International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 1, January 2016
Understanding Knowledge Management: An Approach to
Improve Quality in Nigerian University
Dr. Adeniyi Temitope Adetunji, Lecturer, Business Administration Department, Bowen University, Iwo Nigeria
Dr. Olusayo B. Oladejo, Senior Lecturer, Biblical Studies Department, Faculty of Theological Studies, Nigerian Baptist
Theological Seminary, Ogbomosho, Nigeria
Dr. Funmilayo Gifty David, Senior Lecturer, Independent Researcher
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to understudy knowledge management as
transferable skills that can be used to improve university
quality management. The study focused attention on
discussing ways to improve quality of relationship within
the institution, an approach missing in past literature. The
study adopts a standard literature review to discuss
quality as well as knowledge sharing/management in
general and relates it to the Nigerian University system. A
qualitative approach was considered appropriate; the
study adopts semi-structured interview as the main
research instrument. 21 senior officers (academic) were
interviewed in 6 universities (3 public and 3 private). The
finding reveals that if knowledge sharing would improve
quality of a university definite efforts and activities are
required. The paper suggests that there is a need to focus
on examining structured implementation practices and
procedures in a way that the process of knowledge sharing
can bridge both existing and potential problems that can
hinder complete transfer of knowledge.
Keywords
Knowledge management, quality management, university,
Nigeria
INTRODUCTION
In recent times, many attempts have been made within the
Nigerian university system to increase the quality of
services delivered to students and the society. Such efforts
have included the introduction of different policies among
which deregulation, privatisation and several others have
played vital roles in transforming the institution. This
transformation process has been successful to some extent
but has failed to address certain issues based on the
knowledge and skill of those who are directly involved in
the development of the education system. In other words,
the success of the industry has been based on transferable
skills from the predecessors. Adetunji (2014) highlights
the involvement of the colonial masters and the key role
they played in the history of university establishment in
Nigeria. Likewise, Adetunji mentions that the culture and
tradition in existing public universities have been
transferred to recently established universities.
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 14
Surprisingly, the private universities in the country are not
excluded from these experiences, as majority of staff in
private universities today are products of public
universities. Many private universities even find it difficult
to employ their own graduates on the premise of lack of
experience.
Certainly, knowledge sharing is vital in the process of
education as it is the core duty of any university or
education sector to impact knowledge in the students. The
challenge is how to ensure appropriate knowledge transfer.
Undeniably, the public university staff have played an
important role in the development of private university
education in the country. Many public university academic
staff spend their sabbatical leave in the private ones and
continue to live and work as they do in the public
universities.
Sharing knowledge of good practice is an important factor
of development. Evidently, either willingly or
inadvertently, knowledge is transferred on a daily basis. It
is thus the duty of the universities to carefully develop
their graduates to be relevant to the need of the community
at large. This demands that universities re-strategize and
strengthen identified good practices in transferring
knowledge to students. Harvey and Williams (2010) and
Adetunji (2014) agree that students are innocent and on
many occasions do not know what they want and any form
of knowledge given to them will be acceptable. Likewise,
it was observed from this study that private universities
employ products of public universities with many of them
considered ill-prepared for the task and deficit in skills.
This same set of graduates train students of private
universities and raise concern on the quality of knowledge
they transfer. Therefore, it is a worthwhile effort to
examine how knowledge is transferred within the system
i.e. public and private universities, within staff and from
staff to student. This serves as justification for this study,
focusing on general issues within the sector.
DEFINING QUALITY
It has been very difficult to give a precise definition of
quality in education (Harvey, 2009; Harvey & Williams,
2010; Gallifa & Batelle, 2010). Quality is an abstract
concept, which implies subjective assessment (Moti,
www.irjcjournals.org
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 1, January 2016
2010). However, an attempt is made to offer explanation
and discuss the concept as used in this paper. Quality, in
education, has to do with educational input and output in
its entity. The quality of the educational system can be
assessed by „how adequate and accessible the facilities and
materials needed for effective teaching and learning are
available in order to ensure that educational programmes
fulfill national objectives (Adetunji, 2014). Also, quality
education, according to Nwanna (2000), refers to the scale
of input in the form of funds, equipment facilities, teachers
and pupils alike, and to the fact that the transaction and
output of institutions in the form of their product are
acceptable, desirable, beneficial, efficient and effective
from the point of view of the government, society, private
agencies and other stakeholders.
Dauda (2010) views quality in higher education cutting
across policy formulation to implementation of
educational process covering the scope of curriculum;
teaching/learning process; resources and facilities;
students and teachers environment. Again, Dauda (2010)
perceives quality in education as better school
environment, more qualified teachers, and adequate supply
of textbooks ... relevance to social needs. While Dumond
and Johnson (2013) consider quality as the baseline
standard in education, which can be measured on a scale
of preference Hence, quality is an expression of standard
or the mean by which a certain set of standards in
education can be achieved (Moti, 2010).
Likewise, Townsend and Gebhardt (1990) define quality
in two parts: quality in fact and quality in perception. To
them, quality is determined by both the producer (in fact),
and the consumer (in perception). This definition may be
compared to the definition by a renowned author, Crosby
(1996), in his book titled “Quality is Free”. He asserts that
quality is “conformance to requirement”. The issue here is
to determine whether he is referring to the set of standards
of producers or what is acceptable to the consumers.
Another good example is the definition given by Joseph
Juran, one of the inventors of Total Quality Management
(TQM), who defined quality as “fitness for use” (Juran,
1951; 1980; 1988). However, what if it does not satisfy the
consumers (Beckford, 1998)?
Dauda (2010) holds the view that the world is changing
fast and competition is becoming stiffer. Thus, aside from
the fact that investors want to maximize profit, it may be
wise to see customers as the bridge to their success if the
claim made by Juran (1988) stands. Harvey and
Williams‟s (2010) definition simply states that quality is
achieved when goods or services meet the expectation of a
customer. However, it is assumed that definition of quality
may differ based on exposure, resources or locality.
Ishikawak (1985) claims that many companies that
provide both goods and services tend to make room for
customer feedback, which gives them an opportunity to
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 15
improve. On this note, Townsend and Gebhardt (1990)
debated the claim by Ishikawak (1985) that quality is
everybody‟s business, including that of the consumer.
Moreover, the American society of quality control
perceives quality as being subjective, because people tend
to define quality differently. To them, quality is quality
when it meets their requirements or is exceptional or if it is
faultless. On the other hand, Eagle and Brennan (2007),
defined quality as “non-faulty systems”. To Doherty
(2008), quality should be viewed from two perspectives:
the present and the future needs of the consumers - since
they are the end users.
However, these definitions or assertions will be tough ones
in the university context generally, and in the Nigerian
university context in particular, as it is difficult to identify
students as customers. Nonetheless, focusing on
knowledge management and what it is will help in
understanding the two concepts as they relate to the
university system.
DEFINING KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT
Stankosky (2008) defines Knowledge Management as the
organization process of gathering, managing and sharing
employees' knowledge capital throughout the business.
Oliver & Kandadi (2006) express that Knowledge
Management is used in capturing a company's most
valuable knowledge (asset) and distributing it effectively
across the enterprise. It is a critical business issue for
many in the area of customer support, help desk and IT
departments, a process which has now become a
mainstream priority for companies of all sizes. In a similar
view Hazeri, Sarrafzadeh and Martin (2007) insists that
Knowledge Management is a discipline that encourages an
integrated approach to identifying, managing and sharing
of all information assets of an enterprise. Hazeri,
Sarrafzadeh and Martin asserts that Knowledge Management
is a system designed or programmed to capture, create,
and share/leverage knowledge towards the success of the
organization. Knowledge Management had earlier been
defined by Martin, Hazen and Sarrafzadeh (2006) as the
process of applying a systematic approach to structure,
capture, manage and disseminate knowledge throughout
an organization in order to reuse best practices, reduce
costly rework from project to project and work faster.
In another discourse by Rigby (2009), he postulates that
Knowledge Management is a systematic and deliberate
coordination of an organization‟s people (employees),
technology (materials), processes (tools), and
organizational structure (university) in order to add value
through innovation and reuse. This coordination is
achieved through creating, sharing, managing and
www.irjcjournals.org
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 1, January 2016
applying knowledge as well as through feeding the
valuable lessons learned from past problems solved and
best practices into corporate memory in order to foster
continued organizational learning. Rigby's definition is not
too different from what Girard and Girard (2009) say
Knowledge Management is. They view Knowledge
Management as the function of processes, systems and
people in the organization to ensure that its knowledge-
related assets are developed, improved and effectively
employed. That is, Knowledge Management consists of
“leveraging intellectual assets to enhance organizational
performance" (Rigby, 2009). Knowledge Management is a
concept under which information is turned into actionable
knowledge and then made available effortlessly in a usable
form to the people who can apply it to turn around
situations (Girard & Girard, 2009).
Knowledge Management, in the broadest context, has
many possible definitions. All these definitions hint at the
same point or idea but each one focuses on a particular
aspect of Knowledge Management. For example, a result-
oriented definition may state that Knowledge Management
is 'to have the right knowledge at the right time in the right
format and at the right place'. In the contrast, Gandhi
(2004) explains that example of Knowledge Management
definition that is process-oriented may describe it as “the
systematic management of processes by which knowledge
is identified, gathered, created, shared and applied.” Yet,
Sarrafzadeh, Martin and Hazen (2006) state that
technology-oriented definition of Knowledge Management
may present a formula such as “business intelligence +
collaboration + search engines + intelligent agents.” Any
of these definitions may just be fit for whatever purpose a
task is created.
METHODOLOGY
This is a qualitative research, using in-depth interviews as
the main research instrument to gather data for the study.
Six universities were selected for the study, expending a
purposive sampling method to cover public and private
universities in Nigeria. Three of the universities are public
and three others private. The public universities selected
included both Federal and state owned. These also include
those offering graduate and post-graduate degrees. The
selected private universities also have offered both
undergraduate and post-graduate programmes in the last
five years. Four informants were selected from each of
these universities; the criteria used being their position as
senior officers, their role in knowledge sharing as part of
their duties, as well as how it relates to quality
improvement. The informants hold such posts as Director
of Academic Planning, Director of Information
Technology, Dean Student Affairs and Director of Quality
Control units. Twenty-one participants emerged at the end
of the selection process. Three of the selected participants
were unable to participate in the study, either because they
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 16
were on leave or were engaged in other official duties.
The individual interviews with the remaining 21
informants provided a rich insight into how Knowledge
Management in Nigerian universities can translate into
quality improvement. The use of in-depth interviews as a
research tool for this study has the advantage of providing
in-depth investigation, allowing better understanding of
respondents' beliefs, perceptions, views, thoughts,
feelings, experiences and understanding, in relation to
knowledge sharing and management. A descriptive
analysis was used to discuss the findings. The findings
were first grouped into themes as they occur in the study.
Selection of the themes depended on their importance and
relevance to the study as well as their significance to the
informants' discussion. All the informants have occupied
senior positions for more than 5years.
University Participants
DAP DICT DSA DQC
(A) (B) (C) (D)
Private 1 * * * *
Private 2 * * * -
Private 3 * * - *
Public 4 * * * *
Public 5 * * * *
Public 6 - * * *
The study represents participants as follows:
DAP = Director of Academic Planning, DIT: Director of
ICT, DSA: Dean Student Affairs and DQC: Director of
Quality Centre, while universities selected are represented
from 1-6.
That is A1 to D1 are participants from private universities
listed number 1, A2 to D2 are participants from private
universities listed numbers 2……… while A6 to D6 are
participants from public university listed number 6. In a
similar vein, A1 to A6 are directors of academic planning
from the six universities, both private and public. B1 to B6
are directors of ICT……D1 to D6 are directors of quality
centre from different universities 1 to 6.
FINDINGS
How can we understand Knowledge Management and
overcome barriers that can affect quality improvement in
the Nigerian universities?
The respondents identify three major factors, which are
changing culture, challenges of cooperation and
commitment. Although the respondents share similar
views on these key factors, in some instances they share
contradicting views on how to improve knowledge
sharing. The three factors identified in this paper are
discussed hereunder.
www.irjcjournals.org
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 1, January 2016
Few respondents agree that it is easy to continue to
criticize Nigerian universities in terms of inadequate
technology and poor organizational structure without
looking at the best possible way for the universities to
service the community better (A3, B1, C1, D5). This
approach has caused many stakeholders to raise false
alarm that Nigerian universities are producing half baked
graduate (A4). Two Directors of quality control were of
the view that those who are involved in the running of the
universities and activities that take place within the system
need to be careful and cautious in disseminating the right
type of knowledge that will educate their successors (D1,
D5). Another respondent (D4) also supports the issue
raised by the two Directors of quality control that
universities should be careful in transferring knowledge. A
respondent from a public university was of the opinion
that transferring knowledge renders academic system less
interesting because the staff stop using their initiative to do
things (A5).
I think staff will rely on routine activities if
knowledge is transferred, which does not
promote learning. I think it is not part of what a
university stands for (B6).
A contrary view was raised by another respondent from a
private university, that if knowledge is not transferred, the
system will be full of avoidable errors. He claimed that on
many occasions, especially for the junior staff, they make
mistakes that may be costly ultimately (D6). Another
contrary view was raised by a Director of quality control
from a public university, that academia are experts who
are expected to be independent in the approach they adopt
in the discharge of their duties (D4). This discourse raises
more concern on how participants perceive knowledge
sharing and what is applicable within the system.
Another respondent argued against the view raised by a
director of quality control (D4) that things are changing
today as we access the same global village with the
western nations. He observed that there is the need for
every university community to share common values,
based on the mission and vision statement of the
institution (A4). He pointed that collective efforts need to
be made to develop a common practice within the system,
if university will meet up with the general expectation of
the global market. Another respondent from a private
university notes that there is the need to create a culture of
best practices that will move the sector forward (B2).
Three respondents from a public university were of similar
view. They note that sharing similar culture or practice is
never easy and takes time but will yield better result at the
end (B4, C5, D6).
While a respondent from a private university expressed
that cultures can be changed if strict rules and regulations
plus sanctions are put in place to punish people who
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 17
deviate from agreed practice (A2). One of the respondents
expressed that,
I think only if people are ready for change, that is
when one can make it a culture. Again, one
needs to know that culture change without
changing people‟s thinking, way of life and
approach to issues, will not be effective (B4).
Two of the respondents opined that, for every change to be
real and effective, there is the need to introduce something
new (D3, D4). One of the respondents stressed further that
something new is important to effect change. One can not
continue to do things the same way and expect a different
result. It is not possible. It will only cause more confusion
(D6). Three other respondents explained that, as of today,
regarding knowledge sharing, private universities are in
clear deficit, because their employees are left to do what
they want, how they want it (B3, B4, C5). One of the
respondents lamented thus:
Let me tell you something, change culture is
difficult to practise in our private universities
until those who established the universities can
sit down to develop a framework for staff
development prior employment and in-service
(D2).
Another respondent expressed that may be because I am
trained and have worked abroad for a long time before
coming back to Nigeria,
I think there is no expectation that is above best
practice or certain organizational structure or
ways of doing things. But because the
organizations themselves do not even have any
business process models to follow, other than
lines of reporting authority, then change culture
is an issue and will remain debatable until
universities realize their potential in effecting
and delivering quality services (D6).
DEFINING CULTURE
Many of the respondents share common views on
definition of culture. They posit that culture can be
instrumental to change. It can be viewed from many
angles, such as 'attitudes and values, commonly held
beliefs,' (B1, C4, D1, D4) while others define culture as
'the collective pre-determining of the mind that
distinguished one group from another' (A3, B5, C6). Two
respondents (C4, B5) added that culture is an artifact,
embraces the rituals and other frills of the work
environment. One particular respondent expressed that,
I like the simple approach to culture as a tool for
knowledge sharing that influences quality, that is
www.irjcjournals.org
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 1, January 2016
"the way we do things around here" (C2).
Another respondent observed:
I think using culture as a tool for knowledge
sharing will improve quality; that is, it will
portray how people's observable behaviours and
actions are influenced by reportable attitudes and
values, based on more deep-rooted beliefs (A5).
Three respondents who agreed with using culture to
improve quality within the university system noted that, to
change people's actions one has to address the more
fundamental underlying layers (C1, C4, D4). Respondents
from public universities agreed that using culture as a tool
to improve quality can be done as a strategy to improve
the whole organizational programme or in smaller groups
i.e. faculties or departments or even individually through
the heads of departments.
Respondents also share a similar value on activities and
plans that are necessary to drive the structure if culture
will be deployed as a tool to improve quality. The
respondent found that there is the need for the following if
the application of culture will enhance quality and bring
success.
1. Culture audit – the respondents were of the view
that piloting interviews, questionnaires, and team
sessions with a cross-section of the organization,
will aid best practice (A4, A5, C,4, D3, D6). One of
the respondents who support culture audits stated
that the approach will be helpful in finding out the
difference between what is articulated as the desired
culture and what is done (D3). Another participant
gave example of what is articulated and what is
done to be “put quality first". He claimed that
universities should not admit more than they can
cater for as such approach can cause conflict with
overarching goals (C4). Another respondent noted
that it is important to clearly identify which
behaviours or values conflict with knowledge
sharing: is it over crowding, lack of competent
manpower, or more importantly, which sets of
people need to be targeted to effect the change?
(B1).
2. Challenging 'improper' behaviour – Two
participants talked about challenging improper
behavior. They claimed that, for effective
implementation of culture audit, once people
hoarding knowledge unnecessarily are identified,
they should promptly be challenged, though
avoiding "knowledge rage" (B2, D6). One of the
respondents explained knowledge rage to be testing
other's ability or involvement (D6).
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 18
3. Involvement – Two other respondents were of the
view that some of the best knowledge sharing
cultures, apart from just getting people involved,
are demonstrated via a situation where everybody
(even novices and newcomers) believes that their
knowledge is valued, respected and used to inform
decisions (A2, B5).
4. Use of role models – Two respondents from private
universities and one respondent from a public
university, attached some significance to the need
to identify those people whose services are of good
example within the organization and to others. They
all agreed that there is the need to celebrate and
publicize them, may be on a monthly or quarterly
basis, to encourage others (A1, C2, D6).
Respondents from a public university expressed
that there is the need for such person with good
behavior to get involved with other groups in other
to initiate them into best practice (D6).
5. Team-building / organization development
sessions – Other respondents also supported the
spirit of working together as a team on a regular
basis, and organizing regular team meetings,
improving internal processes and allocating time to
understand others' view (A3, B2 C1). Another
respondent observed that too many meetings focus
on tasks and output, but often fail to address the
means of achieving successful outcomes (C1).
6. Align rewards and recognition to support
appropriate behaviours – Three participants
claimed that in many of Nigerian institutions, too
many schemes are based on individual expertise
and seniority, rather than on team effectiveness
(A4, C2, D3).
7. Change people – Three other participants
recognized the need to get behavioural experts on
board, move the knowledge sharers around, and
perhaps fire some bosses - seriously! (B3, B5, D5).
One director of a quality center claimed that, after
all, it is quality of leadership that will enable all the
other culture change techniques to achieve their
aims (D5).
Finally, the respondents agreed that it is significant to note
that culture goes hand in hand with structure. That is, the
institution itself, with its responsibilities and roles. At
every level, within the organization, there must be
congruence of people, objectives, structures, processes,
and supporting infrastructure.
CHALLENGING THROUGH CO-
OPETITION
www.irjcjournals.org
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 1, January 2016
Four of the respondents noted that human beings have a
competitive streak (A2, A4, D3, D6). One of the
respondents pointed out clearly that,
I think we all like to excel in something and do
better than our peers. Yet, in today's complex
world, we need help from them to achieve our
aims (D6).
Likewise, two other respondents stressed that in an
organization, lack of competition, both for individuals and
teams, leads to complacency (A5, C6). One of the
respondents clarified that competition must be done in a
healthy manner (A5). Four deans of quality centers (D3,
D4, D5, D6), supported by two deans of academic
planning (A1, A4) highlighted elements to make
competition healthy. These include the following:
1. Few of the respondents noted that it is advisable to
approve one line of approach at a time during the
early stages of developing competition. One of the
respondents explained that
I mean if you want to get the best out of people, do
not introduce many things at a time. For example,
do not ask them to mark scripts within 5 days when
you know they need 10 days to do the job and at the
same time you expect them to teach (B6)!
On the contrary, another respondent stated that it is
possible to have several competing projects or tasks
(such as grading, teaching and supervising) under
way, but ensure there are mechanisms to exchange
knowledge and challenge to encourage each
"runner" e. g. through people sharing and peer
reviews (C2).
2. Respondents agreed that institutions should
introduce 'competitions', such as the “Best Teacher
of the Month”, “Innovators Team Award”,
“Knowledge Champion of the Year”, Most Time
Respecting Lecturer of the Month” but invite
everybody to the award ceremonies (A3).
3. Three other respondents observed that there is the
need for continued bench marking of internal
functions and processes with other departments and
faculties. Encouraging inter-departmental crave for
improvement through learning from each other is
also necessary (A1, B6, C4).
4. Four respondents clearly stated that there is a huge
need for everyone to compete, but not against other
people or teams, but against set goals and
challenging targets or external competitors, such as
other private or public universities (B5, C1, C5,
D6).
Above all, the apparent losers of such competitions should
share in the success, celebrate what they have achieved,
and make them feel part of the winning team (the wider
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 19
organization). One of the respondents expressed this,
I know, whenever a competing development
project was wound up, the best people were
almost universally attracted to the winning teams
because the healthy competition meant that each
had good knowledge of the other (D1).
Commitment
Four of the respondents were of the view that commitment
is built on the other two Cs, that is culture and challenging
through co-opetition (A4, B2, C4, C5). Two of the
respondents pointed out that there is the need for
organizations to create a commitment to culture,
competence, challenge, change and cooperation (B4, D3).
Another respondent expressed that there must be a
commitment to allow time for it to happen, as it is often
the case that people work under time pressure which
usually leads to poor knowledge sharing (D1). One of the
respondent highlighted that,
I think 5% of the Budget should be given to
project's resources to distilling lessons and
sharing. He claimed that this time should Include
time to build commitment into team processes,
contribute to knowledge development and
sharing people's job goals in the accompanying
reward system (D4).
One respondent emphasized that commitment to
knowledge sharing must be demonstrated throughout the
organization. She pointed out that,
I think It is apparent through what the leaders of
the organization say and do (C2).
Two directors of quality centers noted that, above all
efforts shown by individuals throughout the organization,
being committed to share their knowledge with others
even if it is not formally part of their 'day job,' is important
and should be considered as a way to encouraging others
(D3, D5).
CONCLUSION
For knowledge sharing to be successful, many activities
and efforts requires more than mere transfer of specific
knowledge. Rather, many requirements need to focus on
examining the structuring and implementation of the
procedures and practice, in ways that they bridge both
potential, existing relationships, locating knowledge and
ensuring its complete transfer. Thus, while the activities
involved or introduced to share knowledge, such as job
rotations, document exchanges, briefing, presentations,
handover etc., are essential, overcoming the factors that
can hamper, muddy and even harm knowledge
internalization is equally important in determining the
www.irjcjournals.org
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 1, January 2016
ultimate results of a knowledge-sharing effort.
Accordingly, any university‟s knowledge-sharing
evaluations efforts need to incorporate use of activities
such as assessments of the knowledge relating to
understanding the form and embeddedness associated with
establishing and managing appropriate administrative
structures, and simplifying the transfer of the knowledge.
FURTHER STUDY
This study only focused attention on a survey by using a
desk research to discuss the Nigerian University context.
This does not seek to under-estimate other higher
institutions nor assume that similar theory and practice
cannot be investigated in other institutions.
REFERENCES
[1] Adetunji, A. T. (2014). A critical realist study of
quality management in Nigerian universities.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cardiff
Metropolitan University, South Wales, United
Kingdom.
[2] Adetunji, A. T. (2015). Impact of principal officers
on Nigerian university education. Journal of
Organisational Studies and Innovation, 2(1), 28-40.
[3] Crosby, P. B. (1996). Quality is still free: making
quality certain in uncertain times. New York;
London: McGraw-Hill.
[4] Dauda, R. O. S. (2010). Investment in Education
and Economic Growth in Nigeria: An Empirical
Evidence. International Research Journal of
Finance and Economics, (55), 158-169.
[5] Doherty, G. D. (2008). “On quality in education”.
Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 225-65.
[6] Dumond, E. J. & Johnson, T. W. (2013). Managing
university business educational quality: ISO or
AACSB? Quality Assurance in Education, 21(2),
127-144.
 multiple case study of large distributed
[7] Eagle, L. and Brennan, R. (2007). “Are students
customers? TQM and marketing perspectives”.
Quality Assurance in Education, 15(1), 44-60.
[8] Gallifa, J. and Batelle, P. (2010). Student
perceptions of service quality in a multi-campus
higher education system in Spain. Quality
Assurance in Education, 18(12), 156-170.
[9] Gandhi, S. (2004). Knowledge management and
reference services. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 30(5), 368–381.
[10] Girard, J. P., & Girard, J. L. (2009). A Leader's
Guide to Knowledge Management: Drawing on the
Past to Enhance Future Performance. New York:
Business Expert Press.
[11] Harvey, L. (2009). “A critical analysis of quality
culture. [Online]. Available at
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 20
http:www.inqaahe.org/admin/files/assets/subsites/1/
documenten/1241773373_16-harvey-a-critical-
analysis-of-qualityculture. pdf [Accessed 19
September 2015].
[12] Harvey, L. & Williams, J. (2010). „Fifteen years of
quality in higher education‟. Quality in Higher
Education, 16(1), 3–36.
[13] Hazeri, A., Sarrafzadeh, M. & Martin, B. (2007).
Reflections of information professionals on knowledge
management competencies in the LIS curriculum. Journal
of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(3):
168-186.
[14] Ishikawa. (1985). What is quality control? The
Japanese way, translated by David J. Lu, Prentice-
Hall /Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
[15] Juran , J. M. (1951). Quality control handbook
McGraw-H ill book company, New.
[16] Juran, J. M. (1980). Quality planning and analysis,
2nd. edition, McGraw-Hill book.
[17] Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on planning for quality,
New York, The Free Press MacMillan.
[18] King, W. R. (2008). An integrated architecture for
the effective knowledge organization. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 12(2), 1367–1380.
[19] Martin, B., Hazen, A. & Sarrafzadeh, M. (2006).
Knowledge management and the LIS professions:
Investigating the implications for practice and for
educational provision. Australian Library Journal,
27(8),12–29.
[20] Moti, U. G. (2010) „The challenges of access to
university education in Nigeria', DSM Business
Review, 2 (2), 27-56.
[21] Nwanna, G. I. (2000). Rural Financial Markets in
West Africa: Roles, Experiences, Constraints and
Prospects for promoting Rural Development. A
Research Report, Centre for Economic Research for
Africa. Upper Menclair, New Jersey, 10
[22] Oliver, S., & Kandadi, K. R. (2006). How to
develop knowledge culture in organizations? A
organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management,
10(4), 6–24.
[23] Rigby, D. (2009). Management Tools 2009: An
Executive’s Guide,
http://www.bain.com/management_tools/home.asp.
[24] Sarrafzadeh, M., Hazeri, A. & Martin, B. (2006).
Knowledge management education for the LIS
professionals: Some recent perspectives. Journal of
Education for Library and Information Science
(JELIS), 47,(3): 225-244.
[25] Stankosky, M. (2008). Keynote address to ICICKM
(International Conference on Intellectual Capital,
Knowledge Management and Organisational
Learning), 9–10.
[26] Townsend, P. L. & Gebhardt, J. E. (1990). Commit
to quality. New York;Chichester: Wiley.
www.irjcjournals.org