Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1, FEBUARY 2012
'
!
!
Ali Af. Asgari, Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid, Nik Muhd Naziman Ab Rahman, Azadeh Asgari
!
"
"
!
#
"
"
$%
!
&
I. INTRODUCTION
advantages [24].
Knowledge, indeed, is the most significant strategic source
and the task to obtain and expand it, allocate it and employ it
can hint to maintainable competitive advantages [16]. This is
because advanced knowledge can contribute to traditional
funds and assets in new and unique conducts and by this means
prepare higher value to consumers [27].
In recent years organizational effort has been locate into
knowledge management (KM) initiatives that became one of
the management buzzwords [29], [17]. Ever since the mid
1990s, the description of KM has enhanced fairly a bit.
Basically, it is started as essential knowledge movement, that
value is concluded by the recipient and the organization. It is
focusing on taking employees knowledge regarding
competitors, products, consumers, and services created in an
organization [15]. In its simplest form, KM is regarding
supporting individuals to share ideas, knowledge and
information, in order to create value-adding services and
products, thought the internet [7]. Therefore, the perspective
of the KM is inside the organization and the KM benefit is in
fact adhering to an essential KM success factor: listen to your
consumers and employees [15].
A basic success factor key of knowledge management is to
have a regular perceptive of the terms "knowledge
management" and "knowledge sharing" and how these terms
use to particular condition and requests. Several organizations
select generally, not to refer these certain terms since they
terms are not consented in the culture [1]. Some intrinsic
essential success factors are produced into the explanation.
KM is a series of approaches and strategies and approaches
that marks a specific construction or a manner to do things.
II. II. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The goal of this part is to elaborate an overview of the
relevant literature relating to each of the stated research
questions. The literature review chapter emphasizes several
success studies of firms resulting from the knowledge
management implementation.
is explained as
and it is an
outcome of operations of information processing.
is about
if.
Knowledge donates to wisdom throughout actions like
value, discovery, experience, and further.
(
Leadership performs a significant role in confirming success
in closely any enterprise in an organization. Leadership effect
on KM is even more considerable due to this is a
comparatively recent method [22]. Nothing prepares superior
effect on an organization than when leaders model the
behavior they are trying to encourage between employees.
Some other top practice organizations have exhibited this
guarantee to KM. At the World Bank, the president's support
led to the creativity of an infrastructure that supported and
promoted the development of communities of practice (CoPs)
not only right through the organization, but around the world.
At present, the World Bank has supported its KM initiative via
its CoPs [21]. Its knowledge managers persistently look for
recent methods to sharing of knowledge. Although leadership
performs a crucial role in the KM success enterprise, while the
factor of culture can become even more importance to the
success of KM.
" # # +,
+
, (
There are a numerous methods which, organizations
structure the management of their KM enterprises, while
APQC has discovered one of special common elements
between the greatest practice partner organizations: a central
KM support group, stewards/owners through the organization
who are in charge for KM and a steering committee [21]. This
is a mixture of a decentralized approach and centralized
approach.
At the top level, the executives have usually been in the
advising committee. They encourage the concept and prepare
direction, guidance, and support. The central KM group is
usually composed of three to four members who prepares the
projects/initiatives basic support, that are typically transferred
to the business stewards when they are executed. More often
than not, the central group comprise of people with advanced
project management, communication, and facilitation abilities.
The stewards/owners are responsible for knowledge sharing
and acquisition in the business units [6]. For an example,
Chaffey stated that the core KM group, the stewards are
change agents for the organization. They model and teach
employees the principles of knowledge sharing applying an
Culture
Leadership
Strategy, Systems & IT
'
13
13
2
3.528
2.642
3.471
1.086
.948
1.259
1.258
.746
1.586
8
8
5
41
3.185
3.185
3.614
1.053
1.094
.921
1.110
1.197
.849
(
! "#
$
The five factors of key success is namely culture,
leadership, strategy, systems & IT, effective &
systematic and measurement. The correlations of the key
success factors were explored through a Pearson Product
Moment Correlation analysis. Table 2. depicts the key factors
correlation matrix.
* Relationship among Items in KFS
!
0( Culture
0* Leadership
0+ Strategy, Systems & IT
0, Effective & Systematic
0- Measurement
0(
0*
0+
0,
1.00
.533**
.491**
.370**
.322**
1.00
.447**
.514**
.547**
1.00
.375**
.623**
1.00
.492**
Between Groups
Within Groups
"
8.082
50.504
4
65
"
2.021
.777
"
.044
Between Groups
Within Groups
"
8.082
50.566
4
65
"
2.005
.778
!
2.57
.046
10.869
47.717
4
65
"
2.717
.734
!
3.70
.009
11.702
46.883
5
64
"
2.340
.733
!
3.19
.012
Between Groups
Within Groups
7.883
50.703
4
65
"
1.971
.780
!
2.52
6
.049
III. V. CONCLUSION
The choice of a statistical manner for testing the
hypotheses was administrated by the nature of the data and the
population from where the data developed(Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, and Black,1999). So, in accord with previous chapter,
there is a significant relationship with all of the success factors
common intended in the literature of knowledge management
like the acknowledgment of the overall responsibility for KM
or the sources devoted to KM. The considerable correlation
between the key success factors hypothesized in the KM
literature are directly proportional that is e-business is relevant
to KM. The findings of this study are also supported by the
other studies results (Bedi, 1999; Bernard & Wagner, 2001;
Doms et al.,1997; Pavitt et al., 1987). Therefore, managers
should keep away from a static/simple attendance on the
internet and in place of pursue a further dynamic/interactive
presence.
REFERENCES
[1]Alam, G.M. (2009). Can Governance and Regulatory Control Ensure
Private Higher Education as Business or Public Goods in Bangladesh?
Afr. J. Bus. Manage., 3(10): 890-906.
[2]Al-Busaidi, K.A. & Olfman, L, (2005). An Investigation of the
Determinants of Knowledge Management Systems Success in Omani
Organizations. 1 #
2
!
.
8(3) pp. 6-25
[3]Aman, F., and Aitken, A. (2011). The Mediating Effect of KM
Capabilities: Evidence from the Manufacturing and Technology
Industries,
"+3
+ IPEDR Vol.3, No.3, pp.320-325.
[4]Asllani, A. and Luthans, F. (2003), What Knowledge Managers Really
Do: An Empirical and Comparative Analysis, 1 #
, Vol.7, No.3.
[5]Bose, R., Sugumaran, V. (2003), Application of knowledge management
technology in customer relationship management., Knowledge and
process management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
[6]Chaffey, D. (2007). ' #
'
. Third
Edition, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited, pp. 201-455.
[7]Chase, R., L. (1997). Knowledge Management Benchmarks, The Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 83-92.
[8]Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp.64
73.
[9]Damanpour, F. (2002). Organization size and innovation, Organization
Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.375402.
[10]Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (1999). Knowledge Management(s),
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.3 No.2, pp110-123.
[11]Dous, M., Salomann, H., Kolbe, L., Brenner, W. (2005), Knowledge
Management and relationship marketing: where, what and how? Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18, No.2, pp. 144-151.
[12]Firestone, M. & McElroy, W. (2005). ! #
+ Boston, MA, Butterworth - Heinemann.
[13]Galagan, P. (1997), Smart Companies (Knowledge Management),
Training and Development, Vol. 51 No.12, pp. 20-5.
[14]Gebert, H., Geib, M., Kolbe, L., Brenner, W. (2003), Knowledge
enabled customer relationship management: integrating customer
10