This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/31/2019 Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization
* Associate Professor, Jamal Institute of Management, Jamal Mohamed College, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu,India. E-mail: [email protected]
** Assistant Professor, Jamal Institute of Management, Jamal Mohamed College, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu,India. E-mail: [email protected]
U Syed Aktharsha* and H Anisa**
Introduction
Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices that deal withhow knowledge is acquired, transferred, and shared with all the members of the organization.
Such strategies and practices seek to achieve the organization’s objectives.
Knowledge Management System (KMS) refers to a comprehensive information and
communication technology platform used for managing knowledge in organizations for
supporting creation, capture, storage and dissemination of information.
Review of Literature
Sense (2008) examined how people can conceive learning and KM processes within project
teams and provided conceptual guidance on the most effective way to managerially approach
these important and often neglected project issues. The conceptual paper by Andrew draws on
and dissects a very broad and relevant literature on learning and KM. In this paper, he puts
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of Knowledge Management System (KMS) on
learning organization. This paper also attempts to investigate the relationship between demographic
profile and KMS and the relationship between demographic profile and learning organizations. A private
engineering concern in a district has been chosen for conducting this study and a sample of 65 managers
and engineers were chosen from the population of 180 managers and engineers together.
A survey-based instrument is used to gather the responses from managers and engineers. Some variations
were observed on KMS due to the factors such as innovation, different market entry and market share.
Some variations were observed on the properties of learning organization due to factors such as knowledgeapplication, KM process and shared vision. The study is limited to one particular organization. The
results may not be applicable to other business organizations. KMS is an IT based system developed for
managing knowledge in organizations which supports the creation, capture, storage and dissemination
of information. Nowadays, many organizations especially knowledge-based organizations have started
realizing the importance and benefits of KMS and also the contribution of KMS in learning organizations
is well understood by the organizations.
Keywords: Knowledge, Knowledge Management System (KMS), Learning organization
Knowledge Management System
7/31/2019 Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization
Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization:An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization
27
forward a conceptually grounded argument for a greater practical emphasis to be placed on the
social systems in learning and KM processes in projects. Here, he also provided a foundation for
project practitioners to critically reflect on their current learning and KM attitudes and practices,
and also encouraged their attention towards the management of their social system projects
(Merx-Chermin and Nijhof, 2005). Through this study, we can gain a better understanding of
the factors that influence the innovative power of organizations. They examined the concept
of innovation and innovative power by analyzing the relationship between the construct of the
learning organization, knowledge organization and innovative organization. The innovative
process model drawn out by Mireille consists of three processes—knowledge creation, innovation
and learning to learn. He conducted an exploratory study on Oce Technologies, The Netherlands.
Armstrong and Foley (2003) outline the results of current research carried out at Victoria
University, Australia, into what is a learning organization, how organizations learn, and how to
develop a learning organization. The objective of the study by Anona was to identify the
components that underpin the development and operation of a learning organization, i.e., the
foundations, or organizational learning mechanisms that support the development and
maintenance of a learning organization. This research provided an instrument for systematically
measuring and monitoring progress towards achieving a learning organization.
Loermans (2002) had briefly looked at the overlaps and synergies between various knowledge
concepts. He argued that the discipline of KM at a corporate level and the phenomenon of the
learning organization are inextricably linked and should always be analyzed and discussed in
concert. Rowley (2000) had established a clear link between learning and knowledge, and
proposes a simple model, which made this relationship explicit. In the research paper he argued
that indiscriminate knowledge creation will not lead to organizational learning, and that
knowledge is not something that can be viewed as a neutral tool in the learning process.
Pemberton and Stonehouse (2000) revealed that competitive success is governed by an
organization’s ability to develop new knowledge assets that create core competencies. The author
stressed that organizational learning is an integral feature of any learning organization that exploits
its knowledge resources to generate superior performance. In his research paper he also explored
the ideas and links between organizational learning and KM, making reference to a number of
sectors and companies, and specifically the airline industry, arguing that the culture, structure and
infrastructure of an organization are essential elements that facilitate and nurture learning.
Simonin (1997) revealed that experience alone is not sufficient for the achievement of
greater results from collaboration. He had also emphasized the need and importance of
internalizing experience in the view of developing collaborative know how for the purpose of
contribution towards future collaborative benefits.
Finnegan and Willcocks (2006) attempted to apply a processual analysis to the
implementation of a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system from a knowledgemanagement perspective to a contemporary (1999-2004) situation within a UK city council.
This paper seeks to place a specific focus on the neglected areas in previous CRM studies such
as sub-cultures, psychological contracts, how tacit knowledge can be surfaced and transferred,
and with what will be the effect on implementation. The major findings of the study showed
7/31/2019 Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization
The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 201128
that a rich picture emerges of sub-cultural silos of knowledge linked with psychological
contracts and power-based relationships influencing and inhibiting adoption and acceptance
of the CRM system.
Klein and Heuser (2008) presented an expanded socialization content typology. Besides,two other components are added to this typology to reflect the fact that—(a) each of those
content dimensions needs to be learned relative to different organizational levels (e.g., job,
work group, unit, organization) and (b) socialization occurs over several months and there
are temporal considerations relating to the different socialization content dimensions.
The conceptual measurement and research needs suggested by these extensions to the
socialization literature, are identified.
Dechant et al. (2000) presented a model of team learning. Two dissertation studies that
affirm the model and provide additional insight into the nature of team learning in corporate
settings were mainly highlighted by the authors.
Fink and Ploder (2009) has proposed a theoretical framework as a layer concept to describe
the special situation of knowledge management in SMEs. Based on this framework, empiricalstudies were conducted in German-speaking countries to find out the relevant methods and
tools supporting knowledge management in SMEs. The major findings revealed that there
are spime methods of knowledge management that support the four key knowledge processes
in SMEs, i.e. knowledge identification, knowledge acquisition, knowledge distribution and
knowledge preservation. The results are explained in the developed ‘Technical Social Social
Technical Model’ (TSST Model), which is a balanced system for technical and social knowledge
applications.
Crossan and Guatto (1996) analyzed the results of a keyword search of three databases
using the terms ‘organizational learning’ and ‘learning organization’ to uncover patterns
relating to—(a) amount of publishing activity by year; (b) influential authors; (c) journals
publishing organizational learning research; and (d) type of research published.Kyobe (2010) presented a multi-theoretical model that can be used to identify knowledge
transfer impediments contributing to the crises in the IS discipline in a university. The
literature on crisis management and crises in the IS discipline revealed that many crises are
caused due to lack of appropriate knowledge development and sharing in research and
education. Knowledge management research was reviewed and synthesized to create a
comprehensive framework for identifying impediments to knowledge transfer in a university
setting.
Belsis et al. (2005) did a survey with five organizations (public and private) and five
security experts and consultants. A model to illustrate the structure of IS security knowledge
in an organization is then proposed. The major findings of the study revealed that—successful
security management largely depends on the involvement of users and other stakeholders insecurity analysis, design, and implementation as well as in actively defending the Information
Systems (IS). However, there is a lack of lack required knowledge of IS security issues that
would allow them to play an important role in IS security management among most
stakeholders.
7/31/2019 Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization
Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization:An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization
29
Yahya and Goh (2002) examined the linkages between four areas of human resource
management (training, decision-making, performance appraisal, and compensation and
reward) with five areas of knowledge management (knowledge acquisition, knowledge
documentation, knowledge transfer, knowledge creation, knowledge application). The analysis
suggest that a knowledge organization requires a different management approach than the
non-knowledge organization. Hence, the role of human resource management is also unique.
In terms of employee development, there must be a focus on achieving quality, creativity,
leadership, and problem solving skill. Compensation and reward system should be designed
on promoting group performance, knowledge sharing, and innovative thinking. They have
also mentioned that the performance appraisal must be the base of evaluation of employee's
knowledge management practices and an input for directing knowledge management efforts.
Appelbaum and Goransson (1997) stated that organizational learning is currently a
fashionable concept, and this is due to an attempt by many large organizations to develop
structures and systems that are more adaptable and responsive to change. While reviewing
the framework for organizational learning, they also examined learning organization with
regard to twofold nature of organizational learning. Literatures were developed and presentedby considering the learning organization from generative or transformational perspective
and incremental or adaptive perspective. Conclusions were drawn by integrating the two
perspectives on the learning organization into the reviewed framework for congruence.
The aim of the research conducted by Buckler (1998) was to synthesize a learning process
model from relevant learning theory, and to derive a practical model, which can be used by
organizations to facilitate individual, team and organizational learning, resulting in
continuous improvement and innovation in business processes.
Research Methodology
The present study is undertaken to find out the following:
• To investigate the relationship between demographic profile and KMS.
• To investigate the relationship between demographic profile and learning organization.
• To identify the variables and their grouping into factors that influence the KMS and
learning organization.
Sampling DesignA private engineering concern was chosen for conducting this study. The study has takeninto account the various aspects of KMS and its contribution to learning organization. Thedecision to choose this particular private company was taken because the senior administratorsof the concern permitted to conduct this study on KM and learning organization. A sampleof 65 managers and engineers has been chosen from the population of 180 managers andengineers together using stratified random sampling method. The tabulated description of
demographic details of the sample is presented in Table 1.
Data Collection
The data was collected from the managers and engineers of the selected engineering enterprise
through a questionnaire which had 3 major parts, namely;
7/31/2019 Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization
The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 201136
Table 12 shows that factor 1, factor 2,
factor 3 and factor 4 explain a variation of
16.597%, 16.372%, 15.268%, and 12.388%,
respectively and together show the variance
of 60.625%.
It is also inferred that factor 1 consists
of two variables of which easy uploading into
database is found to be significant with a
variation of 16.597%. Factor 2 consists of three variables of which sharing and acting upon
knowledge is significant with a variation of 16.372%. Factor 3 consists of three variables of which sharing of experience and information is significant with a variation of 15.268%.
Factor 4 consists of two variables of which sharing best practices are significant with a variation
of 12.388%. Based on the results of factor loading (Table 13), the factors are named which is
given in Table 14.
Table 10: KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.670
Approx. Chi-Square 117.040
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity df 55.000
Sig. 0
Table 11: Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1. 2.905 26.406 26.406 2.905 26.406 26.406
2. 1.377 12.516 38.921 1.377 12.516 38.921
3. 1.254 11.400 50.321 1.254 11.400 50.321
4. 1.133 10.304 60.625 1.133 10.304 60.625
5. 0.880 8.002 68.626
6. 0.748 6.803 75.429
7. 0.714 6.490 81.919
8. 0.646 5.876 87.796
9. 0.564 5.130 92.926
10. 0.478 4.345 97.271
11. 0.300 2.729 100.000
Component
Table 12: Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1.826 16.597 16.597
1.801 16.372 32.969
1.680 15.268 48.237
1.363 12.388 60.625
7/31/2019 Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization
Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization:An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization
39
to transform into a learning organization. So the organization should continuously focus its
efforts on KM.
Limitations: The results obtained in this study could be subject to some limitations. The
study is restricted only to a particular engineering firm in a district. The population belongsto only managers and engineers and samples were drawn from particular departments of a
selected organization. Identifying managers and engineers who are really familiar and
experienced with KMS was found to be difficult.
Some avenues for further research are as follows: The relationship between KMS and
organizational culture; the relationship between KMS and knowledge sharing; the relationship
between KMS and knowledge seeking practices; the relationship between KMS and intellectual
capital; the relationship between KMS and task characteristics.
References
1. Appelbaum Steven H and Goransson Lars (1997), “Transformational and Adaptive
Learning within the Learning Organization: A Framework for Research and Application”,The Learning Organization, Vol. 4, pp. 115-128.
2. Armstrong Anona and Foley Patrick (2003), “Foundations for a Learning Organization:
Organization Learning Mechanisms”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10, pp. 74-82.
3. Belsis Petros, Kokolakis Spyros and Kiountouzis Evangelos (2005), “Information Systems
Security from a Knowledge Management Perspective”, Information Management &
Computer Security, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 189-202.
4. Buckler Bill (1998), “Practical Steps Towards a Learning Organization: Applying
Academic Knowledge to Improvement and Innovation in Business Processes”,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 5, pp. 15-23.
5. Crossan Mary and Guatto Tracy (1996), “Organizational Learning Research Profile”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 9, pp. 107-112.
6. Dechant Kathleen, Marsick Victoria and Kasl Elizabeth (2000), “Team learning: A Model
for Effectiveness in High Performing Teams”, Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work
Teams, Vol. 7, pp. 1-19.
7. Fink Kerstin and Ploder Christian (2009), “Balanced System for Knowledge Process
Management in SMEs”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 22, pp. 36-50.
8. Finnegan David and Willcocks Leslie (2006), “Knowledge Sharing Issues in the
Introduction of a New Technology”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 19, pp. 568-590.
9. Klein Howard J and Heuser Aden E (2008), “The Learning of Socialization Content:
A Framework for Researching Orientating Practices”, Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Vol. 27, pp. 279-336.
7/31/2019 Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization