THE EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE IN COMMUNICATION INDUSTRY KANO STATE

THE EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE IN

COMMUNICATION INDUSTRY KANO STATE

BY

CHIOMA J. OZOH

SPS/12/MMN/00015

BEING A PROPOSAL PRESENTED TO THE SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES,

BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO. IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF

MASTERS DEGREE IN MANAGEMENT (M.SC MANAGEMENT).

SUPERVISED BY: DR A.J BAMBALE

MAY, 2016

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Employee performance are ways to appraise the employee for their effectiveness in the

company. Its issue is among the critical workforce management challenges of the contemporary time.

Hence more competitive organizations are those who align their organizational behavior with realities

of current work environment. The world itself is constantly shifting such that institutions of all types

have to adapt to external and internal changes for their own survival (Hemamalini, 2014). In other

words to survive and prosper in today‘s global economy, the concept of employee performance is

very important to many organizations and institutions. Employee performance is normally looked at

in terms of outcomes. However, it can also be looked at in terms of behavior (Armstrong 2012).

Many organizations have seen the need to invest in employees performance to improve their

proficiencies; this will led to greater returns.Employee performance can be manifested in

improvement in production, easiness in using the new technology and highly motivated workers.

Afshan, Sobia, Kamran & Nasir, (2012) and Kenney (2015), stated that employee's performance is

measured against the performance standards set by the organization. There are a number of measures

that can be taken into consideration when measuring performance for example using of productivity,

efficiency, effectiveness, quality and profitability measures (Ahuja 2015). Kinicki and Kreitner

(2007), employees are the most valuable asset of every company as they can make or break a

company’s reputation and can adversely effect profitability. Employees often are responsible for the

great bulk of necessary work to be done as well as customer satisfaction and the quality of products

and events pperformance according to, Yazid, Razali, & Hussin (2012).

Employee performance is argued to be the greatest contribution an employee can make to an

organization as it contributes to an organization achieving its strategic goals Arvey & Murphy (2008).

There are a number of studies which show that a high performing employee can produce between two

to ten times the output of a low performing employee (Ackerman & Kanfer, (2013) J. P.

Campbell,Gasser, & Oswald, 2006; Rimland & Larson, 2006, Rothe, (2008).

According to Leonard-Barton, (2015), an organisation that gives worth to knowledge as a source

of gaining competitive edge than competitors, should build up system that ensure constant learning,

and on the effective way of doing: O’Dell & Grayson (2008) concerning knowledge management, i.e.

the process of accurately transferring knowledge to the company staff in a timely manner to assist the

staff in taking proper action to improve the continuity of organizational performance: (Groff and

Jones 2013). The creation and subsequent management of an environment that encourages knowledge

to be created, shared, learnt, enhanced, organized and utilized for the benefit of the organization and

its customers. (Abell and Oxbrow, 2014). Wiig (2013, 2015) also emphasizes that, given the

importance of knowledge in virtually all areas of daily and commercial life, two knowledge-related

aspects are vital for viability and success at any level. These are knowledge assets that must be

applied,nurtured, preserved, and used to the largest extent possible by both individuals and

organizations; and knowledge-related processes to create, build, compile, organize,transform,

transfer, pool, apply, and safeguard knowledge.

Data and information are different from knowledge a lthough still interrelated. On one hand,

while data represents raw numbers or words about facts, observations, or perceptions; information is

processed data of relevance and purpose. On the other hand, knowledge is roughly, useful or

actionable information. Knowledge is information that's relevant to a decision. It is good

explanations, and it is solutions (even if partial) to problems people had.

Knowledge has become one of the most highly valued commodities in the modern economy.

Further, knowledge is considered the principal tool of competitiveness and innovation in the

composition of commodity chain to the broader processes of regional and national economic

development [Barney, 1995; Bhatt, 2000; Daniels and Bryson, 2002; Shapira et al., 2006]. The new

paradigm is that within the organization knowledge must be shared in order for it to grow. Sharing

knowledge among its management and staff grows stronger and becomes more competitive [Uriarte,

2008].

Knowledge Management (KM) is an approach to achieving organizational objectives by

making the best use of knowledge, or “doing what is needed to get the most out of knowledge

resources” [Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004].

Skyrme [2001] defines knowledge management as "the explicit and systematic management

of vital knowledge–and its associated processes of creation, organization, diffusion, use and

exploitation". In the modern economy, KM plays a key role and has been widely us ed by many firms

as one of the most effective means of achieving success in the information age [Malone, 2002].

Knowledge management is highly important to organizations in the other aspects such as

developing information and communication technology within the organization; it enables the growth

: Studies carried out in the communication industry has proved that lack of employee performance

affect the communication industry in nigeria This is because the commission has not being able to

put in place good strategies inform of incentives that will motivate them to stay. Ushie (2012) and

Agba (2007) posit that in Nigeria rather than providing the means by which workers could be

retained, employees are continually deprived of their psychological needs. These problems which are

evident in the Kano state comunication industry include; lack of knowledge acquisation, reluctance

of employees to share knowledge, and knowledge transfer ,lack of skill,lack of motivation,immediate

termination of employee, inter personal conflict with cowoker, career development, promotion,

subsidized staff quarters; working implements; staff welfare services, new policies, new procedures, a

new computer equipment installation, or a relocation of staff, cultural factors affects employee

altitude,

These problems have made it almost impossible for some communication service to cater for

their workforce personnel need, skill and experience to carry out their goals (Yang (2010),

(Hemamalini Suresh, 2014) Nowduri & Al-Dossary (2012). What are the possible reasons and the

solutions to overcome the situation? Specifically, the objective of this study is to empirically examine

the effect of Knowledge management on Employee performance in the Kano State communication

industry.

Nigerian telecommunication industry is fast growing in the country and this is continuously

necessitating dynamic changes in organizational activities relating structuring customer handling and

product portfolio. The managers of these firms in this industry are continually on each other’s toes

trying to outwit others by devising new strategies which charges and at the same time minimized the

cost of change implementationn.Studies carried out in the Nigeria communication industry has

proved that change implementation affect employee performance A new vision, set of driving values,

mission or goals constitute significant change. So do new performance standards, new policies or

procedures, a new computer equipment installation, or a relocation of your business (Hemamalini

Suresh, 2014).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Employee performance as an important issue has been receiving huge amount of research

(Yang 2010 & Hemamalini Suresh, 2014 & Waddell and Sohal, 2008 & Dembo (2013) & Saeed, et

al.2014 & Al-Mamary, et al.,2014& Dossary 2012& Dinesh & Ragel 2015 & Igbaria & Tan (2007 &

Devi 2009& Piersol 2006 & Armstrong 2012 & Ahuja 2015 & Kenney et al. (2015 & cultures

(Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston, & Triandis, 2015; De Long & Fahey, 2012). Simonin (2009 &(Lyles &

Salk, 2006; Mowery et al., 2006; Tiemessen et al., 2007& Eisenbergeret al.2006 & Wright and Geroy

2014 & Cheng & Chen (2007) This means there is a need for good and continuous management to

understand and control the element of employee performance.

Several studies relating organizational factor with and employee performance were conducted

with significant results. Some factors considered in these studies include, Critical success (Akhavan,

Mostafa & Mohammad 2006) & innovation (Darroch, & McNaughton, 2015), Job Satisfaction

Odembo (2013). Staying Competitive Leng, & Shepherdson, (2012), enablers, processes, Lee and

Choi, (2013), attitude Liaw, Chen, G. & Huang, (2008).value creation Kodama, (2016), Knowledge

sharing Hansen,mors& lovas (2016), Bhatti, & Qureshi, (2007). Al-Faris, Suliman, (2010).

Knowledge management is known to have received considerable amount of research interest

across different organizational criteria Goh, A. (2016), Groff & Jones(2013), Gourlay,

(2014).Giovanni (2012), Gevorgyan, & Ivanovski, (2009), Garud, & Kumaraswamy,(2016),Fahey,

Srrivastava, Sharon, & Smith, (2014), Emadzade, Mashayekhi, & Abdar, (2012), Davenport, &

Prusak, L (2008), Darr. and Kurtzberg, (2012) Bose, R. (2016) Bock. & Gulkim, (2015)”

Previous studies that attempted to investigate on the effect of knowledge management on

employee performance include, The Role of knowledge management in increasing performance

efficiency in Damascus University (2010).

Reviews of related literatures revealed that majority of the studies were not conducted in

Nigeria or Kano state. Some of these studies were only conducted in countries like,Korea Choi, B.

(2015). Pakistan Saeed, Lodhi and Iqbal, (2014) and Damascus Al-Faris, Suliman, (2010),. Therefore

the researcher, having the knowledge that these researches were conducted outside Nigeria will feel

the gap by carrying out further research on the subject matter within Nigeria to establish whether

there is a relationship between the two construct. And also, none of these studies have used the same

measuring instrument that will be adopted for this study. the study on the Effect of Knowledge

management on Employee performance has not being conducted especially in Communication sector

of Nigeria.

With the previous studies conducted in Korea Choi, B. (2015). Pakistan Saeed, Lodhi and

Iqbal, (2014) and Damascus Al-Faris, Suleiman, (2010). There was no literature that indicated the

study showing the relationship between Knowledge management and employee performance using

the sample of employee particularly in communication industry in nigeria. This means some gap exist

for future studies to fill in. First, there are limited studies on the effect of knowledge management on

employee performance, hence the need for further research to validate their relationship. Secondly,

this topic is under researched with respect to Nigeria and Kano State. A thorough search for relevant

studies both in Nigeria and internationally necessitated the need for this research.

So, the researcher pondered on why on earth isn't everyone "doing" effective Knowledge

Management? There are several common barriers to the successful adoption and practice of

Knowledge Management in an IT support organization:

Taking a "tool centric" approach

Focusing on a single individual, rather than a "team approach".

Make it difficult and time

Take a tactical and operational approach, ignoring behavioral change.

Don't bother with monitoring or measuring

Thus, the study will examine the effect of knowledge management on employee performance

in the Nigerian communication, specifically in the Kano state.

1.3. Research Question

Having understood the need for this research to be carried out the following research questions

are to be adressed:

i. To what extent does knowledge acquisition affect employee performance in communication

industry in Kano State?

ii. To what extent does knowledge management affect employee performance in communication


iii. To what extent does barriers to effective knowledge management on employee performance

in communication industry in Kano State?

iv. To what extent has knowledge sharing affect employees performance in communication


v. To what extent does knowledge transfer affect employee performance in the communication


vi. To what extent is the current status quo in communication industry in Kano State?

1.4. Objective to the Study

The main objective of the study is to examine the effect of knowledge management and employee

performance. The literature enables the the researcher to come up with the specific objectives.

i. To determine the extent to which knowledge acquisition affect employee performance in

communication industry in Kano State.

ii. To determine the effect of knowledge management on employee performance in


iii. To what extent does barriers to effective knowledge management on employee performance

in communication industry in Kano State?

iv. To determine the extent to which knowlwdge sharing affect employees performance in

communication industry in Kano State

v. To determine the extent to which knowledge transfer affect employee performance in


vi. To what extent does knowledge transfer affect employee performance in communication


1.5. Research Hypothesis

Based on the aforementioned research questions the following hypotheses are formulated:

H1: There is significant relatiosnship between knowledge acquisition and employee performance in

the communication industry.

H2: There is significant relationship between knowledge management and employee performance in


H3There is a significant relqtionship betzeen To what extent does barriers to effective knowledge

management on employee performance in communication industry in Kano State?

H4: There is significant relatiosnship between knowlwdge sharing and employee performce in the

communication industry

H5: There is significant relatiosnship between knowlwdge transfer and employee performce in the

communication industry

1.6. Significance of the Study This research which is about investigating the effect of knowledge management on employee

performance it is important to both theory and practice.

1.6.1 Theoretical SignificanceThe study is expected to be of importance with regards to the literature on Knowledge

management and Employee Performance.It will find out if knowledge management will lead to

Employee performance in the Nigerian communication service. The Nigerian communication is a

solid back bone for communication in Nigeria; the study of knowledge management is hoped to be

relevant to increase the knowledge and skills of employee performance while doing the job Yang

(2011), some studies conducted in the context of Knowledge management and employee performance

were done on private organizations other than the public. For example, the Role of knowledge

management in increasing performance efficiency in University (2010), sector. This study will be

conducted in the context of communication industry.

1.6.2 Practical significance:

This study will also be significant in practical sense; the study will generally be of importance

to the communication industry in Kano state. The study will provide knowledge that may be of

benefit to employee performance in the communication industry, on how to improve employee

performance. Findings of this study will provide directions and hints for knowledge acquisiton,

knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, knowledge implementation, innovation, training programs,

policies; management programs and management development programs to employee that will help

ensure employee performance within the communication industry.

1.7. Scope and delimitation of the StudyThe Scope attempts to investigate the effect of knowledge management on employee

performance in communication industry Kano state. The study covers two construct namely the

independent variable (employee performance) and the dependent variable (knowledge management).

Specifically this study investigates two communication companies in Kano state which

includes MTN and Etisalat. These companies would be considered as part of the unit of analysis for

this study. It will also study the changing trend of knowledge management its roles, application on

employee performance and also it will measure the changes within its competitors.

1.8 Outline of the StudyThe study will be presented in five chapters. Chapter one generally introduces the entire work.

This chapter is made of Background to the study, Problem statement, Research objectives, Research

questions, Research hypotheses, Significance of the study, Scope of the study and the outline of the

study.

Chapter two mainly discussed the two major variables of the study: Kknowledge

Mmanagement and Employee Performance. This chapter also highlights previous studies on

Knowledge Management and Employee Performance. The conceptual framework of the study which

sprouted in the course of review of related literatures will also be discussed here.

Chapter three also is that which discusses the proposed Research Methodology employed for

the study. The chapter explains the research setting, Population of the study, Sampling technique,

method of data collection and method of data analysis.

Chapter four will be presenting the descriptive analysis of the respondents for this study,

empirical results, key findings, test of hypothesis of the study, and also the discussions of the

findings.

Chapter five will finally present the summary of the findings, recommendation and

conclusion.

1.9. Defination of Terms

In the course of this study, the following terms and concepts were highlighted

i: Employees: According to Yale (2010), an employee is a worker or is gainfully employed by an

employer to work or deliver services to the organisation/company and then earns salary/wages at a

stipulated time.

ii. Performances: Motunrayo (2011), defines it’s as the extent to which an employee or group of

employees have gone in achieving the set goals or standards. Emmanuel (2015), also sees

performance as the rate or level of the output of an individual or organisation.

iii. Employee performance: Employee performance are all of the written, or otherwise recorded,

performance elements that set forth expected performance (Brian; 2009). Performance elements tell

employees what they have to do and standards tell them how well they have to do it. Developing

elements and standards that are understandable, measurable, attainable, fair, and challenging is vital

to the effectiveness of the performance appraisal process. It can also be seen as the job related

activities expected of worker and how well those activities were executed.

iv. Knowledge: According to Lesser and Prusak (2001), is defined as information, ideas, innovations,

expertise, talents, created or acquired by individuals or departments in manufacturing companiesto

enhnace productivity and effciency.

v. Management:The organization and coordination of the activities of a business in order to achieve

defined objectives. Another defintion of management by Gerald (2012), is the process and act of

organisation, planning and coordinating of human and resources for effectivness.

vi. Knowledge management: Is a process of creation, transmission and use of knowledge to improve

the performance of the company. It has also been defined by Abraham (2011), as the coordination

and planning information for effective dissemination.

vii. Explicit Knowledge: Explicit knowledge is formal and systematic, which can be easily

communicated and shared.

viii. Tacit knowledge: Tacit knowledge is the knowledge that people have in their minds. It is more

of an 'unspoken understanding' about something, knowledge that is more difficult to write down

(Liaw, Chen & Huang, 2008).

ix. Knowledge Management processes: Knowledge management is largely regarded as a process

involving various activities to deal with knowledge. Knowledge Management activities range from

knowledge generation and codification to transfer of knowledge (Kidwell, 2014).

x. Organization: A group of people who form a business ill order to achieve a particular aim.

xi. Compensation: This refers to direct and indirect rewards given to employees on the basis of the

value of the job, their personal contributions and their performances.

xii. Target: A result arrived at a goal or objectives aim at something.

xiii. Productivity: The measure of the output of goods and series relative to resource's available.

xiv. Communication: Two way process of reaching mutual understanding, in which participant not

only exchange information,news,ideas and feelings but also create and share meaning (Liebowitz &

Wilcox, 2014).

xv. Industry: Any general business activity or commercial entreprise that can be isolated from

others.

CHAPTER TWO:

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Over the past 15 years, Knowledge Management (KM) has progressed from an emergent

concept to an increasingly common function in business organizations. As evidence of its maturity as

an area of academic study, a host of journals devoted to KM and intellectual capital management

have been created. As might be expected for a still emerging discipline, little quantitative empirical

research has been published. The bulk of the published work in the KM area comprises conceptual

frameworks and theoretical models.

Extant empirical research relies primarily on a small number of descriptive exploratory

qualitative case studies. Although this body of work contains valuable and insightful concepts and

frameworks that have helped to define and shape the KM discipline, it is time to begin testing and

advancing this work using more precise methods.

Perhaps the most significant gap in the literature is the lack of large-scale empirical evidence

that KM makes a difference to organizational performance. While survey research is beginning to

appear in KM journals, the bulk is descriptive. Of the few survey studies that examine relationships

between KM and other factors only a few articles empirically investigate the relationship between

KM and organizational performance.

Our objective for the research reported here was to conduct an exploratory quantitative survey

to be able to create a broader set of evidence regarding the relationship between KM and

organizational performance. While performance itself is a useful metric, the ultimate measure of

value is the ability to support an organization’s competitive strategy. This especially applies to KM,

as knowledge has been considered an organization’s most strategic resource. We therefore

administered a survey asking respondents to describe their organization’s involvement in KM

practices, the strategic focus of their KM initiatives, several intermediate performance measures

aligned with strategic value disciplines, financial performance measures, and several contextual

factors addressing characteristics about its competitive environment. Rather than merely describe the

state of practice in our respondents’ organizations, we investigated the relationships among KM

practices, intermediate and financial outcomes, and the organization’s competitive environment.

Our results indicate that KM practices are positively associated with organizational

performance as generally suggested by the KM literature, both qualitative and quantitative. More

specifically we found that KM practices are directly related to various intermediate measures of

strategic organizational performance (viz., customer intimacy, product leadership, and operational

excellence), and that those intermediate measures are, in turn, associated with financial performance.

Based on this evidence, our assumption (whose further support is beyond the scope of this research)

is that as long as KM practices enhance intermediate organizational performance, positive financial

performance will result.

This chapter is meant to review relevant literatures on employee performance and knowledge

management. Specifically, it attempts to conceptualize the construct of the study and its theoretical

trajectory. This chapter also discusses the relevant research that is relevant to the formulation of the

research hypothesis.

2.2 THE CONCEPT OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

In the organizational context, performance is usually defined as the extent to which an

organizational member contributes to achieving the goals of the organization. Employees are a

primary source of competitive advantage in service-oriented organizations (Luthans and Stajkovic,

(2009); Pfeffer, (2016). In addition, a commitment performance approach views employees as

resources or assets, and values their voice. Employee performance plays an important role for

organizational performance. Employee performance is originally what an employee does or does not

do. Performance of employees could include: quantity of output, quality of output, timeliness of

output, presence at work, cooperativeness (Güngör, 2011). Macky and Johnson pointed that improved

individual employee performance could improve organizational performance as well. From Deadrick

and Gardner's (2007) points, employee performance could be defined as the record of outcomes

achieved, for each job function, during a specified period of time. If viewed in this way, performance

is represented as a distribution of outcomes achieved, and performance could be measured by using a

variety of parameters which describe an employee's paten of performance over time. On the other

hand, Darden and Babin (2016) said employee's performance is a rating system used in many

corporations to decide the abilities and output of an employee. Good employee performance has been

linked with increased consumer perception of service quality, while poor employee performance has

been linked with increased customer complaints and brand switching. To conclude, employee

performance could be simply understood as the related activities expected of a worker and how well

those activities were executed. Then, many business personnel directors assess the employee

performance of each staff member on an annual or quarterly basis in order to help employees identify

suggested areas for improvement. As mentioned by Swart et al. (2016) thisemployee superior

performance occur only because of good quality training program that leads to employee motivation

and their needs fulfilment.According to Wright and Geroy (2014), employee competencies changes

through effective training programs. It not only improves the overall performance of the employees to

effectively perform the current job but also enhance the knowledge, skills an attitude of the workers

necessary for the future job, thus contributing to superior organizational performance.A good

employee performance is necessary for the organisation, since an organisation’s success is dependent

upon the employee’s creativity, innovation and commitment (Ramlall, 2008).According to

Hawthorne studies, and many other research work on productivity of worker highlighted the fact that

employees who are satisfied with their job will have higher job performance, and thus supreme job

retention, than those who are not happy with their jobs (Landy, 2016). Moreover, it is stated that

employees are more likely to turnover if they are not satisfied and hence demotivated to show good

performance. Employee performance is higher in happy and satisfied workers and the management

find it easy to motivate high performers to attain firm targets. (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2007). The

employee could be only satisfied when they feel themselves competent to perform their jobs, which is

achieved through better training programs.Recognizing the role of training practices, enable the top

executives to create better working environment that ultimately improves the motivational level as

well as the performance of the workforce.

Employees are the most valuable asset of every company as they can make or break a

company’s reputation and can adversely effect profitability. Employees often are responsible for the

great bulk of necessary work to be done as well as customer satisfaction and the quality of products

and events. Without proper training, employees both new and current do not receive the information

and develop the skill sets necessary for accomplishing their tasks at their maximum potential.

Employees who undergo proper training tend to keep their jobs longer than those who do not.

According to Farooq. M, & Aslam. M. K (2011), managers are trying their level best to develop the

employee’s capabilities, ultimately creating good working environment within the organization. For

the sake of capacity building managers are involved in developing the effective training programs for

their employees to equip them with the desired knowledge, skills and abilities to achieve

organizational goals. This struggle by the top management not only improves the employee

performance but also creates positive image of the firm worldwide, (Jia-Fang, 2010).Effective

training programs helps employees to get acquaintance with the desired new technological

advancement,also gaining full command on the competencies and skills required to perform at s

particular job and to void on the job errors and mistakes (Robert, 2006). Amongst the important

function of human resource management, one of the crucial function is employee development

through proper training and development programs. Employee development refers to the capacity and

capability building on an employee, and thus as of whole organization, to meet the standard

performance level (Elena P. 2012). More the developed employees, more they are satisfied with their

job, hence increasing the firm productivity and profitability. (Champathes, 2006).Past researches

proved a positive link between training and employee performance, as training brings benefits for the

employee along with for the firm by positively impacting employee performance through the

enhancement of employee’s competencies and behaviour. Firms that focuses on shareholders and

customer satisfaction realized the importance of investing in training, and thus recognizes the worth

of employee development (Evans and Lindsay, 2009). According to Swart et al., (2016), bridging the

performance gap refers to implementing a relevant training intervention for the sake of developing

particular skills and abilities of the workers and enhancing employee performance. According to

Wright and Geroy (2014), employee competencies changes through effective training programs. It

not only improves the overall performance of the employees to effectively perform the current job but

also enhance the knowledge, skills an attitude of the workers necessary for the future job, thus

contributing to superior organizational performance.

Data and information are different from knowledge although still interrelated. On one hand,

while data represents raw numbers or words about facts, observations, or perceptions; information is

processed data of relevance and purpose. On the other hand, knowledge is roughly, useful or

actionable information. Knowledge is information that's relevant to a decision. It is good

explanations, and it is solutions (even if partial) to problems people had.

Knowledge has become one of the most highly valued commodities in the modern economy.

Further, knowledge is considered the principal tool of competitiveness and innovation in the

composition of commodity chain to the broader processes of regional and national economic

development [Barney, 1995; Bhatt, 2000; Daniels and Bryson, 2002; Shapira et al., 2006]. The new

paradigm is that within the organization knowledge must be shared in order for it to grow. Sharing

knowledge among its management and staff grows stronger and becomes more competitive [Uriarte,

2008].

Knowledge Management (KM) is an approach to achieving organizational objectives by

making the best use of knowledge, or “doing what is needed to get the most out of knowledge

resources” [Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004]. Skyrme [2001] defines knowledge management as "the

explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge–and its associated processes of creation,

organization, diffusion, use and exploitation". In the modern economy, KM plays a key role and has

been widely used by many firms as one of the most effective means of achieving success in the

information age [Malone, 2002].

From another angle, Jashapara [2004] defines it as "the effective learning processes associated

with exploration, exploitation and sharing of human knowledge that uses appropriate technology and

cultural environments to enhance an organization's intellectual capital and performance." The

information technologies that support KM throughout an organization are referred to as Knowledge

Management Systems (KMS) [Holsapple, 2003 ; Park and Kim, 2006; Sedighi, 2006; and Zhang &

Zhao, 2006, to name a few]. KMS are computer-based information systems (including databases, data

warehouses, document management systems, and artificial intelligence) that manage knowledge

throughout the organization; their goal is to identify, capture, store, maintain, and deliver (retrieve,

transfer, and disseminate) useful knowledge in a meaningful form to everyone who needs it, anyplace

and anytime, within the organization [Turban et al., 2011].

Structured or unstructured, explicit or tacit knowledge from internal or external sources can be

stored in an organizational KMS [Davenport & Prusak, 1998]. The use of KMS to support KM

processes enables KM to achieve its goals. KMS improve effectiveness and efficiency of

organizational KM. Several empirical studies in different countries provided evidence on the

significance of KM and KMS such as Gold et al. [2001], and Jennex [2008] in the US, Chong [2006]

in Malaysia, Liu and Tsai [2007] and Wu & Wang [2006] in Taiwan, and Al-Busaidi & Olfman

[2005] in Oman.

KMS is a type of a Decision Support Systems (DSS). Well-designed decision support systems

guide decision-makers in their efforts towards achieving their objectives through providing them with

detailed information tailored specifically to their needs. A sizable literature looks into the effect of

using DSS on decision making efficiency and effectiveness. One can review many of these studies in

Dickson, Senn, and Charvancy [1977], Jenkins [1977], Ives, Hamilton, and Davis [1980], Courtney,

DeSanctis, and Kasper [1983], Jarvenpaa [1985], Sharda et al. [1988], A. R. Ganguly, and A, Gupta

[2005].

In relation to the current study, we believe there is a great deal of understanding in the

published literature (as will be seen shortly) that KM and KMS positively influence the performance

of business processes. At the same time, the same literature still points out to a need for empirical

research that shows that influence [Robles-Flores, 2011]. Many other studies have reported that the

use of KM and KMS result in business processes’ benefits such as effectiveness, efficiency,

innovativeness, productivity, and performance; and employees' benefits such as effective decision-

making, better learning, adaptability, satisfaction, and performance, and many others [Mohamed &

Jalal, 2011; Dermol, 2011; Alavi & Linder, 2001; Becerra-Fernandiz, Gonzalez, & Sabherwal, 2004;

Daven port &, Prusak, 1998].

A review of the corporate portals literature reveals that there are limited studies that have

focused on issues related to their Web design quality [Yang, Cai, Zhoe, & Zhou, 2005]. There are

some studies in the KM literature, such as Chung & Lee [2007], Liu & Tsai [2007], Jiang & Liab

[2008], Tiwana [2004] and Norman [2002] that have investigated the impact of KM, but at very

limited KM processes and or benefits scales.

Assessing the specific impact of each KM process in dependently has not been addressed

adequately. Investigating the activities required for the systematic handling of knowledge resources is

necessary [Heisig, 2009]. Relating KM and business processes is a critical success factor for KM and

for effective use of corporate portal [Benbya et al., 2004]. Likewise, employees' perceived KMS

benefits are a significant determinant of their use [Wu & Wang, 2006; Becerra-Fernandez et al.,

2004].

Therefore, it is important for organizations to recognize the effect of supporting corporate

portals KM processes on business processes and employees. The use of corporate portals in

universities is growing worldwide [Li & Wood, 2005]. There is some literature on the use of

corporate portals in academic institutions [Al-Busaidi, 2009; Pino & Doucet, 2007; Li & Wood,

2005], however empirical studies that assess the impact of supporting KM processes through

corporate portals on business processes and employees in the academic context are very limited.

AlBusaidi [2010] investigated this impact in an academic institution. Her study investigated KM

processes based on Gold et al.'s [2001] classification. Studies are called for to investigate this impact

based on different KM processes classifications.

United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) private universities have been under growing pressure from

their governmental counterparts to become more effective, efficient, innovative, and competitive.

Their target has been to capture a reasonable market share of the higher education industry

growing total demand. While anxiously searching for solutions, these universities have learnt that one

of the most important competitive weapons is an efficient and effective knowledge management

system. A system that is capable of increasing their business revenues while decreasing average

operations costs.

The environment in which organizations operate and make decisions today is becoming more

and more difficult to deal with and predict. Business environment factors can be divided into four

major categories: markets, consumer demands, technology, and societal [Turban et al., 2011]. The

intensity of most of these factors increases with time, leading to more pressures, more competition,

and so on. In addition, organizations and departments within organizations face decreased budgets

and amplified pressures from top managers to improve performance in terms of profitability, growth,

and risk:

Based on related literature, Bacerra-Fernandez et al. [2004] note four trends that drive

knowledge management: increasing domain complexity, accelerating market volatility, intensified

speed of responsiveness, and diminishing individual experience. First, intricacy of internal and

external processes, increased competition, and the rapid advancement of technology all contribute to

increasing domain complexity. Second, the pace of change, or volatility, within each market domain

has increased rapidly in the past decade. Third, the time required to take action based upon subtle

changes within and across domains is decreasing. Fourth, High employee turnover rates have

resulted in individuals with decision-making authority having less tenure within their organizations

than ever before.

Adopting knowledge management, organizations can improve their capabilities of creating,

managing, sharing and applying their knowledge, sharpen their business intelligence, enhance their

managerial decisions efficiency and effectiveness, and ultimately achieve better business performance

[Herschel & Jones, 2005; and Lo & Chin, 2009].

Knowledge management is rooted in the concepts of organizational learning and

organizational memory. When members of an organization collaborate and communicate ideas, teach,

and learn, knowledge is transformed and transferred from individual to individual [Bennet et al.,

2003].

Knowledge Management Processes In his paper [Bray, 2013] has identified and reviewed four perspectives within the literature

surrounding knowledge management (KM) research at the organizational level: information systems,

management, organizational learning, and strategy perspectives.

The current study is concerned with the information systems perspective. Alavi & Leidner’s

[2001] MIS Quarterly article represents the seminal review piece on KM and information systems;

often cited in subsequent works. Their article frames the knowledge-based view of the firm,

extending earlier research by Nonaka [1994], and Grant [1996], and Argote & Ingram [2000] in this

area. Specifically, Alavi & Leidner [2001] propose that knowledge represents information possessed

in the minds of individuals, specifically “personalized information (which may or may not be new,

unique, useful, or accurate) related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations,

and judgments.”

Their review article suggests other alternative representations of knowledge as well, to include

knowledge as representing a state of mind, object, process, access to information, or a capability. In

each case, information systems play roles in supporting the “management” of knowledge.

Additionally, Alavi & Leidner [2001] develop a framework for analysis of the supporting role

of an information system with KM, specifically four sets of socially enacted, interdependent

knowledge processes:

a. Knowledge creation

b. Knowledge sharing (to include storage and retrieval)

c. Knowledge transfer

d. Knowledge application

Gold et al. [2001] also provided a similar classification, but with a new KM dimension. They

indicated that the capability of the organizational KM is assessed by incorporating tools and

mechanisms that support not only knowledge acquisition, knowledge conversion, knowledge

application, but also knowledge protection.

Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004] classified these processes as knowledge discovery,

knowledge capture, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application. Heisig [2009] had summarized

and analyzed about 160 frameworks of KM processes. His analysis indicated that the most frequent

categorizations of KM processes are identify, create, store, share, and apply knowledge.

The current study adopts Becerra-Fernandez et al.'s [2004] framework of the KM processes.

This framework has been intensively tested and hence accepted in the KM research. According to

Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004], "Knowledge discovery is defined as the development of new tacit or

explicit knowledge from data and information or from the synthesis of prior knowledge.

Knowledge capture is defined as the process of retrieving either explicit or tacit knowledge

that resides within people, artifacts, or organizational entities. Knowledge sharing is the process

through which explicit or tacit knowledge is communicated to other individuals. Finally,

knowledge application process supports the process through which some individuals utilize

knowledge possessed by other individuals without actually acquiring, or learning, that knowledge."

According to Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004], effectiveness enables the organization to:

a: perform the most suitable processes and make the best possible decisions,

b. become more effective by helping them to select and perform the most appropriate processes, and

c. quickly adapt their processes according to the current circumstances, thereby maintaining process

effectiveness in changing times.

On the other hand, organizations lacking in KM find it difficult to maintain process

ffectiveness when faced with turnover of experienced and new employees.

Impact on Organization Efficiency As explained by Becerra-Fernandez et al [2004], efficiency enables the organization to:

a. perform the processes quickly and in a low-cost fashion,

b. be more productive and efficient,

c. improve the interrelated aspects of organizational processes (effectiveness, efficiency,

innovativenes) through several means, including better knowledge being imparted to individuals

(through exchange, socialization, and so on), and d. improve these processes through other means,

including better knowledge being imparted to individuals (through exchange, socialization, and so

on) and the provision of workable solutions (through directions and routines), for employees to solve

the problems faced in their tasks.

Impact on Organization Degree of Innovation of the Processes

According to Storck & Hill [2000], innovation enables the organization to:

a. Perform the processes in a creative and novel fashion that improves effectiveness and

efficiency - or at least marketability,

b. produce innovative solutions to problems as well as to develop more innovative

organizational processes through increasingly rely on knowledge shared across individuals,

and

c. Enhance process innovation through enabling riskier brainstorming.

Impact on Employee Adaptability

Based on Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004], employees are likely to adapt when they interact

with each other; thus they are:

a.more likely to expect change,

b. continually learn from each other, thus they are likely to possess the information and knowledge

needed to adapt whenever organizational circumstances so require,

c. less likely to be caught by surprise, and

d. aware of new ideas and be involved in free-flowing discussions not only prepare them to respond

to changes, but they also make them more likely to accept change.

5. Impact on Employee Learning KM can affect the organization’s employees in several ways:

a. it can facilitate their learning (from each other as well as from external sources). This learning by

individual employees allows the organization to become constantly growing and changing in

response to the market and the technology [Sabherwal, 2008],

b it can help enhance the employee’s learning and exposure to the latest knowledge in their fields.

This can be accomplished in a variety of ways including externalization and internalization,

socialization, and communities of practice. Nonaka and Takeuchi [1995] have described

externalization as the process of converting tacit knowledge into explicit forms, and internalization as

the conversion of explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. Externalization and internalization work

together in helping individuals learn.

Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004] have explained that Socialization also helps individuals

acquire knowledge but usually through joint activities such as meetings, informal conversations, and

so on. One specific, but important, way in which learning through socialization can be facilitated

involves the use of a community of practice, defined as an organic and self-organized group of

individuals who may be dispersed geographically or organizationally but communicate regularly to

discuss issues of mutual interest.

Impact on Employee Satisfaction Bontis [2003] found that in organizations having more employees sharing knowledge with

one another, turnover rates were reduced, thereby positively affecting revenue and profit:

a. Employees feel better because of their knowledge acquisition and skill enhancement,

b. Employees’ market value is enhanced relative to other organizations’ employees, KM also

provides employees with solutions to problems they face in case those same problems have

been encountered earlier, and effectively addressed, providing tried-and-tested solutions (eg,

via the direction mechanism) amplifies employees ‘ effective ness in performing their jobs,

C. Amplifying employees’ effectiveness in performing their jobs through providing tried-and-

tested solutions. This helps keep those employees motivated, for a successful employee would

be highly motivated while an employee facing problems in performing his job would likely

be demotivated [Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004], and - additional increases in employee job

satisfaction derive from KM practices: mentoring and training are excellent motivators, and

communities of practice provide intimate and socially validated control over their own work

practices [Brown & Duguid, 1991].

d. Thus, as a result of their increased knowledge, improved market value, and greater on-the-job

performance, KM facilitates employees’ job satisfaction.

e. It can help enhance the employee’s learning and exposure to the latest knowledge in their

fields. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways including externalization and

internalization, socialization, and communities of practice.

2.3 THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Hypotheses Development Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004] identify that knowl edge management relied on four main

kinds of knowledge management processes as follows: discovery, capture, sharing, and application.

Knowledge discovery may be defined as the development of new tacit (includes insights, in tuitions,

and hunches) or explicit knowledge (refers to knowledge that has been expressed into words and

numbers) from data and information or from the synthesis of prior knowledge.

The discovery of new explicit knowledge relies most directly on combination, whereas the

discovery of new tacit knowledge relies most directly on socialization. Knowledge discovery is

SSessential for the establishment of organizational memory [Becerra-Fernandez etal., 2004;

Davenport & Pursak, 1998]. Corporate portals provide a rich working space that permits searching,

accessing, processing, and querying content from different sources. They also provide collaboration

and communication tools. Corporate portals speed up business processes through rapid access to

relevant and accurate corporate information and knowledge [Guruge, 2002; Turban et al., 2009].

They eliminate delays, frustration and inefficiency. Thus, corporate portals enable efficient

and effective knowledge discovery. Empirical studies by Chang & Lee [2007] and Jiank & Lia [2008]

found that knowledge acquisition (discovery) significantly improves performance and innovation.

Knowledge acquisition through corporate portals also promotes learning. Corporate Portals integrate

collaboration and communication tools (email system, chats, discussion forums, etc.). Collaborations

and interactions between individuals promote learning [Teece, 1998].

Employees’ adaptability is highly related to their learning capability. As knowledge discovery

enables employees to learn from each other, and from organizational knowledge bases, employees

will most likely have enough knowledge that enables them to anticipate changes, deal with these

changes, get used to new requirements, and manage their work as is needed [Becerra-Fernandez e

t al., 2004]. Likewise, innovation is closely related to learning. The higher the learning is, the greater

the innovation [Weerawardena, O’Cass, & Julian, 2006]. Given all these perceived business

processes’ and employees' benefits, knowledge discovery may contribute to employees’ job

satisfaction. Users’ satisfaction may result from net benefits resulted from the system use

[DeLone & McLean, 2003; Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004; Jennex & Olfman, 2006, Jennex, 2008

2.5 REVIEW: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Historically, knowledge has always been managed, at least implicitly. However, effective and

active knowledge management requires new perspectives and techniques and touches on almost

all facets of an organization. We need to develop a new discipline and prepare a cadre of knowledge

professionals with a blend of expertise that we have not previously seen. This is our challenge!(Wiig,

in Grey 2006 ). Knowledge management is a surprising mix of strategies, tools, and techniques some

of which are nothing new under the sun: storytelling, peer-to-peer mentoring,and learning from

mistakes, for example, all have precedents in education, training, and artificial intelligence practices.

Knowledge management makes use of a mixture of techniques from knowledge-based system design,

such as structured knowledge acquisition strategies from subject matter experts (McGraw and

Harrison-Briggs 2009) and educational technology (e.g., task and job analysis to design and develop

task support systems; Gery 2014 ).

Drucker was the fi rst to coin the term knowledge worker in the early 2012s ( Drucker2016 ). Nonaka

and Takeuchi (2016) studied how knowledge is produced, used, and diffused within organizations

and how this contributes to the diffusion of innovation.Knowledge management has its roots deeply

ingrained in the study of knowledge which has been a deeply contested issue since ancient times

(Drucker, 2013; Turban & Aronson, 2014). However, knowledge management as a field of study

itself is relatively a new concept which surfaced in the early 2012s (Drucker, 2013; Metaxiotis,

Ergazakis & Psarras, 2016: 7; Prusak, 2014: 1003). With a relatively short history to its current

development, knowledge management is still a turbulent and ''noisy'' field which is used to refer

many things. A large number of working definitions of knowledge management is circulating in the

literature and around companies worldwide (Kakabadse, Kakabadse & Kouzmin, 2013). Some

researchers are of the opinion that the complexity behind defining knowledge management is partially

attributed by the challenges in identifying knowledge itself (Choo, 2008; Cortada & Woods, 2009;

McAdam & McCreedy, 2009; Metaxiotis, Ergazakis & Psarras, 2016).Wiig (2007) proposed that

knowledge management is the systematic and explicit management of knowledge-related activities,

practices, programmes and policies within the enterprise. Another definition by Sveiby (2007) posited

that knowledge management is the art of creating value to organisations by leveraging intangible

assets. Malhotra (2008: 58) defines knowledge management as catering to the critical issues of

organisational adaptation, survival and competence in face of increasingly discontinuous

environmental change… Essentially, it embodies organisational processes that seek synergistic

combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies and the

innovative capacity of human beings.A widely-accepted view on knowledge management is by

Davenport and Prusak (2012) who proposed that knowledge management is largely concerned with

the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an organisation with the view of

furthering the organisation’s objectives. It is also explained that the knowledge assets mentioned in

their definition include both explicit, documented knowledge and tacit, subjective knowledge of the

organisation (Davenport & Prusak, 2012). It is also argued that knowledge management improves an

employee’s comprehension in a specific knowledge domain through the systematic and organised

process of finding, selecting, organising, distilling and presenting knowledge (Davenport & Prusak,

2012; Poh, 2014; Tidd, 2014; Wiig, 2013, 2007, 2015). Knowledge management helps an

organisation gains insights and further understanding from its own experience (Davenport & Prusak,

2012; Despres & Chauvel, 2009; Poh,Developments in Knowledge management focused on proving

electronic databases, network systems and software to encourage the distribution of knowledge

(Chow and Chan, 2008). With the help of technology now open access moment has also initiated all

over world and receiving increased attention of scholars and academicians, librarians. Open access

gives better visibility for researcher’s scholarship. It has been observed that open access articles are

cited by other authors more frequently than comparable articles that aren’t openly available. No

researcher wants to waste time and money conducting a study if they know it has been attempted

elsewhere. But, duplication of effort is all-too-possible when researchers can’t effectively

communicate with one another and make results known to others in their field and beyond. According

to Parekh (2009) collaboration helps in Sharing valuable knowledge, avoiding reinventing the wheel,

reducing redundant work and cost for invention, Creating knowledge with the help of experts and

experienced persons, giving a right direction to the enthusiastic intelligent students, making them

experts of future, solving problems aroused at primary level which will save time, money and man

power. It gives idea of which kind of change industrial firms wanted? Which kind of problems they

are facing and to solve it, which kind of research works they are expecting from the university will be

cleared well in advance. Maximum production with the lowest cost is the main aim of all enterprises

if they were raw materials, or machinery and technology or management deals.The ability to manage

knowledge is becoming increasingly more crucial in today’s knowledge economy. The task of

effective and competitive management of organizations becomes necessary, and knowledge

management, if understood and applied properly, may be a useful tool for business transformation as

well as the key of competitive advantage (Jennex, 2007).

2.3 Knowledge and Knowledge Management

Different models and schemes describe knowledge management within an organisation. Within the

presented organisation, an understanding of knowledge management was slowly created, agreed upon

and broken down into the following components:

People: as providing the information and looking for and receiving pieces of content

Content: the ‘real’ pieces that carry information that can generate knowledge3

Routines and procedures: secure the ways to provide, collect, forward and access existing and

new information

Technology: tools to create, exchange, store and make available these pieces that carry

information

In the Organisation people, content, technology and routines are co-existent.

http://www.community-of-knowledge.de/beitrag/356#fn003f

he more formalized task of knowledge management – at least decided so in the organisation at hand

– is to lead and execute activities to support and enhance single components and sub-components. It

is also to support and enhance the connectedness of people, content, technology and routines within

the organisation and to take (at least co-) ownership of the process described in Chapter 3. Looking at

Diagram 1, KM should make interfaces permeable and identify and support intersections.

An organisation’s definition of knowledge management is not always understood the same

throughout the organisation. This agreed upon definition of KM is therefore important – but is only

the first step towards a transparent and knowledge-sharing organisation. This definition will need

clarifications and adjustments again and again as new needs become visible.

3 Processing Knowledge Management: from Inventory to Intervention

As till then nobody in the organization has been explicitly responsible for knowledge management it

seemed appropriate to firstly get an overview on what is available in the organisation. Thus the

prospected first activities4 of the advisor were described as leading a way through the following:

This primary step, according to Luckhardt (no year), “… comprises of classification, selection,

acquisition, indexing and storage of knowledge resources”5 , describing the status quo in the

organisation. Next, this inventory needs to be analyzed. It would be best to compare this status quo

with a prospected situation in order to identify bottlenecks and fields for intervention and

amelioration. However, this ideal situation would require a viable description of a prospected

situation – which seldom exists, at least not in detail.



1. Collection / Overview of Knowledge Inventory

The knowledge inventory should list and connect all necessary information about the above

mentioned: people, routines and procedures, content and technology. Thus, the knowledge inventory

is a meta-information centre. Collecting and summarizing this knowledge inventory already is a

critical first step where barriers will be encountered.

2. Expert’s Analysis

The expert knowledge manager can be used to identify the first signs/avenues for enhance-ments –

just from analysing what is given in knowledge inventory. Considering that the suc-cessful

implementation of KM can only be achieved when all players are properly involved in the process,

the expert’s external analysis is only an initial step in defining KM activities.

3. Participatory Analysis

Having the personnel aboard and giving them the space to reflect on their own situation, their own

input and their own needs provides very valuable hints. In most cases, participation will strengthen

the process and the chances for a change. Participatory processes also help external advisors to

understand how the organisation ‘functions’ from within

4. Proposal of Interventions

As a next step, personnel involved should work on creating ways to improve knowledge management

in the future. Summarizing ideas that have been developed in a participatory manner, and proposing

alternatives to resolve bottlenecks and realize enhancements, is one of the main tasks for a knowledge

manager. These alternatives may consist of various ap-proaches, like implementing new routines,

collecting new information, using new technology, etc.

5. Conducting Selected Interventions

After – in best case: participatory – prioritisation and decision on activities on how to enhance the

management of knowledge, these activities should be implemented – thus creating a change in the

inventory.

6. Knowledge Management System

The formalized process of updating technologies, routines, organisational structures and personal

skills would then be called ‘Knowledge Management System’.

4. Reality Check: Barriers for Knowledge Management

The study described a kind of ‘ideal’ process – which may appear rather mechanistic and per-haps

even naïve. In reality, working with people is never like a control loop that entails simply scrutinizing

problem areas and then re-adjusting these for change.

As mentioned, this paper should primarily be seen as a southern African case study, the examples

mentioned below have a higher likelihood to be relevant in southern Africa, but could also help to

avoid surprising revelations elsewhere.

The structure of this chapter is based on the categories from chapter 2: technology, content, routines,

organisation and personnel. As personnel are found to be crucial for knowledge management, this

sub-chapter will be more detailed. Some barriers identified will fit into several categories.

4.1 Barriers in Technology

High-end and elegant software solutions could make life easier in many regards. Software for data

interchange, archiving, information sharing, communication, work flow management and so on could

be quick and easy solutions to restructuring knowledge management.

Technological solutions typically require a budget, however. And this can easily become a giant

constraint. Even if free software10 is available, there is often a lack of hardware; lack of bandwidth

and lack of IT literacy when it comes to handling the software, thus making costs rise even higher

than comparable ‘pay’-software.

Moreover, an organisation can be caught in a technological trap, caused by a long gone deci-sion for

special software. Reversing this old decision once the software has been implemented could become

impossible – due to financial or reputational reasons or because of a lack of skills.

In some countries, special technologies are more ubiquitous than others. e.g., most people in Africa

are more familiar to and used to work with mobile phones compared to computers: “Mobile phone is

the African computer. If we want to train health workers in Africa we can't ignore the mobile phone”

(Shakei, 2011). According to Greenwood, Louise (2009) and own experience even money transfers

work via mobile phone, Chigona (2007) describe extensively used mobile chat applications.

4.2 Barriers in Content


To collect content for the knowledge inventory can be hard work – no matter where in the world you

are. Transforming implicit knowledge into explicit information is an activity in which special skills

and often creativity are needed.11 Some communication and information proc-esses are very difficult

to describe. Few possible content e.g. a description on how to gain special and restricted information,

could even be illegal or against organisational rules. Other examples could include unauthorized

informal meetings or exchange via software that is not authorised within the organisation (e.g. Instant

Messengers).

Another barrier is linked to individual skills: delivered content may simply not be understood. Maps

only make sense if people know how to read them – which is not always the case in southern Africa.

To work with digital or analogue audio files as well as video files, people must have the experience or

know-how on using a suitable media player.

4.3 Barriers in Routines and Procedures

Some processes and procedures that are only claimed to exist, e.g. regular departmental meetings. In

addition, work plans or strategy and progress papers may only represent ideal situations that have no

link to reality. Some routines may not be recognized as routines by employees – such as everyday

joint coffee breaks among staff. Some processes may work in certain cases but not in others or never

again – which makes them unreliable. For example: you need to ask a particular person for access to

the staff library but if this person does not respond to your request you are stuck without the info you

require.

Some work is carried out without planning – which may lead to inventing the wheel again and again.

This could be due to a culture of ‘last minute‘ or ’hands on’ crisis management. Thus strategic and

planned work frequently has a low priority, while variable ad-hoc processes become ‘routine’, and

‘quick and dirty’ becomes being ‘business as usual’.

4.4 Barriers in Organisation

A knowledge-sharing culture in an organisation that is badly role-modelled by those highest in the

organisation’s hierarchy can hinder knowledge management. High ranking staff may consider

themselves to be more important than others – manifesting in not sharing informa-tion.

Hierarchically-structured organisations appear to be the standard in southern Africa. Here, staff is

deeply influenced by line managers’ behaviour. Thus, if high ranking members of the organisation

are unreliable or don’t follow up on activities or do not care, middle and low ranking staff will not

either.

Also, “structures are multi-layered, polyvalent, and often contradictory … (and) … maybe invisible


even to those who inhabit them.” (Ferguson 1990, p17) For instance, the head of organisation could

explicitly be telling everybody to use and support knowledge management – but may not apply this

instruction to his- or herself. This would strengthen a culture of ‘saying but not taking it serious’ or

‘not practising what you preach’ – which hinders all processes, including knowledge management.

This culture of ‘unreliability’ within an organisation makes it difficult to cooperate and succeed.

The cooperation ideal – when it comes to planning and decision making and wanting person-nel’s

ideas to be included in the decision making – can lead to a deadlock. This can be due to the fact that

staff members do not understand what the decision is all about and are afraid of admitting this

(selective) ignorance. As a response personnel could then choose the strategy of delay. Another

reason for refusing to take action on anything or to be decisive can be the uncertainty of the line

manager’s wish.

Personnel fluctuation seems to play a huge role in NGOs especially in southern Africa. In 20 months

from about 100 colleagues 34 quit.1

Organisational survival – especially in the face of budget and funding restrictions –is often the main

focus, thus strategic issues like ‘knowledge management’ do not have high priority.

From a system theory13 point of view, any organisation aiming for autopoiesis, recreates itself again

and again, and even wants to avoid changes – including changes that concern the sharing of

knowledge. The persistency of an organisation also hinders hiring innovative – and thus more likely

KM-friendly – personnel.

Interesting would even be to consider information as a currency. Personnel ‘pay’ with bits and pieces

of information – but they will not give it for free.

4.5 Barriers in Personnel

The human factor is a key factor. Many of the above mentioned issues are connected to indi-vidual

behaviour.

A first challenge is that personnel might not have any idea or understanding of what ‘knowl-edge

management’ is all about; there is no or at least no matching definition of KM in the personnel’s

mind.14

Providing and sharing information can be hindered by a lack of motivation: employees do not receive

or do not understand the surplus that comes along with cooperating on knowledge management. All

they see is that they have to give information to others – which, from the individual point of view,

does not make sense at all, because keeping information secret and unshared can help to secure a

job.15

Some display of information is meaningless for personnel, e.g. even highly qualified staff do not

know how to read a map. Messages may not be properly understood –as prime exam-ple, in South

Africa there are 11 official languages, English being a second language for the majority of the





population. This easily leads to chaotic communication and incorrect transmis-sion of information.16

Personnel – even those of high rank – might have difficulties dealing with knowledge-sharing

technology – or technology in general. And some of those personnel will not admit to this lack of

skills.

When it comes to working on an online questionnaire, for example, some staff do not differ-entiate

between phrasing aspects, how different questions are formulated, and techno-logical aspects, how

the submission of the answers will work electronically. Thus, people re-sponsible for technologies

feel the pressure of working on enhancement of content and phrasing.

Non-cooperative attitudes of line management and colleagues lead to stagnation, resignation and

avoidance of the active search for information.

The priority of focusing on-time problems makes it difficult to focus on strategic activities like

knowledge management. Personnel often do not seem to have the time for knowledge management

procedures during day-to-day work.

As well as each organisation, also each individual – no matter whether operative or strategic staff –

has different interests and hidden agendas which could be in opposition to a transpar-ent knowledge

management system. People are afraid to lose their job; people are afraid of giving ‘secret’

information; people do not trust each other. Personnel or co-workers easily suspect a hidden agenda

on the part of the knowledge manager – even if this does not exist. This suspicion could lead to

reservation and non-cooperation.

The knowledge manager him- or herself may even have a hidden agenda – like carrier planning – that

could hinder the proper enhancement in knowledge sharing. He or she might prefer to have a visible

output of his / her activities, instead of ‘only’ influencing the organisation’s knowledge sharing

culture, which cannot be captured in statistics. Ferguson (1990, p. 40) states: “In ‘development

discourse’, the fact that there are no statistics available is no excuse for not presenting statistics, and

even made up numbers are better than non at all.”17

When proposing procedures for knowledge management, different co-workers could support different

parts of the procedure, those being parts they can personally benefit from. Different, but also

necessary parts of processes and routines are jeopardized by the same person. E.g. cooperating when

it comes to creating an online archive for research articles but not providing the own collection of

research articles.

From a more political point of view, aiming to gain power could be a main motivator for mem-bers of

the organisation. Thus, the sharing or not-sharing of information is a sub-function in the quest for

power. Sharing information can only be motivated by win-situations for the provider of information.

Handling Barriers in Intercultural Contexts



As a manager or advisor in KM in intercultural contexts – but also in ‘normal’ contexts – different

strategies to deal with barriers will come up. Find here selected examples plus a proposal considering

the hierarchical focus.

Punctual Attempts and Failures and Successes

Identifying barriers isn’t that easy as it seems, sometimes co-workers would deny that there is a

barrier – this must be an indicator to watch out. Reacting to barriers in most cases will not necessarily

solve the problem but lead to the next barrier. Thus being prepared to reflect and to learn will always

be necessary, for there will never be an easy pre-describable circumvention for barriers. Here selected

experiences from southern Africa.

Processing Knowledge Management: from Inventory to Intervention

As till then nobody in the organization has been explicitly responsible for knowledge management it

seemed appropriate to firstly get an overview on what is available in the organisation. Thus the

prospected first activities4 of the advisor were described as leading a way through the following:

This primary step, according to Luckhardt (no year), “… comprises of classification, selection,

acquisition, indexing and storage of knowledge resources”5 , describing the status quo in the

organisation. Next, this inventory needs to be analyzed. It would be best to compare this status quo

with a prospected situation in order to identify bottlenecks and fields for intervention and

amelioration. However, this ideal situation would require a viable description of a prospected

situation – which seldom exists, at least not in detail.

1. Collection / Overview of Knowledge Inventory

The knowledge inventory should list and connect all necessary information about the above

mentioned: people, routines and procedures, content and technology. Thus, the knowledge inventory

is a meta-information centre. Collecting and summarizing this knowledge inventory already is a

critical first step where barriers will be encountered.

2. Expert’s Analysis

The expert knowledge manager can be used to identify the first signs/avenues for enhance-ments –

just from analysing what is given in knowledge inventory. Considering that the suc-cessful



implementation of KM can only be achieved when all players are properly involved in the process,

the expert’s external analysis is only an initial step in defining KM activities.

3. Participatory Analysis

Having the personnel aboard and giving them the space to reflect on their own situation, their own

input and their own needs provides very valuable hints. In most cases, participation will strengthen

the process and the chances for a change. Participatory processes also help external advisors to

understand how the organisation ‘functions’ from within.

4. Proposal of Interventions

As a next step, personnel involved should work on creating ways to improve knowledge management

in the future. Summarizing ideas that have been developed in a participatory manner, and proposing

alternatives to resolve bottlenecks and realize enhancements, is one of the main tasks for a knowledge

manager. These alternatives may consist of various ap-proaches, like implementing new routines,

collecting new information, using new technology, etc.

5. Conducting Selected Interventions

After – in best case: participatory – prioritisation and decision on activities on how to enhance the

management of knowledge, these activities should be implemented – thus creating a change in the

inventory.

6. Knowledge Management System

The formalized process of updating technologies, routines, organisational structures and personal

skills would then be called ‘Knowledge Management System’.

http://www.community-of-knowledge.de/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=fileadmin%2Fuser_upload%2Fbeitrag%2F356%2FFigure2_BarriersKM.jpg&md5=5880da5a14961ba316d61d94b90a8931efc4f042&parameters%5B0%5D=YTo1OntzOjU6IndpZHRoIjtzOjQ6IjgwMG0iO3M6NjoiaGVpZ2h0IjtzOjQ6IjYw&parameters%5B1%5D=MG0iO3M6NzoiYm9keVRhZyI7czo0MToiPGJvZHkgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbjowOyBi&parameters%5B2%5D=YWNrZ3JvdW5kOiNmZmY7Ij4iO3M6NToidGl0bGUiO3M6NTM6IkZpZ3VyZSAyOiBT&parameters%5B3%5D=Y2hlbWUgb2YgYSBGb3JtYWxpemVkIEtub3dsZWRnZSBNYW5hZ2VtZW50IjtzOjQ6&parameters%5B4%5D=IndyYXAiO3M6Mzc6IjxhIGhyZWY9ImphdmFzY3JpcHQ6Y2xvc2UoKTsiPiB8IDwv&parameters%5B5%5D=YT4iO30%3D

Reality Check: Barriers for Knowledge Management

Chapter 3 described a kind of ‘ideal’ process – which may appear rather mechanistic and per-haps

even naïve. In reality, working with people is never like a control loop that entails simply scrutinizing

problem areas and then re-adjusting these for change.

As mentioned, this paper should primarily be seen as a southern African case study, the examples

mentioned below have a higher likelihood to be relevant in southern Africa, but could also help to

avoid surprising revelations elsewhere.

The structure of this chapter is based on the categories from chapter 2: technology, content, routines,

organisation and personnel. As personnel are found to be crucial for knowledge management, this

sub-chapter will be more detailed. Some barriers identified will fit into several categories.

Alavi and Leidner (2014), define knowledge as “knowledge is information possessed in the mind of

individuals: it is personalized information (which may or may not be new, unique, useful, or accurate)

related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations, and judgments.”. Different

types of knowledge result in different processes of knowledge capturing and sharing (Davenport and

Prusak, 2008) and different implications on management (Grant, 2006). Knowledge resides in a

person, passed around by people and individuals, nurtured and expanded by people themselves and

applied by them eventually. Druker 2014 cited in Nelson and Mc Cann (2009). Yan and Wu (2008)

indicated that as knowledge is considered as a source of competitive advantages for organization and

organization strive to protect their intellectual assets, the same applies to individuals who perceive

knowledge as power and privilege, in order for them to share this power and privilege with others,

and they will require getting something back in return.As knowledge has become the most valuable

resource in this knowledge-intensive economy, organizations are striving to capitalize on their

knowledge assets through effective knowledge management strategies and practices.Making

knowledge available to the right people at the right time is crucial for building and sustaining an

organization’s competencies (Alazmi & Zairi, 2013). Despite substantial consensus regarding the

strategic value of knowledge, the actual processes of knowledge creation, transfer, and retention in

organizations still remain to be

fully elucidated (Argote, 2009; Argote & Ingram, 2012). Considering that individual knowledge and

expertise are assets that can provide an edge to organizations (Chermack, Provo, & Danielson, 2016),

a greater understanding is necessary of how individuals create, share, and use knowledge within the

organization along with what factors influence each of the process. Research has shown that shared

context or common ground is important for knowledge sharing, especially tacit knowledge sharing

(Augier, Shariq, & Vendelo, 2014).

Alavi and Leidner (2014) suggest that knowledge represents the most strategically valuable resource

in the business and economic environment and has become a differentiating competitive factor in

companies. Most discussions and definitions of knowledge distinguish between two types: tacit and

explicit. Explicit knowledge represents the type of knowledge that is often captured in documents,

libraries, written policies and procedures, files, manuals, and databases. Explicit knowledge is

articulated and codified and can be expressed in formal and systematic language (Nonaka, 2016).

Tacit knowledge is defined as highly personal and hard to articulate and formalize, making it difficult

to communicate or share with others and is deeply rooted in individuals’ actions and contextual

experience as well as in the ideals, values, or emotions he or she embraces (Williams, 2006). One

type is formalized and systematic knowledge, which includes factual and declarative knowledge

(“knowing that”), explicit rules and scientific (ordered and verified) knowledge. The other type is an

informal, practical and experience-based knowledge (“knowing how”), which is at least partly tacit

and only manifests itself in the actions of persons (Ramussen & Nielsen, 2011).Organizational

knowledge is defined as the sum of individual’s knowledge and knowledge already existing in

organizational systems, processes, products, rules, and culture (Grundspenkis, 2007). Organizational

learning is the organization’s capacity to create or acquire new knowledge,and then develop that

knowledge for the benefit of the organization (Beitler, 2006). Competitive advantage depends on an

organization’s ability to continuously configure and integrate knowledge into value-creating

strategies. Knowledge integration depends on coordination between individuals and the knowledge

they retain (Roland, 2006).it is important to transfer the knowledge to avoid situations operational

skills and solutions for problems have to be reinvented (Schwartz, 2006). Knowledge transfer is a

process to communicate and apply knowledge from one source to recipient (Darr & Kurtzberg, 2012)

and mainly focuses on learning (Schwartz, 2006).The source and recipient could be separate or any

kinds of combination of individuals, groups and organizations (Darr & Kurtzberg, 2012). Frequent

interaction between the sender and recipient enables enhancing the flow of knowledge (Schwartz,

2006). Both tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge and the combination of the both could be transferred

(Gevorgyan and Ivanovski, 2009). Knowledge transfer could be done more efficiently when the

transferred knowledge is more explicit and less tacit (Schwartz, 2006).

Hikes et al. (2006, p.2) indicated that knowledge consists of data → information → knowledge; it is

also the power to decide on a course of action and it can be passed to other individuals as

well.Davenport and Prusak (2012): "Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experiences, values,

contextual information and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating

new experiences and information." While intranets and information repositories may provide means

for people, they are not good in helping people apply the new knowledge in the context of process

work (Massey et al. 2015).Knowledge has been distinguished for its ability for application,

integrating the theoretical information with practical experience and the general system of the

individuals and the organizations producing a capability or a new gift called knowledge. (Giovanni,

2012).Knowledge, recognised as being an important resource to organisations these days, has to be

effectively and efficiently managed for organisations to leverage on it to obtain competitive

advantage to achieve success in the dynamic business environment (MDC, 2016). The new,

knowledge-based economy places great importance on the creation, use and effective diffusion of

knowledge (Ford & Staples, 2006; Lu, Leung & Koch, 2006; Mannington, 2009; Martensson, 2012;

Metaxiotis, Ergazakis & Psarras, 2016; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2016; Salojarvi, Furu & Sveiby, 2016;

Spiegler, 2012; it Beijerse, 2009). This makes it an imperative for organizations to concentrate on

maintaining and developing the knowledge capital that they possess in order to innovate and remain

competitive. The organization’s ''ability to learn, adapt and change, becomes a core competency for

survival'' (Metaxiotis, Ergazakis & Psarras, 2016).Many opinions agree on the general content of

knowledge management but they vary in the accurate description of the inputs and processes of

knowledge management (Al-Faris, 2010). To this end, Zwain et al., (2010), defined Knowledge

management as the organized collection of information from sources inside and outside the

organization,then analyzing and interpreting them so as to conclude indications used in guiding and

enriching the organization‟s processes to improve the performance till it reach higher achievement. It

also, implies the integrated systematic entry of the management and the activation of the participation

in the organization‟information including databases, documents, policies, procedures in addition to

the employees‟ past experience (Prusak, 2014). Therefore, knowledge should be employed to solve

problems facing the organization and knowledge application should aim at achieving the

organization‟s goals. Nevertheless,Allameh and Abbas, (2010) classified knowledge into three levels:

Core Knowledge, Advanced Knowledge,Innovative Knowledge, However, Zwain et al.,(2012)

conducted the following dimensions of the knowledge management process: knowledge

identification, knowledge acquisition & Transferring, knowledge storage, knowledge sharing,

knowledge application. Hence, these processes depend on each other; therefore, based on the previous

studies,Itami (2007) has indicated knowledge is considered one of the invisible assets of an

organization; knowledge is necessary for people to perform their job and used as management tool to

take crucial decision. Itami added that invisible assets are something which cannot be attained easily

as it takes time, training and practice. For example company brand, employees skills, organization

reputation are invisible assets which cannot be seen or measured directly and similar is knowledge.

Nonaka et al., (2012 cited in Haigh et al 2008) indicated that knowledge can be divided into explicit

knowledge and tacit knowledge; explicit knowledge is easy to generate, stored and shared within an

organization. However tacit knowledge is people accumulated experience over many years and it is

noticed in their decisions, actions and comments towards situation which occurs in personal or

professional life.According to this approach, knowledge is considered the key or strategic asset to

hold the potential of SCA (Argote & Ingram 2012; Grant 2006a; Lopez

2016) and firms gain CA through the acquisition, transfer and subsequent use of strategic

assets, in this case, knowledge (Nonaka 2014; Prahalad & Hamel 2012; Riahi-Belkaoui

2013).Knowledge is in the same context as financial, human, and other resources but the only one

which increases with use rather than diminishing (Duffy 2012). Nonaka, Toyama and Nagata

(2012) define knowledge assets as firm-specific resources that are indispensable to create value for

the firm, including inputs, outputs, and moderating factors of the organisation‟s knowledge creating

activities, and hence they are constantly evolving (Moustaghfir 2009).Moreover, unlike most

traditional resources, knowledge cannot easily be purchased in a ready-to-use form. This asset is

difficult to transfer among firms because of transaction and transfer costs and also because of its

possible tacit nature. Knowledge, particularly context specific tacit knowledge, tends to be unique

and, therefore, difficult, if not impossible, to imitate (Teece 2008). To obtain similar knowledge, the

company‟s competitors have to engage in similar experiences, but obtaining knowledge through

experience takes time (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez & Sabherwal 2016). In other words, the

sustainability of CA is derived from the time constraint on rivals learning what the other organisation

already knows (Teece 2008) which creates a sustained knowledge-based barrier to competition (Zack

2009).To explain why knowledge is considered extremely important for sustaining CA in today‟s

environment, Jackson, Hitt and DeNisi (2013) offer several reasons. First, the nature of work which

has been changing for the past few decades requires both tacit and explicit knowledge and the ability

to apply that knowledge to work. When work continues to change in unpredictable ways, the ability

to learn and adapt becomes very important to acquire and master new knowledge. Moreover, in the

contemporary business environment, the nature of knowledge has dramatically changed due to many

scientific developments and other ongoing discovery processes (Dimitriades 2016)Due to the widely

recognised importance of knowledge, James (2016) and Moustaghfir (2009) propose theoretical

frameworks of knowledge asset management which delivers Strong Capability and long-term

superior performance based on the firm‟s knowledge assets, which are defined as stocks of

knowledge from which services are expected to flow for a period of time that may be hard to specify

in advance‟ with an economic life viable within the industry and market context (Boisot 2009, p. 3).

Knowledge assets include a firm‟s intellectual assets, employees‟skills and know-how (Hall 2013)

and are leveraged into a firm‟s capabilities which in turn impact on its performance and provide it

with a SCA (Grant 2014, 2006b; Moustaghfir 2009;

Rouse & Daellenbach 2015). Sharing the same point of view, Jackson, Hitt and DeNisi (2013) state

that in today‟s complex and challenging environment with high uncertainty, unpredictability and

dynamism, managing knowledge-based resources has become the key for gaining SCA and sustained

superior performance (Grant 2006a; Sharkie 2013; Teece, Pisano

& Shuen 2007).Knowledge is a complex and elusive concept. In discussions aimed at formulating a

definition of knowledge, knowledge has normally been distinguished from data and information in

two ways (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez & Sabherwal 2016).Some researchers such as Nonaka and

Takeuchi (2016) and Wiig (2009) support a more complete perspective, according to which

knowledge is fundamentally different from data and information and is defined as being justified

beliefs about relationships among concepts relevant to a particular area of knowledge. It may be

viewed from five categories or perspectives of knowledge as (1) a state of mind, (2) an object, (3) a

process, (4) a condition of having access to information, or (5) a capability (Alavi & Leidner 2014).A

more simplistic view considers knowledge to be at the highest level in a hierarchy with information at

the valuable middle level and data to be at the lowest level (Davenport & Prusak 2008; Dilnutt 2012;

Earl 2014; Stenmark 2015; Tiwana 2015). According to this view,knowledge is intrinsically similar

to information and data, although it is the richest and deepest of the three, and is, consequently, the

most important. Alternatively, knowledge can be represented in a circular model because of the

iterative nature of knowledge development (Jones 2014). Other researchers (Bollinger & Smith 2014;

Vance 2007; Wu 2012) include an additional layer, wisdom, while some (Shankar et al. 2013)

explore the concept of a knowledge value chain. Data is raw unanalysed facts that are measures or

attributes of phenomena, which are out of context and have no relation with other facts (Loshin 2014;

Robbins et al. 2012; Zikmund 2012). Data is, therefore, objective (James 2016; Tiwana

2015).Knowledge has been categorised in many different ways. Traditional epistemology identifies

three distinct kinds of knowledge: knowledge of things and objects, knowledge of how to do things,

and knowledge of statements or propositions (Musgrave 2013).However, since the emergence of the

knowledge economy, the traditional categories of knowledge are both imprecise and difficult to

operationalise for management purposes, leading to a number of new classifications being proposed

(Blumentritt & Johnston 2009).Throughout these categories, the most notable and important

classification is two kinds of knowledge: tacit (or embodied) and explicit (or codified) (Bollinger &

Smith 2014; Debowski 2006; Nonaka 2016; Pemberton & Stonehouse 2012; Polanyi 2007). Explicit

knowledge is knowledge that can be documented, categorised, transmitted to others as information,

and illustrated to others as through demonstrations, explanations and other forms of sharing. By

contrast, tacit knowledge is knowledge which draws on the accumulated experience and learning of a

person and which is hard to reproduce or share with others. Equivalent to these forms of knowledge,

Hansen, Nohria and Tierney (2009) have identified two approaches. The first is codification, in which

knowledge is encoded and structured prior to being stored in databases and made available. Explicit

knowledge (market data, competitor profiles, and customer characteristics) can be codified. The

second approach, personalisation, ties information to individuals who provide creative, analytically

rigorous advice on highlevel strategic problems by channeling individual expertise. Tacit knowledge

(scientific expertise, operational know-how, industry experience, and business judgment) requires this

person-to-person approach. Although quite distinct, it is possible to convert explicit knowledge into

tacit knowledge.

Knowledge management can be defined as the organisational capability which identifies,

locates (creates or acquires), transfers, converts and distributes knowledge into competitive

advantage‟ (Walters 2015).According to Darroch and McNaughton (2015) The management function

that creates, locates, and manages the flow of knowledge within an organisation to ensure that

knowledge is used effectively and efficiently for the long-term benefit of the organisation. Rasgoti

(2012) described knowledge management as „a systematic and integrative process of coordinating

organisation-wide in pursuit of major organisational goals‟ including the acquisition, creation,

storage, sharing, diffusion, development, and deployment of knowledge.

while Wiig (2009) described the objectives of KM are „(a) to make the enterprise as intelligently as

possible to secure its viability and overall success and (b) to realise the best value of its knowledge

assets‟,according to APQC (2008) „the management discipline concerned with the systematic

acquisition, creation, sharing and use of knowledge in organisations, aiming to improve a firm‟s

competitiveness via continuous, rapid innovation. Duhon (2008) described

knowledge management as a combination of technology supporting a strategy for sharing and using

both the brain power resident within an organisation‟s employees and internal and external

information found in information containers the goal of Knowledge Management is to simultaneously

manage data,information, explicit knowledge while leveraging the information resident within in

people‟s head (tacit knowledge) through a combination of technology and management practices.

Knapp (2008) described knowledge management as „a set of processes for transferring intellectual

capital to value such as innovation and knowledge creation, knowledge acquisition, organisation,

application, sharing, and replenishment.while O‟Leary (2008) described it as the the formal

management of knowledge for facilitating creation, access, and reuse of knowledge, typically using

advanced technology. Bassi (2007) described knowledge management as the process of creating,

capturing and using knowledge to enhance organisational performance Liebowitz and Wilcox(2007)

described it as the ability of organisations to manage, store, value, and distribute knowledge. Van der

Spek and Spijkervet (2007) described the explicit control and management of knowledge within an

organisation aimed at achieving the company‟s objectives. Theriou and Chatzoglou (2008)

summarise the definitions adopted by different

academics that the learning organisation is an organisation which adopts specific strategies,

mechanisms, and practices that encourage its members to learn continuously so that they can adapt to

the changing business environment Leng and Shepherson (2012) as cited in James (2016) posit that

Knowledge Manament can improve efficiency and effectiveness, along with responsiveness and

flexibility to market changes. It can also be used to improve product development, innovation and

quality, and develop a better understanding of customer and stakeholder relationships (Davenport &

Prusak 2008; Hauschild, Licht & Stein 2014; Martensson 2012; Skyrme & Amidon 2008).

Knowledge management is not only associated with managing knowledge as a resource, but

also to manage business processes that take place using that resource. It should involve the

analysis of existing knowledge as a resource, as well as defining the objectives regarding the

generation, protection and application of new knowledge, then transfer, exchange and

dissemination of knowledge, effective use of knowledge and performance measurement.

From external sources, the knowledge is generated by purchasing technology and software,

hiring experts, using consultants and strategic partnerships. Internal creation of knowledge is

a process of individual learning in a group of individuals as well as the process of

"organizational learning". In both cases, the key role is on the company’s (organizational)

units of research and development and on the units in charge of education and training of

employees (Krstic, 2007, pp. 53–66).The knowledge management process aims to support innovation

and encourage the free flow of ideas through the company. It helps increasing revenues (because the

products and services

are delivered to market faster) and reducing costs (because it eliminates redundant and

unnecessary business processes). This process increases the time that employees spend in the

company, because their knowledge and efforts are valued by the system of rewards.

Ultimately, the knowledge management process increases the value of the company and its

competitiveness as a whole, because it increases the efficiency and effectiveness, the

relationship of all resources and innovation (Tisen et al., 2006).In the knowledge management

process, there are four main abilities that refer to skills acquisition, assimilation and transformation of

knowledge, and ability to use and exploit knowledge (Zahra & George, 2015).

O’Dell & Grayson (2008) pointed out that knowledge management is "the process of accurately

transferring knowledge to the company staff in a timely manner to assist the staff in taking proper

action to improve the continuity of organizational performance"; while such a process includes steps,

such as knowledge creation, verification, collection, classification and storage, sharing and access,

use, improvement and elimination.Yang (2014) pointed out that knowledge, from the perspective of

knowledge management, can be defined as follows: Knowledge is a fluid mix that includes framed

experience, values, contextualized information, and organized and analyzed information that can be

understood and can be applied to solve problems and make decisions.Lee et al (2010) pointed out that

knowledge management refers to the organizational and technological infrastructure of an

enterprise.Summarizing the above, this study adopts the definition of O’Dell & Grayson (2008)

concerning knowledge management, i.e. the process of accurately transferring knowledge to the

company staff in a timely manner to assist the staff in taking proper action to improve the continuity

of organizational performance.

The field of knowledge management has traditionally been dominated by information technology and

technology-driven perspectives (Davenport, De Long, & Beers, 2008; Gourlay, 2014). However, this

turned out to be an ineffective approach to knowledge management. To be a successful knowledge-

based organisation in the era of knowledge economy, it is important for the organization to

implement an effective and economical knowledge management strategy (Bose, 2016). However,

with increasing investment on the implementation of knowledge management, the knowledge

management practitioners are frequently requested to evaluate the contribution and benefits of

knowledge management to the organization‘s performance. Positive benefits enable the practitioners

to gain more investment and supports from decision makers on future improvements. Moreover, Bose

(2016) presented the importance of measuring knowledge in order to enable managers and

practitioners to analyze the knowledge management system and find bottlenecks. However, due to the

inherent measurement difficulty of knowledge which is invisible, measurement is considered as the

least developed aspect in KM (Bose, 2016). Moreover, all other influences from competitive

environment and industry conditions, make it most difficult to measure the impact of organizational

performance on knowledge management (Kim, 2006).Ghalayini and Noble(2006) categorized the

measurement development phases into: traditional management measures, non-traditional

management measures and integrated measures. Traditional management measures, Currently, there

are no available standardized metrics for organizations to evaluate their knowledge management

performance. According to Liebowtz (2012), knowledge mangement metrics can be divided into

system measures, output measures, and outcome measures. Several concrete evaluation approaches

will be introduced in the Knowledge Management is about interventions in the organizations'

knowledge base, which by definition includes individual and collective intellectual assets that help an

organization to perform its tasks (Amelingmeyer 2012; Probst et al. 2012; Romhardt 2008).A

common way to further structure Knowledge Management measurement approaches is to distinguish

between deductive-summarizing and inductive-analytical approaches.

As an introductory step it is useful to distinguish between raw information and knowledge

(Edwards, 2016). Raw information may be widely available to a number of agencies, but only some

organisations will be able to convert the information into relevant knowledge and to use this

knowledge to achieve their aims. The processes by which they do this are known as KM strategies. In

the section below on KM in the corporate sector, a further distinction will be made between first and

second generation Knowledge Management strategies. While the first generation focused on

systematising and controlling existing knowledge and knowledge sharing within an organisation, the

second generation Knowledge Management strategies have shifted towards enhancing the conditions

for innovation and knowledge creation (McElroy, 2012).

Knowledge management success depends highly social- technical interaction between

technology and organization elements Lin & Lee (2016). Technology will be the platform to support

the storage and access of the knowledge; social elements will deal with the human factor and what

affect knowledge sharing within individuals in organization.

While performance itself is a useful matrix, the ultimate measure of value is the ability to

support an organization’s competitive strategy. This especially applies to KM, as knowledge has been

considered to be organization’s most strategic resource (Zack et al 2009). Nevertheless organization

need to measure knowledge to manage it properly, having a performance measure for knowledge

management will improve the management of knowledge and would ensure outcomes are delivered

and will avoid its failure.

Knowledge Management refers to the various ways (technological, cultural and procedural) in

which organizations try to extract greater value out of knowledge (Jennex & Olfman, 2016); it can be

considered to be the management of the context and environment for knowledge acquisition,

representation, transformation, sharing, and use; it therefore involves all aspects of an organization -

social, technological, and human. KM relies heavily on social and cultural components, and overlaps

with organizational development, innovation, and competitive intelligence (Mayfield, 2008). This

explains why organizational culture is important in KM. A culture where knowledge sharing is not

encouraged would adversely affect the KM efforts. Lee and Choi (2013) have included culture,

structure, people and information technology as knowledge management enablers.

2.4 Knowledge Sharing

There for knowledge sharing is the dissemination of a specific skills and talent to perform a task in

the best possible way.Other scholars have denied knowledge sharing as the process of creating new

business and processes via the socialization and learning of knowledge workers. Lin & Lee (2016)

Boer (2016) has defined knowledge sharing as social-relation process in which employees attempt to

set up a common understanding about topic and create a method of transforming this understanding

into an action to improve organization performance.Lin & Lee (2006) stated that knowledge sharing

will influence the success of any knowledge management initiative and governs in effectives, not

effectively sharing knowledge with organization will defeat the purpose of having a Knowledge

Management Sharing, moreover the success of organization is due to the collective effort of it

employees to meet organization objective Akhavan (2006) indicated that one of the success factors of

any knowledge management initiative is knowledge sharing which essential to achieve a successful

Knowledge Management Sharing.

Boer (2016) indicated knowledge sharing is important to establish a common understanding among

working team, knowledge sharing is allow the conversion of certain activities to achieve an outcome

and finally knowledge sharing is enable conflict resolution via establishing a common understanding

of the situation.

Nevertheless some scholars argue that Knowledge sharing is not beneficial to organization, as there

are some implications associated with it. For clarification purposes suppose that there are two

manufacturing department in one organization whom relay on the same source of knowledge and

both departments share knowledge extensively among their team. They will end up building similar

product and end up competing each other. Hansen et al (2016) indicated that there are negative

implications to uncontrolled knowledge sharing within organization as it might cause counter

competitive among teams within organization this will lead to wasted resources and duplicate work.

Lin & Lee (2006), pointed that knowledge sharing with organization is affected by two main

elements social elements and technical elements Yang (2010), indicated that the elements attitude to

sharing, attitude to learning, organization support and leadership role which affects knowledge

sharing in organization. However no of those elements indicates factors influencing employee

behaviour to share knowledge. Bock and Gulkim (2015), indicated that individuals knowledge

sharing behaviour is governed by two main factors which are association and contribution ,those two

factors will influence employees attitude towards knowledge sharing and then only they will develop

a positive intention to share knowledge. Moreover knowledge is perceived as a valuable position for

individual thus in order for them to share it with other, employees will demand for a return in

exchange for it.Yang and Wu (2007) indicated that sharing knowledge is a personal behaviour and

the transaction of knowledge from the possessor of knowledge to the recipient of knowledge is

perceived as a conflict of interest between the knowledge possessor and the organization. This is also

known as social dilemma where the individual benefit will result in organizational loses.Osterloh and

Weibel (2016) indicated that knowledge sharing is considered as a case of pragmatic social situation,

where employees try to maximize their individual benefit at the expenses of the group, and this is

known as social dilemma. It is one of the reasons which prevent employees in organization from

sharing knowledge; social dilemma can hinder the knowledge sharing in organization if not

highlighted and resolved properly.

Ho (2008), referred to organization performance at the ability of the organization to achieve

its planned or set objectives; furthermore it is pointed at the effectives and the efficiency of the

organization in fulfilling its financial and non financial goals.Zack et al 2009, suggested that there are

three main elements in which organization performance can be measured on; product leadership,

customer intimacy and operation excellence.

Knowledge Sharing is defined by Yu et.al.(2010) as “Processes that involve exchanging

knowledge between individuals and groups”. According to Liaw, et.al (2008) Knowledge sharing is

one of important goal of an organization where all individuals’ experiences and knowledge can be

transferred as an organizational asset and maintained for future learning and creating new knowledge

with the help of ICT. Knowledge sharing is the transfer and communication of knowledge. It is an

activity through which knowledge is exchanged among people, friends, or members of a family, a

community, an organization or collaborative parties.

It is “making available what is not known”Nonaka(2016) focuses in his study on knowledge sharing

and transfer inside organization. He mentioned knowledge sharing gives rise to an overall view of an

organization not as a machine for processing information but as a living organism in which everyone

is a knowledge worker.

2.8 Knowledge Management in the communication industry in Nigeria

Even though it may be described in many different ways, Knowledge Management is generally

concerned with how organisations create (learning processes), disseminate (knowledge sharing), and

measure (intellectual capital measurement) knowledge related assets (Argote 2009, Edvinsson and

Malone 2007, Huber 2014, Sveiby 2007, Sveiby and Risling 2006).In terms of creation, knowledge is

considered endogenous (Romer 2006, 2012) driving increasing returns on investments in new

knowledge. This perception encouraged extensive study of ‘knowledge sharing’, which emerged from

the field of organisational learning. Successful knowledge sharing

involves extended learning processes as new knowledge is integrated into products, services, or

business processes both old and new (Nelson and Rosenberg 2013). Practically every writer on

management argues that measurement is critical to the success of organisations (Fitz-Enz, 2016).

Without measurement managers are unable to focus on the attainment of sustainable objectives

because their attention is not focused on the appropriate facts. This has led to a plethora of

measurement methods specifically focusing on the measurement of intellectual capital (see, for

example, Andriessen 2016, Daum 2013, Lev 2014).Goh (2016) advocates that knowledge adds value

to an organisation through its contribution to products, processes and people. Furthermore, Turner

and Jackson-Cox (2015) emphasise that knowledge creation within an organisation centres on the

crucial presumption that human based knowledge is created and enlarged by means of social

interaction. Relying on Nonaka and Takeuchi's (2016) work, they conclude it is this interaction that

converts individuals’ explicit knowledge into collective, structural and procedural, that is implicit

knowledge within an organisation. On the other hand, Knowledge Management transforms these

intellectual assets into enduring value by identifying knowledge that is useful for management

actions. According to Minonne (2008), in coordination with an organisation’s strategic objectives,

Knowledge Management provides support in exploring, innovating, disseminating and automating

corporate knowledge. An integrative Knowledge Management approach embraces cultural,

organisational, procedural, and methodical integration and as such enhances an organisation's

capability for productivity, quality and innovation gains.Over many years, authors have proffered a

variety of suggestions about the development of suitable KPIs for the management of knowledge

assets (see,

for example, Arora 2015, Edvinsson and Malone 2007, Fitz-Enz 2016, Lev 2014, Neely 2015,

Sveiby2007 and Turner 2006) but they have often been focused on operational, rather than strategic

aspects of Knowledge Management.

2.9. Knowledge Transfer

King et al., (2016) appointed two important element in developing effective organizational

knowledge; (i) communication and (ii) information processing. Most of the existing Knowledge

transfers models were rooted from communication model, group information processing model and

knowledge creation model. Communication based model was elucidated by schramm and later being

improvised by Jacobson while the second is based from Hinsz’s and tindale model. The third one is

based from Nonaka’s A dynamic Theory of Organizational knowledge creation model. Within the

communication-based approach, the transfer of knowledge is regarded as a message encoded in a

medium by a sender to a recipient in a given context. Schramm’s communication model initially

consisted of three elements; (i) Sender, (ii) Recipient and (iii) Message. The receiver becomes the

“recipient” or “user”, since it is the subject who learns or acquires knowledge (not simply the

message receiver) whereas; the “sender” is the knowledge holder. The message becomes the “object”,

as it can be produced by complex knowledge. Scharmm’s later enhanced the model by including

Media. Media is the channels used to communicate the message, palliate its passage, and enhance its

chances of completing a communicative act. Scharmm’s model becomes the most referred basic

model in many knowledge transfer framework. Knowledge transfer seeks to organize, create, capture

or distribute knowledge and ensure its availability for future users. It is considered to be more than

just a communication problem. Knowledge transfer is more complex because (1) knowledge resides

in organizational members, tools, tasks, and their sub networks and (2) much knowledge in

organizations is tacit or hard to articulate.

2.5 Knowledge Management: Review of Empirical Studies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication

Knowledge Management is an impressive, multidisciplinary, and controversial concept. Knowledge

Management enables the existing individual knowledge to be captured and transformed into

organizational knowledge, which in turn must be diffused and shared by many employees. These

employees use this knowledge but they also create new individual, which becomes organizational,

and so on. Knowledge Management is also the management of organization’s knowledge that can

improve many features of organizational performance so as to

be more “intelligent acting” (Gupta, Iyer, & Aronson, 2012). Although knowledge management has

been extensively studied by researchers and academics there is not exist a generally accepted

definition of knowledge management concept. Defining knowledge management is not an easy

issue because it is multi-faced and controversially concept and what’s more is a mix of strategies,

tools, and techniques. Different authors and researchers have presented different definitions of

knowledge management.Wiig (2016) proposed that Knowledge Management is a group of clearly

defined process or methods used to search important knowledge among different knowledge

management operations. He also added that knowledge management aims were firstly to facilitate an

organization in acting intelligently, in order to secure its viability and success, and secondly to make

an organization to realise the best value of its knowledge assets. Therefore, the general purpose of

knowledge management is to maximise organization’s effectiveness (Wiig, 2007).Moreover, Jennex

(2007), defined knowledge management as the practice of selectively applying knowledge from

previous experiences of decision making to

current and future decision-making activities with the express purpose of improving the

organization’s effectiveness. According to Holsapple and Joshi (2016) knowledge management is an

entity’s systematic and deliberate efforts to expend,cultivate, and apply available knowledge in ways

that add value to the entity in the sense of positive results in accomplishing its objectives or fulfilling

its purpose.There are more than three discrete perspectives of knowledge management,each one

leading to a different definition (Dalkir, 2016). From business

perspective, knowledge management is a business activity with two primary aspects:Treating the

knowledge components of business activities as an explicit concern of business reflected in strategy,

policy, and practice at all levels of the organization; and, making a direct connection between an

organization’s intellectual assets-both explicit and tacit- and positive business results (Barclay and

Murray, 2007).From the cognitive perspective or knowledge science perspective,

knowledge is the fundamental resource that allows us to function cleverly. Over time, considerable

knowledge is also transformed to other manifestations, such as books, technology, practices, and

traditions, within organizations of all kinds and in society in general. These transformations resulted

in cumulated expertise and when used appropriately, increased effectives (Wiig, 2013).From

processor technology perspective, knowledge management is the

concept under which information is turned into actionable knowledge and made available in a usable

form to the people who can apply it (information week, 2013).Coleman (2009) defined knowledge

management as an umbrella term for wide variety of interdependent and interlocking functions

consisting of: knowledge creation, knowledge valuation and metrics, knowledge mapping and

indexing, knowledge transport, storage and distribution, and knowledge sharing.

At the same year Scarbrough et. al. (2009) defined knowledge management as “the process of

creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing, and using knowledge for the boost of organizational learning

and performance”. For Robinson et. al (2016) knowledge management is “a method of exploiting, or

transforming knowledge as an asset for organizational use to help continuous improvement”

(Bishop,Bouchlaghem, Glass, & Matsumoto, 2008). While, Grey (2006) stated that knowledge

management is a collaborative approach to the creation, capture,organization access and use of an

enterprise’s intellectual assets.Holtshouse (2008) proposed that knowledge is a kind of flow that can

transfer knowledge between knowledge supplier and knowledge demander. In addition, Petrash

(2006) supported that knowledge management is getting the right

knowledge to the right people at the right time so they can make the best decisions.Finally,

knowledge management is an organised, systematic business optimisation strategy that selects,

collects, stores, organises, packages, and communicates information that consider vital to the business

of a company in a manner that improves employee performance and corporate

competitiveness(Bergeron, 2013).Concluding we could say that all knowledge management beliefs

and methodologies that have been developed focused on the belief that knowledge is an

important asset which needs to be handled cautiously while the core of knowledge management is to

get the right knowledge to the right people at the right time.Therefore, knowledge management is a

process that facilitates organizations to capture, select, organise, distribute, and transfer significant

information, knowledge,and expertise so as to gain business advantage.

Knowledge Management is a driving force of critical importance for business success or failure.

Knowledge management is a new but complex process with many factors influencing its

implementation. These factors, also known as knowledge management enablers, should be clear in an

organization, because not only they create knowledge but they also prompt people to share their

knowledge

and experiences with others (Yeh, Lai, & Ho, 2006).Nowadays the great objective of many

organizations is to identify a suitable knowledge management system and manage their knowledge

successfully. A broad range of success factors for a knowledge management implementation have

been identified in the literature. One of the earliest studies of knowledge management critical factors

was presented by Skyrme and Amidon in 2007. They highlighted

seven key success factors, including a strong link to business imperative, a compelling vision and

architecture, knowledge leadership, knowledge creating and sharing culture, continuous learning, a

well-developed technology infrastructure and systematic organizational knowledge processes (Wong

& Aspinwall, 2016).Davenport et al. (2008) conducted a study to explore the practices of 18

knowledge management projects in 24 companies, with the aim of determining the factors associated

with the effectiveness. The result identified 18 successful projects with eight success factors. These

factors were linking knowledge management to economic performance or industry value, a clear

purpose and language, a standard and flexible knowledge structure, multiple channels for knowledge

transfer, culture, technical and organizational infrastructure, change in motivational practices, and

senior management support (Wong, 2016). In addition, at the same year Ruggles (in Mathi, 2016)

pointed out that factors such as people, process and technology should be taken under consideration

in knowledge management implementation, focusing mainly in people and then following process

and technology. Arthur Anderson Business Consulting (2009) believed that people,corporate culture

and information technology are the biggest enablers of knowledge management implementation.

According to this research knowledge management enablers are the key factors that determine the

effectiveness of knowledge management within an organization. Holsapple and Joshi (2012).Firstly,

they investigate the factors, which derived from various literature sources,and probably influence the

success of knowledge management. Secondly, they conducted a Delphi study in order to asses the

appropriateness for the factors they evaluated and explored earlier. They suggest three types of

influences, managerial,resource, and environmental, containing different factors each one. Hasanali in

2015 claimed that the success of knowledge management depends on many different

factors. His success factors are leadership, culture, structure, roles and responsibilities, IT

infrastructure, and measurement. Likewise, Chourides et al.(2013) highlighted five categories of

factors namely, strategy, human resource management information technology, quality, and

marketing (Wong, 2016).Also another empirical study conducted by Davenport and Probst (2015)

suggested a more extensive list of success factors for the implementation of

knowledge management. This list included leadership, performance measurement,

organizational policy, knowledge sharing and acquisition, information-systems

structure, and benchmarking and training. Bixler (2015) created a four pillar model

to show the importance of different factors for ensuring successful implementation

of knowledge management initiatives. The four pillars were leadership, organization, technology and

learning (Mathi, 2016). In addition Stankosky and Baldanza (2012) developed a conceptual

framework for knowledge management in which the four pillars were organization, technology,

leadership, and learning.Moreover, Mathi (2016) proposed that the factors which determine

knowledge management success in an organization are culture, knowledge management organization,

systems and information technology infrastructure,effective and systematic processes and measures

(Akhavan, Jafari, & Fathian, 2006).Finally, another knowledge management model that could be

mentioned is the one developed by Arthur Anderson and the American Productivity and Quality

Center (2006, 2009, 2012). In this model four catalytic factors are emphasized for successful

knowledge management: Leadership, organizational culture, measurement and technology. It is

important each factor to be designed and managed in alliance with the others for the support of the

knowledge management process. Knowledge management has been always important for business

success and can contribute to gain competitive advantage. Organizations today have realised that in

order to succeed they have to view and manage knowledge as an asset (Lim et al. 2009). According

to Hlupic et al. (2015) knowledge management is considered to be the vehicle for organization

effectiveness and competitiveness. Κnowledge management facilitates companies to be faster, more

efficient, and more innovative.In addition, Gold et al. (2014) stated that the effective application of

knowledge management enables a firm to become innovative, better harmonize its efforts,quickly

commercialise new products, foresee surprises, become more responsive to market changes and

decrease redundancy of knowledge and information available to it. Researchers claimed that

organizations achieve the competitive advantage only when accurate and important knowledge is

transformed, distributed, and intergraded (Probst, Buchel & Raub, 2008). In addition Wang and

Plaskoff (2015) stated that effective knowledge management demands a knowledge management

system which intergrades organization, people, process, and technology.Companies that generate new

knowledge and distribute it broadly throughout the organization and rapidly embody it into new

technologies and products are considered successful. This procedure promotes innovation and creates

competitive advantage. According to Ernest & Young survey in 2007, executives recognise

innovation as the most important attribution from knowledge management. (Metaxiotis, Ergazakis,

Prassas, 2016).Lucier and Torsilieri (2014) supported that the effective knowledge management can

hasten growth, drive individual and organizational learning, provide competitive advantage and

generate benefits for shareholders. Finally, some other advantages of knowledge management that

have been widely accepted include organizational learning, enhanced intellectual asset management,

increased operational efficiency, time-to-market improvement, and continuous improvement.

(Demarest, 2007).

2.9.1 ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

Performance is the end result of activities; it includes the actual outcomes of the strategic

management process (Alrubaiee, 2012). Likewise Ben Zaied et al., (2015) posited that the

organizational performance is represented by the success in achieving its goals. Organizational

performance constitutes all behaviors related to organizational objectives depending on the

contribution levels ofindividuals to the organization (Borman and Motowidlo, 2013). However, the

organizational performance is the mirror that reflects the organization‟s ability in achieving high

productivity provided it is combined with the customers‟satisfaction and having a well market share

that can provide a suitable financial refund and do social and ethic responsibilities towards the

environment where the organization works and the society (Tubigi and Alshawi, 2015). Similarly,

scholars considered organizational performance as the achieved results of the

interaction between the activities of communication and information technology sector and its

resources or the difference between the financial goals and the non-financial ones in a specific period

of time (Rajneesh and Kaur, 2014). Furthermore, Venkatraman and Vasudevan, (2006) noted that

measurement for the organizational performance relies on the fields of performance in the business

organizations vary and differ according to their different businesses , nature of activities and the

degree of focus on the fields that is believed to achieve goals are considered a priority for the

organization ( e.g. Giovanni, 2012). Although scholars have different attitudes towards identifying

fields of performance and ways of measuring them,hence some of them pay attention to the

shareholders‟ goals as major fields of performance that the organization should rely on measuring the

performance.Darroch (2016) conclude that the financial performance will remain the field that

determines the extent of the organization‟s success and its inability

to achieve the basic level of the financial performance. However, its existence will be in danger, only

if the performance includes non financial scales, the background image of the performance will show

up the thing which the financial indications fail to do (Zainol and Ayadurai, 2011). In consistent with

this, Sink and Tuttle (2009) also realized that performance should not be treated only as a financial

concept. Thus, it is suggested that particularly in the service sector, non-financial performance should

receive serious consideration.Nofal e al., (2014) argued that relying only on the financial ratios in

evaluating the performance gives incomplete image about the organization. Therefore, this method in

evaluation should be enhanced and supported by operational performance‟s scales to build

measurement system for effective performance in the organization such as market share, customer

retain. To this end, Noruzy et al., (2013) argued that if the manger cares of the total performance of

the organization, he will be able to create a balance between the operational and the financial

interests. Traditionally, firm performance has been viewed and measured in accounting terms. An

additional issue should be raised here; due to confidentiality concerns, it is often challenging to obtain

actual accounting data from organizations unless they are publicly quoted companies.Coulter and

Robbins (2006), further pointed out that performance is an objectively existing fact that provides both

objective and subjective evaluation.As a result, previous research studies looking into performance

related issues used self-reported financial and non-financial performance measures Alrubaiee

(2012).However, Tseng and Lee, 2014, Pointed out,that some scholars have continually discussed the

organizational performance measurement index. For example,Tippins and Sohi (2013) suggested

profitability, rate of return on investment, customer retention, and sales growth rate as the

organizational performance measurement indexes, while Lee and Choi (2013) suggested market share

rate,comparisons of success with other companies, growth rate, profitability, and ability to innovate

as the organizational performance measurement indexes.

Although organizational performance encompasses many specific areas of firm outcomes (i.e.

dimensions) (Richard et al., 2009; Thang et al., 2008; Morganand Strong, 2013; Nwokah, 2008), we

focused only on four key dimensions to measure organizational performance< Profitability, market

share, sales growth, and customer satisfaction.Therefore, the study evaluates organizational

performance using the subjective approach to measuring performance of Telecommunication and

information technology organization relative to its competitors across four attributes: profitability,

market share, sales growth, and customer satisfaction.. A number of authors defend the adequacy of

subjective measures as opposed to objective ones (Pertusa-Ortega et al.2010). Conceptually, growth

reflects increases in sales and is often reflected in market share gains. Growth in sales and market

share are important to a business to ensure long-term viability and resource availability.Profitability

primarily reflects current performance (Venkatraman and Vasudevan2006). Similarly,profitability is

considered by Hunt and Morgan (2016) as the ultimate organizational outcome and is commonly used

in strategic management studies. Furthermore, Vorhies and Harker (2012) argued that customer

satisfaction represents the effectiveness ofthe organization in delivering value to its customers and is

often viewed as an antecedent to profitability (Alrubaiee,2013).

PERF

ORMANCE PYRAMID FOR IDENTIFYING PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Source: Dooley, 2013

There

seems to be increasing

interest in Knowledge Management these days

.

In fact, reports

are that

Google no longer has an overriding emphasis on

simply

being the best "se

arch engine"

-

instead, they have

placed increasing emphasis on the importance of

Knowledge Management

by positioning their latest

Enterprise Search product

as a key device in ta

pping into an organization's collective knowledge.

The Costs of Poor Knowledge Management

IT Management is coming to the realization that departments are simply not sharing information

as well as

they could

. There are too many "silos of information"

associated with each department

-

resulting in a lack of

shared

knowledge

, ideas and experience. The result?

* Re

-

discovery of knowledge

-

when a workaround or

solution is not captured and shared effectively,

someone else is likely going to have to "re

-

in

vent that

wheel" to solve the same issue

D

uplication

of effort

-

Not sharing a reusable solution

means my

colleague

is going to have to expend the

same or more effort to re

-

create their version of the

solution

L

onger resolution times

-

having to reinvent s

olutions

means incident/request average resolution time is higher than it otherwise would be

Without effective Knowledge Management,

a

support center will experience

more

frequent

escalation

s

to higher level support teams

(since back

-

line subject matter ex

perts are not sharing

information with the front

-

line service desk)

When solution

s

take longer

to achieve

, and escalations are more f

requent,

customer dissatisfaction

tends to be the result

All of this leads to

higher costs

of IT support operations, which

of course

IT

management is

keenly

inter

e

sted

in driving down these days

Knowledg

e Management (KM) to the rescue!

A process driven, best

-

practice KM implementation can in

fact address many of these challenges, resulting in huge benefits

-

to the IT support

organization, as well as

to customers and users.

The surprise to many is that the

concept of effective KM is not new.

The

Consortium for Service

Innovation

(

www.serviceinnovation.org

)

pioneered and

has been promoting the value of effective

Knowledge Mana

gement in a "support center" for over two decades. The Knowledge Centered Support

2

(KCS) model of how to effectively impl

ement and practice K

nowledge

M

anagement in a support center has

been widely adopted by some of the world's leading companies and

organ

izations.

Only now, due to

global competition,

increased pressure

on costs, and demand for greater quality of service, more

and more

organizations are

finally realizing the business value of

true

Knowledge

Management.

The latest version of the ITIL framew

or

k

-

ITIL 2011

-

underscores this

heighted level of importance. It

has

elevated

K

nowledge Management

to

the statu

s of

a full

-

fledged ITIL

process

. ITIL portrays KM as a

process that should be actively shared in across an IT organization, with

process ow

ners, managers, and practitioners all contributing

knowledge, and benefiting from shared

ideas and

experiences.

A

Knowledge Management System (called an "SKMS"), is the collect

ion

of

integrated databases and repositories that hold

s

this shared

knowledge,

enabling managers and practitioners

across the organization

to get the

right information at the

right time

-

thereby improving

solution re

-

use and quality, the

quality of decision

-

making,

reducing

escalations, speeding average resolution time, improving st

aff utilization, and lowering overall costs of

operation.

Barriers to

Implementing

Successful Knowledge Management

So why on earth isn't everyone "doing" effective Knowledge Management? There are several

common

barriers to the successful adoption and pra

ctice of Knowledge Management in an IT support organ

i

zation:

Taking a "tool centric" approach

. Management mistakes

Knowledge Management for a tool or system,

instead of an organization wide

"process".

This is all

too common a phenomenon, since IT manage

rs and practitioners

typically have a implementation/support technology

background. Compounding this, vendors want nothing more

than to sell lots of knowledge management tools, systems and

databases. The problem, as the saying goes, is that "a fool with

a

tool is still a fool". A Knowledge Management tool will not

produce a KM process

-

tha

t requires a "process approach":

defining and documenting the process first, following by selecting

appropriate tools and technology.

Focusing on a single individu

al, rather than a "team approach".

To realize effective Knowledge

Management throughout an organization, everyone

should feel they

have a "piece of the action". All IT

support managers and practitioners, from the front

-

line service desk, to executive man

agement, should

feel as though they are contributors to, and beneficiaries of, the KM process. When the focus is on

only

one individual to be the owner, manager and care taker of all the knowledge, that is a sure

-

fire recipe

for failure.

3

Make it difficul

t and time

-

consuming to participate.

When

your implementation r

e

quire

s

practitioners and managers to

take

several

extra steps to submit an article or soluti

on to the

knowledge base, or to retrieve information from it

, you are in

fact creating "roadblocks

" to adoption and usage

.

Instead, look

to remove roadblocks, making the use of the KM system an

integral part of the workflow. Rather than d

esign

ing

the user

interface to be complicated, requiring the submission of just the

right

phrase in ord

er to retr

ieve something useful, keep it

simple, user

-

friendly, fast and effective.

Take a tactical and operational approach, ignoring behavioral

change.

This concept stems from the well known concept that

"if you build it, they will come". The notion being that

if you build and deploy a KM system, people with

contribute and use it naturally. There should be no need to bother with how you are going to motivate

people to contribute to, and use the system. Won't they just change naturally?

Fact is, they won't.

Implementing Knowledge Management is one of those "big changes" requires a well thought out

organizational change plan, to change "the organization" over time as you implement the process.

Don't bother with monitoring or measuring

. This barrier stems fro

m the one above, namely that

merely

having a KM system drives

adoption and increasing usage.

So w

hy should there be any need for

monitoring

and reporting

the usage of the system, in order to determine who is contributing, who is

using, and to what extent?

The reality is that if you don't measure it, you can't manage it. And you

can't improve it over time.

K

n

o

w

l

e

d

g

e

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

,

l

i

k

e

a

n

y

o

t

h

e

r

p

r

o

c

e

s

s

,

d

e

s

e

r

v

e

s

a

s

e

t

o

f

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

a

n

d

K

P

I

s

,

a

l

o

n

g

w

i

t

h

r

e

g

u

l

a

r

r

e

p

o

r

t

i

n

g

t

o

s

t

a

k

e

h

o

l

d

e

r

s

o

n

i

t

s

p

e

r

f

o

r

m

a

n

c

e

a

n

d

v

a

l

u

e

d

e

l

i

v

e

r

y

.

The Solution

:

Employ

a

"

Service

-

Life

cycle

"

Approach

First, view

Knowledge Management

it as an organization wide process, requiring a "service lifec

ycle"

approach

to implementation

.

Implementing Knowledge Management is best accomplished by viewing it as

a process

, not a "tool or system". It

uses

a tool

and/or systems to capture, store, and effectively

share knowledge. Use the guidelines documented

in ITIL 2011, facilitated by the KCS model, to guide

the design, development, deployment, and

operation of a KM process

-

along with supporting

systems and tools (a "Service Knowledge

Management System

"

or SKMS).

Start with a

Service Strategy

: establish

your

compelling vision for

t

r

a

n

s

f

o

r

m

i

n

g

y

o

u

r

o

r

g

a

n

i

z

a

t

i

o

n

to a "knowledge centered" service

4

provider, along with a supporting mission, goals and objectives.

Develop a total approach with

Service Design

: design your Knowledge Management process, along

with supporting systems, t

ools, metrics and other elements

,

a

n

d

p

r

o

d

u

c

e

a

"

m

a

s

t

e

r

p

l

a

n

'

f

o

r

K

n

o

w

l

e

d

g

e

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

Implement KM using a

Service Transition

approach: using your "master plan" as input, begin work at

implementing the various components over time

-

p

e

o

p

l

e

,

p

r

o

c

e

s

s

a

n

d

s

u

p

p

o

r

t

i

n

g

t

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

(

i

t

w

i

l

l

t

a

k

e

a

l

l

t

h

r

e

e

,

p

l

u

s

o

r

g

a

n

i

z

a

t

i

o

n

a

l

c

h

a

n

g

e

)

Embed it within your

Service Operation

processes. Make knowledge capture an

d re

-

use an integral

part of every process

-

f

o

r

e

x

a

m

p

l

e

,

during the monitoring of events; while resolving an incident;

a

n

d

when trouble

-

shooting a problem. The idea is to either access and put captured knowledge to work, or

capture knowledge while "in the workflow".

Keep

it going with

Continual Improvement

. Having designed metrics and reporting for your KM

process, make the monitoring and reporting on KM performance part of your monthly IT

management

meetings. Assess performance to goal, and look for ways to improve the

KM process, people aspects,

and supporting tools and systems.

Your Plan

:

to "Build

it In

" to

the

DNA

of Your Organization

Start with a Service Strategy

Establish a compelling vision that all embrace, and that this is going

to require organizational change

.

Realize that the implementation of successful Knowledge Management is going to impact the way

people work

-

and that means "organizational change". People are going to have to change the way

they work in order to capture knowledge at its source, as a

"by

-

product" of their work effort. Yes,

the

implementation of KM will

streamline processes,

provide tools, and

remove "roadblocks"

to capturing

and submi

tting

a knowledge article

-

but driving

and coordinating

all of these tactical and operation

changes

should be a

strategic

initiative

to institute an

organizational change to adopt knowledge

management. This means ...

o

Engaging h

igh level

executive management

to

visibly support

the launch of your KM initiative initially, and periodicall

y to

report on its progress.

o

A

compelling vision

, communicated initially and

on an on

-

going basis, for how

K

nowledge

M

anagement can benefit

everyone

. The vision must speak to, and resonate with all

audiences

-

support staff, management, users and custome

rs.

What steps can you take? Consider incorporating the words

"knowledge centered" into your vision/mission statement. If

you have a set of core principles, consider adding "sharing

knowledge" as one of your core values. Communicate the vision initially

and on an on

-

going

basis during implementation.

5

o

Establishing t

he "

right people

" on a cross

-

functional implementation team, to

direct and guide

the implementation

o

f

K

n

o

w

l

e

d

g

e

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

, and

ensure organization

-

wide "buy

-

in" and

participation in the roll

-

out and adoption

.

o

T

he utilization of an

organizational change model

to guide and facilitate the change over time,,

such as "

Kotter's

Eight

Principles

" of organizational change

.

Realize Knowledge Management is

a p

rocess

, not a system

-

it "uses

a system

"

. The second step to

success is to realize that implementing Knowledge Management is to treat it not as a tool or system,

but as a process. You might choose to use a "Wiki" to stored shared information, or a database, or a

collection of

repositories

-

but without a well desi

gned "process" that is embedded in the way people

do their work, your tools and databases will

soon

go

un

used, and rapidly fall out of date. Like any

process, a KM process needs an owner, and manager

-

someone to be accountable for the quality of

the proce

ss, and someone to oversee and manage daily activities. It needs to be measured and

assessed for performance. It must be documented, including how activities are an integral part of

daily

operating procedures.

The enabling resources and capabilities

-

t

he people, with KM systems and tools,

must be well defined. It

must also have clear inputs and outputs, and deliver value to all stakeholders

-

customers, users, management and support staff.

T

a

c

t

i

c

a

l

S

t

e

p

s

t

o

Design

ing

and Implement

ing

K

n

o

w

l

e

d

g

e

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

Establish a

guiding KM t

eam, but g

ive eve

ryone a "piece of the action".

Set

-

up a cross

-

functional

team to lead and guide your implementation through design, development, deployment and on

-

going

support, but pay particular attention to how you can make

"knowledge management" a part of

everyone's job.

When support staff, team leads, manager and executives all find it necessary to extract

from, and contribute to, the Knowledge Management system, the process

-

and the system

-

becomes

embedded in the life

of the organization. That is the end

-

goal.

Revise your

service operations

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs

)

, such as

Incident Management, Request Fulfillment, and Problem Management

,

to embed

searching and contributing to the KM system.

In this way,

searching and

contributing to your KM system does not become added steps, but is an

integral

part

of the in

-

line mainstream workflow process. No extra steps required.

Roadblocks removed.

Revise

your

job description

s

a

n

d

a

p

p

r

a

i

s

a

l

p

r

o

c

e

s

s

so that contributing to the KM

system

is required by operations personnel, such as service desk staff, and other

I

T

support groups. For

example, support staff might be required to "Contribute three KM articles/solutions per quarter".

P

e

r

i

o

d

i

c

a

p

p

r

a

i

s

a

l

s

w

o

u

l

d

r

e

i

n

f

o

r

c

e

t

h

e

i

m

p

o

r

t

a

n

c

e

o

f

p

a

r

t

i

c

i

p

a

t

i

o

n

.

Build it into you

r

reward and r

ecognition program

. Make the

contribution to KM, and its use, an

integral part of reward and recognition. For example, no awards for outstanding performance should

6

be given where the team member failed to meet their contribution requirement for the quarter.

Integrate your

KM syste

ms

and tools

so they are

simple, fast and effective

. Google sets the bar when

it comes to search, and your KM process should follow industry

-

leading examples. The search engine

should allow for

"

n

a

t

u

r

a

l

l

a

n

g

u

a

g

e

"

search

,

a

s

w

e

l

l

a

s

s

e

a

r

c

h

by phrase/keywords

.

T

h

e

search engine

-

along wi

th support databases

-

should be fully

indexed to enable quick results sorted in relevance

order.

Attention should be paid to supporting

structured as well as unstructured data in databases

and linked repositories.

Supporting systems and tools should sup

port

KM

embedded in the workflow

,

so that a submission is

a

"by

-

product" of the work effort. For example, during

Incident Management a search should be

automatically i

nvoked after classifying the incident.

Extra steps or navigation should not be r

equired.

A

match report should return the most likely solutions/workarounds at the top of the list. If no solution

is

applicable, and the analyst ends up devising and documenting a new solution, submitting to the KM

process should be just a few keystroke

s.

Include an embedded QA sub

-

process

to expedite solution review and

processing

. Once the

submission has been made, direct these

electronic records

to an appropriate Subject Matter Expert

(SME) for that area of knowledge. These might be technical or ap

plication management specialists in

back

-

line support groups. SME's should have as a daily responsibility the review, editing and approval

of submitted KM articles, so these can be incorporated into the SKMS in a timely fashion. This also

ensures that kn

owledge added is accurate, complete, and published only to the proper audiences (for

example, "internal use only", or "user

-

ready").

Keep it Growing and Maturing with Continual Improvement

Establish a set of metrics and KPIs to measure

, monitor

and report

on the adoption and success of

your KM process

. People pay attention to things that are measured and reported, and as we

h

a

v

e

s

a

i

d

,

"you can't manage it if you can't measure it". Establish a core set of metrics on KM,

each with a

realistic target,

and ma

ke the reporting on KM part of your monthly management IT "scorecard". This

will raise the visibility of KM in everyone's eyes, and also enable you to assess the growth, impact

and

value of KM. Sample metrics might include:

o

Number of articles added

-

pe

r day, week, month

-

evidence of the overall growth of the

knowledge base (increasing)

o

KB contributions

and solution re

-

use

by support team member

-

showing who is contributing,

how much

(increasing)

7

o

Number and percentage of solutions re

-

used, indicating w

hich solutions/articles are popular,

vs. those that are not (increasing)

o

Solution re

-

use by team member (minimal percentage of contributions should be reused on a

regular basis).

o

Number and percentage of incidents resolved where a knowledge article was ins

trumental in

resolution/fulfillment

-

evidence that the KB is providing solutions (increasing)

o

User satisfaction level, as measured through an on

-

going pop

-

up survey during the close of the

KB search

-

should show a h

igh level of user satisfaction

(target

4 out of 5 or 80%)

Seek feedback via periodic surveys

. Ask support staff as a part of periodic emplo

yee satisfaction

surveys how your KM process and systems can be improved. Do the same with your customers

during

periodic customer surveys. Analyze the feedback , and incorporate improvements.

How Do Y

ou K

now Y

ou've

A

rrived?

Implementing an effective

KM process will take leadership, time, and a lot of effort. Procedures and

systems will be updated, skills sharpened, and organization change will be accomplished. Your

culture will

be transformed over time. In the end, the pay

-

off will be

substantial

.

Average resolution time will be

reduced. Employee productivity will increase, along with support staff satisfaction. Customer and

user

satisfaction will increase due to accurate and reliable solutions being more readily available

, either directly

from t

he serviced desk, or a SKMS equipped self

-

service system.

Management will be able to make higher

quality decisions due to the right information being available when they need it.

How do you know you've arrived?

When

someone asks your IT

support staff, a

nd they simply say "

Oh yes

-

we have Knowledge Management. It

'

s just the way we work

2.9 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The proposed model for this research has two variables; Employee performance as the dependent

variable and knowledge management as the independent variable. Though Employee performance

will be treated a unidimensional variable, whereas knowledge management will be treated as a

multidimensional variable which has four dimensions knowledge, knowledge management,

knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer. The dimensions under knowledge management are the

antecedent of Employee performance. Therefore, improved Employee performance depends on

knowledge, knowledge management, knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer.

2.9.1 Conceptual Model

Figure 2:1

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

Source: The researcher

KNOWLEDGE

EMPLOYEE

PERFORMANCEKNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT

KNOWLEDGE

SHARING

KNOWLEDGE

TRANSFER

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses, research methodology and procedures undertaken by this study. Specifically,

this chapter covers population of the study, sample size and sampling technique measures.which will

be adopted for the study, method of data collection as well as method of data analysis used for the

study.

3.2 Research Design

Research design has been viewed as a blue print or road map indicating the methods and procedured

for collecting and analyzing information ( Zikmund,Baban Carr, Grifflin 2010).

This study will consider survey design because it attempts to seek the effect and relationship between

knowledge management on employee performance. Thus the hypothese will be formulate to see

wheather knowledge management would determine employee performance.

However, the study will acquire cross sectional design,the cross sectional study involves gathering

the data for a particular study at a point in a time to meet the research objectives (cavanna et al 2014).

Cross sectional survey will be choosen to avoid the long time consumption charaterized by

longitudinal research.

3.3 Population of the Study

The entire group of people, objects, events or things that a researcher has interest in investgating is

called population (Sekaran & Bourgie 2010). Zikmund et al, (2010), also viewed population as the

entire group of people, events or things of interest that the researcher wishes to investigate. Inferences

are usually made by the researcher from the population.

Therefore, the population of this study focuses on the staff of Nigerian communication industry

kano.The total numbers of staff consist of 460 employees of the four major communication industry.

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

A sample has been defined by Zikmund et al (2010) as a subset or some part of a larger

population.An ideal sample is needed to reduce the cost of sample error and to truly represent the

population .Therefore in deciding the sample size for this study adopting a scientific approach

becomes neccessary. Therefore Krejcie and morgan (2012). Scentific approach will be used for this

research.It is a generalised scientific guideline for determing the sample size Krejcie and Morgan

(2012) provided a table which requires no calculation. therefore in selecting the sample size for this

study 210 structured questionare will be distribnuted to the staff of the communication industry and

thus the staff serves as the unit of analysis for the study.

The application of Krejcie and morgan (2012) model require no calculation because they have

developed a table for selecting an appropriate sample size.

Therefore , based on Krejcie Scentific table the above population 210 has an appropraite sample size

of 460 (see Appendix A).

The study will be aimed at drawing samples from four communication industry operating in kano

state. Therefore there is a need for cluster sampling. Cluster sampling as the name implies involves

classifying sample elements into groups from which elements of the population would be

selected .Cluster sampling involved categorizing research location into groups and selecting elements

from each group using a given sampling technique (zikmund et al 2010). The communication will be

categorised into four classes : Mtn, Glo, Airtiel,Etisalat all in Kano State,

3.5 Method of Data Collection Technique

Questionnaires will be used as the main instrument for this study, before setting out for data

collection a letter of introduction will be collecte from the Department of Business Administration

and Entrepreneurship Bayero University Kano.In this letter it will be stated for request of assistance

from the participating companies Mtn,Glo,Airtiel,Etisalat.This letter will help the researcher greatly

in facilitating the conduct of the study by building confidence and trust in the minds of the

management of these organization who will give permission for distribution of the questionaires.

These questionaqires will be distributed through hand delivery to these respondents.

3.6 Method of Data Analysis

This study will adopt the quantitative approach in which satistical computation will be used to

explain the relationship between the variables under investigation. The relationship between the

variable under investigation. The statistical package for social science (spss) version 20 will be used

in analyzing the relationship between the variable for the study. Therefore upon the completion of

this study combinations of both desscriptive and inferential statistics will be employed to analyze the

interpret the data, The Dependent and Independent variables will be analyzed using the multiple

linear regressions..

3.7 Meaurement of Variables

This research has 2 construct to be measured, They are knowledge management and employee

performance. This section measure the construct of the model.

3.7.1 Knowledge Management

To measure knowledge management generic knowledge management scale will be used to measure

knowledge management which was developed by Lee and Sukoco, (2007).The scale has sixteen

items which will be coded using five point likert scale.

3.7.2 Employee Performance

To measure employee performance generic employee performance scale will be used to measure

employe performance which was developed by Mc Elroy (2012) . The scale has sixteen items which

will be coded using five point likert scale.

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO

Dear Respondent,

This questionnaire is designed purely for academic research purpose.It is meant to aid in data

collection that can satisfy the requirement for award of Msc degree in management. The

questionnaire is desisgned to source data for testing the effect of knowledge management and

employee performance in Nigerian Communication company in kano state;Your responses will be

strictly treated as confidential and therfore your identity is not required .Thank you in anticipation of

your prompt cooperation and assistance.

Part 1 Knowledge Management

Please indicate in your opinion the extent to which you agree with each of the following attributes of

knowledge managenent please circle the answer that applies to you as indicated in the scale below.

Never Rarely Usually Often Always

1 2 3 4 5

S/N Statement NEVER RARELY USUALLY OFTEN ALWAYS

Knowledge

K1 Knowledge brings about success in an organization

K2 Knowledge is most important in employees performance

K3 knowledge is most important in realizing ultimate personal potential

K4 How is knowledge managed by your organizationKnowledge management

KM1 Knowledge management supports the objectives and goals of the organization

KM2 Knowledge management initiatives lead to change in organizational culture

KM3 Knowledge Management applies systematic approaches to find, understand, and use knowledge to create value

KM4 Has knowledge management enhanced product development in your organization

Knowledge sharing

KS1 Sharing and distributing

knowledge by means making

knowledge available to others

KS2 Information sharing supports the objectives and strategies of the organization

KS3 While doing the job, new information and skills are gained

KS4 The schedule for the future training program isknown in advanceKnowledge transfer

KT1 The workers always share their opinions with theother through documents and e-mails

KT2 The workers explain their personal opinions totheir colleagues by writing

KT3 The workers always share experience andthoughts with each other

KT4 The workers are willing to share their thoughtsand experience with each other

Part 2 Employee Performance

Please indicate in your opinion the extent to which you agree with each of the following attributes

of employee performance. please circle the answer that applies to you.

Never Rarely Usually Often Always

1 2 3 4 5

S/N Statement NEVER RARELY USUALLY OFTEN ALWAYS

Employee

E1 I carry out my work deligently

E2 we express our selves to the management

E3 I like the people I work

with

E4 I feel secured in my job

Employee performance

EP1 Employee Performance and attitude helps towards achieving organizational goals

EP2 Employee’s performance is effective in achieving higher productivity

EP3 My salary is based on my performance

EP4 I will perform well if am promotedJob performance

JP1 I enjoy going to work and performing at my best

JP2 I am clear about what I need to do and how my job performance will be evaluated

JP3 Hard work has to do with my performance on my job

JP4 I have a sense of belonging in my place of workOrganizational performance

OP1 The organization encourage me to go extra miles in delighting our customers

OP2 I perform well if I am given the opportunity to work

OP3 our combined effort boost performance and leads to organizational growth

OP4 I feel compelled to resume early to work

Part 3: Demographic Information

Information: Please read and tick as appropraite in the provided box your exact assessment of the

following demographic information.

Q1- Gender

Male

Female

Q2 - Age

21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60 and above

Q3 - Work E xperience

Less than one year 1-5 years 5 to 10 years 10-15years 15 years and above

Q4 – Educational Qualification

HND First Degree Masters Degree Doctorate Degree Others

Q5 – Designation

CEO Director HOD Manager Supervisor Team Leaders CCE

Documents

THE EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE IN COMMUNICATION INDUSTRY KANO STATE