongovernmental organizations, and farmers’ organizations, to support the following

social change: (a) equip local communities with a more supportive knowledge sharing

and learning infrastructure, b) foster partnerships for broader knowledge sharing and

learning, c) facilitate proper resourcing of initiatives aimed at breaking the silo culture,

(d) update job descriptions and human resources processes while promoting knowledge

sharing and learning, and (e) develop KM and communication skills and competencies.

Recommendations for Action

The purpose of this study was to explore the strategies IT managers use to

successfully implement a KMS. Based on the results of this study, business leaders

should focus on the essential strategies such as the importance of training, customer

focus, policy and governance, leadership support, communication and marketing, and

business process management. These success factors are effective across generations and

business types to influence KMS use for sharing, transferring, and retaining knowledge

(Abu-Shanab et al., 2015; Ahmad et al., 2013; Keong et al., 2012; Massingham, 2014).

Moreover, my findings from this study may forewarn business leaders to the

essential strategies used to implement a KMS successfully and cultivate an environment

of knowledge sharing that is paramount to daily operations and organizational growth

(Appelbaum et al., 2012). Nonetheless, KMS is only a part of the KM process; hence,

business leaders must gauge the success of these strategies to document lessons learned

and enhance explicit documents through Nonaka’s (1994) constructs of internalization,

externalization, socialization, and combination.

As business leaders seek to mitigate knowledge loss by implementing a KMS that

will capture knowledge from departing employees, research on strategies and success

factors in KMS implementation is necessary. Business leaders who are planning to

implement KMS should pay close attention to the importance of employing different

types of training. Another strategy that business leaders should consider when

implementing a KMS is high-quality customer service and a good reputation, because

word gets around in the user’s community that could influence user acceptance. Business

leaders who implement KMS should establish tactics, training, and procedures, policy,

and governance. This study highlighted the importance of leadership and management

support as a successful foundation for KMS implementation. My study outcomes

revealed that when leadership have open communication with users and advertises the

features of KMS through marketing, KMS implementation is likely to succeed. Lastly,

business leaders who provide KMS capability to the organization may have real-time

access to codified knowledge practices, business processes, and communication, and

might capture of knowledge assets.

The publication of this study and inclusive results via the Internet will reach all

levels of global organizations. When business leaders have access to the results of this

study, they will see that strategies of KMS implementation are key to knowledge sharing.

Business leaders will also find that knowledge retention of employees is not only focused

on businesses within the US but also worldwide.

I plan to disseminate the findings of this research in academic and professional

journals. In addition, I will present the findings at public sector enterprise information

services conferences, KM workshops, KM training sessions, and any academic

conferences. Lastly, I will provide a summary of findings to the participants.

Recommendations for Further Research

Findings from this study merit further exploration. More specifically, it is

important to understand the strategies that IT managers use to implement a KMS since

organizations need implementation strategies to ensure success and sustain productivity.

Despite the strengths of this study, some limitations surfaced. First, participants did not

convey their experiences of capturing knowledge from departing employees due to the

nature of the organizational mission. My recommendation for future research is to extend

the questions beyond the strategies of KMS implementation and determine what specific

knowledge will be needed in using KMS to drive effective action, irrespective of time,

culture, and generational difference constraints. Next, I recommend that this study be

extended to the rest of the employees. By employing a larger sample size, transferability

will be enhanced. By interviewing numerous employees within the organization, the

researcher may garner a broader explanation from a user acceptance viewpoint. Finally,

in a future study, it would be useful to have a combination of proven collaborative

technologies, in addition to a KMS, to capture and share tacit knowledge.

Reflections

Throughout my doctoral journey at Walden University, I frequently found myself

inspired with new knowledge, particularly in the areas of conducting semistructured

interviews and analyzing research data. I was intimidated by all elements, attention to

detail, and overall documentation process. However, after my engagement and

conversation with participants, I gained a deeper understanding of their lived experiences

to implement potential future strategies within organizations. Immediately, I noted that

the participants were motivated, deeply enjoyed their roles in the implementation, and

were inspired by their teamwork throughout the implementation experience.

After gathering the information to support my study, I learned and utilized data

analysis software and employed the coding process. This experience was very time-

consuming because I was unfamiliar with the software and the training was complex. The

Walden University doctoral study process was a humbling yet satisfying experience. I

feel a sense of honor, self-respect, pride, and self-accolade for being able to balance my

career, family, and school workload at the conclusion of my doctoral journey.

Conclusion

Creating a viable approach for capturing reusable knowledge is a perpetual

problem in organizations. The lack of strategies for implementing a KMS continues to

worsen the knowledge loss problem in a workforce that has constant employee turnover.

The implementation and use of technologies, such as KMS, impact social, cultural,

organizational, technical, and other institutional pressures (Pishdad & Haider, 2013).

Aligning business strategies to develop capabilities have increased in importance as

100

businesses strive for competitive advantage in a diverse and changing marketplace

(Revenaugh & Cook, 2013).

A solution to this imminent gap in knowledge loss is to take the necessary actions

of capturing and retaining operational knowledge of departing employees using a KMS.

Venugopal and Suryaprakasa (2011) indicated that critical success factors included

change management and business process re-engineering activities. In addition,

management support contributed to the success of a KMS implementation. Also,

successful KMS implementation is based on change management strategies embedded in

organizational culture change, knowledge transfer, and organizational learning (Chiang,

2013). Al-Ghamdi (2013) described effective change management strategies during KMS

implementation as being critical when balancing organizational culture, user acceptance,

and user training.

The implication of this research, consequently, goes beyond the private and public

sector and extends to all KMS implementation within local and global communities.

Findings from this study support Nonaka’s (1994) organizational knowledge creation

theory, additional organizational artifacts, and previous research. Business leaders’

applications of Nonaka’s knowledge creation theory will emphasize knowledge

conversion and transform new knowledge captured from departing employees with

extensive knowledge.

Despite the limitations found, this study enhanced business leaders’

understandings of strategies used to implement a KMS successfully. Data collected were

101

analyzed using NVivo data analysis software. I validated the alignment with the

conceptual framework and literature review through illustrating insights offered by

interviewees. The six themes emerged comprising of: (a) training, (b) customer focus, (c)

leadership and management support, (d) policy, procedures, and governance, (e)

communication and marketing and (f) business process management.

Companies lost billions of dollars because of lost knowledge and failed KMS

implementation; unless the right strategies for successful implementations are developed

and identified, businesses will continue to experience difficulties capturing organizational

knowledge. Business leaders must be able to assess adequately the importance of

bridging the gap caused by knowledge loss and finding solutions and strategies to capture

knowledge. When considering KMS implementation, business leaders should include

exploration of key elements of strategies such as appropriate levels of training, customer

focus, leadership and management support, policy and governance, communication and

marketing, and business process management. The findings may provide new information

on strategies used to implement a KMS successfully. In addition, the findings may

contribute to organizational development, competitive advantage, and the long-term

success of an organization.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO IMPLEMENT KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.pdf

Students also viewed