Upload
vuongnga
View
232
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries andInformation Centres: A Case of University Libraries
Priti JainDepartment of Library & Information StudiesUniversity of Botswana Gaborone, Botswana
Published 27 December 2013
Abstract. In today's knowledge-based economies, appropri-ate Knowledge Management (KM) has proved a strategic man-agement tool to survive and thrive in the ever-changing globalmarket. Therefore, increasingly, all types of organisations in-cluding tertiary institutions are adopting KM. This paper focuseson university libraries and presents the partial ¯ndings of a studycarried out to investigate and explore KM practices in SouthernAfrican Development Community (SADC) university libraries.A structured questionnaire was used to carry out the study. Thestudy revealed the main reasons for practicing KM to improvelibrary services: to improve library services and productivity,produce more with less, avoid duplication of e®orts and leverageexisting knowledge. The major challenges were identi¯ed asconstant budget decline, lack of incentives, inadequate sta®training and expertise, a lack KM strategy, insu±cient infor-mation and communication technology (ICT) infrastructureand a lack of knowledge sharing culture. Finally, the paperputs forward some recommendations and a framework for KMimplementation in university/academic libraries.
Keywords: Knowledge management; information management;library management; African libraries; university libraries; aca-demic libraries; SADC libraries.
1. Introduction
Like all types of organisations, universities are going
through fundamental changes and consequently, their
mission, vision and functions are pragmatic in order to
keep pace with the current knowledge economy. The
success of an organisation depends on its e®ectiveness in
managing both its tacit and explicit knowledge resources.
The contemporary world calls for tertiary institutions to
have appropriate Knowledge Management (KM) because
producing, sharing and utilising knowledge is their central
raison d'etre and academic libraries are supposed play a
key role in managing knowledge of their parent organisa-
tions. Academic libraries exist to support their academic
community; their development is tied with the develop-
ment of their academic institutions' in this case universi-
ties. Today, students and academia are expecting enhanced
access and support to information services. \Academic
research now has become much more endogenised and
integrated into the economic cycle of innovation and
growth. On the one hand, business looks upon academia as
a source of scienti¯c novelty and technological break-
throughs to fuel its innovation process. On the other hand,
an ever increasing number of academic institutions are
becoming fully aware of the economic potential of their
research e®orts." (Oosterlinck, 2001, p. 4). The changes in
the academic environment can be attributed to the evo-
lution in education system, advancement in Information
and Communication Technology (ICT), changing user
needs, social media, changes in scholarly communication,
and information and knowledge explosion. As appropri-
ately observed by Loh et al. (2003, p. 2), this change can
be attributed to various factors — \the heterogeneity of
knowledge production, massi¯cation and democratisation
of higher education, and the integration and assimilation
of information technology into the academic environment".
More and more \universities are looking into the pos-
sibility of applying corporate KM systems" (Loh et al.,
2003, p. 6). Academic libraries are established in \support
of the mission of their parent institutions to generate
knowledge, and people equipped with knowledge in order
to serve the society and advance the well-being of man-
kind" (Raja et al., 2009, p. 701). Hence, whatever is im-
portant to the university must be important to its library
and all planning activity needs to be geared towards this
(Rydberg-Cox, 2010). Academic libraries are to support
three main institutional activities — teaching, learning
and research of their academic community; they need to
Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, Vol. 12, No. 4 (2013) 1350034 (13 pages)#.c World Scienti¯c Publishing Co.DOI: 10.1142/S0219649213500342
December 23, 2013 10:20:58am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-1
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
evolve in order to support institutional change and ad-
dress ever changing customer needs. KM is now a well-
accepted mode of providing the right information to the
right person at the right time. In this background, this
research was aimed to explore practices in Southern Af-
rican Development Community (SADC) universities.
2. Literature Review
This section reviews the relevant literature on KM in
academic libraries.
2.1. Concept of KM
Knowledge management literature has described KM
in various ways as the inherent capacity of organizations
to act (Sveiby, 1997); as a \justi¯ed belief that increases
an entity's capacity for e®ective action" (Nonaka, 1994,
p. 15); and a \conscious strategy of getting the right
knowledge to the right people at the right time" (O'Dell &
Grayson, 1998, p. 6). It has also been de¯ned as a \tool
to accomplish our goals faster and more e®ectively by
delivering the right knowledge to right person at the
right time and in the right context" (Ugwu & Ezema,
2010, p. 184). For the purpose of this paper, KM is de¯ned
as a process to create, acquire, share and apply both
tacit and explicit knowledge for the bene¯t of the uni-
versity and its entire user community, providing the right
information to the right customer at the right time and
in the right format to accomplish the parent institution's
goals.
2.2. Importance of KM in academiclibraries
Today, customers are paramount in all types of organi-
sations and libraries are essentially user-oriented organi-
sations. Their main objective is to provide the right
information in the right format at the right time to the
library customers. KM provides academic libraries nu-
merous opportunities to drastically change their approach
and service delivery abilities at both ends, among the in-
ternal employee community and also towards external
stake holders (Hadagail et al., 2012). According to
Roknuzzaman and Umemoto (2009), the major drivers of
KM are increased value of knowledge in the knowledge
economy; the library itself as a knowledge-based organi-
sation; the dynamic of technological advancement; and,
opportunities for improved library practices. Knowledge
generation and management is a collaborative process
and social networking applications have provided ample
prospects for both internal and external collaboration.
Incorporating networked knowledge networks, librarians
can create, manage and share tacit knowledge. Also,
librarians have inbuilt capabilities and desire to be
knowledge managers. For example, librarians have been
long collaborating by sharing catalogues through OCLC,
books and other articles through inter-library loan, and
their reference services through digital reference. Maury
(2012) views a library as a living force because of its
continuously evolving services to accommodate ever
changing user needs; a catalyst for innovations; and as a
learning and social place, where information and knowl-
edge transmit for teaching and learning.
2.3. Requirements on KM implementationin academic libraries
KM literature reveals the following requirements for KM
implementation in academic libraries:
2.3.1. Types of knowledge importantfor information professionals
In order to initiate and practice KM, academic librarians
require certain types of knowledge. According to Raja et al.
(2009) the following types of knowledge are important:
. Knowledge about library's information sources for
assets, products and services.
. Knowledge about where these sources are stored and
their usage.
. Knowledge about users including teaching sta®, re-
searchers, students and any other stakeholders.
. What is the current usage of these sources and how to
increase their usage?
. Creativity and ability to learn and adapt the new
technologies to provide better services and ability to
create, share, harness and utilise knowledge.
. Understanding of the knowledge creation process and
impact of knowledge.
. Information literacy skills, creating, ¯nding, sharing
and using information and knowledge.
. Understanding of the principles of \Organisation of
Knowledge" (Raja et al., 2009) and manage it for better
°ow and utilisation.
2.3.2. Important steps in KM implementationin academic libraries
To meet universities' mission, vision and goals, Tutu
(2012) suggested the following ¯ve steps for academic
libraries for managing KM in Universities:
. Establish the knowledge needs of the University:
As mentioned earlier, academic libraries exist to support
P. Jain
December 23, 2013 10:20:58am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-2
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
the mission and vision of their parent universities; so,
¯rst and foremost libraries should establish the knowl-
edge needs of their parent universities, which are de-
¯ned by all activities conducted, and services o®ered by
the university, such as teaching, learning and research.
. Ascertain the relevant sources of the knowledge:
After the library has established the knowledge needs of
the university, the library should ascertain the relevant
sources of the knowledge ranging from print materials,
non-print materials to knowledge workers within and
outside the university.
. Acquire the knowledge sources: After ascertaining
the relevant sources, they should be acquired.
. Organise the knowledge sources: Acquired knowl-
edge sources should be organised to facilitate easy ac-
cessibility of the knowledge sources.
. Disseminate/share knowledge: Finally, organised
sources should be disseminated using library catalogues
and social media.
2.3.3. Knowledge management process
Based on KM processes that exist in a Library and In-
formation Sciences (LIS) environment, Che Rusuli et al.
(2012) suggested a six-step conceptual framework for
knowledge implementation in academic libraries: Knowl-
edge Creation, knowledge acquisition, knowledge capture,
knowledge sharing, knowledge record and knowledge
preservation. The strength of this conceptual model is
the addition of two KM gaps found in the current KM
Practice, \Knowledge Record" and \Knowledge Pre-
serving", which are vital to complete the whole KM cycle.
Mottaghi-Far (2012) suggested ¯ve ways to apply know-
ledge and add value for parent organisations: Turning
traditional libraries into electronic ones; empowering
librarians to be able to cope with change; upgrade the
status of the academic libraries and librarians' in the uni-
versity; developing informed university members; and,
contributing to the creation of critical thinkers and inde-
pendent users. Using a subject-user-centred library KM
approach, Xin Qu (2011) provided a knowledge service
management framework and recommended four strategies:
. Strengthen academic library collections: Using
\book the best use" principle, university libraries should
reinforce the collection by choosing the most relevant
knowledge resources for the library customers.
. Construct a high-quality team of subject libr-
arians: There should be a subject librarian and the
subject librarian assistant to work closely with subject
teachers and students in order to provide subject
knowledge services.
. Share subject knowledge services and protect
the academic quality of service: University library's
subject knowledge services should be rationally ar-
ranged based on a uni¯ed standardized service mecha-
nism of discipline and knowledge. There should also be a
uni¯ed standard of a network information input, data
organization, information retrieval and standardization
of search results.
. Establish the concept of personalized service in-
novation: Libraries should adopt a personalized service
innovative concept by providing user-centric personal-
ized services.
Nazim and Mukherjee (2011) established the major
tools of KM as: professional education and training pro-
grams, communities of practice, information technology
and knowledge sharing. Focusing mainly on the knowledge
about, from and for Faculty recently, Daneshgar and
Parirokh (2012) suggested a conceptual Customer Know-
ledge Management (CKM) model as an analytical tool for
improving current services and creating innovative services
through appropriate management of client knowledge
in academic libraries. An initial integrated CKM model
had three main components: KAC (knowledge about cus-
tomers); KRC (knowledge from customers); and, KFC
(knowledge for customers). According to this model,
librarians collect information \about" and \from" their
faculty customers, particularly during interviews (also re-
ferred to as outreach librarian interviews with academics).
The captured customer knowledge is shared and disse-
minated to all librarians and library decision makers for
understanding their customers and applied to the current
services in order to create new and updated services. This
knowledge is made available to customers for their utili-
sation and generates new customer feedback to be used by
the librarians for the evaluation of library services. Results
of this evaluation together with the customers' feedback
are then used as new KAC and KRC, and the cycle con-
tinues. The ¯rst stage in organising customer knowledge
was categorisation of customer knowledge taxonomy to
provide a formal and explicit shared conceptualisation of
customer knowledge. After several direct interviews with
customers, surveys and data mining, sta® meetings and
discussions, the authors designed a ¯nal version of the
CKM model with some modi¯cations. In the ¯nal inte-
grated CKM model, major knowledge capture phase is
renamed as \the communication phase". There is explicit
incorporation of the term \technology" as the major en-
abler of the knowledge acquisition and application phase,
and, explicit incorporation of the term \strategies" as the
major directive for knowledge utilisation and evaluation.
Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries
December 23, 2013 10:20:58am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-3
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
Thus, the model has four main phases, (i) Communication,
(ii) Utilisation and Evaluation, (iii) Knowledge Sharing
and Dissemination, and, (iv) Knowledge Acquisition and
Application (Daneshgar and Parirokh, 2012, pp. 15–18).
2.4. Latest trends in KM in academiclibraries
The most common recent trends towards KM implemen-
tation in academic libraries are:
2.4.1. Adoption of web 2.0 and social media
With the dawn of web 2.0, libraries have completely
transformed their ways of interaction with the library
users. Today, instead of users physically coming to the
library, the library delivers services to users via the uni-
versity library website. Blogging, wikis and Twitter can be
used as knowledge creation tools by both users and libra-
rians (Kim and Abbas, 2010). Librarians can use all of
these web 2.0 applications and tools for dissemination and
exchange of knowledge and current awareness services.
Web 2.0 provides interactive collaboration tools to improve
knowledge exchange and productivity. KM practitioners
use them to bring people together in order to share and
develop ideas. Communities of Practices (CoPs) can
bene¯t from these kinds of tools to stimulate interest and
encourage collaboration. Blogs are commonly used in aca-
demic libraries. There are several services where one can set
up a blog for free or for a small fee, or specialised applica-
tions can be acquired for these purposes. A blog allows a
person or a group of people to post information and receive
feedback. For example, libraries can set up a blog restricted
to library sta® replacing previous notebook or bulletin
board systems for conveying information. Libraries can
also use a public-facing blog to communicate with their
patrons and keep everyone involved and informed with
library activities.Wikis can be employed to store and edit
frequently used and updated university documents such as
policy and procedure manuals and can be used as project-
management tools as a work space for asynchronous com-
munication. Tagging is a popular, user-centred subject
tool, that enables web searchers to add tags that operate in
the same way as subject headings. The librarians can ¯nd
relevant websites' tag them and save the information.
When another librarian is asked that same question he/she
will have access to the shared work. In a large library, this
might include the subject specialist or material selector in
that subject area, and others who consider themselves
experts in that subject matter. If a person searches for a
topic, the results will include not only sites that have been
tagged with the topic, but also people in the organisation
who have tagged themselves with it (Nelson, 2008). Thus,
there are powerful web applications for academic libraries
for knowledge sharing and content management. All aca-
demic librarians need to appreciate the value of social
media for connecting people to information and knowledge
as well as connecting people to people. That is why (Koina,
2002) emphasised, \we need to promote ourselves and our
skills more to our lay management. We do have a lot to
o®er in the changing world — we just need to make sure
other people can see that too". Together with KM system
to improve information and knowledge usability, the ap-
plication of social media is improving the e®ectiveness and
the adoption of KM in academic research environment.
2.4.2. Use of virtual/online reference services
Academic libraries serve hundreds of users every week,
accumulating tacit and explicit knowledge. It is not possible
to remember and recall everything when answering a ref-
erence query. It is quite challenging to serve customers
when information is available in mufti-formats and comes
from di®erent sources. To facilitate the capture and storage
of this reference knowledge, to be shared and re-used sev-
eral times and to provide 24 hour services, KM tools such as
virtual/online reference services are designed and used in
academic libraries. There are numerous virtual/online ref-
erence services, for example KnowItNow24� 7, an online
reference service, Ask A Librarian o®ers help 24 hours a
day, seven days a week, by phone, email and using a live
online reference service. Question Point, is a virtual refer-
ence service, generally in real-time, where patrons employ
computers or other Internet technology to communicate
with reference sta® without being physically present. This
is how today reference librarians have become more ef-
fective as information mediators in academic libraries.
2.4.3. Digitisation of library collection
To manage library information and knowledge that could
be shared and re-used, almost all academic libraries have
initiated digitisation of library collection to disseminate
the right knowledge at the right time and in the appro-
priate format. The University of Toledo has initiated nu-
merous digitisation projects, such as digitising special
collections, developing virtual exhibits and converting
tacit to explicit knowledge and an in-house digital library
to house university-speci¯c collections including photo-
graphs of university administrators, the faculty and fa-
cilities (Sabharwal, 2010). Today, Toledo libraries have a
Digital Resource Commons (DRC), Ohio DRC, which is
an initiative of OhioLINK and its member libraries. The
DRC is a service that collects, preserves and distributes
P. Jain
December 23, 2013 10:20:58am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-4
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
digital material (The University of Toledo, 2012). Build-
ing a personal digital library through the digitisation of
library collections is an important KM system that allows
\the hyper textual linking of related texts, full text
searching of holdings and the integration of KM, data vi-
sualisation and geographic information tools with the texts
in the digital library" (Rydberg-Cox et al., 2000, p. 1).
2.4.4. Institutional repositories
Institutional repositories (IRs) are other fast growing tools
to manage institutional knowledge at university libraries.
An institutional repository is a digital repository main-
tained by an institution, a tool for collecting, storing and
disseminating scholarly outputs within and without an
institution. Because of their inherent scholarly nature, IRs
are also considered a benchmark of digital scholarship
(Jain et al., 2009). Being knowledge-intensive institutions,
most academic institutions have recognised the importance
of IRs to preserve scholarly knowledge and improve
scholarly communication. \Digital Repositories, one of the
components of KM systems hold content-explicit know-
ledge and are concerned with managing, maintaining and
distributing this content" (Doctor and Ramachandran,
2007, p. 1). Certainly, IRs are part of KM focusing on
one aspect of institutional knowledge, which is scholarly
research outputs of its academia (Jain, 2011). In this way,
\repository managers truly become knowledge managers,
presenting a picture of the role of repositories in the ins-
titutional knowledge-processes" (White, 2009, p. 8). In
mostcases, IRs are managed by librarians or at least they
play key roles in IR management. These are some KM
initiatives, most academic libraries have initiated towards
KM implementation.
3. Research Findings
The following section presents the scope, methodology and
the major ¯ndings of the study.
3.1. Scope and context of the research
SADC was established in April 1980 by the governments
of nine Southern African countries. Currently, SADC has
a membership of 15 Member States, namely; Angola,
Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Leso-
tho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique,
Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, United
Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe (SADC,
2012). The study was aimed at all SADC university li-
braries. However, it was not possible to determine the
total number of libraries.
3.2. Limitation to the research
This study had the following two major limitations:
(1) In the absence of availability of information on the
Internet, it was very di±cult to establish the total
number of university libraries in the SADC region.
This had a serious impact on collection of data because
contact details for potential participants were di±cult
to trace. Using the e-mail address from the net several
questionnaires were posted to potential participants
through e-mail, most of them bounced. Only some
contact details were correct on the internet. Other
participants were contacted using personal network.
A total of 50 questionnaires were sent via e-mail.
(2) The second limitation was that no theoretical frame-
work was used to carry out the study. The questionnaire
was designed based on the general literature in the
¯eld of KM contextualising in library situation.
3.3. Research purpose and objectives
As mentioned in the introduction, the main purpose of
this study was to explore KM practices in university
libraries in SADC countries. To ful¯l this purpose, the
study pursued the following objectives:
. Ascertain the reasons for practicing KM;
. Identify the activities undertaken to practice KM in
libraries; and,
. Determine the challenges associated with KM practice.
3.4. Methodology
A structured questionnaire was used to carry out the
study, including largely quantitative questions except two
qualitative questions. In one, the participants were asked
to de¯ne KM. In the second qualitative question, partici-
pants were requested to list the activities undertaken by
them to practice KM in their libraries. The qualitative
(open-ended) questions were analysed separately, by
identifying and grouping key responses into themes, after
which related/associated themes were further grouped
into variables for frequency counts. A total of 50 ques-
tionnaires were sent via e-mail, of which only 25 were
completed and returned (at 50% response rate).
The purpose of any sampling is to secure a sample
which will represent the characteristics of the entire pop-
ulation. In this study, purposive sampling was used
because the aim of the study was to explore KM practices
by collecting data from each University Library Director
of SADC university libraries. It was assumed that one
questionnaire from each library would represent the whole
Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries
December 23, 2013 10:20:59am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-5
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
library and therefore there was no need to repeat the
survey with other library sta® members.
As it was largely quantitative data and it was not a
large amount of data, data analysis was done by simple
frequency counts and cross tabulation, and, comparing
responses across demographic variables.
3.5. Ethical issues
Anonymity was guaranteed to all the participating
libraries and librarians, hence, no library names are dis-
closed in the paper.
3.6. Results
Out of 25 participating libraries, only 15 (60%) claimed to
be practicing KM and considered themselves knowledge
managers. Of the 15 KM practicing university libraries, in
8 of them KM is owned by libraries; in 3 jointly by library
and the information and technology (IT) unit; in 1 by
library and the human resource management, while in 1
KM responsibility lay with the IT unit and 2 did not an-
swer the question. From the participants' de¯nitions of
KM, it was apparent that they understood the concept of
KM. Some of the participants de¯ned KM as, \A sys-
tematic way of gathering, organising, managing, dissemi-
nating and use of information and knowledge", \sharing
and retaining knowledge and expertise in the organisa-
tion", \a systematic retrieval, storage and dissemination
of relevant information to the strategic advantage of an
organisation". Table 1 presents the number of partici-
pating libraries countrywise.
Participants were asked to indicate the reasons for ini-
tiating KM in their libraries; Table 2 presents the responses:
Participants were asked to list the activities under-
taken by them to practice KM in their libraries; Table 3
reports the responses:
Participants were asked to list any challenge, they
encountered in KM practice within their libraries. Table 4
lists the identi¯ed challenges:
4. Discussion
Of 25 participating libraries, only 15 (60%) claimed to be
practicing KM and preferred to be called knowledge man-
agers. Not all libraries were practicing KM, still they par-
ticipated in the survey. This indicates that all information
professionals were conversant with KM concept and its
bene¯ts and volunteered to participate in the survey to
appreciate the concept of KM. Also, they de¯ned the con-
cept of KM appropriately. This ¯nding seems to corro-
borate with Roknuzzaman and Umemoto (2009) ¯ndings,
studying the perceptions of library practitioners the authors
noted that although all libraries were not practicing KM,
the majority of them appreciated the importance of KM,
agreeing that a well-planned and visionary KM project can
promote decent library practices in a digital environment.
Of the 15 KM practicing university libraries, only in 8
Table 1. Participating libraries N ¼ 25.
SADC countries No. of participating libraries
Botswana 1Lesotho 1Malawi 1Namibia 1South Africa 14Swaziland 1Tanzania 2Zambia 3Zimbabwe 1
Table 2. Reasons for practising KM N ¼ 25.
Reasons % Yes No
To improve library services and productivity 96 24To produce more with less due to ¯nancial
constraints88 22
To leverage the existing knowledge 80 20To make informed decisions 76 19To manage information explosion 72 18To establish best practices 68 17To manage rapid knowledge decay 64 16To avoid duplication of e®orts 52 13
Table 3. KM initiatives undertaken in SADC university li-braries N ¼ 25.
Activities % a No
Strong partnership with other libraries, e.g. jointresearch projects, library consortia and inter-library lending
60 15
Adoption of Web 2.0 & Social Media, e.g. wikis,twitter, blogs, tagging, Facebook
60 15
Digitization of library collection 60 15Use of virtual/online reference services 52 13Central knowledge repositories for the whole
university48 12
Identi¯cation of the expertise in libraries 44 11Internal knowledge capture systems in place 40 10Sta® training in knowledge management 20 5Communities of Practice 20 5Identi¯cation of knowledge gap 12 3Existence of written knowledge management
strategy/policy8 2
P. Jain
December 23, 2013 10:21:00am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-6
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
of them KM is owned by libraries, while librarians and
information professionals should be seen in the forefront
in University KM projects. Conventionally, information
management has always been regarded as the domain
of librarians and libraries and librarians are trained in in-
formation searching, selecting, acquiring, organising, pre-
serving, repackaging, disseminating and serving their
customers. Information professionals should not take a back
seat in the initiation of KM projects. Instead, armed with
professional knowledge and experiences, one should acquire
the driver's seat (Lee, 2005). Gakuya (2012) further em-
phasised that librarians/libraries in the digital and knowl-
edge age should be in charge of KM in their respective
organisations in order to leverage the intellectual assets and
to facilitate knowledge creation. Therefore, \The academic
libraries are called upon to play a crucial and leading role
over other types of libraries by transforming their informa-
tion management skills, techniques, practices and resources.
Such transformations at the present age create new func-
tions for professional librarians, and if they do their best, it
will promote the quality of library services" (Mottaghi-Far,
2012, p. 1476). All of this calls upon university librarians to
take a strong leadership in KM initiatives.
4.1. Reasons for practicing knowledgemanagement
The study identi¯ed the main reasons for KM adoption as:
to improve library services and productivity (96%), to
produce more with less (88%) because of ¯nancial con-
straints, leverage already existing knowledge (80%), make
informed decisions (76%), manage information explosion
(72%), establish best practices (68%), manage rapid
knowledge decay (64%), and, to avoid duplication of
e®orts (52%). KM has the potential to improve library
services as well as a library's overall productivity in nu-
merous ways by providing time and cost e®ective and
customer-focused 24 hour library services in a consistent
manner. By managing KM systems, each customer can
receive the same answers for similar queries; which would
be impossible to monitor without KM systems. De¯nitely,
KM is a good solution to produce more with less by uti-
lising the scarce ¯nance resource in managing only the
most relevant information. As Wen (2005) succinctly ob-
served that during early and mid 2000s, budgets in aca-
demic libraries were stagnant at best and declining in
general. Academic libraries have felt the pinch from both
sides with less budget and more demand. Thus, librarians
are threatened of being marginalised by internet-based
information services as well as students' and faculties' own
information gathering e®orts. It is critical for academic
libraries to operate more e±ciently with reduced ¯nancial
and human resources and produce more with less.
Often organisations do not know what knowledge they
already have. Because of this, even the large global cor-
porations are spending money on training and deve-
lopment to gain knowledge that they already have
(Goodman and Schieman, 2010). KM leverages the
existing knowledge within an organisation. Through needs
assessment, knowledge mapping and knowledge auditing,
hidden organisational knowledge are visible and usable.
With too much information to digest, a person is unable to
locate and make use of the information one needs, and this
information overload can hinder information usefulness to
the individual (Israel, 2010). Today there is information
explosion and consequently, evolution of knowledge. New
information and knowledge is generating faster than ever
before. In such a °uid situation' it is imperative to keep
update in skills and knowledge at both individual and
organisational levels in order to make informed decisions. As
academic libraries support the mission, vision and objectives
of their parent institutions, they need to continuously de-
velop in order to manage changing needs of their parent
institutions and support teaching, learning and research
activities by managing the valuable knowledge. KM is one
such tool that can help in managing information explosion
by providing tools and technologies to manage the infor-
mation that is most critical and essential for an organisa-
tion. Information explosion also has negative impact on
knowledge sharing. Thus, academic librarians need to
\renovate the existing library environment and promote a
knowledge-sharing culture by initiating communities of
practice, management of best practices, change mana-
gement, organisational learning, and use of appropri-
ate knowledge-sharing technologies" (Roknuzzaman and
Umemoto, 2009, p. 654). KM would equip each person with
informed decision making capabilities by providing the right
information and knowledge. KM emphasises the identi¯ca-
tion of best practices because tried and tested solutions and
Table 4. Challenges in KM N ¼ 25.
Challenge % Yes No
Constant budget decline 88 22Inadequate sta® training 76 19Lack of KM strategy 72 18Insu±cient Technology 68 17Lack of incentives 60 15Limited expertise in KM 56 14A lack of knowledge sharing culture 56 14A lack of cooperation among juniors and seniors 32 8To track the materials from departments is time
consuming24 6
Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries
December 23, 2013 10:21:00am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-7
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
practices are always superior to newly-introduced ones.
Because of long-term experience, best practices are time and
cost-e®ective, they provide operational excellence, enhance
performance capabilities and reduce training needs. Aca-
demic libraries should continuously look for best practices.
Knowledge sharing is one of the most critical compo-
nents of KM. Often, academic library practitioners are
doing similar things in their own isolated silos and con-
tinue doing their personal research on how to serve their
customers. Using KM applications, duplication of e®orts
can reduced, best practices can be shared, training needs
can be minimised, and all information services can be
provided time and cost-e®ectively. An integrated CKM
approach proposed by Daneshgar and Parirokh (2012,
p. 17), is vital for improving library services through
appropriate management of library customers.
4.2. KM activities initiated in SADCuniversities
Several questions were asked to investigate the current
KM practices in SADC university libraries. The ¯ndings
revealed 60% (15) libraries had strong partnerships with
other libraries. Most common partnerships are joint re-
search projects, library consortia and inter-library loans
for resource sharing. Through these partnerships and
collaboration, libraries build strong relationships with
other libraries where ideas, processes, work °ows, and
mutual training are shared, investigated and documented.
In terms of new technology, only 52% (13) of the
libraries acknowledged themselves as well-equipped with
knowledge-enabling technologies. Other libraries lacked
adequate technologies, e-textbooks, laptops, tablets, PCs,
e-Readers, mobile based websites, and smart phone
applications. One participant noted, \The intranet of the
library is not functioning as it should. The library needs a
proper Intranet as well as a document management sys-
tem". ICT is key facilitator to KM, adequate ICT infra-
structure is vital.
Only 48% (12) universities had a central knowledge
repository for the whole university, while 40% (10) of the
libraries had a system in place to capture the internal
knowledge of their sta® and some of the mechanisms to
capture knowledge were identi¯ed as LibStats system,
intranet, DSpace and IRs. In a few libraries it was man-
datory for academic sta® to submit copies of their research
publications to the library. A few libraries also recorded
workshop proceedings on DSpace. Identi¯cation of the
expertise was exercised in 44% (11) participating libraries
and 40% (10) libraries had a system in place to capture
internal knowledge of their sta® members. Only 20% (5) of
the libraries had a provision for training in KM, and
incentives were provided in four libraries. According to the
participants incentives could be modest honorarium,
promotions and opportunities to attend conferences for
professional development. In some libraries, incentives
were built into the performance evaluation systems and
top achievers received a ¯nancial bonus. A knowledge gap
exercise was conducted only in three libraries, and the
knowledge gaps were identi¯ed as: lack of ICT, manage-
ment and leadership skills. Training opportunities are
provided based on the identi¯ed skills gaps under the
personal development plan of each sta® member. Only two
libraries had written KM strategies, which basically
entailed what knowledge should be collected aligned with
the library management's vision and strategy. KM strat-
egy is the ¯rst and foremost condition for KM imple-
mentation, which describes how an institution will
Fig. 1. A framework for KM implementation in a university library.
P. Jain
December 23, 2013 10:21:00am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-8
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
manage its knowledge better for the bene¯t of that insti-
tution, employees and other stakeholders.
All of the above ¯ndings seem to imply that even
though 60% of the libraries claimed to be practicing KM,
some of the libraries did not seem to be practicing KM
fully. All the discussed activities are vital for practicing
KM in libraries, and the absence of them signi¯es in-
complete KM implementation or no KM at all. This could
be attributed to resource implications, or library sta®s'
willingness to adopt KM or both of these. At the same
time, students, faculties and university administration
have greater expectations from academic libraries. To
provide the right information at the right time is more
critical than ever before to ful¯l the mission and vision of
their parent institutions.
4.3. Challenges associated with knowledgemanagement practice
The study identi¯ed the major challenges in practicing
KM as: constant budget decline 88% (22), inadequate sta®
training 76% (19), lack of clearly de¯ned guidelines/KM
strategy 72% (18), insu±cient technology 68% (17), lack
of incentives 60% (15), limited KM expertise 56% (14) and
a lack of knowledge sharing culture 56% (14). Budget
decline challenge is similar to Nazim and Mukherjee
(2011) study, who described budget decline a two-way
problem ¯rst, a reason not to adopt and initiate KM, and
second, due to lack of adequate resources it is a challenge
to practice KM. Budget has an impact on everything,
including insu±cient tools and technologies, a lack of re-
ward system, poor training plans and a lack of expertise in
KM. With a stagnant or dwindling library budget, it is
more crucial for academic libraries to increase their oper-
ational e±ciency in order to come over this challenge.
When libraries face tight budgets or budget reductions, it
is only too natural for the library administration to hesi-
tate to invest in a KM system (Wen, 2005). Hence, su±-
cient budget is central to successful KM implementation.
It is evident from the study that only 20% participating
libraries had training facilities and 76% identi¯ed a lack of
training as one of the major challenge in KM practice.
Townley (2001) points out that training and support for
the adoption of new knowledge and behaviors are perhaps
the most important and costly part of any KM applica-
tion. As learning organisations, libraries should be allo-
cated annual funding to provide continuing education and
sta® training to all sta® members (Lee, 2005). Knowledge
must be renewed and expanded to prevent it from be-
coming stagnant. As university libraries play a leading
role in today's changing world in generating ideas and
advancing societies, they need to be knowledgeable
enough in order to cope with the rapid changes and strong
competitive environments (Daneshgar and Parirokh,
2007). A lack of training leads to limited expertise and
consequently poor performance and poor library services.
Su±cient training is important for KM implementation
and adequate expertise.
A lack of clearly de¯ned guidelines on KM implemen-
tation was recognised as a challenge by the participants as
only two libraries had a KM strategy in place. This seems
to be a problem world-wide. In UK only 12 UK universi-
ties had a KM strategy (McKnight, 2007). Establishing
principles for KM implementation are fundamental to KM
success. A KM strategy is an overall plan to implement
KM, which is based on the real needs and problems in a
particular organisation. It describes how an organisation
will manage its knowledge better for the bene¯t of the
organisation, employees and other stakeholders. A KM
strategy should stipulate the overall KM vision aligned
with organisational strategic plans. It should also consist
speci¯c objectives, action plans, budget, mentoring and
training plans, associated challenges, and, an evaluation
plan to measure the expected outcomes of KM initiatives.
ICT enables KM initiatives in two ways: by connecting
people with information/knowledge contents and by con-
necting people with people. It connects people with con-
tents by providing the means to capture, discover, organise,
store, retrieve and disseminate information/knowledge.
People are connected with people using web 2.0 and other
collaborative software such as, electronic communication
tools, electronic conferencing tools, collaborative manage-
ment tools and work °ow management systems. That is
why, \a good IT infrastructure is not a su±cient condition
for the success of KM but a necessary condition for it"
(Arora, 2002, p. 248). Insu±cient technology cripples the
successful implementation of KM in academic libraries.
Lack of incentives was identi¯ed yet another critical
issue and a challenge by the participants. Rewards are
good motivators to KM adoption and building organisa-
tional trust among librarians. Research indicates that
the more sta® received rewards, the more they trusted
the organisation and were ready to collaborate, and had a
more positive attitude towards KM (Constant et al., 1994;
Aharony, 2011). Organisations need to put in place ap-
propriate incentives and training plans in order to motivate
library sta® for knowledge sharing. A lack of knowledge
sharing was yet another challenge in the study, which is the
¯rst cultural roadblock in KM implementation. Only a few
libraries shared knowledge through communities of prac-
tices (CoPs), SDIs and SubjectPlus. A number of libraries
use Quarterly Library Newsletter, Face book, Intranet
Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries
December 23, 2013 10:21:01am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-9
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
LibStats (statistics programme), Roadshows on best prac-
tice, IRs, Faculty Newsletters and a few use web 2.0
applications such' as, wikis, twitter and blogs. The ¯ndings
of this study support Parirokh, Daneshgar and Fattahi
(2008) study, who had established that KM and knowledge
sharing issues had not been institutionalised in the majority
of academic libraries. The above authors foresee that
knowledge-sharing capabilities of academic libraries will
eventually become one of the major critical success factors.
However, a knowledge sharing culture involves both orga-
nisation and library sta®. Organisation can support by
providing appropriate KM enablers such as, organisational
procedures, culture and technological infrastructures. On
an individual basis it refers to librarians' personal interests
and the degree of enthusiasm for sharing knowledge (Par-
irokh et al., 2008). Web 2.0 has transformed the entire
landscape of KM and sharing, unfortunately, many libraries
are still not exploiting the bene¯ts of web development. The
social media applications have improved the e®ectiveness
and increased the adoption of KM in an academic research
environment. Twitter can be used to create knowledge by
both users and librarians (Kim and Abbas, 2010; Silk,
2010). Virtual libraries are other powerful tools to share
knowledge. Libraries have abundance of opportunities to
create a knowledge-sharing culture using various venues
and by providing su±cient incentives and training oppor-
tunities to library sta®. Often librarians fail in locating and
managing the knowledge potential in the heads of their own
people (Selhorst, 2009). This needs to be changed. It is
important to locate and manage tacit knowledge of
employees, as tacit knowledge adds more value than ex-
plicit knowledge in gaining and sustaining an edge over its
competitors. Parirokh, Daneshgar and Fattahi (2008) sug-
gested numerous activities and strategies that can encour-
age knowledge sharing among librarians including research
projects, training programs, online newsletters, teaching
methods, knowledge-sharing policies and strategies, lead-
ership and dedication of time, group discussions, commu-
nication channels, formal procedures including publication
of manuals for sta® and documenting experiences. Thus,
academic librarians can adopt a new model knowledge
network model as opposed to a book ware house model.
Incorporating networked knowledge, librarians can move
away from explicit knowledge to both explicit and tacit KM
and sharing (Kuhlen, 2004). This necessitates that librar-
ians fully exploit the bene¯ts of web applications and other
new technologies to develop a conducive knowledge creat-
ing and sharing environment within and outside libraries.
Most of this study's challenges substantiate a recent
study carried out in India by Nazim and Mukherjee
(2011), who had identi¯ed some of challenges as: lack of
knowledge sharing culture, top management commitment,
incentives and rewards, ¯nancial resources and IT infra-
structure. This shows that most academic libraries in de-
veloping countries are confronted with similar challenges
which impede the successful KM implementation.
5. Conclusion
The overall purpose of this study was to investigate and
explore KM practices in SADC university libraries. The
study identi¯ed and discussed the main reasons to KM
implementation and associated challenges. From the
foregoing debate it can be concluded that KM is no more
an option, but a survival kit for university/academic
librarians. Empowered with modern ICTs, web applica-
tions and social networking interactive tools, academic
librarians can build on their inherent expertise. By
establishing connections and collaborations within and
outside their parent organisations they can come out of
their internal silos, integrate internal and external infor-
mation and deliver value added services to university
community and other stakeholders.
University library services are important guarantees in
improving the competitiveness of universities' libraries
(Xin Qu, 2011). Being part and parcel of learning in-
stitutions, university libraries can play a key role in
human, economic and national development. Therefore,
library services need to be revamped and enhanced. In
this competitive information environment when internet
search engines are readily available and accessible 24
hours, KM is a way forward, a way to survive and thrive
for academic libraries/librarians. With KM, academic
librarians contribute to the improvement of employees'
capacity in knowledge creation; it promotes and streng-
thens relationships and inter-networking between libra-
ries, librarians and users (Asogwa, 2012). Due to the
development of mobile and Web 2.0 technology, knowl-
edge creation, storage, retrieval and sharing have become
much more e±cient. Librarians can take leadership roles
in planning, establishing, organising, facilitating, archiv-
ing and evaluating social knowledge exchanges as well
as assume an entirely new role as academic librarians
and still remain relevant in this new information envi-
ronment Stranack (2012). Information professionals and
librarians need to buy into KM more seriously to increase
their operational e±ciency, prove their relevance and
value to their parent institutions in realising their overall
mission and vision and consequently, contribute towards
knowledge economy by providing the right information
to the right customer at the right time and in the right
format.
P. Jain
December 23, 2013 10:21:01am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-10
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
6. Recommendations
To win over the challenges and institute a successful
KM implementation in university/academic libraries, the
author puts forward the following recommendations and a
framework for KM implementation in university/aca-
demic libraries:
. Formulation of a KM strategy: In order to initiate KM
in academic libraries, ¯rst and foremost, it is vital to
formulate a KM strategy mapping out a clear vision,
expected outcomes, an action plan, necessary resources
and an evaluation plan. A KM strategy should be based
on the real needs of the university and aligned with
university's overall strategic plan.
. Strong leadership: Being experts in information man-
agement and user-centred service provision, librarians
should take a lead in KM projects.
. KM priority for the parent university: Parent univer-
sities should consider KM as one of their top priorities
and allocate all necessary KM infrastructure including
su±cient budget and technological infrastructure.
. An integrated CKM approach: Since customers are
paramount in libraries, librarians should embrace an
integrated CKM approach for improved and innovative
customer services.
. Training: All librarians and information professionals
should be adequately trained to fully appreciate and
adopt KM.
. Speci¯c unit for KM: There should be a speci¯c unit to
coordinate and promote shared understanding of KM
and its successful implementation.
. Rewards and incentives: There should be appropriate
rewards and incentives to motivate librarians and infor-
mation professionals to successfully implement KM and
create a collaborative and knowledge sharing culture.
. Change of mind-set and set-minds: Finally, to revitalise
the library undertakings and ¯t into the modern in-
formation environment, university librarians should
change their traditional mindsets and rigid mindsets
(set minds). They should be proactive, self-con¯dent,
self-promoting, customer focused, well-researched, well-
prepared, and above all, persistent learners.
References
Aharony, N (2011). Librarians' attitudes toward knowl-edge management. College & Research Libraries, 72(2),111–126.
Arora, R (2002). Implementing KM — a balanced scorecard approach. Journal of Knowledge Management,6(3), 240–249.
Asogwa, BE (2012). Knowledge management in academiclibraries: Librarians in the 21st century. Journal ofKnowledge Management Practice, 13(2). Available athttp://www.tlainc.com/articl301.htm [accessed on 12May 2013].
Che Rusuli, MS, R Tasmin, J Takala and H Norazlin(2012). Knowledge management process at MalaysianUniversity libraries: A literature review. InternationalJournal of Social Sciences, 1, 1–16.
Constant, D, S Kiesler and L Sproull (1994). What's mineis ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about informationsharing. Information System Research, 5(4), 400–421.
Daneshgar, F and M Parirokh (2007). A knowledgeschema for organisational learning in academic libra-ries. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5,22–33. Available at http://faculty.¯ms.uwo.ca/koziol/781/documents/A%20knowledge%20schema%20for%20organisational.pdf [accessed on 13 May 2013].
Daneshgar, F and M Parirokh (2012). An integratedcustomer knowledge management framework for aca-demic libraries. Library Quarterly, 82(1), 7–28.
Doctor, G and S Ramachandran (2007). Enablingknowledge sharing with an institutional repository. InSeventh IEEE International Conference on AdvancedLearning Technologies (ICALT 2007), pp. 432–433,ISBN: 0-7695-2916-X. IEEE.
Gakuya, D (2012). Knowledge management and the role oflibraries. Available at http://www.studymode.com/essays/Knowledge-Management-And-The-Role-Of-928537.html [accessed on 5 May 2013].
Goodman, N and J Schieman (2010). Using knowledgemanagement to leverage training and developmentinitiatives. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(2),112–115.
Hadagail, GS et al. (2012). Knowledge management inlibraries: A new perspective for the library professionalsin the competitive world. Available at http://www.ijidt.com/index.php/ijidt/article/view/113/pdf [acces-sed on 4 May 2013].
Israel, GI (2010). Information explosion and universitylibraries: Current trends and strategies for intervention.Chinese Librarianship: An International ElectronicJournal, 30, 1–15. Available at http://www.white-clouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl30i¯jeh.pdf [accessed on 5 May2013].
Jain, P (2011). New trends and future applications/directions of institutional repositories in academicinstitutions. Library Review, 60(2), 125–141.
Kim, Y and J Abbas (2010). Adoption of library 2.0functionalities by academic libraries and users: Aknowledge management perspective. The Journal ofAcademic Librarianship, 36(3), 211–218.
Koina, C (2002). The Australian library journal. Availableat http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/alj/52.3/full.text/koina.html [accessed on 13 May 2013].
Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries
December 23, 2013 10:21:01am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-11
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
Kuhlen, R (2004). Change of paradigm in knowledgemanagement framework for the collaborative productionand exchange of knowledge. I°a Publications, 108,21–38.
Lee, H-W (2005). Knowledge management and the roleof libraries. Available at http://www.ub.edu/bid/19mcknig.htm [accessed on 13 May 2013].
Loh, B et al. (2003). Applying knowledge management inuniversity research. Available at http://www.uni-bonn.de/�hevers/papers/Loh-Tang-Menkho®-Chay-Evers-2003-new.pdf [accessed on 13 May 2013].
Maury, Y (2012). Information and knowledge manage-ment in libraries: The reference text in question.Available at http://www.academia.edu/2191484/Information and Knowledge Management in Libraries theReference Texts in Question [accessed on 13 May2013].
McKnight, S (2007). A futuristic view of knowledge andinformation management. Available at http://www.white-clouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl19lee.htm [accessed on 11May 2013].
Mottaghi-Far, H (2012). Employing a knowledge man-agement process in academic and research libraries: Aproductive thinking one. Interdisciplinary BusinessResearch, 3(9), 1468–1479. Available at http://www.journal-archieves14.webs.com/1468-1479.pdf [accessedon 4 May 2013].
Nazim, M and B Mukherjee (2011). Implementingknowledge management in indian academic libraries.Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 12(3).Available at http://www.tlainc.com/articl269.htm[accessed on 17 May 2013].
Nelson, E (2008). Knowledge management for libraries.Library Administration & Management, 22(3), 135–137.
Nonaka, I (1994). A dynamic theory of organizationalknowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
O'Dell, C and CJ Grayson (1998). If Only We Knew WhatWe Know: The Transfer of Internal Knowledge andBest Practice. New York: Free Press.
Oosterlinck, A. (2001). University/industry knowledgemanagement: A university perspective. Available athttp://www.oecd.org/education/educationeconomy-andsociety/2668232.pdf [accessed on 7 May 2013].
Parirokh, M, F Daneshgar and R Fattahi (2008). Identi-fying knowledge-sharing requirements in academic li-braries. Library Review, 57(2), pp. 107–122.
Raja, W, Z Ahmad and AK Sinha (2009). Knowledgemanagement and academic libraries in IT Era: Pro-blems and positions. Available at http://crl.du.ac.in/ical09/papers/index ¯les/ical-124 198 418 2 RV.pdf[accessed on 7 May 2013].
Roknuzzaman, Md and K Umemoto (2009). How librarypractitioners view knowledge management in libraries:A qualitative study. Library Management, 30(8/9),643–656.
Rydberg-Cox, J (2000). Knowledge management in theperseus digital library. Ariadne (25). Available athttp://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue25/rydberg-cox [acces-sed on 17 May 2013].
Sabharwal, A (2010). Digital directions in academicknowledge management: Visions and opportunities fordigital initiatives at the University of Toledo. Availableat http://s36.a2zinc.net/clients/sla/sla2010/custom/handout/speaker0 session249 3.pdf [accessed on 17May 2013].
SADC (Southern African Development Community)(2012). SADC 1980 years of progress 2010. Available athttp://www.sadc.int/ [accessed on 17 May 2013].
Selhorst, K (2009). The power of collective intelligence:Improving customer service with social tools. Availableat http://www.i°a.org/¯les/information-technology/km/IFLA2009 Improvingcustomerservice.ppt [accessedon 17 May 2013].
Silk, K (2010). Social knowledge management in an aca-demic research environment — A case study. Availableat http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/libtech conf/2010/concurrent a/39/ [accessed on 16 May 2013].
Stranack, K (2012). Critical review of knowledge man-agement: Libraries and librarians taking up the chal-lenge. Available at http://stranack.ca/2012/08/04/critical-review-of-knowledge-management-libraries-and-librarians-taking-up-the-challenge/ [accessed on 18May 2013].
Sveiby, KE (1997). The New Organisational Wealth:Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. SanFransisco: Berrett-Koehler.
The University of Toledo (2012). University of ToledoLibraries, Digital Initiatives program. Available athttp://www.utoledo.edu/library/digitalinitiatives/index.html [accessed on 17 May 2013].
Townley, CT (2001). Knowledge management and aca-demic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 62(1),44–55.
Tutu, JM (2012). Role of academic libraries in knowledgemanagement in universities. Available at http://jamesmacharia.blogspot.com/2012/07/role-of-aca-demic-libraries-in-knowledge.html [accessed on 6 May2013].
Ugwu, CI and IJ Ezema (2010). Competencies for suc-cessful knowledge management applications in Nigerianacademic libraries. International Journal of Library andInformation Science, 2(9), 184–189.
Wen, S (2005). Implementing knowledge management inacademic libraries: A pragmatic approach. Available athttp://www.white-clouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl19wen.htm[accessed on 11 May 2013].
White, W (2009). Institutional repositories: Contribut-ing to institutional knowledge management and theglobal research commons. In a paper presented at4th International Open Repositories Conference, May
P. Jain
December 23, 2013 10:21:01am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-12
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.
18–21, Atlanta, Georgia. Available at http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/48552/ [accessed on 17 May 2013].
Xin Qu, Y (2011). Research of knowledge management onthe university library for subject user. In a paper pre-sented in an International Conference on Management
Science and Industrial Engineering (MSIE), pp.932–934, January 8–11. Available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp¼&arnumber¼5707563[accessed on 8 May 2013].
Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries
December 23, 2013 10:21:02am WSPC/188-JIKM 1350034 ISSN: 0219-6492FA1
1350034-13
J. I
nfo.
Kno
w. M
gmt.
2013
.12.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
ww
w.w
orld
scie
ntif
ic.c
omby
162
.216
.0.9
8 on
06/
11/1
4. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly.