Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge Management in Knowledge Industry : With special reference to Jaipur City

Authors

Dr. Manju Nair

Principal, ISIM Jaipur

Swati Jha Research Scholar, RTU Jha.swati88@yahoo.com Ph. No. +918875816692

Sakshi Sharma Research Scholar ,RTU Sakshisharma6587@yahoo.com Ph. No. +919950028676

Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge Management in Knowledge Industry: With special reference to Jaipur City
Knowledge Management (KM) is a key ingredient that derives and enhances organizational performances. Knowledge design and distribution is the backbone on which knowledge industry thrives. Knowledge management is essentially about people how they create, share and use knowledge. Knowledge management tool does not work effectively if it is not applied in a manner that is sensitive to the ways people think and behave. The remarkable growth and development of knowledge industry has also created a strong belief amongst many that, the driver of economy of India is its knowledge industry in all certainty. Literature available on knowledge economy shows that Knowledge Management is the preeminent resources of knowledge economy. Knowledge Management is an innovative approach increasingly seen as a source of competitive advantage. Institutions spending on KM activities are expected to rise significantly over the next few years. Indias higher education system being the second largest in the world, only after the USA, is unique in matter of structure, history, and magnitude. Understanding the Inhibitors and Enhancers in the process of knowledge Management is important for the education industry in order to enable them to facilitate the process to be smooth and more objective. The present study aims to examine these issues with evidence from the empirical data collected through the survey of academicians from various universities of Jaipur. This study shows how academicians from university departments perceive the Inhibitors and Enhancers to KM. For this purpose, three domains, namely - Acquisition, creation, and dispersion of knowledge are considered in three dimensions of Inhibitors and Enhancers- individual aspects, socioorganizational aspects, and technological aspects. It aims to help in determining perception and understanding of employees working in different universities regarding the factors that hinder the development process of KM and the ones that support it. The findings suggest that academicians are more concerned with individual and socio organizational aspects of KM, rather than the technological aspect. People and their interactions create knowledge and promote the flow of knowledge. Keywords: Knowledge Management (KM), Inhibitors, Enhancers, Knowledge Economy.

INTRODUCTION
Sustainability and High performance is defined by efficient Knowledge management in the contemporary Knowledge industry. Knowledge is the real and permanent asset that an organization can sustain for an indefinite time period, provided that this Knowledge is disseminated in a right way to right people. Knowledge management is the process of capturing, distributing, and effectively using knowledge. As evident from the literature available that education sector is the most important sector where KM is the concept of prime importance .Education is all about acquiring, analyzing and sharing the knowledge and information that is available with a particular person. So, in every sense the KM the foundation over which Knowledge industry thrives. Institutions, today are investing a great deal of money to cultivate the organization environment of Knowledge sharing and Knowledge management. Despite several efforts, the results are not satisfactory. As Knowledge sharing is a voluntary activity, that cant be mandated by the management hence there are several barriers that inhibit the smooth flow of knowledge or streamlining the process of Knowledge Management .At the same time there is a need to identify the promoters of the Km processes in Educational institutions. These inhibitors and enhancers have been classified into three broad categories on the basis of their nature, namely- individual, socio organizational and technical factors. The Individual factors are the factors that are due to the personality type or attitude of the individual. Individual inhibitors are the ones that restrict the academician to participate in the knowledge sharing process of the organization. These are not due to the Lacking on organizations part but individualistic in nature. To remove these inhibitors the organizations need to orient the employees in a way that, Knowledge sharing becomes a usual practice at work. Individual enhancers to KM involves the personality characters and traits as well as the behavioral aspect of employees that helps them to be a part of the holistic KM process and conduct it efficiently and effectively. Socio-organizational factors are due to the organization culture and climate. An organization where much focus is given to KM provides required machinery and infrastructure to facilitate the process. Socio-organizational inhibitors are the grey zones developed due to lack of support from

the organizations .To reduce these organizations must selectively focus on the key inhibitors, that obstruct the flow of knowledge of common importance. .Whereas the socio organizational enhancers are the initiatives taken on the organizational level to streamline the process of KM. The Technical factors are the ones that are technical in nature, in a way that can be changed by improving technical factors. The technical inhibitors are, the factors due to lack of technical knowhow and trainings required for proper KM. These can be reduced by providing the required training, aids and laying out proper systems and processes for KM. The technical enhancers include the set of skills and capabilities, as well as well laid processes of conducting proper KM practices. The study focuses on identifying the most important inhibitors to and promoters of knowledge management processes, out of the perceived common inhibitors and promoters. By analyzing the responses from 6 Higher education institutions of Jaipur ,few generalizations has been made that will help these organizations and similar players in Education sector to remove the inhibitors and Promote the enhancers.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Several barriers and facilitators/enablers have been identified to KM implementation in multiple domains. Aspects related to people, interpersonal relations and organization/management processes predominate. For example, Aden felt and Lagerstrom (2008) presented organizational culture as the most prominent enabler of KM on transnational projects. Newman (2006, p. 12) stressed the CEOs key role as a masterful facilitator who can guide the organization through a continuous process of strategic conversations that refocus the strategy on knowledge that is both current and emergent and Mac Neil (2004) stressed the role of the supervisor as facilitator of knowledge sharing in teams.

Lee et al. (2003) suggested that the way failures are treated in organizations have a significant impact on knowledge creation. When failures are seen as acceptable and used as tools for learning, individuals are less motivated to cover up their own mistakes and more prone to use past failures from others as sources of learning and improvement (Edmondson, 1996, 1999).Lin

(2006) suggested that organizational support influences the intention to facilitate knowledge sharing through organizational perceptions of innovation characteristics and interpersonal trust. Davis et al. (2005a) elucidated the key facilitators and inhibitors of knowledge sharing in large global organizations. They called attention to elements such as information overload, the time spent scanning large volumes of marginally relevant information, the diversity of media and the lack of integration, the gathering of a range of relevant information from diverse sources and the discussion of key issues with colleagues and other professionals, the developing and nurturing of social networks, and the interface between disciplines, technologies, business units, functions, and businesses. They argued that KM systems need to be integrative and flexible enough to facilitate the dynamic interplay between different forms of knowledge across space and time. According to Lee et al. (2003), evidence suggests that learning and creating new knowledge are related to the individuals willingness to incur failures (p. 200), and such willingness depends largely upon the organization and team culture, including the trust climate.

The authors also stressed that the culture that emphasizes people independence and the correlate tendency for not seeking help from others (e.g., supervisors, colleagues, experts) is detrimental to new knowledge creation, problem solving and performance (Blau, 1955; Capers & Lipton, 1993; Lee, 1997). This happens because the help-seeker fears losing power (Lee & Tiedens, 2001). On the contrary, people can acquire new skills and competencies, discover unique problem-solving strategies, develop network ties and create new knowledge (either at the individual or organizational level of analysis) through help-seeking. Singh et al. (2006) found that culture and financial constraints are the main barriers to KM implementation.

They also found that people neither disclose nor share knowledge that may adversely affect their job security. Moreover, even when willing to share it, difficulties arise as inter-department interactions are often insufficient, KM strategies are poor, access to knowledge is difficult and general sharing is discouraged. Riege (2007) focused on knowledge transfer barriers between foreign units of multinational companies, and suggested three domains in which barriers must be overcome: people, organizational and technological barriers. Sun and Scott (2009) investigated the barriers involved in knowledge transfer arising from the individual, team, organizational, and inter-organizational levels. They identified aspects such as skills of communication and

persuasion, fear of loss of ownership, of knowledge control and of individuals competitive advantage, organizational culture and objectives that do not support learning, problems with rewards, recognition, criticism and punishment, suspicion of whether other teams are sharing the knowledge, lack of openness to ideas, organizational structures resistant to change, and lack of mutual understanding/trust between organizations.

Jain et al. (2010), focusing on organizations and business schools in the Klang Valley, Malaysia, identified barriers and strategies for promoting knowledge sharing. The lack of reward and recognition, the lack of time and the lack of formal and informal activities to cultivate knowledge sharing were identified as the strongest barriers. The lack of IT systems was rated low in terms of barriers to knowledge sharing. The findings also suggested that individuals would be more willing to share their knowledge if they felt that the top management wanted. Linking knowledge sharing with rewards and performance appraisal, encouraging staff to publish the knowledge on its website, and the use of a newsletter to disseminate the knowledge were also considered to be effective strategies for promoting knowledge sharing.

One of the most useful contributions was provided by Riege (2005), who identified three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers that managers must consider for improving knowledge sharing, categorizing them into three main domains: individual/personal, organizational, and technological barriers. Amongst the barriers in the individual domain, they identified: (a) general lack of time to share knowledge and to identify colleagues in need of specific knowledge; (b) apprehension of fear that sharing may reduce or jeopardize people's job security; (c) low awareness and realization of the value and benefit of possessed knowledge to others; (d) dominance in sharing explicit over tacit knowledge such as know-how and experience that requires hands-on learning, observation, dialogue and interactive problem solving; (e) use of strong hierarchy, position-based status, and formal power; (f) insufficient capture, evaluation, feedback, communication, and tolerance of past mistakes that would enhance individual and organizational learning effects; (f) lack of contact time and interaction between knowledge sources and recipients; (g) poor verbal/written communication and interpersonal skills; (h) lack of social network; (i) taking ownership of intellectual property due to fear of not receiving fair

recognition and accreditation from managers and colleagues; (j) lack of trust in people because they might misuse knowledge or take unjust credit for it. In the organizational domain, Riege found barriers such as: (a) lack of leadership and managerial direction in terms of clearly communicating the benefits and values of knowledge sharing practices; (b) shortage of formal and informal spaces to share, reflect and generate (new) knowledge; (c) lack of transparent reward and recognition systems that would motivate people to share more of their knowledge; (d) corporate culture that does not provide sufficient support for sharing practices; (e) shortage of appropriate infrastructure supporting sharing practices; (f) restricted communication and knowledge flows (e.g. top-down).

Regarding the technological domains, they stressed aspects such as the lack of integration of IT systems and processes, the lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of integrated IT systems, the unrealistic expectations of employees as to what technology can and cannot do, the mismatch between individuals need requirements and integrated IT systems and processes, the reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and experience with them, and the lack of training regarding employee familiarization of new IT systems and processes.

Disterer (2011) also considered that, regarding knowledge transfer, the aspects related with peoples behavior are more important than the technical ones. Ruggles (1998) suggested the formula 50/25/25 to hold the balance among three pillars: people, processes and technology. And Nonaka and Toyama (2008) suggested that the people pillar is especially important for tacit knowledge management, because tacit knowledge is more personal and subjective, it is deeply rooted in action, commitment, and involvement in a specific context, making it difficult to formalize and communicate (Davis et al., 2009b; Polanyi, 1967.

OBJECTIVES:
To identify the most significant Inhibitors and Enhancers for Knowledge management at individual level. To identify the most important Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge management at social-organizational level.

To identify the most important Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge management at technology level. To suggest the strategies for reducing the identified Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge management. To suggest the strategies for promoting the identified Enhancers of Knowledge management.

HYPOTHESIS:
H01. Lack of time to interact and share knowledge is not the most important inhibitor of knowledge management in individual dimension. H02. Honesty and willingness to learn and share knowledge is not the most important enhancer of knowledge management in individual dimension. H03.Unsupportive organizational culture is not the most important inhibitor of knowledge management in social-organizational dimension. H04. Encouraging sharing through appropriate reward and recognition system is not the most important enhancer of knowledge management in social-organizational dimension. H05. Lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of IT system is not the most important inhibitor of knowledge management in technology dimension. H06. Orientation towards Technical aids is not the most important enhancer of knowledge management in technology dimension.

RESEARCH METHODLOGY:
The survey approach with the help of questionnaire was used for data collection where convenience sampling was selected for participants responses. Exploratory research design was used to conduct the study. Sample of respondent was the employees of Different universities of Jaipur city. A total of 70 questionnaires were distributed among employees and 56 respondents gave their responses. These participants were drawn from the different departments of. The data was

collected in the year 2014, and duration for the data collection was two weeks. In this study, items of self-administered questionnaire were used as the data collection tool.

RESULT ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: Barriers

The main points are worth mentioning regarding barriers which suggests that KM in university research centers faces universal difficulties. For example, the culture of working alone corresponds to the islands of knowledge and to the organizational culture that does not foster cooperation and sharing mentioned. The lack of time and the information overload are also represented in, both in the individual level and in the socio-organizational processes barriers.

However, some barriers (e.g., teaching schedule, amount of administrative/bureaucratic work) seem to be specic to university research centers. Academician are stressed by workload and working conditions, have excessive administrative and teaching duties need to prepare and manage an excessive number of examinations, and feel frustrated by the lack of incentives and institutional support

Individual aspect of knowledge management

1 . Inhibitor of knowledge management SNo . 1 2 3 4 5 PARAMETERS Lack of time to interact and share knowledge Fear of job security through sharing Poor verbal -written communication ,and interpersonal skills Lack of motivators for sharing knowledge Dominance in sharing explicit(what to do) over tacit(how to do) knowledge Average Mean 1 4 5 2 3 % of Respondent 57.14% 42.85% 57.14% 42.85% 71.42%

57.14% of respondents said Lack of time to interact and share knowledge is most important Barriers of knowledge management ,followed by Lack of motivators for sharing knowledge and Dominance in sharing explicit(what to do) over tacit(how to do) knowledge.

2. Enhancers of knowledge management SNo. 1 2 3 4 5 PARAMETERS Individual willingness to learn from failures Continuous up-gradation of Knowledge and creativity Well equipped and trained individuals Strong interpersonal skills Honesty and willingness to learn and share knowledge Average Mean 3 2 5 4 1 % of Respondent 42.85% 28.57% 71.42% 57.14% 42.85%

42.85% of respondents said Honesty and willingness to learn and share knowledge is most important Barriers of knowledge management, followed by Continuous up-gradation of Knowledge and creativity and Individual willingness to learn from failures.

Socio-organizational
3 . Inhibitor of knowledge management SNo. 1 2 3 4 5 PARAMETERS Excessive Teaching load and Administrative duties Lack of appropriate reward and recognition system Poor communication and lack of formal and informal activities to cultivate knowledge sharing Unsupportive organizational culture Lack of training and development programs Average Mean 3 2 4 1 5 % of Respondent 42.85% 57.14% 28.14% 57.14% 42.85%

Unsupportive organizational culture has been ranked as the most important and biggest barrier of knowledge management by majority of respondents (57.14%) followed by Lack of appropriate reward and recognition system and Excessive Teaching load and Administrative duties. 4. Enhancers of knowledge management SNo. 1 2 PARAMETERS Integrating knowledge management with the organization s vision and mission Encouraging sharing through appropriate reward Average Mean 5 1 % of Respondent 71.42% 42.85%

3 4 5

and recognition system Effective organizational communication culture Regular top management support and feedback Effective training and development programs

2 3 4

42.85% 42.85% 28.57%

Encouraging sharing through appropriate reward and recognition system has been ranked as the most important and biggest barrier of knowledge management (42.85%), followed by Effective organizational communication culture and Regular top management support and feedback.

Technology aspect
5. Inhibitor of knowledge management 57.14% SNo. 1 2 3 4 5 PARAMETERS Lack of integration of IT system and organization processes Lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of IT system Unrealistic expectations of employees as to what technology can and cannot do Lack of training regarding employee familiarization of new system and processes Reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and experience with them Average Mean 2 1 5 4 3 % of Respondent 42.85% 57.14% 71.42% 42.85% 28.57%

It was found that the Lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of IT system has been ranked as the most important and biggest barrier of knowledge management by 57.14 % of respondents ,followed by Lack of integration of IT system and organization processes and Reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and experience with them. The least ranked barrier was Unrealistic expectations of employees as to what technology can and cannot do. 6. Enhancers of knowledge management SNo. PARAMETERS 1 Facilitated social networking using IT 2 Orientation towards Technical aids 3 Adopting IT that is appropriate for the particular organization 4 Enterprise resource planning system 5 Designing IT based processes and promoting their usage Average Mean % of Respondent 3 28.57% 1 42.85% 2 42.85% 5 4 85.71% 57.14%

It was found that the Orientation towards Technical aids and immediate maintenance of IT system has been ranked as the most important and biggest facilitator of knowledge management ranked first by 42.85%, of respondents, followed by Adopting IT that is appropriate for the particular organization. The least ranked barrier was Enterprise resource planning system.

SUMMARIZED DATA :
Aspects Most important Inhibitor Lack of time to interact and share Individual aspects knowledge 57.14% Unsupportive organizational culture Socio-organizational aspects 71.42% Lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of IT system Technology aspect 57.14% 71.42% Most important Enhancer Honesty and willingness to learn and share knowledge 42.85% Encouraging sharing through appropriate reward and recognition system 42.85% Orientation towards Technical aids

Perceived Inhibitor and Enhancer among the three Domain On The Basis of their Degree
Domain affecting KM % of respondents Individual Domain Socialorganizational Domain Technology Domain Total 14.28% 100% 8 56 12.5% 100% 7 56 41.07% 44.6% Inhibitor No. of respondents 23 25 32.14% 55.35% 18 31 Enhancer %of respondents No. of respondents

As per the analysis of data, out of the three Domains, Socio-organizational Domain was found to be the biggest barrier to knowledge management with the average responses of 44.6% academicians in universities of jaipur and 55.35% academicians also perceived socio-

organizational Domains as a leading promoters to KM, and 32.14% respondents feels individual domains as a huge facilitators to KM. Respondents have given the least preference to Technology Domain considering the both Inhibitor and Enhancer of knowledge management with 14.28% and 12.5% respectively.

CONCLUSION
Through conducting research the opinion was formed that it is an important statistic, since it could imply that the organization should be responsible for creating a nurturing environment for KM activities for organizations competitiveness and market performance. Appreciative the

Inhibitors and Enhancers in the process of knowledge Management is imperative for the Universities in order to facilitate the process of KM to be intent and competitive. All the three domain were consider important inhibitor and enhancer to KM. Socio organizational factor effecting KM were ranked the most important as a barriers and facilitator both. The findings suggest that academicians are more concerned with individual and socio-organizational aspects of KM, rather than the technological aspect. But Technology is also an important facilitator, but contrary to what some KM literature suggests, IT is not KM. People and their interactions create knowledge and promote the ow of knowledge. The ndings suggest that technological barriers and facilitators also do also matter.

SUGGESTION AND RECOMMENDATION:

Higher emphasis on evaluating results and rewarding merit, at both the individual and collective level. Replacing teachers with administrative staff for Administrative/bureaucratic and academically irrelevant tasks. Promote teamwork and Cooperation, as well as mutually profitable links between them and other Institutions and companies. Facilitate and foster the access to various resources like online libraries, Exchange programs with foreign universities, conducting national and international conferences and seminars. Building an organization culture of trust amongst the employee and management in order to facilitate proper knowledge sharing. Laying out formal and informal communication channels in order to promote continuous communication and knowledge dispersion. Regular feedback and suggestion for improving the quality of job and additional work assignment supplemented with fringe and Non-fringe benefits. Conducting training for making academicians familiar with modern IT based tools of teaching and information sharing. To put greater emphasis on imparting Tacit knowledge with respect to explicit knowledge. .

Promote the diffusion of knowledge produced in universities for the benefit of corporate
through corporate trainings and management development programs.

REFERENCES:
Athans, M. 2002. Portuguese research universities: Why not the best? Economia e Gesto Global, 7 (1): 121139

Athans, M. (2002). Portuguese research universities: Why not the best? Economia e Gesto Global Global Economics and Management Review, 7(1), 121-139. Davis, J., Subrahmanian, E. & Westerberg, A. (2005a). The global and the local in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 101-113

Kale, D. & Little, S. (2005). Knowledge generation in developing countries: A theoretical framework for exploring dynamic learning in hightechnology firms. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 87-96

Lee, H., & Choi, B. 2003. Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20 (1): 179228 Lee, F., Caza, A., Edmonson, A., & Thomke, S. 2003. New knowledge organizations. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.) creation in

Liao, S. H., Chang, J. C., Cheng, S. C., & Kuo, C. M. (2004). Employee relationship and knowledge sharing: A case study of a Taiwanese finance and securities firm. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 2, 24-34

Makino, S. and A. Inkpen, 2003. Knowledge seeking Smith and M. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management pp: 233-252. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-36.

Riege, A. (2007). Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(1), 48-67.

Roth, J. (2003). Enabling knowledge creation: Learning from an R&D organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 32-48.

Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. California Management Review, 40(3), 80-89.

Smalla, C. T., & Sage, A. P. (2005/2006). Knowledge management and knowledge sharing: A review. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 5, 153-169.

Questionnaire
Dear Sir/ Maam We are conducting a Research on Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge Management in Knowledge Industry: With special reference to Jaipur City among academicians of universities in Jaipur city. We will be thankful to you, if you will spare your 10 mints for filling this questionnaire. Your cooperation is Valuable.

NAME: AGE: TEACHING: (

GENDER: EXPERIENCE IN ) 0-2 yrs 2-4yrs 4-6yrs 6yrs and above

1. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) barriers as a individual aspect of knowledge management SNo. 1 2 3 4 5 PARAMETERS Lack of time to interact and share knowledge Fear of job security through sharing Poor verbal -written communication ,and interpersonal skills Lack of motivators for sharing knowledge Dominance in sharing explicit(what to do) over tacit(how to do) knowledge RANKING

2. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) facilitators as a individual aspect of knowledge management SNo. 1 2 3 4 5 PARAMETERS Individual willingness to learn from failures Continuous up-gradation of Knowledge and creativity Well equipped and trained individuals Strong interpersonal skills Honesty and willingness to learn and share knowledge RANKING

3. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) barriers as a Socio-organizational aspect of knowledge management SNo. PARAMETERS 1 Excessive Teaching load and Administrative duties 2 Lack of appropriate reward and recognition system 3 Poor communication and lack of formal and informal activities to cultivate knowledge sharing 4 Unsupportive organizational culture 5 Lack of training and development programs RANKING

4. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) facilitators as a Socio-organizational of knowledge management SNo. PARAMETERS 1 Integrating knowledge management with the organization s vision and mission 2 Encouraging sharing through appropriate reward and recognition system 3 Effective organizational communication culture 4 Regular top management support and feedback 5 Effective training and development programs RANKING

5. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) barriers as a Technology aspects of knowledge management SNo. PARAMETERS 1 Lack of integration of IT system and organization processes 2 Lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of IT system 3 Unrealistic expectations of employees as to what technology can and cannot do 4 Lack of training regarding employee familiarization of new system and processes 5 Reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and experience with them RANKING

6. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) facilitators as a Technology aspect of knowledge management SNo. PARAMETERS 1 Facilitated social networking using IT 2 Orientation towards Technical aids RANKING

3 4 5

Adopting IT that is appropriate for the particular organization Enterprise resource planning system Designing IT based processes and promoting their usage

Q7 Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to3 (for least important) major Barriers of knowledge management. DOMAIN TO KM SNo. 1 Individual aspect 2 Socio-organizational aspect 3 Technology aspect Q8 Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to3 (for least important) major facilitators of knowledge management. DOMAIN TO KM SNo. 1 Individual aspect 2 Socio-organizational aspect 3 Technology aspect RANKING RANKING

Thanks for your cooperation