KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN

KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES

1

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURING COMPANIES – A CASE STUDY S.D. Uma Mageswari*, Research Scholar, Department of Management Studies, Pondicherry University Mail id: [email protected] Ph: 98407 20454 Dr. Chitra Sivasubramanian, Associate Professor, Department of Management Studies, Pondicherry University *Corresponding author Keywords : Knowledge management, Knowledge capture, knowledge creation, knowledge storage, knowledge transfer, knowledge application, organizational culture, leadership, management


2

Abstract Purpose –For several decades the world's best-known forecasters of societal change have predicted the emergence of a new economy in which brain power, not machine power, is the critical resource. But the future has already turned into the present, and the era of knowledge has arrived.--"The Learning Organization," Economist Intelligence Unit. This new world of business which is characterized by globalization, heightened level of competition, uncertainty about future makes knowledge as the only source for sustainable competitive advantage. Research Methodology – An empirical study was conducted by collecting primary data through questionnaire from employees of varied departments of the company. Statistical tools used for analysis in the study are Cronbach‟s alpha for Reliability, Confirmatory factor analysis, correlation and simple research model is done using AMOS. Research limitations–There is a few limitations which may affect the scope of the study. First, the study was conducted in only one manufacturing firm. Hence, blanket generalization of the findings of the study to each and every manufacturing firm in India should be done with caution. Second, the study focuses only on three Critical success factors, organizational culture, leadership style and management commitment and their impact on knowledge management processes and practices. Findings – The extent to which KM dimensions are practiced in the company are studied. It is found that KM is practiced significantly. Originality/value – The main discussion of this paper brings together a large range of knowledge management practices in a manufacturing firm and the impact of organizational culture, leadership and management commitment on knowledge management practices. Keywords : Knowledge management, KM dimensions, organizational culture, leadership, management

3


KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURING COMPANIES – A CASE STUDY Even though, the concept of knowledge has been there for ages as generations have used it for achieving prosperity, it has started gaining its momentum only in early 1990s. Knowledge management gurus, Karl Wiig, Alavi, Leidner, Davenport and Prusak, Nonaka and Takuchi paved way for its accelerated growth. Value creation and competitive advantage in any organization depends on its potential to leverage intangible assets of firms and knowledge is one such asset.

The ability to marshal and deploy this organizational

knowledge is crucial. The way in which tangible resources are combined and applied is directly affected by knowledge. This knowledge is embedded in and carried through organizational culture, policies, systems and individuals. In addition,

transition into

information age fuelled the organisations to focus more on knowledge and knowledge management systems(Alavi & Leidener, 2001).

As a result, knowledge audits,

benchmarking, networks of practice, communities of practice, best practice transfer etc. have become common to the organistions. KPMG (1998) reports that one in ten firms have benefitted from knowledge management practices and at least 43% of the firms are in the process of knowledge management implementation. Literature Review Knowledge is the potential for action based upon data, information, insights, intuition and experience. It is the critical link that connects all the human, technological and organisational resources available at the disposal of the firm, and represents its ongoing survival, performance and competitive advantage. APQC defines knowledge as information in action. The important characteristics of knowledge, for ex., knowledge is intangible and difficult to measure, volatile, not „consumed‟ in a process, it sometimes increases through use, cannot be bought on the market at any time, „non-rival‟ i.e. it can be used by different processes at the same time (Karl M. Wiig et al., 1995). Hence knowledge is considered as a useful organizational resource (Alavi & Leidner, 2001) and is significant for innovative

4


capacity of firms (Yannis Caloghirous et al., 2004). Kuan Yew Wong and Elaine Aspinwall, 2005 conducted a survey in UK SMEs enumerated few success factors for KM implementation viz. Management leadership and support , Culture, Information technology , Strategy and purpose , Measurement , Organisational infrastructure , Processes and activities, Motivational aids , Resources , Training and education , Human resource management . In addition to the above critical success factors, benchmarking is also reported as a key factor responsible for KM implementation (Changiz Valmohammadi, 2010). Michael Zack et al. (2009) found from their study that effective knowledge management practices are directly related to organizational performance which in turn is related to financial performance, while Pang-Lo Liua(2005) and Davenport and Grover(2001) concluded that long term benefits like revenue growth, enhancing competitive advantage, employee development, product innovation and short term benefits like reducing costs, improving marketing strategies, enhancing customer focus and facilitating profit growth may be achieved by KM practices. Vic Gilgeous et al. (2001) reported that KM provided core competency for achieving manufacturing effectiveness and high performance(Pillania K. Rajesh, 2008), facilitates tackling

the increasingly fierce

competition(Arnaldo Camuffo and Anna Comacchio, 2005) and is a prerequisite for success in the production environment(Pang-Lo Liu et al.) Knowledge management (KM) is defined as the process of applying a systematic approach to the capture, structure, management, and dissemination of knowledge throughout an organization in order to work faster, reuse best practices, and reduce costly rework from project to project (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences. Such insights and experiences comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes or practice. All advanced economies are technologically knowledge based economy. Creation and exploitation of knowledge management (KM) has become key resource in the new economy. To gain a competitive edge in today's marketplace, an organization must embrace new ideas and processes and requires constant improvement. Manufacturing Excellence is an imperative tool that leads an organization to the path of competitiveness. The underlying

5


objective of these initiatives is building the organizational internal competitiveness through enhancing & upgrading the skills of the employees via proper training and on-job implementation of concepts. All these initiatives eventually lead to customer delight and sustainable cultural change in the organization.(CII, 2011, www.cii.in). World Competitiveness Report 2010 has ranked India at 51 among 139 countries, 17th rank globally in terms of its financial markets, and 44th in business sophistication and 39th in innovation, which clearly indicates that India lags behind in terms of competitiveness. Competitiveness & innovation activities are expected to need large amounts of new knowledge. Knowledge is inextricably linked to core competence. Knowledge plays a unique role in building and conserving core competences. (Prof. Shailja Dixit, SME world, Special reports, www.smeworld.org.) Organisational culture and knowledge management Ribiere (2001) examined the relationship between knowledge management initiative success and organizational culture orientation in primarily service-oriented organizations from the information technology, government, and consulting sectors located in the Washington, DC area. He reported that organizations with a communal (high trust, high solidarity) culture achieved success with knowledge management initiatives that focused on both codification and personalization. Lawson (2003) examined the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management in various businesses in the finance, government, health, and education sectors and found a significant correlation between all of the culture types and knowledge management. Roman, Ribiere, and Stankosky (2004) examined the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management systems (KMS) success in the federaland state

governments,

universities,

and

other

nonprofit

institutions

and

reported

thatorganizations with stronger cultural values at the organizational and work unit levels had greater success with knowledge management efforts. Similarly the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management are studied in various organization in various countries (Kangas,2005; Lai and Lee,2007l;Chang and Lee, 2007;Palanisamy, 2007, Ciganek, Mao, and Srite ,2008; Nayir and Uzuncarsili, 2008). The extent research presented reveals that organizational culture is an important aspect of knowledge management.

6


Leadership and knowledge Management: Building knowledge in an organization is a challenge that begins at the very top who is tasked with seeing a company through all sorts of changes, ranging from exponential growth and sudden market changes to mergers and layoffs. To maintain a firm‟s performance and set an example for employees, leaders need to be flexible, willing learners who understand that their own knowledge development begins with an accurate assessment of their leadership style and a clear understanding of how their skills match the company‟s needs. They should also be aware of the messages their strategies convey about the importance

of

institutional

knowledge,

especially

in

times

of

upheaval

(Knowledge@Wharton,2007). Sherry D. Ryan et al.,(2012) conducted a survey in a medium-sized city government in the United States to investigate the relationship between leadership triad components, leadership strategic planning, and customer/market focus, with knowledge management and reported a significant relationship between these components and knowledge management. Ferenc Farkas(2003) examined the relationship between role of leadership and knowledge management in professional service organizations in Germany and Hungary and reported a strong influence of leadership on external and internal knowledge transfer. Sajay kumar Singh(2008) analysed the role of leadership in knowledge management in a software company. He reported that a directive style of leadership is found to be negatively and significantly related to knowledge management dimensions whereas delegating style of

leadership has a positive and significant relationship. Although

management scholars and practitioners are increasingly aware of the importance of KM practice, there are still many unanswered questions like the actual KM practices adopted by the organisations and the relationships between the various components. Management commitment and Knowledge management To have a successful Knowledge Management System implemented, the most critical aspect is Top Management commitment. Top management commitment includes activities such as communicating company‟s quality value, reinforcing quality messages meeting with the work force and the customers giving formal and informal recognition, receiving training and training others. Top managers develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and vision, develop values required for long term success and implement these via appropriate action and behaviors, and are personally involved in ensuring that the organizations


7

management system is developed and implemented. Another important responsibility of top management is establishment of an environment in with performance is rewarded (www.pgmm.org/berif_guides.htm).( A. Keramati,2007). Andreas Riege (2005) reported the barriers for successful implementation of Knowledge sharing in organisations. Under the potential organizational barriers, top management‟s role predominates: 1. Unclear or missing integration of KM strategy and sharing initiatives into the company‟s goals and strategic approach 2. Lack of leadership and managerial direction in terms of clearly communicating the benefits and values of knowledge sharing practices; 3. Shortage of formal and informal spaces to share, reflect and generate (new) knowledge; 4. Lack of a transparent rewards and recognition systems that would motivate people to share more of their knowledge; 5. Shortage of appropriate infrastructure supporting sharing practices; 6. Deficiency of company resources that would provide adequate sharing opportunities; 7. Communication and knowledge flows are restricted into certain directions (e.g. top-down). For an effective and efficient KM, excellent information system infrastructure is necessary. To create Knowledge Assets and Culture, we need Databases, Processes, Manuals, Procedures, Strategies, Organization harts etc. Usage of network technology infrastructure such as Internet, Intranet, Lotus Notes, Global communication systems add effectiveness of transfer and sharing of knowledge. Hence Information Systems and Processes are extremely critical components. Creation of knowledge repository/assets, classification, codifying the knowledge, making it available for all in the organization, ensuring reuse for artifacts for optimization, knowledge sharing seminars, web casts/pod casts, discussion groups, bulletin boards, etc help in leveraging the expertise within organization. This is only possible if there is senior management support, and commitment. (http://knowmgt.blogspot.in/2007/08/importance-ofsenior-management.html,2007) The objective of this paper is to understand the KM practices in an Indian manufacturing organization, Madras cements Ltd.. This paper reports the findings of a survey carried out to assess the status of KM practices in manufacturing firm. Company overview


8

This investigation took place in Madras Cements Ltd. Which is the flagship company of the Ramco Group, a well-known business group of South India. The company was incorporated in the year 1957. MCL is the sixth largest cement producer in the country and the second largest in South India. It is headquartered at Chennai and has five manufacturing plants in Tamilnadu, AndraPradesh and Karnataka. The main product of the company is Portland cement, manufactured in five state-of-the art production facilities spread over South India, with a current total production capacity of 13.0 MTPA. The company is the fifth largest cement producer in the country. Ramco Supergrade is the most popular cement brand in South India. The company also produces Ready Mix Concrete and Dry Mortar products, and operates one of the largest wind farms in the country. The company also has State-of-the-art research center, Ramco Research Development Centre, Chennai. The company has approximately 2000 employees,60% of which are directly involved with product manufacturing. Another 20% are involved with sales, marketing, and customer service, and 15% are in research and development and engineering. The remaining are responsible for other administrative functions, such as finance, IT, purchasing, etc. Objectives of the Study: To identify the major knowledge management practices that are adopted in Madras Cements Ltd. To know the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management practices. To know the relationship between leadership and knowledge management practices. To know the relationship between management commitment and knowledge management practices Research hypotheses 1. There exists a relationship between organizational culture and

knowledge

management practices 2. There exists a relationship between leadership and knowledge management practices 3. There exists a relationship between management commitment and knowledge management practices Sampling

9


The sample in this investigation was drawn from the Madras Cements plant and includes representatives of a diverse group of professionals. 138 respondents (N = 138) completed the survey, representing engineering, manufacturing, projects, information technology (IT), packaging, and finance. The respondents' years of service ranged from two to more than 15 years. The Bachelors degree concentrations are broken down as follows: 36 are information and computer technology-related, 8 chemistry, 66 engineering and 28 business-related. Measurement and data collection Data concerning Knowledge Management practices are collected by adopting quantitative method. The instrument used for data collection is based on the questionnaire used by Khalil et al. (2006) which was adopted from Filius et al (2000). The questionnaire comprised of 2 sections , the first section representing the five KM dimensions: Knowledge capture(KC),

Knowledge

Creation(KCR),

Knowledge

Storage(KS),

Knowledge

Transfer(KT), and Knowledge application(KAP). Responses were measured on a 5 point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Appendix A includes the 23 statements on the five dimensions of knowledge management practices. The second section comprises 13 questions on the key factors considered in the study such as organizational culture, leadership and management commitment. For this research, the five KM dimensions are defined as follows: 1) KC--the extent to which an individual or organization learns or attains external knowledge or skills. 2) KCR--the extent to which an individual or organization uses the knowledge to create new ideas internally 3) KS--the extent to which an individual or organization codes or records the acquired knowledge. 4) KT--the extent to which an individual or organization shares knowledge. 5) KAP--the extent to which an individual or organization uses knowledge to improve processes, performance or products and services. A simple research model is proposed and is given in Figure 1.

10


Figure 1

Simple research model:

Analysis and interpretation An examination had been made from the reliability of the data to check whether random error causing inconsistency and in turn lower reliability is at a manageable level or not, by running reliability test. Coefficient alpha (Cronbach‟s Alpha) obtained is 0.823. This shows data has satisfactory internal consistency reliability. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results of CFA for individual constructs of KM and that of critical success factors and corresponding fit indices are as given below: Figure 2 :CFA of individual dimensions of knowledge management(KM)

Chi square = 3.948 ; Df = 2; P=0.139; GFI = 0.986 ; CFI = 0.942; RMSEA = 0.084; RMR = 0.015

Chi square =4.323; Df = 5; P=0.504; ; CFI = 0.998; GFI = 0.988; MSEA = 0.00; RMR = 0.011

Chi square =0.345; Df = 2; P= 0.842; GFI = 0.999; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.00; RMR = 0.004

Chi square =1.014; Df = 2; P=0.602; GFI = 0.996 ; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.00; RMR = 0.008


11

Chi square = 8.151; Df = 7; P=0.319; GFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99;RMSEA = 0.035;RMR = 0.014

Confirmatory factor analysis confirms that the statements used under the KM constructs better conform to the KM dimensions. Figure 3:CFA of critical success factors of knowledge management(KM)

Chi square = 5.517; Df = 2; =0.062; GFI = 0.98; CFI = 0.953; RMSEA = 0.076; RMR = 0.021

Chi square = 0.295; Df = 1; =0.587; GFI = 0.999; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.00; RMR = 0.003

Chi square = 9.182; Df =5; p =0.102; GFI = 0.972; CFI = 0.924; RMSEA = 0.07; RMR = 0.022

Figure 2 and Figure 3 presents the results of the confirmatory analysis(CFA) of five constructs of knowledge management viz. knowledge capture, knowledge creation, knowledge storage, knowledge transfer and knowledge application individually is presented. CFA was also done for the knowledge management enablers / critical success factors

12


considered in the study, organizational culture, leadership and management commitment. The fit indices indicate the fit of the data under the each construct. Correlation: Mean values of the data for knowledge dimensions, organizational culture leadership style and management commitment are computed individually and then using SPSS, bivariate correlation was done. The correlation between the variables KC, KCr, KS, KT and KAP and also the correlation between key factors under study viz. organizational culture, leadership and management commitment are significant. Closer analysis of the relationship between the variables reveal that organization culture has more significant effect on the other variables. The values are given in Table 1. The values show that KM dimensions are significantly related to oganizational culture, leadership and management commitment. Similarly, each of the KM dimensions are also related to each other except knowledge transfer(kt).

Table 1 : Correlation kc

kcr

ks

kt

kap

culture

leadership

mgt

Kc

1

.469**

.438**

.146

.209*

.591**

.212*

.195*

Kcr

.469**

1

.413**

.124

.198*

.403**

.154

.396**

Ks

.438**

.413**

1

-.012

.130

.567**

.131

.177*

Kt

.146

.124

-.012

1

.320**

.128

.207*

.248**

Kap

.209*

.198*

.130

.320**

1

.188*

.002

.057

culture

.591**

.403**

.567**

.128

.188*

1

.119

.143

.154

.131

.207

*

.002

.119

1

.027

*

.248

**

.057

.143

.027

1

*

leadership .212 mgt

*

.195

**

.396

.177

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).; *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Confirmatory factor Analysis(CFA) of Knowledge management and its dimensions CFA seeks to determine if the number of factors and the loadings of measured (indicator) variables on them conform to what is expected on the basis of pre– established theory. A CFA for knowledge management with its dimensions viz. knowledge capture, knowledge creation, knowledge storage, knowledge transfer and knowledge


13

application was conducted with AMOS to test the fit between the five–factor model and the data. Figure 4 represents the model fit. The maximum likelihood estimation method was used. Multiple criteria were used to assess the goodness–of–fit between the model and the data as recommended in the literature. Figure 4 illustrate the model specification and the parameter estimates. A multitude of measures exist that assist the researcher in deciding whether to reject or tentatively retain a priori specified over–identified model. In general, multiple goodness–of–fit tests were used to evaluate the fit between the hypothesized model and the data to determine if the model being tested should be accepted or rejected. The model fit is explained as follows: The Chi-Square value is the traditional measure for evaluating overall model fit and, „assesses the magnitude of discrepancy between the sample and fitted covariances matrices‟ (Hu and Bentler, 1999: 2). A good model fit would provide an insignificant result at a 0.05 threshold (Barrett, 2007). Ratio of Chi-square to degrees of freedom (CMIN / df) (James B. Schreiber et al. ,2006) should be between 2 or 3, useful for nested models/model trimming. The RMSEA tells us how well the model, with unknown but optimally chosen parameter estimates would fit the populations covariance matrix (Byrne, 1998). In recent years it has become regarded as „one of the most informative fit indices‟ (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000: 85) due to its sensitivity to the number of estimated parameters in the model. It is generally reported in conjunction with the RMSEA and in a well-fitting model the lower limit is close to 0 while the upper limit should be less than 0.08. Cut-off point of 0.90 has been recommended for the GFI (Goodness of Fit index)(Miles and Shevlin, 1998). Root mean square residual value is 0.029 for a best fit model the value should be less than 0.08. Values for the SRMR range from zero to 1.0 with well fitting models obtaining values less than .05 (Byrne, 1998; Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000), however values as high as 0.08 are deemed acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Normed Fit Index value recommendations as low as 0.80 is preferred however Bentler and Hu (1999) have suggested NNFI ≥ 0.95 as the threshold. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI: Bentler, 1990) is a revised form of the NFI which takes into account sample size (Byrne, 1998) that performs well even when sample


14

size is small (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). A cut-off criterion of CFI ≥ 0.90 is presently recognised as indicative of good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999). AMOS path diagram and the model fit indices are as given under in Figure 4:

Figure 4 CFA of KM with its dimensions Chi square = 455.2; Df = 216 ; CMIN / df = 2.108; p =0.032; GFI = 0.81; CFI = 0.739; NFI: 0.706; RMSEA = 0.078; RMR = 0.033

Structural Equation model Simple correlation calculations reveal that organizational culture and leadership and management commitment has an impact on knowledge management practices and hence the proposed simple research model was tested with the data. AMOS was used for testing the conceptual model and was proved significant. The SEM diagram and the fit indices are shown in Figure 5. Mean values of knowledge capture (k1), knowledge creation (k2), knowledge storage (k3), knowledge transfer (k4), knowledge application (k5), organizational culture (cul1), leadership (lead) and management (mgt) are used in the model. Structural equation model is used to determine the strength of the relationship between unobserved variables (Latent variables) and measured variables and figure 3 depicts the SEM of the proposed research model. The above figure displays the path diagram resulting from the structural modeling analysis from AMOS. The diagram shows that there is a positive relationship between the variables.


15

Figure 5 SEM of the research model Chi square = 10.648; Df =7;CMIN / df =1.52; p =0.155;NFI = 0.955; GFI = 0.98; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.062; RMR = 0.005

The AMOS analysis confirms that the research hypotheses, viz. there is a significant relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management practices and there is a significant relationship between leadership style and knowledge management practices hold good for the given set of data. Findings: The study reveals that knowledge management practices are significantly adopted by the case study company. The mean values of the KM dimensions lie between 1 and 2. Likert scale used in the questionnaire is as follows: 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = disagree and 5 = strongly disagree. Since the mean values are between 1.3 to 1.68, implies that most of the respondents agree that KM practices are adopted significantly. But it is to be observed that a formal Knowledge management policy or Knowledge management officer do not exist in the company. The mean values are given in Appendix 2.


16

Similarly, organizational culture studies reveal that when formal procedures govern the everyday activities and the organization is result oriented they agree that the organization is like an extended family. Another important aspect of organizational culture is that the flow of information. Again, majority of the respondents agree that the information flow is fast and without barriers. Similarly, leadership style assessment reveals that managers give priority to high achievement and at the same time work well with the employees and communicate the goals of the organization. When probed on the top management commitment towards Knowledge management, reveals that the management is committed in creating an atmosphere in the organization for knowledge management practices. Correlation between the exogeneous variables, in this case organizational culture, leadership and management commitment and endogenorus variables viz. KM dimensions proved to be significant and is further confirmed by SEM. Structural equation modeling(SEM) for the given set of data presented a good fit for the proposed simple research model. Conclusion: The new world of knowledge economy, organistions distinguish themselves from throse of the last millennium in recognizing KM as core competency and adopting knowledge managemet practices as essential for achieving the organistion‟s goals. The objective of this paper is to understand the KM practices in a manufacturing organization which by far less explored. The findings suggest that manufacturing firms also have realized the importance of knowledge management practices and have adopted them even though not explicitly in the name of knowledge management strategy.


17

References 1. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). “Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.25, No.1, pp 107-136. 2. Andreas Riege (2005), “Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider”, Journal Of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35, 3. APQC. (2000), “Building and sustaining communities of practice: Final report”, American Productivity and Quality Center Report. 4. Chang, S., & Lee, M. (2007). “The effects of organizational culture and knowledge management mechanisms on organizational innovation”, The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol.7, No.1, pp 295-301. 5. Changiz Valmohammadi,2010, “Investigation and Assessment of Critical Success factors of KM implementation in Iranian SMEs”, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol.10, No.19, pp.2290-2296 6. Daire Hooper, Joseph Coughlan, Michael R. Mullen(2008),”Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods ,Volume 6 Issue 1,pp 53-60 7. Francisco, J.F. and Guadamillas, F. (2002), “A case study on the implementation of knowledge management strategy oriented to innovation”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol9, No.3,pp. 162-71. 8. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives", Structural Equation Modeling, Vol.6 , No.1, pp.1-55. 9. James B. Schreiber, Frances K. Stage, Jamie King, Amaury Nora, Elizabeth A. Barlow (2006), “Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review”, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 99, No. 6, pp 323 -337 10. Khalil, Omah,Claudio, Allison,Seliem, Ahmed (2006) ,” Knowledge Management: the case of the Acushnet Company”, SAM Advanced Management Journal


18

11. Kuan Yew Wong and Elaine Aspinwall(2005), “An empirical study of the important factors for knowledge-management adoption in the SME sector”, Journal Of Knowledge Management , Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 64-82 12. Lapr M.A and Wassenhove L.N.V.2001. 'Creating and transferring knowledge for productivity improvement in factories', Management Science, Vol.47,No. 10, pp.1311-1325. 13. Lee, S. K., & Yu, K. (2004),”Corporate culture and organizational performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 19, No.4, pp.340-359. 14. Mukherjee, A.S., Lapre, M.A. & Wassenhore, L.N.V. (1998), “Knowledge driven quality improvement”, Management Science, Vol.44, No.1, pp 35-49. 15. O'Dell, C., and C. Grayson. 1998,”If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification And Transfer Of Internal Best Practices”, California Management Review,Vol 40, No.3, pp. 154-174. 16. Palanisamy, R. (2007),”Organizational culture and knowledge management in ERP implementation: An empirical study”, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol 48, No.2, pp 100-120. 17. Stoica, M., Liao, J., & Welsch, H. (2004),”Organizational culture and patterns of information processing: The case of small and medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol.9, No.3, pp 251-266. 18. Tanriverdi, H. and Venkatraman, N. (2005), “Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 26, pp 97– 119. Dissertations: 1. Michael Brandt Jones(2009), “Organizational Culture And Knowledge Management: An Empirical Investigation Of U.S. Manufacturing Firms”,A Dissertation Submitted to Nova Southeastern University

19


APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE 1 = strongly agree ; 2 = agree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree ; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree K1 Kc1

Kc2

Kc3 Kc4 K2 Kcr1 Kcr2 Kcr3 Kcr4 Kcr5 K3 Ks1 Ks2 Ks3 Ks5 K4 Kt1 Kt2 Kt3 Kt4 K5 Kap1

KNOWLEDGE CAPTURE We actively participate in an outside professional network like attending courses, seminars and other training We encourage workers to continue their education by reimbursing tuition fee for successful completion of work related courses We regularly collect information about the needs of the customer We hire consultants when important skills/information are not available in-house KNOWLEDGE CREATION We do research to explore future possibilities Our competitors are a source of inspiration for developing new methods Brainstorming sessions are frequently used for problem solving We collaborate with Research institutes, Educational institutions We use existing skills/knowledge in creative ways to generate new ideas KNOWLEDGE ORGANISING / STORING Failures and successes are evaluated and results are documented We have up-to-date handbooks throughout the organization and frequently use them The knowledge and skills of individual associates is documented We create working manuals and standard operating procedures KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER New associates are assigned a monitor Much information is transferred via "the grape vine" ( alk/discuss with colleagues) Business update meetings are held on a regular basis Associates regularly inform each other about successful projects and methods of working KNOWLEDGE APPLICATION New ideas lead to re-design of work methods and

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

20


processes New projects are assigned based on skills and availability Kap3 Associates are rewarded for developing new ideas Kap4 New ideas are tested using simulation Kap5 Customer feedback is used to improve products/services Kap6 Associates promote new ideas internally Key factors for KM practices Kap2

Organisational culture Oc1

Information is passed around the organization without barriers

Oc2

Our organization is like an extended family

Oc3

Our organization is result oriented and people are competitive and achievement oriented

Oc4

In our organization, formal procedures govern the daily activities

Lead L1

Leadership Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds.

L2

Managers review and evaluate the organization‟s progress toward meeting its goals and objectives.

L3

Managers gives priority to high achievement and competitiveness

L4

Managers openly shares knowledge with me

Mgt. M1

Management Commitment Management facilitates percolation of information to all the levels Management generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce. Management encourages teamwork and participation Management is committed towards providing the infrastructure needed for documenting, retrieving and sharing information Management encourages new ideas, innovation by rewards

M2 M3 M4

M5

1

2

3

4

5

21


APPENDIX 2 Descriptive statistics of the data Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Deviation

Deviation

kap1

1.52

.557

L1

1.20

.404

kap2

1.46

.556

L2

1.39

.490

kap3

1.59

.600

L3

1.54

.556

kap4

1.42

.577

L4

1.51

.583

kap5

1.48

.530

oc1

1.71

.664

kap6

1.45

.555

oc2

1.45

.629

kcr1

1.42

.524

oc3

1.45

.580

kcr2

1.61

.667

oc4

1.59

.549

kcr3

1.48

.607

m1

1.61

.597

kcr4

1.45

.605

m2

1.58

.626

kcr5

1.49

.583

m3

1.43

.694

kt1

1.64

.661

m4

1.62

.543

kt2

1.48

.582

m5

1.57

.553

kt3

1.39

.572

kt4

1.45

.605

kc1

1.45

.605

kc2

1.54

.529

kc3

1.68

.579

kc4

1.67

.632

ks1

1.64

.591

ks2

1.38

.515

ks3

1.55

.555


ks4

1.55

.555

ks5

1.52

.607

22