Methodology: Statistical population includes
executives of Knowledge based companies in Science and Technology Parks of
Iran. The 336 questionnaire was distributed to the census,
248questionnaireswerecompletedcorrectly. The research data were analyzed by PLS
software. The unit of analysis is a company that has adopted a KMS. Target
population of the research consisted of 700 Top Managers of Knowledge based
companies in Science and Technology Parks of Iran (N=700). Random sampling
method applied in this study and 248Top Managers were considered as the
statistical sample based on "Morgan Table". One standard 5-point
Likert questionnaire adopted and distributed between Top managers in the park.
252 questionnaires were returned among which 248 ones were statistically
investigated. The structural relations among variables were tested using the
partial least squares (PLS) method.
Findings: This study shows that the KM
processes can mediate between creative organizational learning and factors in
the KM infrastructure. The results of the study demonstrate that a knowledge
management process capability has the most crucial role in creative
organizational learning. The results indicate that there is a significant
influence of the infrastructure capabilities (Collaboration, Trust, Learning
Culture, Decentralization, Top Management, Promotion, IT support) on the
process capabilities, also the impacts of knowledge management process
capabilities on creative organizational learning and the impacts of creative
organizational learning on organizational performance was confirmed.
Keywords: knowledge management, knowledge management
infrastructure capabilities, knowledge management process capabilities,
creative organizational learning, organizational performance.
1. INTRODUCTION
Knowledge
is regarded as the main and invaluable asset in new ultra-competitive
environments in developed countries, since knowledge is the only factor which
can evoke change and innovation in organizations. Today, applying knowledge is
one of the fundamental challenges of developing countries. A knowledge-oriented
business is one of the essential goals of the fourth development plan of Tehran.
This
cannot be reached without considering knowledge application in enhancing the
capacity of different industries’ production. The most important proceeding in
the fourth development plan is undeniably knowledge management. Satisfying the
three criteria of International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (IBRD),
which are economic liberalization, government modernization and
knowledge-oriented economics, is not possible without conducting many
researches and projects.
Achieving
this goal, management researchers try to therefore
present applicable and efficacious resolutions to make the organizations
capable of applying knowledge management. Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) focuses on the knowledge-based economy and
the role of knowledge in economic developments in third millennium.
Recently,
many researches have been conducted in accordance with knowledge management in
the business world (METAXIOTIS; ERGAZAKIS;
PSARRAS, 2005), and this conclusion can be drawn that economy has been
changed into knowledge-based economy, and knowledge is considered as the most
essential and invaluable competitive property in the organizations (RIVERA‐VAZQUEZ; ORTIZ‐FOURNIER; FLORES, 2009).
Therefore,
the enhancement of knowledge management implementation can be seen in different
organizations (MILLS; SMITH, 2011). The
present study intends to examine the relationship between knowledge management
infrastructure capabilities, knowledge management process capabilities,
creative organizational learning, and organizational performance.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH
2.1.
Knowledge
management
According
to Stonier, data is a series of disconnected facts and observations. These
facts may be converted to information by analyzing, cross-referring, selecting,
sorting, summarizing or in some way organizing the data. Patterns of
information, in turn, can be worked up into a coherent body of knowledge (ZINS,
2007). Knowledge can be classified into two types of tacit and explicit (NONAKA;
KONNO, 1998).
Knowledge
management framework consists of activities such as recognizing, gaining,
creating, storing, sharing, and applying knowledge by people and groups in an
organization (SUN, 2010). In this respect, Wen (2009) defines knowledge
management as sets of procedures for creating, gaining, sharing and applying
knowledge to improve organizational performance.
2.2.
Knowledge
management capabilities
Knowledge
management supports the aggregation of resources into capabilities. Knowledge
management capabilities can be categorized into two broad types. Knowledge
infrastructure capability and knowledge process capability (MILLS; SMITH, 2011).
Considering the conducted researches, two types of knowledge management
capabilities can be posited which are knowledge management infrastructure
capabilities and knowledge management process capabilities (GOLD; MALHOTRA;
SEGARS, 2001; LEE; SUKOCO, 2007; AUJIRAPONGPAN et al. 2010; MILLS; SMITH, 2011).
2.3.
Knowledge
management infrastructure capabilities
It
refers to the activities which support knowledge management system and create
some competitive advantages in the organization. Gold, Malhotra and Segars
(2001) identify information technology, organizational structure, and culture
as infrastructure capabilities, and Khalifa and Liu (2003) while advancing Gold,
Malhotra and Segars (2001) proposition establish leadership, culture and KM
strategy as infrastructure required to develop a KM initiative.
Prior
research recognizes the importance of having a supportive and effective
knowledge infrastructure to underpin a firm’s knowledge management initiatives.
Different elements make up a firm’s knowledge infrastructure capability (MILLS;
SMITH, 2011).
Previous
studies have suggested that knowledge infrastructure includes culture, people,
organizational hierarchy, structure, and IT Lee and Choi (2003), Gray and
Durcikova (2005) while Lee and Choi (2003) suggested that culture, structure,
people, and information technology are related enablers for KM, management
related factors that are important antecedents for KM process capabilities were
missing in the study. Thus, this study suggests that KM infrastructure is
composed of four groups of KM enablers: culture, structure, management, and
technology.
2.4.
Knowledge
management process capabilities
Knowledge
management processes are of considerable importance in order to reinforce the
organization to gain, transfer and apply knowledge efficiently (NGUYEN; NECK,
2010). Dimensions of Knowledge management process capabilities (GOLD; MALHOTRA;
SEGARS, 2001).
·
Knowledge
Acquisition
·
Knowledge
Conversion
·
Knowledge
Application
·
Knowledge
protection
2.5.
Creative
organizational learning
Creative
organizational learning is the extent to change the understanding of existing
business practices or make them invalid (VANDENBOSCH; HIGGINS, 1996). Creative
organizational learning is the amount of alteration in the comprehension of
existing methods of business or knowing them as invalid approaches (VANDENBOSCH;
HIGGINS, 1996). Creative organizational learning is based on strengthening
creativity, enhancement of insights, generation of new viewpoints on existing
ideas, and constructively criticizing existing opinions on businesses.
While
many firms have developed KMS, companies that have considered the effect of KM
on organizational learning are few. Enhanced KM processes through IT can
increase organizational learning. For instance, Knowledge directories enable
the interconnection of employees who have specialized creative knowledge that
has not been publicized in organizations (RUGGLES, 1998).
2.6.
Organizational
performance
Organizational
performance is consisting of the capabilities of product development, novel
services, prediction of business and risks, and improving the ability of
encountering new data in the market (GOLD; MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001).
Organizational performance is a multi-dimensional concept which examines the
organization’s condition in comparison to competitors (MCKEEN; ZACK; SATYENDRA,
2006).
2.7.
Knowledge
management process capabilities and creative organizational learning
Creative
organizational leaning can be defined as the degree an organization’s members
can upgrade and promote their knowledge and enhance their understanding about
new environments using new knowledge (RUGGLES, 1998). The achieved knowledge
from organizations and outside experts can provide the potentiality of creative
organizational learning based on changes in the existing organizational processes.
2.8.
Creative
organizational learning and organizational performance
Researchers
in the field of knowledge management put emphasis on the role of learning in
knowledge management, and mutual relationship between learning and knowledge (MASON,
2004). Pfeffer (2005) indicated that organizational comprehension can determine
organizational performance, and creative organizational learning creates
impressive innovations in organizational performance (PFEFFER, 2005). KM
performance should be explained as the performance from the use of knowledge
obtained from the KMS. In order to fully understand the performance of KM,
organizational learning outcomes should be evaluated as a measure of KM
performance (TIWANA, 2002).
2.9.
Past
Researches
Although
knowledge and its management have been linked to organizational performance
dating back to 1982, the linkage has become even more critical in this
k-economy era (CHONG et al., 2002). Lee and Sukoco (2007) found that knowledge
management capabilities affect innovation and organizational effectiveness (LEE;
SUKOCO, 2007).
Kulkarni
et al. (2007) examined a KM success model that incorporated the organizational
support structure as a contributing factor to the success of the KMS
implementation (KULKARNI; RAVINDRAN; FREEZE, 2007).
Previous
studies on KM have been fragmented because they only consider some aspects of
KM performance rather than using a holistic view of the KM performance
framework: they have examined the relationship between one or two facets of KM
enablers and process capability, or between KM process capabilities and
organizational performance.
For
example, Tanriverdi (2005) posited that IT relatedness enhances KM capabilities
which, in turn, leads to superior firm performance (TANRIVERDI, 2005). Many
researchers have emphasized the importance of knowledge infrastructure and
processes for KM (CHA; PINGRY; THATCHER, 2008; CHOO; LINDERMAN; SCHROEDER, 2007;
LEE; STEEN, 2010; TANRIVERDI, 2005).
Most
studies have investigated the relationships of KM enablers, processes, or
performance in isolation. For example, Gold et al. (2001) suggested that the
knowledge infrastructure capabilities (technology, structure, culture) and the
knowledge process capabilities (acquisition, conversion, application,
protection) directly affect the organizational effectiveness, but did not show
the relationships between the knowledge infrastructure capabilities and
knowledge process capabilities (GOLD; MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001).
While
Lee and Choi (2003) showed the integrated relationships between KM enablers,
knowledge creation processes, KM intermediate outcomes, and organizational
performance, their study did not consider the whole knowledge process
capability but rather focused on the knowledge creation process (LEE; CHOI,
2003). Furthermore, some important antecedents, such as management related
factors, were missing from the study by Lee and Choi (2003).
Nguyen
and Neck (2010) have conducted a research under the title of “knowledge
management as a dynamic capability: Is it done in less developed countries?
“They have investigated the impact of knowledge management process capabilities
on competitive advantage in Vietnamese companies (NGUYEN; NECK, 2010).
Their
findings revealed that knowledge management process capabilities have a
significant impact on creating competitive advantage in companies. Dimitriades
(2005) argues that OL is an integral feature of any LO that effectively
utilizes its knowledge resources to generate superior performance (DIMITRIADES,
2005).
According
to Chattel (1998) if an organization wishes to fulfil KM functions, it
must provide a learning environment to maximize its human resources (CHATTEL,
1998). Hong and Kuo (1999) Pemberton and Stonehouse (2000) Loermans (2002)
argue that a LO generates new knowledge which helps sustain its competitive
advantage (HONG; KUO, 1999; PEMBERTON; STONEHOUSE, 2000; LOERMANS, 2002);
however, just creating knowledge alone does not mean that knowledge is being
efficiently and effectively used or managed.
KM
takes the output from the LO (new created knowledge), manages it and ensures
that an appropriate environment to perpetuate the generation and management of
knowledge capital is being properly maintained. Similarly, Rowly (2000)
believes that learning leads to knowledge, which may be either tacit or
explicit, while knowledge is available to support and enforce decisions,
behavior and actions (ROWLY, 2000). Currie and Kerrin (2003) adopt an OL
perspective to reflect more critically upon the problems of KM (CURRIE; KERRIN,
2003). Existing studies have demonstrated a correlation between OL and KM, such
as (THERIOU; CHATZOGLOU, 2008; BATTOR; ZAIRI; FRANCIS, 2008; SENSE, 2007).
3. THE SUGGESTED RESEARCH MODEL
Reviewing
the previous researches, 7 components have been chosen as subcategories of
knowledge management infrastructure capabilities which can be named in the
following manner: collaboration, trust and learning culture as subcategories of
culture; decentralization as subcategory of structure; top management support
and promotion as subcategories of management; and information technology
support as subcategory of information technology.
The
aforementioned components can improve knowledge creation in the section of
knowledge management infrastructure capabilities (LEE; CHOI, 2003). They are also effective in enhancing knowledge
management process capabilities such as knowledge creation, transfer,
application and storage (HOFFMAN; HOELSCHER;
SHERIF, 2005). Creative organizational learning improves through the
augmentation of knowledge management process capabilities such as knowledge
creation, transfer and application (MALHOTRA,
2004). As a result, enhancement of creative organizational learning will
develop organizational performance (PFEFFER,
2005; SHANI; SENA; STEBBINS, 2000).
On the basis of the above components, hypothesis of the study are as follows and Figure 1 shows the
suggested research model as follows:
·
H1: Collaboration has a significant impact on the knowledge
management process capabilities.
·
H2: Trust has a
significant impact on the knowledge management process
capabilities.
·
H3: Learning Culture has a significant impact on the knowledge
management process capabilities.
·
H4: Decentralization has a significant impact on the knowledge
management process capabilities.
·
H5: Top Management support has a significant impact on the knowledge
management process capabilities.
·
H6: Promotion has a significant impact on the knowledge
management process capabilities.
·
H7: IT support has a significant impact on the knowledge
management process capabilities.
·
H8:
knowledge management process capabilities has a significant impact on
the Creative Organizational learning.
·
H9: Creative Organizational learning has a significant impact on the
Organizational performance.
Figure 1:Research model
4. ESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1.
Measures
of variables
The
definitions and measurement items for the research variables in this study are
outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
The
items are adapted from previous studies which have been validated and used for
studies in KM. This study adopts and measures four broad dimensions of process
capabilities as suggested by (GOLD; MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001): the acquisition,
conversion, application, and protection of knowledge. Creative organizational
learning includes the extent of the ability to make existing knowledge invalid
and adjust the understanding of new environments through acquiring new
knowledge. Most variables in the model are measured by items written in the
form of statements that the respondent agrees or disagrees with to varying
degrees using a five-point Likert scale.
Table 1.
Definitions of variables
|
Sources |
Definitions |
Research Variables |
|
(SHANI; SENA;
STEBBINS, 2000; LEE; CHOI, 2003) |
The extent that people support
and help others tasks while performing their tasks. |
Collaboration |
|
(LEE; CHOI,
2003) |
The extent of beliefs in others
behaviors skills and attitude toward organizational goals. |
Trust |
|
(SHANI; SENA;
STEBBINS, 2000; LEE; CHOI, 2003) |
The extent that organizations
facilitate and encourage opportunities of development and learning. |
Learning culture |
|
(CARUANA; MORRIS; VELLA, 1998; LEE; CHOI, 2003) |
The extent that the decision
making authorities and controls are decentralized in organizations. |
Decentralization |
|
(CARPENTER,
2001; O’DELL; GRAYSON, 1999; SCHEIN, 1985) |
The extent that top management
understands and supports knowledge management. |
Top management support |
|
(BOCK; KIM,
2002) |
The extent that the
participation in knowledge management activities are promoted using financial
and nonfinancial rewards. |
Promotion |
|
(GOLD;
MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001; LEE; CHOI, 2003) |
The collaboration communication
search and access decision making and systematic storage of information are
supported by IT. |
IT support |
|
(GOLD;
MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001; ALAVI; LEIDNER, 2001) |
The capability to obtain
knowledge and its sources. |
Knowledge acquisition |
|
(GOLD;
MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001; ALAVI; LEIDNER, 2001) |
The capability to change the
state or format of knowledge for its reuse. |
Knowledge conversion |
|
(GOLD;
MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001; ALAVI; LEIDNER, 2001) |
The capability to transfer and
use knowledge for realization of its values. |
Knowledge application |
|
(GOLD;
MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001; ALAVI; LEIDNER, 2001) |
The capability to exclusively
protect knowledge. |
Knowledge protection |
|
(VANDENBOSCH;
HIGGINS, 1996) |
The extent to change the
understanding of existing business practices or make them invalid. |
Creative
organizational learning |
|
(GOLD;
MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001) |
The capability to develop new
products/services. The capability to predict business
or risks. The improvement of capability
to cope with new information of markets. |
Organizational performance |
Table 2.
Measurement items for the research variables (Standard
questionnaire)
|
Co1 |
The members of our company are
willing to take responsibility in the faults which we make. |
|
Co2 |
The members of our company are
cooperative with each other. |
|
Co3 |
The members of our company are
willing to provide support to each other. |
|
Co4 |
The members of our company
share cooperative inter-departmental atmosphere in performing works. |
|
Co5 |
Members of our company are
satisfied with each other in our cooperation. |
|
Tr1 |
The members of our company
believe that they treat each other truthfully. |
|
Tr2 |
Top management of our company
is well aware of the concepts of knowledge management. |
|
Tr3 |
Top management of our company
invests much human and financial resource for knowledge management. |
|
Tr4 |
Top management of our company
emphasizes the importance of knowledge management to organizational members. |
|
Tr5 |
Top management of our company
participates in and leads knowledge management activities (e.g. knowledge
sharing and utilization). |
|
Pr1 |
Our company provides much
financial incentives for knowledge sharing. |
|
Pr2 |
Our company reflects
contribution to knowledge sharing activities in personnel evaluation of work
performance. |
|
Pr3 |
Our company sufficiently
provides opportunities for education and training as incentives for knowledge
sharing activities. |
|
Pr4 |
Our company sufficiently
rewards employees if their contribution or sharing of knowledge leads to
organizational performance such as sales growth and cost reduction. |
|
Pr5 |
Our company respects and
acknowledges the honors of employees who contribute to knowledge sharing
activities. |
|
IT S1 |
IT in our company provides
environments which enable cooperative working in anytime and anyplace. |
|
IT S2 IT S3 |
IT in our company provides
environments which enable fast and easy exchange of opinions among
organizational members. IT in our company supports fast
and easy access to necessary information and knowledge. |
|
ITS4 |
IT in our company supports
various software tools for decision making. |
|
IT S5 |
IT in our company supports
systematic storage of necessary information and knowledge. |
|
AC1 |
The KM processes in our company
effectively enables the creation of new knowledge from existing knowledge. |
|
AC2 |
The KM processes in our company
enables learning of useful lessons from previous work experiences. |
|
AC3 |
The KM processes in our company
facilitates exchange of knowledge with other departments (or trading
partners). |
|
AC4 |
The KM processes in our company
enables the acquisition of knowledgeof new products and services in industry.
|
|
AC5 |
The KM processes in our company
facilitates the acquisition of new knowledge about competitors in industry. |
|
Con1 |
The KM processes in our company
enables the appropriate filtering of large amount of knowledge. |
|
Con2 |
The KM processes in our company
enables the absorption of employees knowledge into organizational knowledge. |
|
Con3 |
The KM processes in our company
enables transfer of partners knowledge into our company s knowledge. |
|
Con4 |
The KM processes in our company
enables the execution of activities for the integration of knowledge from
different sources and types. |
|
Con5 |
The KM processes in our company
enables the execution of activities for the abandonment or replacement of
outdated knowledge. |
|
Ap1 |
The KM processes in our company
enables learning knowledge from mistakes and failures and utilizing the
knowledge in works. |
|
Ap2 |
The KM processes in our company
enables utilization of retained knowledge in order to solve new problems. |
|
Ap3 |
The KM processes in our company
enables diffusion and utilization of knowledge which is necessary to improve
work efficiency. |
|
Ap4 |
The KM processes in our company
enables the distribution of knowledge to organizational members for applying
the knowledge to their works. |
|
Ap5 |
The KM processes in our company
enables the capture and application of knowledge in critical issues for
competition. |
|
Pro1 |
The KM processes in our company
enables the execution of activities for the prevention of inappropriate usage
of knowledge. |
|
Pro2 |
The KM processes in our company
enables the execution of activities for the prevention of disclosure of
knowledge into outside of organization. |
|
Pro3 |
The KM processes in our company
use technology for restricting access to important. Knowledge sources. |
|
Pro4 |
The KM processes in our company
clearly defines knowledge into which access is restricted. |
|
Pro5 |
The KM processes in our company
clearly deliver the importance of knowledge protection into employees. |
|
COL1 |
The knowledge acquired from KMS
enables the questioning of our view on the current business practices. |
|
COL2 |
The knowledge acquired from KMS
enables the development of our creativeness. |
|
COL3 |
The knowledge acquired from KMS
improves our perspectives on the execution of business. Processes. |
|
COL4 |
The knowledge acquired from KMS
enables having views in new direction. |
|
COL5 |
The knowledge acquired from KMS
broadens our views on business practices. |
|
COL6 |
The knowledge acquired from KMS
enables the questioning of our prejudices.
|
|
OP1 |
After knowledge management
systems are introduced the capability to capture new business opportunities
is improved. |
|
OP2 |
After knowledge management
systems are introduced the capability to predict potential markets for
products/services is improved. |
|
OP3 |
After knowledge management
systems are introduced the capability to develop new products/services is
improved. |
|
OP4 |
After knowledge management
systems are introduced the capability to predict unexpected incidents and
crises is improved. |
|
OP5 |
After knowledge management
systems are introduced the capability to rapidly adjust organizational
objectives according to change in industry/markets is improved. |
|
OP6 |
After knowledge management systems
are introduced the capability to respond to new information regarding
industry/markets is improved. |
|
OP7 |
After knowledge management
systems are introduced the capability to respond to new market demands is
improved. |
The
Standard questionnaire included 68 questions derived from (GOLD; MALHOTRA;
SEGARS, 2001; LEE; CHOI, 2003; ALAVI; LEIDNER, 2001) for KM Process Capability
and Hurley and Hult (SHANI; SENA; STEBBINS, 2000; LEE; CHOI, 2003; CARUANA;
MORRIS; VELLA, 1998; CARPENTER, 2001; O’DELL; GRAYSON, 1999; SCHEIN, 1985; BOCK;
KIM, 2002; GOLD; MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001) for
Infrastructure Capability and Vandenbosch and Higgins (VANDENBOSCH;
HIGGINS, 1996) for Creative Organizational Learning (GOLD; MALHOTRA; SEGARS,
2001 ) for Organizational Performance.
The
structural relations among variables were tested using the partial least
squares (PLS) method and Sample Random method applied to collect data. The
research tool was a standard questionnaire. Regression and correlation methods
and SPSS and PLS software were used to assess the collected data. Owing to the
fact that this research intends to assess the mediator role of KM process for
creative organizational learning. It is an applied, descriptive, correlation
survey. It is also a cross-sectional study, since the needed data have
assembled during a specific time from a specified target population.
4.2.
Data
collecting method
4.2.1.
Population
Target
population of the research consisted of 86 Top Managers in Science and
Technology Park of Tehran which were active in the Electronics and electronic
engineering. Bio Renewable Energy Nano and Information and Communication
Technologies.
4.2.2.
Sample
The
unit of analysis is a company that has adopted a KMS. The sample of KMS
adopting companies was obtained from a list of companies whose top managers
have enrolled in the Science and Technology Park of Tehran. Statistical
population includes executives of Knowledge based companies in Science and
Technology Parks of Tehran. The 68 questionnaire was distributed to the census,
60 questionnaires were completed correctly. The research data were analyzed by PLS
software. The unit of analysis is a company that has adopted a
KMS.
4.3.
Measures and Statistical Methods
4.3.1.
Validity and Reliability
Face
validity was used to validate the research tool. So, the questionnaires, as a
pretest, were distributed between 5 professors and specialists. Then, they were
amended based on their reforms. After that, a sample size of 20 people was
chosen and the questionnaires were given to them. Also In this study, to assess
the Construct validity was used of the statistical methods of confirmatory
factor analysis. Factor loadings over 0.4 are considered as acceptable factor
loadings and have proper credentials (Table 3).
There
are also some techniques to evaluate a research reliability, one of which is
internal consistency. It can be calculated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. It
is common approach in most of the researches and should be at least 0.7. The
reliability of each variable in this research has calculated and shown in table
4. This study assesses the measurement properties of the variables using the
partial least squares (PLS) method, one of most widely used structural equation
modeling (SEM) approaches in information system (IS) research.
The reliability
of the inherent variable and individual item is tested using internal
consistency reliability and Cronbach's α. The factor loadings of the inherent variables in this study are
presented in Table 3 As can be observed
the factor loadings are greater
than 0.4 and Cronbach's α is greater than 0.7 (Table 4), therefore the inherent variables of this
study exhibit sufficient reliability. All loadings in this study are greater
than 0.7; furthermore, the high values of the loadings, and significant parameter
estimates also indicate the presence of convergent validity.
Table
3. Construct Validity
|
Inherent variables |
Items |
Loadings |
|
Inherent variables |
Items |
Loadings |
|
Collaboration |
Col1 |
0.610 |
|
Knowledge management process capability |
Ac1 |
0.815 |
|
Col2 |
0.537 |
|
Ac2 |
0.727 |
||
|
Col3 |
0.611 |
|
Ac3 |
0.778 |
||
|
Col4 |
0.444 |
|
Ac4 |
0.757 |
||
|
Col5 |
0.626 |
|
Ac5 |
0.728 |
||
|
Trust |
T1 |
0.669 |
|
Con1 |
0.861 |
|
|
T2 |
0.636 |
|
Con2 |
0.821 |
||
|
T3 |
0.540 |
|
Con3 |
0.795 |
||
|
T4 |
0.705 |
|
Con4 |
0.762 |
||
|
T5 |
0.642 |
|
Con5 |
0.674 |
||
|
learning culture |
Lc1 |
0.613 |
|
Ap1 |
0.753 |
|
|
Lc2 |
0.445 |
|
Ap2 |
0.767 |
||
|
Lc3 |
0.547 |
|
Ap3 |
0.861 |
||
|
Lc4 |
0.546 |
|
Ap4 |
0.847 |
||
|
Lc5 |
0.688 |
|
Ap5 |
0.816 |
||
|
Decentralization |
D1 |
0.444 |
|
Pt1 |
0.744 |
|
|
D2 |
0.421 |
|
Pt2 |
0.776 |
||
|
D3 |
0.522 |
|
Pt3 |
0.602 |
||
|
D4 |
0.446 |
|
Pt4 |
0.589 |
||
|
D5 |
0.600 |
|
Pt5 |
0.742 |
||
|
Top management support |
Tms1 |
0.737 |
|
Creative organizational learning |
COL1 |
0.491 |
|
Tms2 |
0.636 |
|
COL2 |
0.888 |
||
|
Tms3 |
0.645 |
|
COL3 |
0.931 |
||
|
Tms4 |
0.795 |
|
COL4 |
0.921 |
||
|
Tms5 |
0.825 |
|
COL5 |
0.901 |
||
|
Promotion |
P1 |
0.757 |
|
COL6 |
0.429 |
|
|
P2 |
0.706 |
|
Organizational performance |
OP1 |
0.883 |
|
|
P3 |
0.664 |
|
OP2 |
0.898 |
||
|
P4 |
0.712 |
|
OP3 |
0.857 |
||
|
P5 |
0.836 |
|
OP4 |
0.689 |
||
|
IT support |
IT1 |
0.624 |
|
OP5 |
0.806 |
|
|
IT2 |
0.454 |
|
OP6 |
0.918 |
||
|
IT3 |
0.581 |
|
OP7 |
0.865 |
||
|
IT4 |
0.447 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT5 |
0.707 |
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Cronbach's Alpha
|
Latent variable |
Dimensions |
Cronbach's
alpha |
|
KM
Infrastructure Capability |
35 |
0.951 |
|
KM
Process Capability |
20 |
0.962 |
|
Creative
Organizational Learning |
6 |
0.873 |
|
Organizational
Performance |
7 |
0.934 |
4.3.2.
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test
One
of the most important assumptions the Pearson's correlation and regression is
the assumption of normality of the data set. As seen in the table 5 for all variables, significance level is more than 5 percent, so it can be stated that all variables are normally
distributed in this study.
Table 5.
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
|
Number |
Normal parameters |
Statistic |
Level
of significance |
Criterion validities |
|
|
Mean |
Standard
deviation |
||||
|
60 |
3.509 |
0.6275 |
0.777 |
0.581 |
KM
infrastructure capabilities |
|
60 |
3.407 |
0.8228 |
1.063 |
0.208 |
KM
process capabilities |
|
60 |
3.661 |
0.8136 |
1.199 |
0.113 |
Creative
organizational learning |
|
60 |
3.652 |
0.8784 |
1.136 |
0.152 |
Organizational
performance |
4.3.3.
Bartlett test and the Kaiser criterion
"KMO"
Index will
determine the suitability of data for factor analysis. The value of this statistic varies between zeros to
one. For a good sample,
the value of this statistic must be larger than0.5.In this study is equal 0.842
(Table 6). Therefore factor analysis is suitable for this data set. If the "Bartlett's
test" is
significant there is a correlation between variables and factor
analysis is possible .in this study a significant amount is less than the
then0.5, therefore factor analysis is
appropriate (Table 6).
Table 6.
Bartlett Test
|
Bartlett Test |
|
|
Kaiser- Meyer- Olkin (KMO) |
0.842 |
|
Statistic of Rotation Test |
362.259 |
|
Significance |
0.000 |
4.3.4.
Goodness of Fitness
The
most important indicator for determining the validation of the model is
absolute, relative and internal and external Indicators. These four indicators,
are fitted the quality of the models. Due to the high number is obtained,
relatively good fit. Therefore has been provided the good coincidence between
the structural models with experimental data. (Table7).
Table 7. Goodness of fit index
|
Goodness of
fit index |
|
|
|
GoF |
|
Absolute |
0.485 |
|
Relative |
0.768 |
|
Outer
model |
0.998 |
|
Inner
model |
0.770 |
On
the basis of the above components, Figure 2 shows the Structural Model research
model as follows.
Figure 2: Test of Structural
Model
4.3.5.
Methods of data analysis
The industry
distribution of the responding companies and the characteristics of respondents
are presented in Tables 8 and 9.
|
Work Experience |
Age |
Education |
Sex |
Demographic |
|||||||||
|
15-20 |
10-15 |
5-10 |
1-5 |
50< |
40-50 |
30-40 |
20-30 |
PhD |
MA |
Bsc |
F |
M |
|
|
3 |
1 |
16 |
40 |
1 |
2 |
23 |
34 |
3 |
20 |
37 |
16 |
44 |
60 |
Table 8: Demographic profile of respondents
Table 9: characteristic of
responding Companies
|
Industry
Type |
Frequency |
|
Electrical and Electronic Engineering |
32 |
|
Bio |
12 |
|
Information and Communication |
7 |
|
Nano |
4 |
|
Renewable Energy |
5 |
|
Total |
60 |
Table10. Pearson’s
correlation coefficient between the variables
This correlation
shows that a change in each variable will also change the According to Table
10; there is a significant and positive correlation between all variables.
Other at the same direction in a way that whenever a variable increases, the
other will rise too, and whenever it decreases, the other one will decrease
too.
4.3.6.
Method of analysis and interpretation of
regression test and paths coefficient
Amount of column
2 in the table 11 are the paths coefficients latent variables on the operating
variables, (Reg). Amount
of column 4 (Pr> | t |) are probability values, which by them are considered
significantly of Paths. If the value is less than 0.05, the path and the
desired path coefficients are significant.
Table 11.
Test Results of Structural Model
|
Hypothesis |
Path
Coefficient |
T |
Pr > |t| |
Result |
R2 |
H1: Collaboration
|
0. 690 |
9.224 |
0.000 |
Confirmed |
- |
H2: Trust
|
0.539 |
8.408 |
0.000 |
Confirmed |
- |
H3: Learning Culture
|
0.302 |
6.834 |
0.000 |
Confirmed |
- |
H4:
Decentralization
|
0.183 |
5.165 |
0.000 |
Confirmed |
- |
H5: Top Management
|
0.098 |
3.946 |
0.000 |
Confirmed |
- |
H6: Promotion
|
0.194 |
5.293 |
0.000 |
Confirmed |
- |
H7: IT support
|
0.761 |
10.219 |
0.000 |
Confirmed |
- |
H8: Creative learning
|
0.797 |
10.341 |
0.000 |
Confirmed |
0.631 |
H9: Organizational performance
|
0.813 |
10.924 |
0.000 |
Confirmed |
0.781 |
4.3.7.
Hypothesis Testing
Table 11 present the test results of
the hypotheses. In the first hypothesis (H1), the effect of Collaboration on KM
process capabilities assessed. The obtained results (0.000 less than 0.05) showed
that there is a significant and positive effect between Collaboration and KM
process capabilities.
In
the second hypothesis (H2), Table 11 shows the value of Pr > |t| (0.000) is
less than 0.05. Therefore
there is a significant and positive effect between Trust and KM process
capabilities. Also the same way, other hypotheses were confirmed. From the
table 11can be derived which about %65 of the variation in KM processes is discussed by incoming
parameters (KM infrastructure capabilities).
Also can be seen
in the table that about %63 of the variation in creative
organizational learning is discussed by incoming parameter (KM processes (and also about %78 of the variation in
organizational performance is discussed by the incoming variable (creative
organizational learning).
5. DISCUSSION
This study
integrates the theory of organizational strategy, IT, and organizational
learning in order to build an integrated model for KM that examines the
relationship between KM infrastructure, knowledge process capability supported
by KMS, creative organizational learning, and organizational performance. The results provide strong
evidence for a causal relationship between the constructs underlying the
conceptual model presented in this article there are several key findings,
which are discussed separately.
The first main
finding is the significant path relationship between Collaboration and KM
process capabilities (69 percent). Collaboration significantly affects knowledge process
capabilities and this indicates that the culture of collaboration contributes
to the creation of new knowledge by sharing experiences and knowledge among
organizational members and by assisting others in performing tasks.
The second major
finding is that there is a significant and positive effect between trust and KM
process capabilities. From the table 11can be derived which Path Coefficient is
0.53.
Another
important finding was that Learning Culture has a positive effect on the KM
process capabilities (0.30). The
learning culture has a positive effect on knowledge process capability and this
indicates that the learning culture facilitates the acquisition of new
knowledge and the creation of new knowledge from knowledge exchanges and
experiences. A culture that promotes and facilitates learning has a strong
influence on the capabilities of knowledge creation, acquisition, transfer, and
application.
The results of
this study indicate that there is a positive effect between decentralization
and KM process capabilities (0.18). The results of the study, however, consistent
the previous notion that ensuring autonomous decision making hierarchy
will improve KM processes by facilitating active participation in
organizational problem solving and the execution of necessary tasks.
Another
finding was that Top Management has a positive effect on the KM process
capabilities (0.09). This
finding is in agreement with Schein's (1985) findings which showed top
management support has a strong effect on knowledge process capabilities, and
this shows that top management has a strong influence on building
organizational culture and norms. But the support from top management may not
be required less after KMS and incentive systems are developed and completed. Knowledge
acquisition and conversion processes are activities undertaken early in
building KMS for accumulating organizational knowledge (ALAVI; LEIDNER, 2001).
The
results of this study indicate that there is a positive effect between
Promotion and KM process capabilities (0.19). This interpretation is consistent with
the notion that promotion and incentive systems for times and effort spent in
sharing knowledge may improve knowledge process capabilities by providing
extrinsic benefits to organizational members.
A strong
relationship between IT support and KM process capabilities has been found
(0.76). IT support
has a strong effect on knowledge process capabilities as it contributes to the
creation and sharing of knowledge with smaller costs and is a critical element
in KM (ALAVI; LEIDNER, 2001).
The study
results support the notion of previous studies that IT improves KM processes
which in turn affects organizational learning and performance (HANDZIC, 2004). The KMS that facilitates the
creation of new knowledge and updating knowledge enhances the opportunity to
create (MALHOTRA, 2004).
The most
interesting finding was that a strong relationship between KM process
capabilities and Creative organizations learning has been found (0.79). This finding is in agreement
with Dimitriades (2005) argues that effective learning requires the
development of a strategic learning capability by linking OL and KM in and
among organizations (DIMITRIADES, 2005).
These results
agree with Theriou and Chatzoglou (2008) who demonstrated that the KM and OL
play their own unique role in creating organizational capabilities, which lead
to superior performance (THERIOU; CHATZOGLOU, 2008).
This
supports the results from previous studies that Creative organizational learning
improves through the augmentation of knowledge management process capabilities
such as knowledge creation, transfer and application (MALHOTRA, 2004).
Firestone
and McElroy (2004) argue that the relationship of OL and KM is close
enough to be termed intimate (FIRESTONE; MCELROY, 2004). Recent studies have
indicated the positive relationship between OL and knowledge management
capability (LEMON; SAHOTA, 2004). This
study shows that the KM processes can mediate between factors in the KM
infrastructure (i.e. collaboration, learning culture, and IT support), and
creative organizational learning.
These results
agree with Lee and Choi (2003) who demonstrated that the knowledge creation
process is a mediator between KM enablers (such as collaboration, trust, learning,
and decentralization), and organizational creativity (LEE; CHOI, 2003).
This
supports the results from previous studies that KM processes based on IT
enhance the breadth and depth for knowledge creation, transfer, and application
(ALAVI; LEIDNER, 2001).
Another
important finding was that creative organizational learning have a significant
impact on the organizational performance (0.81) which is supported by several
studies, such as (PFEFFER, 2005; TIWANA, 2002) and this agrees with (GOLD;
MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001) who state that knowledge process capabilities are
related to organizational effectiveness.
Organizational
effectiveness depends on the extent to which the knowledge process capabilities
increase organizational learning. There is a general consensus in the
literature that knowledge management is linked to organizational performance (GOLD;
MALHOTRA; SEGARS, 2001; GOSH; SCOTT, 2007; LEE; SUKOCO, 2007; LIU; CHEN; TSAI,
2005; ZAIM; TATOGLU; ZAIM, 2007).
The
significant effect of creative organizational learning on organizational
performance demonstrates that organizational learning is a KM intermediate
outcome that exists between the knowledge process capabilities and
organizational performance, which supports the results of Lee and Choi (2003)
who posited that organizational creativity mediates the relationship between
the knowledge creation process and organizational performance (LEE; CHOI, 2003).
6. CONCLUSION
This
study makes important contributions in several ways. The integrated model proposed and used in
this study for the purpose of developing a KM enabling environment in a
knowledge-based organization is perhaps one of the most important contributions
to KM literature. The model was validated in the construct aspect.
This
study analyzes the relationship between KM infrastructures, knowledge process
capabilities, creative organizational learning, and organizational performance.
An integrative research model is built based on relevant theories and is
empirically tested using a sample of companies that have adopted knowledge
management systems (KMS). This essay has argued that a knowledge process
capability is the effective instrument to increase creative organizational
learning.
6.1.
Implications
for practitioners
This
study can provide KM managers and practitioners with guidelines and
implementation strategies for KMS by examining cultural, structural,
management, and IT related factors. The accumulation of knowledge is
inseparable from companies' activities: the products and services provided by
companies are dependent upon the unique method that combines companies'
tangible resources, and this is the role of KM. The continuous learning and
experiments are necessary in order to produce new ideas and products: it is
critical to emphasize the importance of a KM infrastructure that supports and
encourages learning in organizations.
The
creative learning in turn affects organizational performance indicating that
without learning, organizations cannot overcome the boundary of old business
practices and adjust to change in environments. The tasks of knowledge work are
less determined and planned in advance than other work. In order to manage
rapid change and global competition in business environments, knowledge workers
should create new business opportunities and continuously question what and how
they can contribute to these chances. Organizational KMS should support the
learning processes of their knowledge workers.
6.2.
Implications
for researchers
Using
a holistic view of the KM performance framework, this study has provided
insights to KM for researchers because it explains the integrated aspects of KM
performance by examining the relationships between the KM infrastructure,
knowledge process capabilities, and organizational outcomes. Previous studies
on KM have been fragmented because they only consider some aspects of KM
performance rather than using a holistic view of the KM performance framework:
they have examined the relationship between one or two facets of KM enablers
and process capability, or between KM process capabilities and organizational
performance
6.3.
Suggestions
and limitations
Owing
to the fact that customers are of great importance in business world and
organization’s success, it is suggested to examine the effect of customers’ knowledge
management on organizational performance by the application of a specific model
or its assimilation to the suggested model in the current research.
Although
this study provides interesting results regarding KM, the results should be
interpreted in light of the study's limitations and provide some future
directions for research. First, the present study has focused just on small
companies, so these results should not be generalized to all companies with
different competitive and organizational structures. Second, the sample is
based on Tehranian firms. Because the collections were limited to organizations
in a highly collectivist national culture, any attempt to generalize the
results to other countries with distinctly different national cultures should
be proceeded with caution.
REFERENCES
ALAVI, M.; LEIDNER, D. E. (2001) Review: Knowledge Management and
Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues, MIS Quarterly, v. 25, n. 1, p. 107-136.
AUJIRAPONGPAN, S.; VADHANASINDHU, P.; CHANDRACHAI, A.; COOPARAT, P.
(2010) Indicators of knowledge management capability for KM effectiveness, Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management Systems, v. 40, n. 2, p. 183-203.
BATTOR, M.; ZAIRI, M.; FRANCIS, A. (2008) Knowledge-based capabilities
and their impact on performance: a best practice management evaluation, Business Strategy Series, v. 9, n. 2, p.
47-56.
BOCK, G. W.; KIM, Y. G. (2002) Breaking the myths of rewards: an
exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing, Information Resource Management Journal, v. 15, n. 2, p. 14-21.
CARPENTER, M. F. J. (2001) Top management teams, global strategic
posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty, Academy of Management Journal, v. 44, n. 3, p. 533-545.
CARUANA, A.; MORRIS, M. H.; VELLA, A. J. (1998) The effect of
centralization and formalization on entrepreneurship in export firms, Journal of Small Business Management, v. 36, n.
1, p. 16-29.
CHA, H. S.; PINGRY, D. E.; THATCHER, M. E. (2008) Managing the knowledge
supply chain: an organizational learning model of information technology
offshore outsourcing, MIS Quarterly,
v. 32, n. 2, p. 281-306.
CHATTEL, A. (1998) Creating Value
in the Digital Era, London: Macmillan Press.
CHONG, S. C.; SALLEH, K.; SYED AHMAD, S.; SHARIFUDDIN, S. O. (2011) KM
implementation in a public sector accounting organization: an empirical
investigation, Journal of Knowledge
Management, v. 15, n. 3, p. 497-512.
CHOO, A. S.; LINDERMAN, K. W.; SCHROEDER, R. G. (2007) Method and
psychological effects on learning behaviors and knowledge creation in quality
improvement projects, Management Science,
v. 53, n. 3, p. 437-450.
CURRIE, G.; KERRIN, M. (2003) The limits of a technological fix to
knowledge management: epistemological, political and cultural issues in the
case of intranet implementation, Management
Learning, v. 35, n. 1, p. 9-29.
DIMITRIADES, Z. S. (2005) Creating strategic capabilities,
organizational learning and knowledge management in the new economy, European Business Review, v. 17, n. 4, p.
314-324.
FIRESTONE, J. M.; MCELROY, M. W. (2004) Organizational learning and
knowledge management: the relationship, The
Learning Organization, v. 11, n. 2, p. 177-184.
GOLD, A. H.; MALHOTRA, A.; SEGARS, A. H.
(2001) Knowledge management: an rganizational capabilities perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems,
v. 18, n. 1, p. 185-214.
GOSH, B.; SCOTT, J. E. (2007) Effective knowledge management systems for
a clinical nursing setting, Information
Systems Management, v. 24, n. 1, p. 73-84.
GRAY, P. H.; DURCIKOVA, A. (2005) The role of knowledge repositories in
technical support environments: speed versus learning in user performance, Journal of Management Information Systems,
v. 22, n. 1, p. 159-190.
HANDZIC, M. (2004) Knowledge
Management: Through the Technology Glass, Toh Tuck Link, Singapore.
HOFFMAN, J. J.; HOELSCHER, M. L.; SHERIF, K. (2005) Social capital,
knowledge management, and sustained superior performance, Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 9, n. 3, p. 93-100.
HONG, J. C.; KUO, C. L. (1999) Knowledge management in the learning
organization, The Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, v. 20, n. 4, p. 207-215.
HURLEY, R. H. G. (1998) Innovation, market orientation, and
organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination, Journal of Marketing, v. 62, n. 3, p.
42-54.
KHALIFA, M.; LIU, V. (2003) Determinants of Successful Knowledge
Management Programs, Electronic Journal
on Knowledge Management, v. 1, n. 2, p. 107.
KULKARNI, U. R.; RAVINDRAN, S.; FREEZE, R. (2007) A knowledge management success model:
theoretical development and empirical validation, Journal of Management Information Systems, v. 23, n. 3, p. 309-347.
LEE, D.; STEEN, E. V. (2010) Managing know-how, Management Science, v. 56, n. 2, p. 270-285.
LEE, H.; CHOI, B. (2003) Knowledge management enablers, processes, and
organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination, Journal of Management Information Systems,
v. 20, n. 1, p. 179-228.
LEE, L. T.; SUKOCO, B. M. (2007) The effects of entrepreneurial
orientation and knowledge management capability on organizational effectiveness
in Taiwan: the moderating role of social capital, International Journal of Managemen, v. 24, n. 3, p. 549-573.
LEMON, M.; SAHOTA, P. S. (2004) Organizational culture as a knowledge
repository for increased innovative capacity, Technovation, v. 24, p. 483-498.
LIU, P. L.; CHEN, W. C.; TSAI, C. H. (2005) An empirical study on the
correlation between the knowledge management method and new product development
strategy on product performance in Taiwan’s industries, Technovation, v. 25, n. 7, p. 637-644.
LOERMANS, J. (2002) Synergizing the learning organization and knowledge
management, Journal of Knowledge
Management, v. 6, n. 3, p. 285-294.
MALHOTRA, Y. (2004) Why knowledge
management systems fail? Enablers and constraints of knowledge management
in human enterprise, in Knowledge Management Lessons Learned: What Works and
What Doesn't, Information Today, M. E. Koenig and K. Srikantaiah, Eds.,
Medford, NJ, p. 87-112.
MASON, J. (2004) From e-learning
to e-knowledge, in KM Tools and Techniques: Practitioners and Experts
Evaluate KM Solutions, M. Rao, Ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, p. 320-328.
MCKEEN, J. D.; ZACK, M. H.; SATYENDRA, S. (2006) Knowledge Management
and Organizational Performance: An Exploratory Survey, in Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Hawaii, 2006.
METAXIOTIS, K.; ERGAZAKIS, K.; PSARRAS, J. (2005) Exploring the world of
knowledge management: agreements and disagreements in the academic/practitioner
community, Journal of Knowledge
Management, v. 9, n. 2, p. 6-18.
MILLS, A. M.; SMITH, T. A. (2011) Knowledge management and
organizational performance: A decomposed view, Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 15, n. 1, p. 156-171.
NGUYEN, Q.; NECK, P. (2010) Knowledge Management as Dynamic
Capabilities: Does It Work in Emerging Less Developed Countries?, Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 3, n.
3, p. 505-520, 2010.
NONAKA, I.; KONNO, N. (1998) The concept of "Ba": building a
foundation for knowledge creation, California
management review, v. 40, n. 3, p. 40-54.
O'DELL, C.; GRAYSON, C. J. (1999) Knowledge transfer: discover your
value proposition, Strategy and
Leadership, v. 27, n. 2, p. 10-15.
PEMBERTON, J. D.; STONEHOUSE, G. H. (2000) Organizational learning and
knowledge assets – an essential partnership, The Learning Organization, v. 7, n. 4, p. 184-194.
PFEFFER, J. (2005) Changing mental models: HR's most important task, Human Resource Management, v. 44, n. 2,
p. 123-128.
RIVERA‐VAZQUEZ,
J. C.; ORTIZ‐FOURNIER,
L. V.; FLORES, F. R. (2009) Overcoming cultural barriers for innovation and
knowledge sharing, Journal of Knowledge
Management, v. 13, n. 5, p. 257-270.
ROWLY, J. (2000) From learning organization to knowledge entrepreneur, Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 4, n.
1, p. 7-15.
RUGGLES, R. L. (1998) The state of the notion: knowledge management in
practice, California Management Review,
v. 40, n. 3, p. 80-89.
SCHEIN, E. (1985) Organizational
Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
SENSE, A. J. (2007) Stimulating situated learning within projects: personalizing
the flow of knowledge, Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, v. 5, n. 1, p. 13-21.
SHANI, A. B.; SENA, J. A.; STEBBINS, M. W. (2000) Knowledge work teams
and groupware technology: learning from Seagate's experience, Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 4, n.
2, p. 11-124.
SUN, P. (2010) Five critical knowledge management organizational themes,
Journal of Knowledge Management, v.
14, n. 4, p. 507-523.
TANRIVERDI, H. (2005) Information technology relatedness, knowledge
management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms, MIS Quarterly, v. 29, n. 2, p. 311-341.
THERIOU, G. N.; CHATZOGLOU, P. D. (2008) Enhancing performance through
best HRM practices, organizational learning and knowledge management: a
conceptual framework, European Business
Review, v. 20, n. 3, p. 185-207.
TIWANA, A. (2002) Knowledge
Management Toolkit: Orchestrating IT, Strategy and Knowledge Platforms,
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
VANDENBOSCH, B.; HIGGINS, C. (1996) Information acquisition and mental
models: an investigation into the relationship between behaviour and learning, Information Systems Research, v. 7, n.
2, p. 198-214, 1996.
WEN, Y. (2009) An effectiveness measurement model for knowledge
management, Knowledge-Based Systems,
v. 1, n. 22, p. 363-367.
ZAIM, H.; TATOGLU, E.; ZAIM, S. (2007) Performance of knowledge
management practices: a causal analysis, Journal
of Knowledge Management, v. 13, n. 6, p. 392-409.
ZINS, C. (2007) Conceptual Approaches for Defining Data, Information,
and Knowledge, Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 58, n. 4, p. 479- 493.