檢測高等教育機構對實施知識管理系統的準備度：以貝里斯大學為例

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學教育政策與行政研究所博士論文. 指導教授：黃乃熒博士. 檢測高等教育機構對實施知識管理系統的準備度：以貝里斯大學為例. 研究生：Melton Morrison 撰中華民囯 105 年 6 月.

(2) Assessing the Readiness of Higher Education Institutions to Develop a Knowledge Management System: A Study in the University of Belize. by Melton Morrison. A DISSERTATION. Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College at National Taiwan Normal University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy. Major: Educational Studies (Educational Policy and Administration). Advisor: Professor Whang Nai-Ying. Taipei, Taiwan. June, 2016. ii.

(3) Copyright © 2016 by Melton Morrison. iii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I give thanks to the Almighty God and his Son Jesus Christ for blessing me with good health, the strength and the will to complete this dissertation.. Secondly, I. sincerely thank my father, Thomas Morrison, my late mother, Bernice Morrison (whose desire was to see me complete this dissertation before she passed on) and my brothers and sisters for supporting me in this endeavor. Thirdly, I thank all my friends who have supported me on this journey and especially those who have been my family here in Taiwan.. I especially thank Crystal, Conor, Yun-Zong, Kevin, Polar, and Mark for. actively helping me to complete this study. I express special and sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Nai-Ying Whang for his time, his patience, and his guidance throughout this task. Thank you so much!. Also,. thanks Dr. Tony Shih, Dr. Vera Wang and Dr. Yi-Gu Ding for helping me with my questionnaire.. I am especially indebted to the faculty, staff and students at the. University of Belize for their help in completing my questionnaire; without their support, the completion of my doctoral degree program would not have been possible. I want to highlight my deepest gratitude to those staff, administrators, and students who sat with me and explained in detail the situation of the university, thus motivating me even more carry out this research.. I also thank each of my committee members, Dr. Ru-Zhe. Wang, Dr. Yi-Gu Ding, Dr. Chih-Lin Sun and Dr. Jian-Fu Lin for contributing very thoughtfully to the process of writing this dissertation. Finally, without the support of the Taiwan Ministry of Education and the Belize Ministry of Education I would not even have the opportunity to come to Taiwan to pursue my degree studies.. I will forever be grateful to these organizations for their. support in my academic career.. i iv.

(5) 檢測高等教育機構對實施知識管理系統的準備度：以貝里斯大學為例摘要知識的保存是一個組織最重要的功能之一。另外，組織不僅是保護知識，更是創造，保留，傳播知識，也被稱作知識管理。高等教育機構從事知識管理應該如同他們應該是知識的創導。這研究是用來評估Belize大學對於發展知識管理系統的準備。在這研究中的兩個原型Web Model還有Star Model是被設計來確定知識管理系統的發展是否準備就緒。兩個原型都用了5個關鍵因素去評估：信息和通信技術，人力資源，策略及領導，組織結構，組織文化，其中組織文化是Star Model 原型的核心。一個方便又隨機的採樣程序是用來搜集約3246名學生及200名Belize大學不同部門的教職人員的反應。從這個總體所需要的統計樣本數大約是346名受訪者。然而，研究員鎖定了400個樣本，然後取得了384個回應;其中379個為有效樣本，因此從這400個樣本的回覆率為94.75%。這個結果說明了人力資源還有組織文化的大小是KMS發展的最好條件;而策略、領導，組織結構及ICT則是最差的條件。此外，人力資源是唯一準備好接受知識管理系統的唯一條件。除此之外在教職人員及學生間對於各個因素是否準備就緒的觀點有著顯著的差異。這研究也確定了兩個原型都很適合去評估知識管理系統的發展是否已準備好了也確定那五個因素是重要的批判性因素。最後，這研究也提出關於讓這研究審查的五項批判性因素及未來研究進步的建議。. 關鍵詞：信息和通信技術，人力資源，策略及領導，組織結構，組織文化，知識管理，知識管理系統. iiv.

(6) Assessing the Readiness of Higher Education Institutions to Develop a Knowledge Management System: A Study in the University of Belize. ABSTRACT Preservation of knowledge is probably one of the most important functions of an organization.. Additionally, not only should organizations be preserving knowledge,. but they should also find a way to generate, store, and disseminate this knowledge—this process is known as Knowledge Management (KM).. Higher Education Institutions. (HEI’s) should be engaging in KM practices as they should be the lead creators of knowledge. Thus, this research sought to assess the readiness of the University of Belize to develop a knowledge management system (KMS). In this research two new models, the Web Model and the Star Model, were designed to assess the readiness to develop a knowledge management system. Both models used 5 critical factors to assess readiness: information and communication technology, human resource, strategy and leadership, organizational structure and organizational culture, with organizational culture being a mediator in the Star Model. A convenient yet random sampling procedure was used to gather responses from approximately 3246 students and approximately 200 teaching and administrative staff combined who ranged from different departments in the University of Belize. The statistical sample required from this population was about 346 respondents.. Instead,. the researcher targeted 400 samples and was able to collect 384 responses; of these responses 379 were useful, thus giving a response rate of 94.75%, from the 400 targeted. The results indicated that the human resource and the organizational culture dimensions are in the best conditions for the development of a KMS; whereas the strategy and leadership, the organizational structure and the ICT are in the worst vi iii.

(7) conditions. Also, the human resource is the only factor that is ready to accept the development of a knowledge management system. Moreover, there is a significant difference between the views of the teachers, administrators and the students towards the readiness of each factor. The research also determined that both models were decent enough to assess readiness to develop a knowledge management system and that the five factors were indeed significant critical factors.. Finally, this research offered. suggestions for improvement of the five critical factors under scrutiny in this research and also suggestions for future research.. Keywords: Information and communication technology, human resource, strategy and leadership, organizational structure, organization culture, knowledge management, knowledge management system.. iv vii.

(8) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………. 摘要……………………………………………………………………………………….... i ii. ABSTRACT………………………………………………………….…..…...……. iii. LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………….....…..….…. vii. LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………....….. CHAPTER1—INTRODUCTION……………………………………….……........ ix 1. Chapter Overview…………………………………..………………………........ 1. Background ……………………………………………..………………......…... 1. Problem Statement……………………………………..……………………....... 7. Purpose and Questions of the Study ……………………...……………...…....... 9. Significance of the Study…………………………………………...…..…......... 10. Delimitations and Limitations………………………………………………....... 11. Definition of Concepts………………………………………….…..…....…........ 12. CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………............. 17. Chapter Overview…………………………………………………….................. 17. Literature on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems... 17. Literature on Knowledge Management in Higher Education Institutions............. 42. Literature on Designing and Developing Knowledge Management Systems…... 58. Literature on Related Research………………………………………………….. 77. Literature on the Benefits Knowledge Management ………………………….... 100. Summary …………………………………………………................................... 108. CHAPTER 3—METHODOLOGY……………..………….………………....….... 109. Chapter Overview……………...………………………………………..……..... 109. The Researchers Structural Model…………………………………………..….. 109. Research Hypothesis ………………………...…………………………….....…. 113. Research Procedure………………………………………...….…………..……. 115. Data Analysis Methods. ………………………………..………………….…..... 120. Pilot Test, Data Collection and Sample…………………..………………….….. 125. Summary………………………………………………………..…………….…. 133. CHAPTER 4— EMPIRICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………... 135. viii v.

(9) Chapter Overview……………...………..………………………………..…....... 135. Descriptive Statistics………………………..…………………………….….….. 135. Friedman Rank Test………………………..…………………………………..... 145. Binomial Test………………………………..……………………………….….. 151. Analysis of Variance ANOVA)……………………………………………...….. 158. Structural Equation Modeling……………………………………………...……. 162. Summary…………………………………………………………………...……. 198. CHAPTER 6—CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……….………. 201. Chapter Overview……………...………………………………………….…...... 201. Conclusions of the Study…………..………………………..…….………...…... 201. Summary of Conclusions and Hypothesis……………………………….…....... 211. Recommendations ………………………………………………..……………... 212. Summary………………………………………………………………………... 218. REFERENCES. ………………………………………………….…....................... 221. APPENDICES. 241. A. Cover Letter……………………………………………………………….. 241. B. Final Knowledge Management Readiness Questionnaire……..……………. 243. C. Original Knowledge Management Readiness Questionnaire……...…..……. 247. D. Binomial Test Showing Responses to all questions before Question Deletions………………………………………………………………..……. 251. E. The Web Model and the Star Model…………………………………………. 257. vi ix.

(10) LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1.1 Departments in each Faculty at UB………………………………..….... 6. Table 2.1. Various Definitions of Knowledge Management……….………...….... 21. Table 2.2.The Four Modes of Knowledge Conversion……………………………. 31. Table 2.3. Various Definitions of KMS……………………………………..……. 35. Table 2.4. Key steps to Remember in Applying KMS………………………………. 46. Table 2.5. Monthly Pricing in US Dollars for Select Internet Plans…………………. 56. Table 2.6. Availability of Core ICT Indicators………………………………………. 57. Table 2.7. Key Factors of KM Implementation…………………………………..…. 59. Table 2.8. Critical Success Factors in Developing a KMS …………….………...….. 63. Table 2.9. KM Enabling ICT Tools/Networks. ……………………...……….…….. 72. Table 2.10. Criteria for the Five Critical Factors ………….….……..………….…. 73. Table 2.11. Comparison of Related Research……….………………….………..…... 89. Table 3.1. Relationship Between the Critical Factors………………………………....….. 110. Table 3.2. Hypotheses for this Research…………………...………………..……….. 114. Table 3.3. Questionnaires Sections and Titles ………………………………………. 116. Table 3.4. AVE and CR for Original Instrument……………………………………... 126. Table 3.5. HTMT for the Different Constructs……………………………..……... 128. Table 3.6. Factor Loadings for the Original Instrument………………………………. 129. Table 3.7. Re-test of Model after Low Loadings Deleted………………..………... 132. Table 4.1. Readiness Mean and Standard Deviation…………………………..…... 136. Table 4.2. ICT Mean and Standard Deviation………………………………..……. 137. Table 4.3. Human Resource Mean and Standard Deviation………………….....…. 138. Table 4.4. Strategy and Leadership Mean and Standard Deviation…………….…. 139. Table 4.5. Organizational Structure Mean and Standard Deviation…………….…. 140. Table 4.6. Organizational Culture Mean and Standard Deviation……………….... 141. Table 4.7. Demography Frequency and Percent …………………………….……. 142. Table 4.8. Top 5 Responses……………………………………………………………. 143. Table 4.9. Bottom 5 Responses……………………………………………………. 143. Table 4.10. Test for Normality of Data……………………………………………. 145. Table 4.11. Friedman Rank Test…………………………..………………………. 146. vii x.

(11) Table 4.12. Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test on the Five Critical Factors……….…. 148. Table 4.13. Comparison of Respondents Ranking……………………..…………. 149. Table 4.14. Binomial Test for each Critical Factor ……………………….………. 155. Table 4.15. Test of Homogeneity of Variances …………………..………………. 158. Table 4.16. Comparisons using the ANOVA test and Robust test……..…………. 159. Table 4.17. Turkey’s Post-Hoc Test ………………………………………………. 161. Table 4.18. Pearson’s Correlation ………………………………..…………….…. 163. Table 4.19. Collinearity Statistics of Tolerance and VIF………..…………...……. 164. Table 4.20. Collinearity Diagnostics based on Variance Proportions……………. 165. Table 4.21. HTMT for the Different Constructs Immediately after Data. 167. Collection…………………………………………………………….. Table 4.22. Factor loadings for the Different Constructs Immediately after Data. 168. Collection…………………………………………………………….. Table 4.23. HTMT for the Different Constructs after Deleted Indicators……….... 169. Table 4.24 Factor Loading Web Model (Hypothesized Model)…………...………. 171. Table 4.25. Fit Analysis for Web Model………….......……..……………….……. 180. Table 4.26. The Web Model Post-Hoc Statistical Power Test ……..……….……. 181. Table 4.27. Factor Loading Star Model……………………………………………. 186. Table 4.28. Fit Analysis for the Star Model …………………………...…….……. 192. Table 4.29. Test for Mediating Effect ……………………………………….……. 195. Table 4.30. The Star Model Post-Hoc Statistical Power Test………………….…... 197. Table 4.31. Analyses and their Respective Hypotheses………….………………... 199. Table 5.1. Summary of Main Hypotheses…………………………………………. 212. viii xi.

(12) LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 2.1. Infrastructure, infostructure, infoculture ……………………………... 42. Figure 2.2. Belize excluded from the World Bank web page drop menu…………. 51. Figure 2.3. Education………………………………………………………………. 52. Figure 2.4. Innovation……………………………………………………………... 53. Figure 2.5. Information and communication technologies……………………….... 53. Figure 2.6. Economic and institutional regimes………………………………….... 54. Figure 2.7. Knowledge economy index of selected Caribbean countries…………. 54. Figure 2.8. Internet users (per 100 population) as of year 2007…………………... 55. Figure 2.9. KM implementation requirement model (Ahmadi et al.) ……...….…. 79. Figure 2.10. Readiness for KM implementation model (Atoufi et al.) ………....... 80. Figure 2.11. Successful implementation of KM model (Yaghoubi and Maleki) ….. 81. Figure 2.12. Success of KM model (Ansari et al.) ………………………….…….. 83. Figure 2.13. Framework for enhancing KM using ICT in HEI (Omona et al.) ….... 84. Figure 2.14. Factors affecting attitudes towards KM model (Shirazi et al.) …....... 86. Figure 2.15. Factors that contribute to knowledge sharing (Sohail & Daud) ……... 87. Figure 3.1. Researchers proposed structural model……………..………………… 109 Figure 3.2. Research procedure………………………………...………………….. 117. Figure 3.3. Factor loadings for all indicators……..………………………….……. 130 Figure 4.1. Web Model factor loadings immediately after data collection………... 166. Figure 4.2. The Web Model interaction effect size and factor loadings …………... 170. Figure 4.3. The Web Model results of blindfolding and predictive validity …..….. 179. Figure 4.4. The Star Model (revised model) interaction effect size and factor 185 loadings………………………………………………………….…….. Figure 4.5. The Star Model blindfolding results and predictive validity…...….…. 191 Figure 4.6. The Direct interactions between the four critical factors and readiness……………………………………………………….………. ix xii. 194.

(13) For Thomas, Bernice, Mecheck, Marvin, Shanta and Shinell. xiii.

(14) CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION Chapter Overview This chapter helps the reader to understand the reasons for doing this research and the value of the research. To accomplish this, the researcher gives the reader insight to the background of knowledge management (KM) and the problem in terms of the Belize situation. The researcher then clarifies the purpose of the study as well as the questions to be answered and the hypothesis that will be tested in light of those questions. Finally the researcher discusses the significance of the study, its delimitations and limitations as well as the definition of the key concepts. Background In this knowledge era, learning organizations (LO) are emerging with knowledge being their major fuel.. As these organizations seek to pump more knowledge into their. systems, they realize that not only is knowledge a vital element in their survival but the proper management of this knowledge as well—it allows them to grow more rapidly than their competitors.. This management of knowledge is called knowledge. management (KM) (Hussin, Razak, & Assegaff, 2012).. Administrators globally have. realized that the quality of knowledge (intellectual capital) is their greatest asset. Realizing the relevance of knowledge as it relates to creating a competitive advantage, many organizations have been implementing new business philosophies gearing towards KM (R Abdullah, Selamat, Jaafar, Abdullah, & Sura, 2008; Cain, Branin, & Sherman, 2008). This concept of KM can also be applied in the education setting and moreover in higher education institutions (HEI’s) such as universities. HEI’s are highly involved in 1.

(15) the knowledge business as they are (or should be) the knowledge core for every nation. They are involved in the creation of knowledge, sharing of knowledge and learning (R Abdullah et al., 2008) and they face competition as much as any other business would. Consequently, in this era of the knowledge economy KM is now becoming widely accepted in the field of education (Petrides & Nodine, 2003). In terms of education then, it is the highest quality that will survive, in spite of its national origins (Ghaffari, Rafeie, & Ashtiani, 2012).. Accordingly, globalization of knowledge turns into a commodity. that can be traded.. HEI’s, just like organizations, ought to learn and gain knowledge. for improvements in decision making and in innovation (Chu et al., 2011) so as to meet the global standard for knowledge imports and exports.. As HEI’s transform into a. knowledge making machine so will the quality of its education.. The quality of the. education in HEI’s is a good measuring stick for the productivity and prosperity of any country as reform is only possible through education (Ghaffari et al., 2012; Hampson-Jones, 2011; Pinto, 2012).. Consequently, it is important to manage. knowledge well so as to catalyze the process of development.. However, HEI’s are still seeing many obstacles as they try to compete in the knowledge economy (Pinto, 2012) and to fulfill their main goals of creating, developing, preserving, sharing, and implementing knowledge so that the entire community can benefit (Savitri, Sahiraliani, & Yakhusna, 2013). As time has gone by KM is one of the major issues that HEI’s all over the world seek to address as they are considered as the major providers of knowledge in the “knowledge business”(Rowley, 2000) who will also provide the society with quality graduates, innovative techniques, creative products and intellectual property development (Pinto, 2012) .. With that said, HEI’s are now. providing more resources into KM activities as they realize that they can only compete 2.

(16) if they properly manage their knowledge initiatives. Many HEI’s consider themselves to already be implementing KM (Savitri et al., 2013) or have a developed knowledge management system (KMS); however what these institutions have done can merely be counted as KM.. They have library records and. electronic access to periodicals, but these are just accessing database and there is only a one-way flow of information happening.. For KM to happen there must be a two-way. flow from the document to the user and from the user back to the document.. Knowing. this, what other HEI’s have done is to implement different techniques and information technologies (IT) to foster KM activities (Carroll et al., 2003).. Some of these. techniques included reward systems for those who contribute to the system. Additionally, KM can be used to help teachers consider innovative ways to deal with challenges and to improve their performance (Chu et al., 2011).. Furthermore, Bhusry and Ranjan. (2011) notice that HEI’s are already creating knowledge through their academic and their administrative activities in the form of explicit knowledge (documents, procedures and results) and tacit knowledge (experiences, judgments, and individual perceptions). What is left for these HEI’s to do is to find a way to make tacit knowledge available to whom it may concern. To make this knowledge sharing possible then HEI’s, like business organizations, need to look beyond the information communication technology (ICT) structure and pay closer attention to the information environment (Petrides & Nodine, 2003), namely its human resource, group synergy, organizational structure, reward systems, its leadership, and information strategy, just to name a few.. Davenport et al. (1998) consider that. HEI’s must also take into account the external environmental pressures.. Considering. the external environment, Shirazi, Mortazavi, and Pour-Azad (2011) conclude that knowledge is both a good thing and a stumbling block. 3. Shirazi et al. deem it to be a.

(17) good thing because knowledge is a resource that can never be depleted nor depreciated; however they consider it a curse because competitors may be able to have easy access to it and hence impede on competitive advantage for the knowledge provider.. However,. this is where sustainable and effective knowledge management would come into perspective. The quality of education that HEI’s are offering today is of great concern to the society and the economy.. The cost of education is getting higher and higher and the. salary/wage that most college graduates make can only provide them with their basic necessities (food, clothing and shelter).. Additionally, companies have been. complaining that there is a gap between what the school teaches and the skills necessary to function in the business world (Bhusry & Ranjan, 2011), so there is a great need for HEI’s to reform their knowledge strategies. issue.. Belize falls right within the scope of the. With the increase in globalization Belize needs to increase in its knowledge. economy to compete globally. As the University of Belize struggles to compete with international universities the need has arisen for the university to develop some form of KM initiative that would capture knowledge for intellectual property and to help develop research.. To date. Belize has not taken much interest in developing KM initiatives even though it is an essential process.. HEI’s can be considered as educational markets where they must try. to adjust their strategies to meet the needs of the demands of the stakeholders and the pressures of the market (William & Amin, 2006).. HEI’s should ensure that they are. doing activities that will enhance the development of knowledge and consequently the knowledge economy; therefore HEI’s should try to make appropriate responses to the ever changing technologies and the global market.. 4.

(18) Profile of the University of Belize The University of Belize (UB) is a national, autonomous and multi-location institution committed to excellence in higher education, and service for national development. It is an amalgamation of 5 tertiary-level institutions which happened in 2004: Bliss School of Nursing, Belize Technical College, Belize Teachers' College, University College of Belize and Belize School of Agriculture. It boasts four main faculties namely: Education and Arts, Management and Social Sciences, Science and Technology and Nursing, Allied Health, and Social Work.. These faculties offer. certificate programs, and Associates and Bachelors degree programs.. On its own the. University of Belize currently offers one Master degree program—Masters Program in Biodiversity Conservation & Sustainable Development—which started in August 2011. The university also has plans to commence a Masters in Education program but no set date has yet been determined for the commencement of this program.. These are two. commendable initiatives by UB but much work is needed in terms of making these programs recognizable globally.. Apart from the mentioned Master degree program. that UB offers, if students want to pursue other Master degree programs it must be done through the collaboration with other universities such as the University of North Florida and the University of the West Indies.. Table 1.1 below annotates the various. departments under each faculty.. In addition to these 4 main faculties the University, in January 2010, established its newest department dedicated to environmental research--the Environmental Research Institute (ERI). The Institute explores research focusing on the Belizean environment and the Belizean natural resources.. This research is a very noteworthy and. commendable initiative by the University of Belize to stem off into a world renowned research university. However, this institute only focuses on the environment and its 5.

(19) natural resources.. For the University to move up on the global ranking of universities. it must foster research in other areas as well. Table1.1 Departments in each Faculty at UB Faculty Education and Arts. Management and Social Sciences. Science and Technology. The Regional Language Center. Business and Accounting. Agriculture. Nursing, Allied Health, and Social Work Allied Health. Arts. Social Sciences. Engineering. Nursing. Education. Information Technology. Social Work. History & Anthropology Center. Department of Science. Department. Source: The University of Belize official website: http://www.ub.edu.bz/academics/. The University of Belize also claims to be committed to research, however no mechanisms have been put in place to help or motivate its lecturers to produce timely research papers. In its strategic plan it delineates that it wants to “establish active research and service partnerships with domestic and foreign academic institutions, scholars, and professionals”(Mahung, Cal, Mortor-Lewis, & Morrison, 2011, p. 14), however, even though it has produced some decent research, the University is still lacking and can do much more to improve its research ability.. Additionally, in its. vision statement, for the next five years, the University hopes to foster development in Belize by producing socially and ecologically responsible graduates who are analytical, disciplined, entrepreneurial and skilled communicators, among others. Nowhere in its 6.

(20) vision has the University specified that it wants its graduates to be dedicated to lifelong learning, research, and collaboration with professional colleagues to improve the Belizean economy and the society.. Problem Statement Educational institutions through the skill of the teachers preserve the status quo, manages and develops the knowledge the society knows; however schools do not always manage their knowledge as effective as it can (Carroll et al., 2003). Moreover, most companies, and schools are no exception, manage their knowledge in an ineffective fashion (Probst, 1998), that is to say that not many organizations have a chief knowledge staff who is responsible for managing knowledge, and the University of Belize is no different. Furthermore, there are limited research done to show how KM can be used in the school environment (Chu et al., 2011).. In a document provided by. the Belize Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports titled “Improving Access, Quality and Governance in Belize”(Faber, 2012) never once was KM mentioned as a strategy to promote quality knowledge acquisition in the higher education sector; this is a daunting fact but it reflects the reality of the relationship between the education system and KM. Additionally, in Belize there is the need for teachers to collaborate more among the colleges. Competition is something great but it should not infringe on healthy collaboration (Hoare, 2007). Cuban (1995) also. Moreover, Briscoe and Peters (1997),. agree that teachers collaboration is on the low.. and Tyack and UB does not. currently have an implemented KMS, neither have they considered, to date, to develop one. Furthermore, in many organizations there exist obstacles toward the application of KM.. Likewise, schools lack the capacity to manage the knowledge within their. institution (Carroll et al., 2003).. Complicating the issue is the fact that the 7.

(21) stakeholders put certain types of expectation upon HEI’s, whereas the HEI’s lack the mechanisms to quickly and effectively respond to these expectations in a timely manner (R Abdullah et al., 2008).. Additionally, in HEI’s there is an ever expanding spectrum. of information to the extent where teachers may face difficulties keeping up to date with what is relevant in their field, and this is mainly due to the limited budget in the university (Petrides & Nodine, 2003).. Moreover, universities would rather allocate. monies to other areas of development such as infrastructure, staff increments and professional development instead of putting it towards a KM initiative, but the huge benefits of having such system must be made clear to HEI’s.. Even if HEI’s try to. develop some form of technologically advanced KMS, technological innovations, many times, are not implemented without opposition to the overall implementation(Cain et al., 2008), thus it is worth doing a preliminary assessment before the development of any new kind of system that may alter the custom patterns and practices of the workers. Knowledge exists in everything and it is everywhere, however, how it can be systematically managed in HEI’s is not well researched moreover in public HEI’s (R Abdullah et al., 2008).. Additionally, there exist numerous benefits (as discussed in. Chapter 2) that are hardly even mentioned so these benefits need to be made clear to all What’s more is that HEI’s. HEI’s as they consider developing some form of KMS.. need not only to invest in technology but also to improve the culture of sharing knowledge and collaborating (Bhusry & Ranjan, 2011). Finally, there are only few studies highlighting the readiness of organizations to develop a KMS, so there is definitely a limitation on the literature available (Razi & Karim, 2010) (however, the literatures reviewed were sufficient enough to help the researcher develop the overall frame work of the study).. Because of this it is necessary. for the researcher to do further studies in this area of KM. 8. Readiness is important to.

(22) assess because it evaluates the human likeliness of endorsing the new change (Armenakis, Feild, Harris, & Holt, 2007); if the individuals do not endorse the change then this may result in huge failure and loss to the management (Shirazi et al., 2011). With regards to existing research, many of them focus on companies or are myopic in their approach towards assessing readiness—meaning many of them only address the issue of implementation, or development—and those that do addresses readiness explore the issue in terms of an already existing structure or fail to include all three blocks: students, teaching staff and administrative staff as part of the sample.. They are. also myopic in the sense that they may not include the five critical factors and the demographic factors that the researcher will use in this study.. Additionally, many of. the previous research fall short of rigorous statistical analyses and this research seeks to improve in these areas (discussed under ‘Related Research’ in chapter 2). Moreover, no other research has used culture as a mediator to assess readiness to develop a knowledge management system.. Purposes and Questions of the Study The motivation to do this research stems from the above problems with relationship to HEI’s in Belize and HEI’s in general.. KMS is a tool so important that it. can allow individuals to collaborate by transmitting valuable knowledge necessary for the institution to reach and maintain a competitive advantage.. Since there have been. limited studies investigating the development of KMS in HEI’s, especially in the Caribbean and moreover Belize, this study has taken advantage of the opportunity to investigate the current readiness of Belizean HEI to develop KMS with a focus on the Belizean context. 1.. Thus, the purposes and questions of this study are as follows:. To assess the readiness factors of the university, to determine if it is prepared, 9.

(23) in its current state, to develop a KMS. a) Are the critical factors suitable for the effective and successful development of a KMS? b) Is the University of Belize ready for the development of a KMS? 2.. To compare the views of the teachers, administrative staff and students towards the readiness of the critical factors. a) Is there a difference between the views of the teaching staff, administrative staff, and students towards the readiness of the critical factors?. 3.. To determine if the critical factors are significant in assessing readiness to develop a KMS. a) Do the critical factors have a significant effect on readiness to develop a KMS?. 4.. To assess which critical factor(s) is (are) in the best state to develop a KMS a) Is there a significant difference between the readinesses of the factors?. 5.. To provide a model to significantly assess readiness to develop KMS. a) Is the model a good enough fit to assess readiness to develop a KMS? b) To offer suggestions about the areas where improvements need to be made in order for the university better prepared for a KM initiative.. Significance of Study As this research is the initial investigation of KMS development in HEI’s in Belize, this study will investigate teachers’, administration personnel and students’ perceptions of KMS development via questionnaires.. Many existing studies investigate KMS from. the point of view of experts or outsiders instead of the teachers, and the students, and 10.

(24) those involved in the system—these are the end users of the KMS.. The following. delineates the significance of this study to the university’s stakeholders, the society and the research community alike. 1. The results of this research could help teachers, students and school administrators to understand KM development in the school environment. 2. This study will help the management of UB to understand the concerns of the workers, and students. 3. This study also reveals to the government of Belize where improvements need to be made to turn the national university into a competitive research university. 4. This study also serves as a preliminary step to stimulate the research of KM in Belizean HEI’s and in Belizean organizations on a whole. 5. This assessment enables leaders to identify gaps that may exist between their own views towards KM and those of the students and teachers. 6. This study uses a new instrument designed by the researcher based on theory and validated by rigorous techniques to ensure the instrument’s validity and reliability. 7. Finally, this study improves on existing research by providing two potential models for assessing the readiness to develop a knowledge management system.. Delimitations and Limitations Because of the nature of this study—the geographical region and the culture where the study was conducted the following delimitations and limitations must be noted. Delimitations The study is delimited to the teachers, students and administrators of the University of Belize because the researcher is interested in investigating the readiness of this 11.

(25) university to develop a KMS.. Moreover, the respondents had to be a current teacher,. administrator or student, who has been with the university for at least a year. The study is also delimited to year and time in which the respondents were interviewed. Limitations Since the sample consists of respondents living only in Belize the results may differ among teachers, students and administrators who live in another country. Because each country has its own culture and innovative advancements, the results of this study may be different if it is investigated in a next country or even in a year or two from now as technology is continuously advancing.. Additionally, this study only focuses on the. University of Belize so the results may be different if the study was done investigating a different tertiary institution in Belize.. With that said, ongoing research can include. respondents who are from other tertiary institutions in Belize and compare the results with that of the University of Belize. Another limitation is recognized by Debowski (2006) who says that surveys may not sufficiently capture issues which were not anticipated when designing the instrument—and they may not offer the opportunity for people to comment more deeply on issues that are of great concern to them.. Definition of Concepts For the purpose of this study the following definitions were used: Readiness for change:. The concept determines how prepared the individuals are. to accept transformations in the organization.. It is a necessary prerequisite in order for. a person or institution to successfully undergo change (Holt, 2000). “Readiness for change is a comprehensive attitude [that is influenced simultaneously by the content (i.e., what is being changed), the process (i.e., how the change is being implemented), the context (i.e., circumstances under which the change is occurring), and the 12.

(26) individuals (i.e., characteristics of those being asked to change) involved] and collectively reflects the extent to which an individual or a collection of individuals is cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt, a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo” (Holt, 2000, p. 32). KMS readiness: This refers to the ability of an organization, department or workgroup to adopt, use and benefit successfully from a system that can capture, store, and disseminate information (Shirazi et al., 2011 as cited in Mohammadi et al., 2009). Accordingly, it is important for any organization that wants to develop a such a system to assess their environment to ensure it is pro development such an initiative (Shirazi et al., 2011). Operationally, KMS readiness is defined with respect of the Binominal test (explained in Chapters 3 and 5): for each of the critical factors at least half (test proportion of 0.5) of the respondents must give a score of above an average of 3.5 ( the hypothesized value) for each in order for the university to be considered ready with respect to that factor (Alishah et al., 2014; Esfahani, Nourian, & Bady, 2012; Molae, Manjiri, Khazaei, & Samiey, 2014; Moori, Jamei, & Kheirollahi, 2014; Shojaei & Kheibariyan, 2013). Higher Educational Institution: This refers to a university, college, or a tertiary institution where an associates, bachelors, masters, or doctorate degree can be attained. In this research the HEI is the University of Belize (the only national university in Belize) Knowledge Management :. “As the word implies, [is] the ability to manage. "knowledge" by using techniques and methods that were developed as part of knowledge technology to analyze the knowledge sources in an organization to perform knowledge analysis and knowledge” (Ahmed & Ahmad, 2012, p. 832). Please refer to page 25 for the researcher’s definition. 13.

(27) Knowledge Management System:. This is “The technological system [or tools]. that supports efficient knowledge management” (Debowski, 2006, p. 140). In this research it includes all the equipment necessary for adequate research to follow through. Accordingly, the University of Belize’s science lab equipment, computer hardware and software, library repositories and university manuals are all elements that could be used to develop a knowledge management system. Critical Success Factors: This encompasses the “necessary ‘preconditions’ for effective KM (Armenakis et al., 2007). In terms of KM, they can be viewed as those activities and practices that should be addressed in order to ensure its successful development and implementation. These practices would either need to be nurtured if they already existed or be developed if they were still not in place” (Wong, 2005, p. 262).. The five critical success factors in this study are factors which can be controlled. by the institution. The external factors were not assessed since the institution has little control over them. Information. Communication. Technology:. ICT. “covers. all. aspects. of. communications including software, hardware and their accessibility” (Ansari, Youshanlouei, & Mood, 2012, p. 216).. In this study the ICT refers to the. communication hardware and software in the University of Belize. Human Resource: This refers to the individual employees in the organization who work towards a common goal.. “Training and education is another important. consideration for successful KM. In a basic sense, organizational members need to be aware of the needs to manage knowledge and to recognize it as a key resource for the viability of a company.” (Wong, 2005, p. 272). In this study the human resources refer to the teachers, administrators and the students in the University of Belize. 14.

(28) Strategy and leadership: These are important in exemplifying the desired behavior for KM. “[The leaders] should for example, exhibit a willingness to share and offer their knowledge freely with others in the organization, to continuously learn, and to search for new knowledge and ideas. It is vital that [the leaders] model their behaviors and actions through deeds, not just words. By doing so, [the leaders] can further influence other employees to imitate them and increase the propensity of employees to participate in KM” (Wong, 2005, p. 267). In this study the strategy and leadership refers to the management style and policies of the management of the university. Organizational Structure: This “can be defined as a set of solution in which people are categorized in different tasks. It also determines how to coordinate among different tasks; it determines a method in which the decision-making process is occurred as well as the responsibilities for materials, resources and human processes” (Ansari et al., 2012, p. 215). In this study organizational structure refers to the overall arrangement of the departments in the university and the relationships between subordinates and their superiors. Organizational Culture: This is basically “comprised of common values, believes and norms for members of an organization which correlated them to each other. Organizational culture determines how affairs are done in the organization for its employees” (Ansari et al., 2012, p. 214). “It defines the core beliefs, values, norms and social customs that govern the way individuals act and behave in an organization” (Wong, 2005, p. 267). In this study the organizational culture refers to the everyday practices of the employees and the students in the university; the teachers’, administrators’ and students’ attitudes, beliefs and rituals are taken into consideration.. 15.

(29) 16.

(30) CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter Overview This chapter explores the theories and philosophical stance on which this research is based. It provides an exhaustive review of the relevant literature that assisted the researcher to assess the readiness of the University of Belize to develop a knowledge management system (KMS). First, it provides insight about what is knowledge management (KM), knowledge and KMS as it seeks to clarify the differences between different types of knowledge.. Next, it addresses KM in the higher education setting. and in other developing nations, focusing on Belize and the Caribbean. After, it discusses the criteria for a KMS as well as the critical success factors needed for successful development of a KMS and it also gives insight about how to assess readiness to develop a KMS, Lastly, the related researches are discussed and the benefits of developing and implementing a successful and effective KMS.. Literature on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems Knowledge management (KM) is a field that is exponentially growing due to its applications which is grounded in two main domains: the Human Resource Management (HRM) domain and the Information Technology (IT) domain; with competitive market and globalization being the catalyses by which the field has seen remarkable growth (Ghaffari et al., 2012; Staniszkis, 2003).. Consequently, a relatively. large amount of attention has been given to the idea in recent years (Morrissey & Schoemaker, 2005). Nevertheless, the idea of KM has existed before it was termed as such, as 17.

(31) corporations have always had some system in place to capture, store, codify and disseminate their knowledge. Morrissey and Schoemaker explained that firms have been using different KM techniques for a long time. The authors make reference to the fact that firms have been using communities of practice, while in ancient Rome metalworkers, potters, masons, and other craftsmen had both a social aspect and a business function and that in the Middle Ages guilds employed a similar niche for the artisans throughout Europe. In more recent times, KM was first introduced to industries and organizations and research and development (R & D) departments in 1980 and 1990 (Mamaghani, Samizadeh, & Saghafi, 2011) (where in 1990 the internet era for commercial use spawned). Fast forwarding to present day, society has realized an advancement of KM due to technology which makes it easier to capture, store, codify and disseminate knowledge. It is now used in manufacturing industries, financial services industries, the military, the public and the private sectors (Mamaghani et al., 2011) and according to Morrissey and Schoemaker (2005), this development has allowed the KM field to propel.. With its. growth, KM have been fostered by many computer software’s such as Lotus Notes, the Microsoft applications and, most noteworthy, the internet.. Smart phones in this era. have also improved the transmission of messages with different news applications such as the CNN news application and the New York Times application.. In essence we all. partake in the KM process whether we realize it or not. What is worth mentioning is that between the years 1986 and 1996, there was a slight confusion over what KM meant because few papers even bother to define the term (Wilson, 2002).. Abeljaber, Ioannou, Maor, Razo, and Tribolet (1998) explain. that KM is not easy to articulate and quantify, it “contains elements of many disciplines of "hard" and "soft" sciences” (p.4). 18.

(32) Despite the confusion in the KM definition , The World Bank, around 1996, made a commitment to become a global knowledge bank; since then it has taken numerous steps to improve its information systems, develop its knowledge-sharing activities, and foster broader global knowledge-sharing projects, in order to enhance the Bank’s, its partners’ and its clients’ access to and sharing of ideas (Wolfensohn, 1996).. The Bank. has spent some $220 million for corporate, network, and Regional knowledge sharing activities and over $60 million for its three main global knowledge initiatives—the Development Gateway, Global Development Learning Network (GDLN), and Global Development Network (GDN) (Gwin, 2003). With that said, according to Gwin, the Bank has made progress in building new knowledge sharing tools and activities; both staff and clients welcome the improved accessibility and timeliness of the Bank’s knowledge, and the Bank’s greater openness to collaboration and knowledge sharing. Following this trend, both the public and the private sectors have been investing in knowledge management initiatives (Morrissey & Schoemaker, 2005).. Morrissey and. Schoemaker delineate that in the public sector, the U.S. government spending will be about 30% of the total KM spending.. A research organization known as INPUT has. also forecasted that U.S. federal on knowledge management initiatives will account for about 30% of total knowledge management spending; INPUT has also forecasted that the U.S. federal government spending on KM and the technologies related to it, such as IT, has increased from $850 million in fiscal year 2004 to nearly $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2009. Morrissey & Schoemaker then explain that in the private sector there seems to be a larger focus of expenditures in certain industries namely the utilities, the financial services, the manufacturing, the communications, the education, the healthcare and the transportation industries, just to name a few.. The expenditure among these. industries alone totals to a whopping $6,599,039 in 2004. 19. As part of their KM.

(33) initiatives corporations have also adopted the intranet which has satisfied the basic technical requirement for KMS (Abeljaber et al., 1998).. Accordingly, the expenditure. on KM initiatives takes quite a sizeable chunk of the total budget; this emphasizes the importance that organizations are placing on KM. But before companies could have adopted a tight KM strategy they had to clearly define what is, or adopt a definition of, KM. Defining KM would then help these companies to achieve their KM initiatives’ in light of their respective missions. There are several authors including De Jarnett (1996), Macintosh (2000) and Petrash (1996) who conceptualized definitions of what KM should include.. De Jarnett argues that. KM is the creation, which is followed by knowledge interpretation, knowledge dissemination and use, and knowledge retention and refinement. Similarly, Macintosh describes that KM involves the identification and analysis of available and required knowledge, and the subsequent planning and control of actions to develop knowledge assets so as to fulfill organizational objectives. Whereas Petrash concisely states that KM is getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right time so that they can make the best decision. Abeljaber et al. (1998) explain that KM is the storing, sharing and usage of knowledge information in an organization for specific business advantages. Still yet another author, Debowski (2006), states that Knowledge Management is the process of indentifying, capturing, organizing, and disseminating the intellectual assets that are critical to the organization’s long-term performance.. KM has given birth to. many definitions and many ways of expressing the concept, which includes many disciplines; these disciplines give way to different perspectives and frameworks (Ghaffari et al., 2012; Shirazi et al., 2011).. As there are many definitions of KM (see. Table 2.1) there is not a sure consensus on what KM is—different articles give different definitions of KM.. However, among the many definitions one feature is common, and 20.

(34) that is the ability for an organization to capture, organize, classify and share critical knowledge effectively so that people can interact and work towards reaching or maintaining a competitive advantage and to enhance organizational performance (Cobos, Esquivel, & Alamán, 2002; Shirazi et al., 2011). Table 2.1. Various Definitions of Knowledge Management Author. Year. De Jarnett. 1996. Macintosh. 1996. Petrash. 1996. Brooking. 1997. Frappaulo and Toms Hibbard. 1997. Wiig. 1997. Van der Spek and Spijkervet Abeljaber et, al.. 1997. Davenport De Long and Beers. 1998. 1997. 1998. Definition KM is . . . knowledge creation, which is followed by knowledge interpretation, knowledge dissemination and use, and knowledge retention and refinement. KM involves the identification and analysis of available and required knowledge, and the subsequent planning and control of actions to develop knowledge assets so as to fulfill organizational objectives. KM is getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right time so that they can make the best decision. KM is the activity which is concerned with strategy and tactics to manage human centered assets. KM is a tool set for the automation of deductive or inherent relationships between information objects, users and processes. KM is the process of capturing a company’s collective expertise wherever it resides — in databases, on paper, or in people’s heads — and distributing it to wherever it can help to produce the biggest payoff. The insights, understandings and the practical know-how that we all possess KM is the explicit control and management of knowledge within an organization aimed at achieving the company’s objectives. Organizationally, KM embodies processes that seek synergies in the combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies, with the creative and innovative capacity of human beings. Technically, KM is a tool set for the automation of deductive or inherent relationships between information objects, corporate users and business processes . . .attempt to do something useful with knowledge, to accomplish organizational objectives through the structuring of people, technology and knowledge content.. 21.

(35) Table 2.1. (continued) Author. Year. Malhotra. 1998. Snowden. 1998. Huysman and de Wit Kidwell, Vander, Linde, and Johnson Anbulagan and Kuswara,. 2000. Carroll, Choo, Dunlap, Isenhour, Kerr, MacLean &Rosson. 2003. Petrides and Nodine. 2003. Morrissey. 2005. Debowski. 2006. Definition KM caters to the critical issues of organizational adaptation, survival and competence in face of increasingly discontinuous environmental change. Essentially it embodies organizational processes that seek synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings KM can be defined as the identification, optimization and active management of intellectual assets, either in the form of explicit knowledge held in artifacts or as tacit knowledge possessed by individuals or communities. KM is about the support of knowledge sharing.. 2000. KM is the process of transforming information and intellectual assets into enduring value. It connects people with the knowledge that they need to take action, when they need it.. 2001. KM can be viewed as a systematic learning process to fulfill an organization’s need for knowledge, which includes issues related to developing, implementing and maintaining the appropriate technical and organizational infrastructures to leverage knowledge across the organization KM refers to organizational policies, practices, and tools that allow individuals to better understand and to help define the bigger picture, of which their work is a part, and to more easily benefit from and contribute to the work of others in the organization. Achieving this involves balance and coordination between top-down articulation of policies and tools and bottom-up cultivation of practices and workplace culture. At the most basic level, knowledge management can be described as a set of practices that helps to improve the use and sharing of data and information and in decision making. KM in education can be thought of as a framework or an approach that enables people within an organization to develop a set of practices to collect information and share what they know, leading to action that improves services and outcomes. In seeking to balance an organization’s information culture and its technology culture. Specifically, KM embodies the strategies and processes that a firm employs to identify, capture and leverage the knowledge contained within its “corporate memory”. KM is the process of indentifying, capturing, organizing, and disseminating the intellectual assets that are critical to the organization’s long-term performance.. 22.

(36) Table 2.1. (continued) Author. Year. Chu Wang Yuen. 2011. Duncan. 2011. Farashahian and Abbasi. 2011. Laudon and Laudon Mamta, Bhusry, Jayanti and Ranjan. 2011. Atoufi, Yaghoubi, Shahgholian, Banihashemi Atoufi, Yaghoubi, Shahgholian, Banihashemi Atoufi, Yaghoubi, Shahgholian, Banihashemi Yaghoubi, Maleki. 2012. 2011. Definition An integrated, systematic approach to identifying, managing and sharing all of an enterprise's information assets, including databases, documents, policies and procedures, as well as previously unarticulated expertise and experience held by individual workers. Quite simply, KM is the collection of processes and management tools that organizations use to channel information into its decision making. KM is the practice of harnessing and exploiting intellectual capital in order to gain competitive advantage and customer commitment through efficiency, innovation and effective decision making. KM is the process of systematically and actively managing and leveraging the stores of knowledge in an organization. KM is the management of organizational information and knowledge by applying skills, experience, innovation and intelligence. A knowledge management approach is the conscious integration of people, processes and technology involved in designing, capturing and implementing the intellectual infrastructure of an organization. It enables the people within an organization to share what they know. KM is the process of creating, presenting, distributing and applying knowledge in the organization by individuals.. 2012. KM is the process of gaining group specialty in a company that creates the highest income and value.. 2012. KM is a uniform and systematic method for identifying,applying and sharing available understandable and specialized experiences in an organization. 2012. KM is an integrated, systematic approach to identify, manage, and share all of the department’s information assets, including databases, documents, policies and procedures, as well as previously unarticulated expertise and experience resident in individual officers. Indrajit (2005) explains that KM is the process through which Hamdani 2013 organizations generate value from their intellectual and knowledge based assets. Source: Hlupic, V., Pouloudi, A., & Rzevski, G. (2002). Towards an integrated approach to knowledge management:‘hard’,‘soft’and ‘abstract’issues. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(2), 90-102. This study. The researcher in this dissertation therefore defines KM as the systematic and intentional procedure used to assess, gather, categorize, harness, store, preserve, retrieve, 23.

(37) disseminate, analyze and synthesize critical data and information (in that order) that leads to new knowledge and new understanding; KM therefore then, through the interaction of the organization’s human resources, should transform an organization into a learning organization, thus relying on its previous and new experiences to solve critical organizational issues and to meet its mission in order to reach or sustain a competitive advantage.. With this definition in mind the researcher proceeds with this. study. KM is considered to be a branch of information technology(IT) (Hussin et al., 2012; Morrissey & Schoemaker, 2005). more than technology alone.. However, Hussin et al. warn that KM involves much. Morrissey and Schoemaker went on to proclaim that KM. is a business process by which firms create and use their corporate knowledge by integrating the firm’s culture into one cohesive whole.. In essence, a second. perspective of KM should focus on the flow of information among self-managing groups within an organization; along with this it should focus on the social and organizational processes (Hussin et al., 2012). This research will assess both the IT and the social perspectives as this is in line with the researcher’s definition explicated above. IT is important because it helps to convey explicit knowledge very well, and the social system is good because it delivers tacit knowledge very well, thus both IT and the social system are deemed as equally important (Hussin et al., 2012) as both the social and the IT systems involve the spreading of knowledge from individuals or groups (R Abdullah et al., 2008). Function of Knowledge Management Below is the explanation of two main paradigms referring to the functions of KM. The first attributes KM to five main categories as proposed byAbeljaber et al. (1998). These are intermediation, externalization, internalization, cognition and measurement. 24.

(38) In intermediation the knowledge transfer happens between the provider and seeker; externalization includes the most efficient and effective way to transfer knowledge from the holder’s tacit minds into an external repository; internationalization refers to the extraction of knowledge from that external repository, and filtering the knowledge to enhance its relevance to the knowledge seeker; in cognition, systems function to make critical decisions based on the knowledge available; and lastly, measurement involves all the KM activities that quantify and map the organization knowledge and the performance of KM solutions (Abeljaber et al., 1998). The second function of KM involves the usage of a systematic approach to transform individual knowledge into organizational knowledge (Savitri et al., 2013). According to Savitri et al. this involves the fusion of three components: people, technology and process.. The people component is linked to the organizations culture. and expects the members of the organization to inquire, listen and share; the technology component, driven by people’s understanding of the use of the technology, includes the reliable technological infrastructure used to foster the KM activities; and lastly the process, also driven by people, refers to the systematic and well socialized simplification, validation and distillation of the sharing (Savitri et al., 2013) The Confusion of What Knowledge is All the definitions of KM have a common feature however some of the focuses are different. For example Malthora (1998) and Petrides and Nodies (2003) focus on KM as it relates to ICT, data and information; Carroll et al. (2003) focus on KM as it relates to the organization structure and culture; Hysman and de Wit (2000) focus on the knowledge sharing aspect of KM; and Mamta et al. (2011) focuses on the management of organizational information. These divergent foci pose some problems for what KM should really mean.. A possible reason for the vagueness and ambiguity in defining 25.

(39) knowledge management seems to lie within the fact that word ‘knowledge’ means different things to different people (Hlupic, Pouloudi, & Rzevski, 2002) These differences become more visible when multinational companies wish to adopt knowledge management principles (Kidd, 2000). For example, according to Malhotra (1997) those organizations in eastern countries like India understand knowledge to be intellectual property; on the other hand western organizations refer to knowledge as something that exists in peoples’ heads. Additionally, Sveiby (2001) along with Phillips and Patrick (2000) explain another difference in the interpretation of the term ‘knowledge’: some research focuses on the individual whereas the focal point for other researchers is the organization (Hlupic et al., 2002). An additional factor, which creates confusion, is that there are many different types of knowledge that need to be ‘managed’ differently (Hlupic et al., 2002). The different types on knowledge can be broken down into two broad categories, namely tacit and explicit knowledge. Additionally, knowledge in organization strategy is a direct response to the knowledge economy(Shirazi et al., 2011).. Because of the knowledge era, today many. businesses and influential companies have blossomed.. Such companies include. Microsoft, Dell, Google and Nokia, where in these companies knowledge drives their global strategy (Shirazi et al., 2011). In these companies they try to acquire and sell knowledge faster than their competitors.. They invest in extensive research and. development initiatives to ensure that they are ahead of the competition. To achieve this goal, according to Shirazi et al. (2011), these companies focus on their structure, process, and culture. What is Knowledge? At this point, the term knowledge has still yet not been defined.. There is no. single definition of knowledge on which scholars agree, but rather numerous theories 26.