Chapter Overview
This chapter contains the overview of the descriptive statistics of the research data.
These data provide the general responses from the administrators, teachers and students.
This chapter includes results of preliminary tests such as descriptive statistics, multiple collinearity diagnostics, test of reliability and test of homogenity of variances. This chapter also introduces the process and results of ANOVA, The Binomial Test, Friedman’s Rank test and the results of the Structural Equation Modeling (including multiple regression). Lastly, a discussion is given to compare the significance of their influences
Descriptive Statistics Readiness (R)
With regards to the readiness construct, the respondents expressed moderately high agreement to questions R5 (M = 3.69, SD = 1.02), R7 (M = 3.41, SD = 1.08), R8 (M = 3.57, SD = 0.936), R10 (M = 3.61, SD = 0.978), and R11 (M = 3.61, SD = 1.05). This indicates that the respondents have a moderate sense of optimism (R11) affective commitment (R5, R8, R10) and continuance (R7) comment towards the university.
R4(M = 2.88, SD = 1.17), and R9 (M = 2.95, SD = 1.21), which are a part of the normative commitment scale, have low agreement thus indicating that either the university has not invested enough resources in the professional development of the respondents or that the respondents do not have a strong sense of obligation to the university (see Table 4.1).
136 Table 4.1 Readiness Mean and Standard Deviation
Variables Min Max M SD
R4 I don’t believe I can become as attached to another university as I am to this one
1 5 2.88 1.17 R5 I feel a strong sense of belonging to this university. 1 5 3.69 1.02 R7 I remain at this university because I like the benefits from
being here
1 5 3.41 1.08 R8 I am devoted to this university because I believe in its
values.
1 5 3.57 .936 R9 I feel obligated to this university because this university
has invested in me.
1 5 2.95 1.21 R10 I believe in and am committed to this university’s
mission.
1 5 3.61 .978 R11 Overall, I think this university is ready to develop an
effective KMS.
1 5 3.61 1.05 RA Average Readiness Response 1.00 4.71 3.39 .715 Note: Number of responses for all questions are 379
Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
With regards to the ICT construct the respondents are in disagreement disagree with all the questions. The low values of ICT15 (M = 1.86, SD = 1.05), ICT16 (M = 2.56, SD = 1.08), ICT17 (M = 2.51, SD = 0.915), and ICT23 (M = 2.83, SD = 1.10), indicate that the respondents believe that the hardware, the software and the ICT personnel available are not sufficient. The low values of ICT20 (M = 2.85, SD = 1.14), and ICT21 (M = 2.37, SD = 1.21) indicate that the technological equipment is not appropriate/up-to-date. Overall, the low value of ICT 24 (M = 2.59, SD = 0.769) indicates that the respondents feel that the ICT and other technologies are not sufficient to develop an effective KMS (see Table 4.2).
137 Table 4.2 ICT Mean and Standard Deviation
Variables Min Max M SD students who need to use it.
1 5 2.56 1.08 ICT20 The computer software is appropriate and up-to-date. 1 5 2.85 1.14 ICT21 This university’s internet is up to par with what I need. 1 5 2.37 1.21 ICT23 The number of IT personnel in this university is
sufficient
1 5 2.83 1.10 ICT24 Overall, I think the current ICT and other technologies
are sufficient to develop an effective KMS.
1 5 2.92 1.01
ICTA Average ICT Response 1.13 4.88 2.59 .691
Note: Number of responses for all questions are 379 Human Resource (HR)
With regards to the HR construct the respondents show moderately high to high agreement with the questions. The high value of HR25 (M = 4.07, SD = 0.777) and the moderately high value of HR38 (M = 3.98, SD = .802) indicate that the respondents have a favorable view towards the development of a KMS. The moderately high value of HR26 (M = 3.71, SD = 0.753) and the high value of HR28 (M = 4.18, SD = 0.598) indicate that the respondents also believe that they have the skills need to handle a KMS.
Additionally, the high value of HR30 (M = 4.32, SD = 0.722) and of HR31 (M = 4.31, SD = 0.643) indicate that the respondents rated their efficacy level high. The moderately high value of HR35 (M = 3.86, SD = 0.729) indicates that the respondents believe the students would be able to handle a KMS. The moderately high value of HR37(M = 3.83, SD = 0.753) indicate that the respondents value the development of a KMS, meaning they view a KMS as a useful and valuable tool that can bring more money into their pockets. Overall, the moderately high value of HR 39 (M = 3.82, SD = 0.857) indicates that the respondents feel they have all the abilities necessary to handle a KMS
138 initiative (see Table 4.3).
Table 4.3 Human Resource Mean and Standard Deviation
Variables Min Max M SD required if a KMS is adopted.
2 5 4.32 .722
department can handle a KMS initiative.
1 5 3.82 .857
HRA Average HR Response 2.67 5.00 4.01 .509
Note: Number of responses for all questions are 379 Strategy and Leadership (SL)
With regards to the SL construct the respondents show an almost neutral to moderately high agreement with the questions probably indicating that the respondents are uncertain about the university’s leadership and their strategies. The close to neutral value of SL42 (M = 3.12, SD = 0.974) indicates that the respondents are not sure about what the management is doing to try and increase the competitiveness of the university.
The close to neutral value of SL43 (M = 3.30, SD = 1.05) indicates that the respondents are not sure if they actually are supporting the management—their attitude towards top management can be viewed as being indifferent. The close to values of towards SL 45(M = 3.09, SD = 1.04), SL46 (M = 3.22, SD = 0.954) and SL47 (M = 3.24, SD = 1.15) indicate that the respondents are not excited about the rewards and the recognition they receive from the university. The moderately high value of SL48 (M = 3.79, SD = 0.986) indicates that the respondents feel that the leaders would probably support the development of a KMS. The low values of SL49 (M = 2.96, SD = 1.13) and SL50 (M
= 2.92, SD = 1.17) indicate that the respondents feel that there is a lack of care towards
139
them from the top leaders. Overall, the close to neutral value of SL51 (M = 3.32, SD = 0.960) indicates that the respondents are not really sure if the university’s strategy and leadership is conducive to the development of a KMS (see Table 4.4).
Table 4.4 Strategy and Leadership Scale Mean and Standard Deviation
Variables Min Max M SD
SL42 Management is doing a great job to increase the university’s competitive edge.
1 5 3.12 .974 SL43 I support the leadership in this university. 1 5 3.30 1.05 SL45 This university rewards creative and innovative minds. 1 5 3.09 1.04 SL46 The rewards this university provides are appropriate. 1 5 3.22 .954 SL47 If I perform well this university recognizes my
achievement.
1 5 3.24 1.15 SL48 I think the leaders here would definitely support a KMS. 1 5 3.79 .986 SL49 This university cares about my well-being. 1 5 2.96 1.13 SL50 This university cares about my satisfaction. 1 5 2.92 1.17 SL51 Overall, I think this university’s strategy and leadership is
conducive to develop an effective KMS.
1 5 3.32 .960
SLA Average SL Response 1.00 5.00 3.22 .819
Note: Number of responses for all questions are 379 Organizational Structure (OS)
With regards to the OS construct the respondents also show low to moderately high agreement with the questions indicating that the respondents have doubts about the university’s organizational structure. The low value of OS53 (M = 2.58, SD = 1.03) and OS54 (M = 2.66, SD = 1.25) indicate that the respondents feel that they are not given enough freedom to make decisions on their own or that their suggestions are not taken into account. The respondents probably feel that the decision making is too centralized leaving them little or no autonomy. The close to neutral point of view towards OS56 (M = 3.21, SD = 1.09) indicates that the respondents are not too sure if exceptions are given or if special procedures used when dealing with rare issues. This probably means that the university employs the same methods and strategies (a ‘one size fits all’ formula) in dealing with or solving majority of its problems. The close to neutral value of OS58 (M = 3.04, SD = 1.09) indicates that the respondents are not sure about what their actual job is in the university. If the respondents did know, then they
140
would have either ranked the question more in the ‘agree’ side or more in the ‘disagree’
side; but because the respondents are unsure about what they actually can or cannot do they gave a close to neutral response towards this question. The moderately high value of OS60 (M = 3.82, SD = 1.04) clearly indicates that the respondents feel the hierarchy is obvious in the university. Overall, the close to neutral response for OS61 (M = 3.25, SD = 1.01) indicates that the respondents are not too sure if the organizational structure is conducive towards the development of a KMS (see Table 4.5).
Table 4.5 Organizational Structure Mean and Standard Deviation
Variables Min Max M SD
OS53 My suggestions on how to solve problems in this university are taken into account.
1 5 2.58 1.03 OS54 I can take action without a supervisor/advisor approval. 1 5 2.66 1.25 OS56 Sometimes exceptions to the rule are made to improve
students’ or employees’ satisfaction. 1 5 3.21 1.09 OS58 Staff/students are encouraged to help top leaders to stipulate
rules and regulations that will govern the university.
1 5 3.04 1.09 OS60 There is a clear hierarchy between different positions in this
university.
1 5 3.82 1.04 OS61 Overall, I think this university’s organizational structure is
conducive to develop an effective KMS.
1 5 3.25 1.01
OSA Average OS Response 1.33 5.00 3.09 .701
Note: Number of responses for all questions are 379
Organizational Culture (OC)
In the OC dimension the respondents show low to moderately high agreement with the questions. This indicates that the respondents have some doubts about the university’s organizational culture as well. The moderately high agreements to OC62 (M = 3.70, SD = 1.10) and OC63 (M = 3.49, SD = 1.12) indicate that the respondents feel collaboration is encouraged on some level. The little above neutral agreement towards OS66 (M = 3.30, SD = 1.07) indicates that the respondents are not too sure if the university encourages the practice of its customs and beliefs. This could possibly be due to a lack of communication from top managers to the workers and students.
The low and close to neutral levels of agreement towards OC67 (M = 2.98, SD = 1.22),
141
OC68 (M = 3.12, SD = 1.27) and OC69 (M = 2.94, SD = 1.09) indicate that there is a lack of trust among the respondents and the lack of trust towards the top management and the top management’s practices. The moderately high agreement towards OC70 (M = 3.45, SD = 0.948) indicates that the respondents feel that the employees and students exercise some level of creativity in their jobs or in their assignments. The moderately high agreement towards OC72 (M = 3.49, SD = 1.08) indicates that the respondents do feel their creativity and innovation are valued. The moderately high value for OC74 (M = 3.45, SD = 1.07) indicates that the respondents do feel that sharing knowledge in encouraged on some level. However, the lack of trust observed in OC67 OC68 and OC69 could possible inhibit knowledge sharing activities. Overall, the moderately high level of agreement for OC75 (M = 3.98, SD = 0.804) indicates that the respondents still agree that the organizational culture, in its current state, could be conducive to the development of a KMS (see Table 4.6).
Table 4.6 Organizational Culture Mean and Standard Deviation
Variables Min Max M SD
OC62 Collaboration with other educational institution is encouraged.
1 5 3.70 1.10 OC63 Collaboration within and among departments is encouraged. 1 5 3.49 1.12 OC66 The practice of the university’s customs and beliefs is
encouraged.
1 5 3.30 1.07 OC67 I trust the management of this university. 1 5 2.98 1.22 OC68 I trust that fairness and anti-discrimination policies are
promoted.
1 5 3.12 1.27 OC69 The employees and students in this university generally trust
each other.
1 5 2.94 1.09 OC70 The employees are creative in their work and pedagogy 1 5 3.45 .948 OC72 The creativity and innovation of the employees/students are
valued.
1 5 3.49 1.08 OC74 Sharing knowledge is encouraged throughout the university. 1 5 3.45 1.07 OC75 Overall, I think this university’s organizational culture would
be beneficial for an effective KMS development.
1 5 3.98 .877
OCA Average OC Response 1.10 5.00 3.39 .804
Note: Number of responses for all questions are 379 Demography
The demographics indicates that majority of the respondents (65.4%) were females.
142
It also shows that most of the respondents were between the ages of 15 to16 years (45.4%) and that only 1.6% was above the age of 59 years. Additionally, Majority of the respondents were students (80.2%) from the faculty of Education and arts (73.9%).
Most of the respondents (45.4%) were in their said position for a period of 3 to 5 years and majority of the students had earned up to an Associate’s degree (43.8%). More than half the respondents (50.4%) log on to some social media platform everyday and more than half of all the respondents (50.9%) only stays logged in for about 0-3 hours a day (see Table 4.7).
Table 4.7 Demography Frequency and Percent
Demography FREQ. %
143
From all the Tables 4.1 to 4.7 above, the researcher emphasizes the top 5 and the bottom 5 variables as indicated by the respondents. In Table 4.8 it is shown that only the Human Resources variables are on top. This indicates that the respondents have high expectations of themselves and that they would probably be able to be effective in operating a KMS.
Table 4.8 Top 5 Responses Items Score Descriptions
HR30 4.32 If I set my mind to it, I can learn everything that will be required if a KMS is adopted.
HR31 4.31 I have a high self efficacy.
HR28 4.18 I have good collaboration skills
HR25 4.07 I would be excited about a KMS initiative.
HR38 3.98 A KMS will make my job/studies easier.
In Table 4.9 it is shown that the Organizational Structure and ICT variables are at the bottom. This indicates that the respondents feel that the University needs to reform its hierarchy and improve its technologies.
Table 4.9 Bottom 5 Responses Items Score Descriptions
OS53 2.58 My suggestions on how to solve problems in this university are taken into account.
ICT16 2.56 The number of science labs is sufficient for those students who need to use it.
ICT17 2.51 I can easily access any hardware, tools, or science apparatus that I need.
ICT21 2.37 This university’s internet is up to par with what I need.
ICT15 1.86 The number of computers on campus that the students have access to is sufficient for all the students in this university.
Descriptive Statistics Summary
Even though the descriptive statistics do not reveal the significance of the statistic it does gives some basic insight about how the respondents feel about each question.
For instance, only the Human Resources variables recorded means of four and above indicating that the respondents feel that they are personally ready to adapt to the use of a KMS (see Table5.3). However, what actually seems to be impeding the growth of the
144
university towards developing a KMS is the lack of proper technologies and lab equipment (as can be seen from the very low mean responses in Table 5.2). Whether this is significant or not will be discussed later on.
Additionally, the Strategy and Leadership, Organization Structure and Organizational Culture mean values (seeTables 5.4 to 5.6), are all between the HR and the ICT variables. Second to the Human Resources variables in mean rank are the Organization Culture variables. This indicates that the two variables that are under the direct control of the respondents are in the best situation for the adaptation of the KMS.
In addition to ICT, what seem to be impeding the development of a KMS are the university’s Strategy and Leadership and its Organizational structure—with these variables ranking third and fourth respectively.
With respect to the dependent variable Readiness, the mean response is 3.39 (see Table 4.1). This indicates that the respondents overall readiness to implement a KMS is a little bit above the neutral stance of agreement. Although the details as to how Readiness is affected by the five critical factors are discussed later in this chapter, it seems that the almost neutral response for readiness is probably due to the poor situation of the ICT, the strategy and leadership and the organization structure.
Lastly, if the means of the ICT, the organizational structure, and the strategy and leadership can reach to that of at least the mean of the organizational culture then the university would be in a better or even optimal situation to develop the KMS.
Test for Normality of Data
The Friedman test and the Binomial tests are non-parametric test which means they assume that the data is not normal. Before these tests are performed the researcher had to test the data for normality. The researcher used the
145
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in SPSS. The results are displayed below in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Test for Normality of Data
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
R .140 379 .000 .954 379 .000
ICT .109 379 .000 .972 379 .000
HR .104 379 .000 .981 379 .000
SL .084 379 .000 .986 379 .001
OS .155 379 .000 .974 379 .000
OC .094 379 .000 .968 379 .000
Note: ICT Information and Communication Technology; HR Human Resource; SL Strategy and Leadership; OS Organizational Structure; OC Organizational Culture; R Readiness
Because the data set is greater than 2000 observations the researcher observed the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test instead of the Shapiro-Wilk test. Based on Table 4.10 the p-value for readiness is p = 0.000, the p-value for ICT is p = 0.000, the p-value for human resource is p = 0.000, the p-value for strategy and leadership is p = 0.000, the p-value for organizational structure is p = 0.000 and the p-value for organizational culture is p = 0.000. Because all the p-values are at the p < 0.001 level the researcher concludes that the data does not come from a normal distribution. Hence, the Binomial test and the Friedman test should be used.
Friedman Rank Test
In the descriptive statistics above the researcher briefly hinted to the fact that the Human Resources is in the best situation to develop a KMS whereas the ICT was in the least optimal situation. The Friedman rank test will further test the ranking of these five critical factors for their significance.
Based on Table 4.11 below it can be seen that the Friedman test performed on the independent variables rendered a Chi-square value of 712.631 which was significant (p
146
< 0.001). This indicates that there is an overall statistically significant difference between the mean ranks of the five critical factors. In the top rank is Human Resource (Mean Rank = 4.01), followed by Organizational Culture (Mean Rank = 3.39); and then Strategy and Leadership (Mean Rank = 3.22), followed by Organizational Structure (Mean Rank = 3.09); and lastly, in the bottom position, is ICT (Mean Rank = 1.56). It is important to note that the Friedman test only it shows whether there are overall differences, but does not pinpoint which groups in particular differ from each other.
To do this a post-hoc test was performed.
Table 4.11 Friedman rank test
Ranks Descriptive Statistics Test Statistics
Mean Rank M SD
HR 4.49 1st 4.01 .508 Chi-Square = 712.631***
OC 3.41 2nd 3.39 .804 df = 4
SL 2.91 3rd 3.22 .819 OS 2.62 4th 3.09 .701 ICT 1.56 5th 2.59 .691
Note: * p < 0.1, ** p< 0.05, ***p < 0.001, n= 379; ICT Information and Communication Technology; HR Human Resource; SL Strategy and Leadership; OS Organizational Structure; OC Organizational Culture; R Readiness
Table 4.12 below shows the Post-Hoc test using Wilcoxon signed ranks test for where the differences are among the variables from the Friedman test. The test did elicit a statistically significant difference among all the paring of the means of the five critical factors. The means are presented in the form I - J which indicates the difference of the first variable (I) minus the second variable (J). If the mean is positive then the first variable has a higher mean; whereas, if the mean is negative then the second variable has the higher mean. The Z-score and the t-score both help to indicate the level of significance of the variables.
Firstly, the difference among the means for ICT and human resource show that
147
human resource has a statistically significant higher mean than ICT (M = -1.42 Z = -16.786, p < 0.001). Secondly, the difference among the means for ICT and strategy and leadership show that strategy and leadership has a statistically significant higher mean than ICT (M = -0.622, Z = -12.892, p < 0.001). Thirdly, the difference among the means for ICT and organizational structure show that organizational structure has a statistically significant higher mean than ICT (M = -0.499, Z = -11.365, p < 0.001).
Fourthly, the difference among the means for ICT and organizational culture show that organizational culture has a statistically significant higher mean than ICT (M = -0.796, Z
= -15.314, p < 0.001). Fifthly, the difference among the means for human resource and strategy and leadership show that human resource has a statistically significant higher mean than strategy and leadership (M = 0.793, Z = 14.910, p < 0.001). Next, the difference among the means for HR and organizational structure show that human resource has a statistically significant higher mean than OS (M = 0.916, Z = 15.967, p <
0.001). Additionally, the difference among the means for human resource and organizational culture show that human resource has a statistically significant higher mean than organizational culture (M = 0.619, Z = 13.016, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the difference among the means for strategy and leadership and organizational structure show that strategy and leadership has a statistically significant higher mean than organizational structure (M = 0.123, Z = 4.395, p < 0.001). Next, the difference among the means for strategy and leadership and organizational culture show that organizational culture has a statistically significant higher mean than SL (M = -0.174, Z
= -5.200, p < 0.001). Lastly, the difference among the means for organizational structure and organizational culture show that organizational culture has a statistically
= -5.200, p < 0.001). Lastly, the difference among the means for organizational structure and organizational culture show that organizational culture has a statistically