1 A Theoretical Framework for Strategic Knowledge Management Maturity Model; From Systematic Approach Moslehi, Adel1 M.Sc student of Tehran University, Management Faculty, Department of IT Management Abstract: Knowledge has become to be considered as valuable strategic assets that can provide proprietary competitive advantages and agility for any companies, only if understood from an action-oriented perspective. So respect to KM enablers and KM processes and the alignment between KM strategy with business strategy, KM enablers and KM processes, this paper proposes new approach to evaluating knowledge management maturity regarding to systematic perspective point of view, (i.e. KM enablers as the inputs, KM processes as the processes, and KM strategic alignment as a feedback respect to output of the companies) the proposition model is based on capability maturity model (CMM), introduced by Carnegie-Mellon university (Paulk et. al 1993). Keywords: KM key factors, KM Enablers, KM Processes, KM strategic alignment, KM Framework, KM maturity Model. Introduction In the 1990s, the nature of competition changed radically because of increased global connectivity, distributed expertise, and shorter product development cycles. (Turban, 2002b, pp: 347) and day after day, deploying knowledge management (KM) as a response to these changes, increase. based on a recent survey of senior executives in 158 companies found that 80% of companies had knowledge management (KM) efforts, 60% expected to use KM enterprise-wide within five years, 25% had a chief knowledge officer, and 21% had a KM strategy.(Boudreau, 2002, pp:3) after too much attention to knowledge management from companies, It is no surprise that many researchers have investigated enablers for fostering knowledge such as Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998; Teece, 2000. Typically, these knowledge enablers are categorized from people, organization, process, and system perspectives. Although these enablers are essential for a firm’s capability to manage knowledge effectively, it is still unclear how to employ them in a strategic fashion (Choi and Lee, 2002, pp: 173). Therefore there is need for models, frameworks, and methodologies that can help corporate executives both to understand the sorts of knowledge management initiatives or investments that are possible and to identify those that makes sense in their context (Earl 2001, pp: 216) In the systematic point of view, in each organization it is necessary to define inputs, processes, outputs, and feed backs, so in KM issues, KM readiness (or enablers), KM 1 Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Transcript
1
A Theoretical Framework for Strategic Knowledge Management Maturity Model;
From Systematic Approach
Moslehi, Adel1
M.Sc student of Tehran University, Management Faculty, Department of IT Management
Abstract: Knowledge has become to be considered as valuable strategic assets that can provide proprietary competitive advantages and agility for any companies, only if understood from an action-oriented perspective. So respect to KM enablers and KM processes and the alignment between KM strategy with business strategy, KM enablers and KM processes, this paper proposes new approach to evaluating knowledge management maturity regarding to systematic perspective point of view, (i.e. KM enablers as the inputs, KM processes as the processes, and KM strategic alignment as a feedback respect to output of the companies) the proposition model is based on capability maturity model (CMM), introduced by Carnegie-Mellon university (Paulk et. al 1993). Keywords: KM key factors, KM Enablers, KM Processes, KM strategic alignment, KM Framework, KM maturity Model.
Introduction
In the 1990s, the nature of competition changed radically because of increased global connectivity, distributed expertise, and shorter product development cycles. (Turban, 2002b, pp: 347) and day after day, deploying knowledge management (KM) as a response to these changes, increase. based on a recent survey of senior executives in 158 companies found that 80% of companies had knowledge management (KM) efforts, 60% expected to use KM enterprise-wide within five years, 25% had a chief knowledge officer, and 21% had a KM strategy.(Boudreau, 2002, pp:3) after too much attention to knowledge management from companies, It is no surprise that many researchers have investigated enablers for fostering knowledge such as Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998; Teece, 2000. Typically, these knowledge enablers are categorized from people, organization, process, and system perspectives. Although these enablers are essential for a firm’s capability to manage knowledge effectively, it is still unclear how to employ them in a strategic fashion (Choi and Lee, 2002, pp: 173).
Therefore there is need for models, frameworks, and methodologies that can help corporate executives both to understand the sorts of knowledge management initiatives or investments that are possible and to identify those that makes sense in their context (Earl 2001, pp: 216)
In the systematic point of view, in each organization it is necessary to define inputs, processes, outputs, and feed backs, so in KM issues, KM readiness (or enablers), KM
processes, organizational performance and a model to alignment can be referred to the components of a system.
And regarding to the sentence,”what can’t be measured, can’t be managed” importance of measurement in management, studying knowledge management measurement becomes more critical (e.g. Probst, et al. 2001 pp: 244)
So respect to alignment between KM strategy with organizational performance, KM enablers and KM processes, this paper proposes new approach to evaluating knowledge management maturity regarding to systematic perspective point of view, (i.e. KM enablers as the inputs, KM processes as the process, and KM strategic alignment as a feedback respect to output of the companies) the proposition model is based on capability maturity model (CMM), introduced by Carnegie- Mellon university (Paulk, et. al 1993).
Research Objectives This paper tries to introduce new approach for evaluating the KM initiation regarding to a holistic perspective of knowledge management. The objectives of this paper include:
1- Understanding the KM key factors, were introduced in literature. 2- Introducing new systematic approach to help managers, deploying KM projects
effectively, that is, doing KM projects to affect the organizational performances, due to alignment with business strategy.
In the rest of the paper, KM critical success factors, KM frameworks, and KM maturity model are reviewed in briefly in the Theoretical Background section, respect to KM enablers, KM processes and Strategic alignment factors.
Theoretical Background In the 1980s,with emergence of SIS era after data processing and MIS era, much attention was given to means by which IT might be harnessed to enable and sustain competitive advantage e.g. Senn, 1992, Porter and Millar, 1985 (Galliers, 1999, pp: 230)
After great investment in IT, some economists such as Strassmann and Solow, concluded that there is no relationship between computer expenditures and company performance (e.g. Malhotra, 2000, pp: 5, Turban, 2002a, pp: 568). A wave of disenchantment with the ROI of IT (1980s) was faced with some responses, and the main response concluded that IT is implemented incorrectly and it relates to organizational processes, structure, and design, which were not “work friendly”! (El Sawy 2002, pp: 4) and because of some other pressures, e.g. 3Cs2 (Hammer and Champy, 1994) the BPR was introduced by Hammer, Davenport, and champy. (El Sawy 2002, pp: 6)
After the high failure rate in BPR projects (Turban, 2002a, pp3703,) and raising the organizational attention to intellectual capital (Heather, 2003, pp: 4) as hidden assets (Skyrme, 2000, pp: 62) and vital role of human in e-business model innovation and distinguishing knowledge from information and data and understanding the important role of knowledge instead of information, in reaching sustainable competitive advantages in the continues changing environment(Malhotra, 2000, pp: 6.), also improved collaborative technologies and growing number of cases where better understanding and management of knowledge has
2 Customer, Competition, Change that was introduces by hammer and champy, 1994, Reengineering the Corporation, A manifesto for business revolution 3 Adopted from managementchanging.com
3
brought demonstrable bottom lines benefits.(Skyrme,2000, pp: 62) worldwide spending on KM services is grow up, as Dyer(2000) expected.( Turban,2002b, pp347)
KM Critical success factor
Like BPR projects, high rate of failure still joints with KM projects (about 50% to 70%4), some researchers evaluated the successful projects in organizations (e.g. Davenport et. al, 1998) they point at some critical factors that can be classified into 3 categories (Table1).
This paper assumes, as you will see at next, these 3 components as key factors of KM, in brief, KM enablers or influencing factors are organizational mechanism for fostering KM processes, and KM processes represent the basic operation of knowledge which affect on organizational performance, and during this processes, existence of KM strategic alignment seems to be necessary for gaining effectiveness. Table-1, classified summary of studies about CSF of KM projects
Study KM Enablers KM Processes KM Strategic Alignment Davenport et. al, 1998, pp: 50-55
Technical (multiple channels) and organizational infrastructure, Standard and flexible knowledge structure, Clear purpose and language Change in motivational practices, Senior management support
knowledge transfer via multiple channels
Link to economic performance or industry value
Skyrme, 2000, pp: 78-82
Compelling vision and architecture, Knowledge leadership, Knowledge creating and sharing culture, Well developed ICT infrastructure
Attention to expectations of all parties involved, Top management support is continuously and is delivered in a practical and public way. The purpose and reason for expending effort on knowledge sharing is clarified and understood by everyone involved. There are different types or levels of organizational KM systems, lower and upper, offered to customers. These different expectations should be clarified.
knowledge sharing and creation
To be alert to the potential differences between a paradigm based on knowledge management which is IT led and one based on the learning organization, The interrelationship between knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and organizational change needs to be understood and realized.
Ndledla and Toit, 2001, pp : 164
Assign a knowledge leader, knowledge creating and sharing Culture, Encouraging continuous learning, and well-developed technology infrastructure.
Systematic enterprise knowledge processes, knowledge creating and sharing
Performance measures and rewards, Management Process
Hasanali, 2002 APQC.
Leadership; culture; structure, roles, and responsibilities; information technology infrastructure
Measurement
Moffett. et.al. 2003, pp: 215-217
Macro environment, Organizational culture, People aspect, technological application
Information Process
As more companies develop their knowledge management capabilities some of the ground rules are becoming clearer. Success depends on a clear strategic logic for knowledge sharing, the choice of an appropriate infrastructure (technical or non-technical), and an implementation approach that addresses the typical barriers: motivation to share knowledge, resources for capturing and synthesizing organizational learning, and the ability to navigate the knowledge network to find the right people and data (Turban, 2002b, pp; 378) For have a whole map of knowledge management issues, investigation of knowledge management frameworks is necessary. Knowledge Management Framework
Next, this paper reviews some major frameworks and tries to classify them. Knowledge management was seen in eyes of some perspectives, like Epistemology oriented KM (the cognistivistic and the autopoietic), Ontology Oriented KM (Agent oriented and Process Oriented) and Hybridization of KM Models (Henning, et al, 2002), some other such as Zuo (1999) was attended to the Technological, the Behavioral, and the Synthesis of both aspects (Jinxi and Jisheng, 2001, pp: 168) and also Philosophy-based model, Cognitive model, Network model. Community model and Quantum model (Kakabadse et. al, 2003) are argued. Regarding to these perspectives the major KM framework is introduced briefly. First, Six Main KM Frameworks are adopted from a research (Jinxi and Jisheng, 2001, pp: 169-176) and all the related references and information except the classification, are adopted from them, include:
Wiig’s three knowledge management pillars Organizational knowledge management model 4-stage model of knowledge management Spiral model of organizational knowledge creation An integrative knowledge management model Conception model of knowledge supply chain
Jinxi and Jisheng evaluated these six major frameworks and concluded that, most of the frameworks above mentioned are framed in 2 dimensions:
Process of knowledge conversion, such as knowledge identify, collect, adapt, organize, share and create
The function management of knowledge activities, such as strategy, culture, human resource management, technology and measurement, etc.
Other framework:
This paper add some more framework to the previous list and all of the frameworks were surveyed can be classified into 3 dimensions. (Table 2)
Four pillars of knowledge management (Bixler, 2002)
5
Objects and Organizational approach,( Lee and Kim ,2001) KM; conceptual framework (Egbu, 2001) KMf (Hazlett & Gallaghers, 1999) KAFRA - Context-aware Framework of Knowledge Management (Okunoye et. al.
Leadership and culture management; Structure and human resource management; Technology development which comprises technology and tools management
Knowledge acquisition, knowledge application and knowledge creation
corporate infrastructure which comprises measurement, control, corporation, protection and other support for entire knowledge chain
Jinxi and Jisheng, 2001, pp: 171
As Jinxi and Jisheng said, all of these frameworks above mentioned have deepened our understanding of knowledge and the knowledge management from different perspectives, but their research scopes, selected dimensions and research methodologies are quite different from each other. Each of them may just be used in the specific context, so their guidance to the practice maybe restricted. For instance, most of the frameworks are evolved the author’s experiences, very few of them are concluded from case studying.
Up to now, some frameworks are introduced and classified into, KM enablers, KM processes, and KM strategic alignment. At the rest of the paper, for explanation about them, these items were reviewed; including:
Reviewing the studies about the major components of KM and relationships between them i.e. KM enablers, KM processes, and KM Strategic alignment (with attention to the link between them and Organizational Performance).
Knowledge Management Strategies and their perspectives due to understanding the KM Strategic alignment
Here the previous empirical studies are presented into some following tables. (Adopted from Lee and Choi, 2003, pp: 185-186) Previous Empirical Studies: relationship between Enablers, Processes and Organizational performance
The previous studies encompass the relationship between KM enablers, KM enablers and processes, KM enablers and Organizational Performance, and relations between KM enablers, KM Processes and Organizational Performance. These studies are shown at below
7
Relationship among knowledge Enablers
Study KM enablers KM Processes
Organizational Performance
Findings
Bennet and Gabriel, 1999
Structure Culture, Size, Environment KM method
N/A N/A Effect of change-friendly culture on the number of KM method employed.
Relationship between KM Process & Enablers
Study KM enablers KM Processes Organizational
Performance Findings
Zander and Kogut, 1995
Characteristics of societal knowledge
Transfer (time to transfer )
N/A Codifiability, teachability, and parallel development have significant effects on the time to transfer.
Appleyard, 1996
Industry and national characteristics
Transfer{number of times the respondents provide and receive knowledge in a given period}
N/A Public sources of knowledge are much more prevalent in knowledge transfer in semiconductors than in the steel industry; public sources of technical knowledge play a larger role in knowledge transfer in Japan than in the United States.
Szulanski, 1996
Characteristics of the knowledge transferred source recipient context
Transfer {four-stage transfer processes}.
N/A Recipient’s lack of absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity and an arduousness of the relationship are the major impediments to knowledge transfer. Weak ties impede the transfer of complex knowledge
Hansen, 1999 Weak {distant and infrequent relationship}; Knowledge characteristics.
Transfer {percentage of a project’s total knowledge that comes from other divisions}.
N/A Weak ties impede the transfer of complex knowledge.
Relationship between KM enablers & Organizational performance
8
Study KM enablers KM Processes Organizational Performance
Findings
Bierly and Chakrabarti, 1996
KM strategy N/A ROS ROA
Innovators and explorers are more profitable than exploiters and loners
Collaborative know-how allows firms to achieve greater organizational benefits; collaborative experience alone does not ensure that the firm will benefit from collaboration.
Relationship between Enablers, KM Process & Organizational performance
KM Strategies and the perspectives Many researchers argued that there are two categories of knowledge management strategies (e.g. Tierney, 1999), include: Codification(i.e. Emphasize codified knowledge in knowledge management processes Focus on codifying and storing knowledge via information technology Attempts made to share knowledge formally) and Personalization (i.e. Emphasize dialogue
Study KM enablers KM Processes Organizational Performance
Findings
Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001
Task{processor content orientation; focused or broad domain}
KM satisfaction Socialization is suitable broad and process-oriented tasks, externalization for focused and content –oriented tasks, combination for board and content- oriented tasks and internalization for focuses and process- oriented tasks; combination and externalization affect knowledge satisfaction.
Gold et al, 2001 Infrastructure capability (technology, structure, culture).
Process capability(acquisition, conversion ,application, protection).
Organizational effectiveness
Infrastructure and process capabilities contribute to the achievement of organizational effectiveness.
9
through social networks and person-to-person contacts Focus on acquiring knowledge via experienced and skilled people Attempts made to share knowledge informally)
These two main knowledge management strategies are used in 3 perspectives (Choi, and Lee, 2002, pp: 175)
Focus view: The studies from a focused view propose that companies should pursue one strategy predominantly.
o Hansen et al. (1999) suggest that companies pursue one strategy while using another to support it.
o Swan et al. (2000) Focus on Personalization Balance View: The balanced view suggests that companies should strike a right
balance between the two strategies. o Bierly and Chakrabarti (1996) this view can be more profitable. o Jordan and Jones (1997) more innovative knowledge. o Zack (1999a)
Dynamic view: The dynamic view suggests that firms align their strategies with the characteristics of knowledge.
o Bohn (1994) spectrum from pure expertise to pure procedure. o Singh and Zollo (1998) argue that firms should align knowledge strategies
along with task characteristics.
Knowledge Management Maturity Model
Such models represent an attempt to assist managers interpret their current position, and the significance of that position for the organization and to fully understand those factors that influence the knowledge strategy.
Here the summaries of the some famous knowledge management maturity models are represented below (Table3) as the table show, utilizing CMM for KM maturity model is not novel, also the focus area in these models are more rely on enablers and somehow on KM processes in the organization, but the KM strategic alignment was not get attention precisely.
Table: 3. Summaries of the some famous knowledge management maturity model
Individuals, change management, integration internally and externally
Initiation, Propagation, Integration, Networking
Lee and Kim , 2001
Proposing a new model
In the previous sections, the 3 categories of key factors of KM are introduced, regarding to absence of strategic view (Choi and Lee, 2002, pp: 173) to help managers realizing the position of their KM practices, and deploy it effectively with respect to systematic point of view, considering relationship between KM enablers, KM processes, KM strategy and business strategy in evaluating KM practices, is seemed to be useful. The components of the proposed model are KM enablers, KM process, and KM strategic alignment.
KM enablers KM enablers or influencing factors are organizational mechanism for fostering knowledge consistently. They can stimulate knowledge creation, protect knowledge and facilitate the sharing of knowledge in an organization. regarding to European researches (e.g. SENEKA and CMMI5) we can use HOT triangle, include Human, Organization and Technology, table 4 shows the proposed components of KM enablers (however all of them except commitment and business processes is articulated by Lee and Choi, 2003, pp: 188) Table4 : proposed KM enablers
Management research report, http//:www.kpmg.co.uk )
5 Weerdmeester, et, al 2003, and CMMI. product Team(2002),capability maturity modelintegration(CMMI),http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports/02tr011.html
11
Capability Such as T-Shaped skills: Ndlela. and Toit ,2001 Culture Chase, R.1997
Structure Hedlund, 1994. Nonaka, and Takeuchi, 1995
Organizational aspects:
Process In e-readiness issues, we see the importance of BPR and regarding to the importance of deploying IT in KM in today’s environment we can assume that BPR can help to better IT deployment, however after BPR project, some traditional knowledge can be missed (Probst, et. al 2001, pp: 217), so it seems that BPR relates to knowledge retention (Preserving) and codification strategy
Technological aspects:
IT Support Chase, 1997, Davenport, et. Al, 1998 Demarest.1997, Gold, et.al.2001, Hedlund, 1994.Nonaka.I, and Takeuchi, 1995
So, regarding to BPR issues, the following hypothesis can be proposed: H1: There is a positive relationship between the presences of reengineered process and codification strategy And about the commitment variable, regarding to difficulty of measuring the human aspects and possibility confusing with culture variables, its evaluation is complex.
KM processes As Sarvary, 1999 argued, knowledge processes represent the basic operation of knowledge and enablers provide the infrastructure necessary for organization to increase the efficiency of knowledge process ( Lee and Choi, 2003, pp: 189), there is many process classification, but most of them are similar two the fallowing items:
KM Processes include activities such as Creation, Storage/Retrieval, Transfer, Application (Alavi and Leidner, 2001, pp:115-125 )
Knowledge acquisition activity which comprises sub-activities such as identification, collection and organization activities; knowledge application activity which comprises sub-activities such as distribution, absorption, share and conversion activities; knowledge creation activity which comprises sub-activities such as sprout, incubation and projection activities. (Jinxi and Jisheng, 2001, pp: 171)
But for simplification some researchers utilized the Spiral model of organizational knowledge creation developed by Nonaka, 1994.(e.g. Lee and Choi, 2003, pp: 189)
Content Also in measuring the processes, attention to Content of knowledge which is processed seems to be important and some approaches deployed it (e.g. KPMG, Knowledge Journey (KJ))
12
KM strategic alignment
Importance of alignment between KM strategies and KM enablers. Knowledge
management strategies are necessary for facilitating the enablers; they determine how to utilize knowledge resources and capabilities, as Beckman, 1999; Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999; Zack, 1999 discussed.(Choi and Lee, 2002, pp: 173)
Importance of alignment between KM strategies and KM Processes; The fit between knowledge management processes and knowledge management strategies is a lynchpin in improving corporate performance. It is essential to identify which knowledge processes represent unique and valuable capabilities for effective knowledge management. However, implementing knowledge processes within a firm can be very costly and fragile Therefore, knowledge processes should be guided by appropriate knowledge strategies. Knowledge management strategies that firms take have a significant influence on knowledge management processes.(adopted from Choi and Lee, 2002, pp: 173)
Importance of alignment between KM strategies and Business strategies; each successful knowledge management project Links to economic performance or industry value(Davenport et. al, 1998, pp:50) and Linking the business Strategy, Recognition of company values & vision is a critical success factor (Ndledla and Toit, 2001, pp : 164)
H2: There is a relationship between KM strategies and Business Strategies in successful organization.
For example the research can show if any relation exist between codification strategy and cost leadership strategy or any four strategies of Balanced Scorecard?
In summary, the following figure shows the major aspects of knowledge management
Figure1.The major aspects of KM
Process Content
Organization
Human Technology
KM Strategic Alignment
13
Strategic Knowledge Management Maturity Model The importance of KM enabler, KM processes and alignment between KM strategy with KM enablers, KM processes and business strategy lead us to incorporate them into KM maturity evaluation framework. It means that for measuring the maturity of KM, the focus area of this model is based on KM Enablers, KM Processes and KM strategic alignment, regarding to CMM (Paulk, et al, 1993, pp: 10-18), the following stages is proposing, include: Initial: In this level, the organization working without paying any specific attention to KM, there is no awareness and so no plan for deploying KM. Some few practices were initiated informally and unsystematically. There are some enablers, and processes however the organization does not identify them properly so there isn’t any alignment between them. Some characteristics, of practices due to CMM in this level include:
Not stable environments Process is ad-hoc Lack of sound management Ineffective planning Reaction – Driven commitment system Performance depends on the capabilities of individual and varies with their innate
skills, knowledge and motivation Unpredictable capabilities
Repeatable: Some few practices were initiated separately; to prepare organizational readiness to deploying KM successfully in the future the development of several successful knowledge-enabling practices and pilots can be the catalyst to draw positive senior management attention. In this level, organization gains enough experience to determine some key factors which help organization to repeat the successive projects. So enablers, such as human capabilities an commitment will grow up and also there is more attempt in KM processes (knowledge Identifying, developing, sharing, using, etc.) but the alignment is not appropriate ,because not all the enabler were identified , nor all the processes practices completely and also ,there is no master KM strategic plan to alignment with business strategies . Some characteristics, of practices due to CMM in this level include
Pilot projects Single activities labeled as KM Planning and controlling based on previous experiences Establishing policies for project management and procedure to implement those
policies Defined: This level starts with understanding the enablers entirely and establishing some policies and procedures for deploying the KM processes in all the business processes (all the organization). The key here is to begin to ensure that direct business value is perceived by the
14
organization as a result of the knowledge-enabling projects. It is important to establish a mechanism to capture the hard and soft lessons learned in the knowledge management pilots, as these will be the building blocks for the later KM stages. In this level, the strategic plan were developed, and organizations have some information to model the alignment between KM strategies with business strategies KM processes and KM enablers; but the model is not validated yet. Some characteristics, of practices due to CMM in this level include
Standard process for developing and initiating is documented, in both engineering and management process
Preparing organization and fostering the enablers such as training programs are implemented
The standard process are used (and changed as appropriate) to help managers and staff perform more effectively
There is a group that is responsible for KM activities The artifact of this level can be characterized as including, readiness (enablers) criteria
standard and procedure for performing the work, verification mechanisms and meeting human commitment.
Managed: When an organization reaches Stage 4, KM has proved valuable enough to be officially expanded to become part of the organization’s funded activities. Demand for KM support by other parts of the organization tends to be high, providing additional evidence of its value. The enablers are identified and developed and the processes also work efficiently, and at the end of the level, the alignment model is realized, and well-defined in details. And also quantitative measurement and analyses focuses on identifying special causes of variation. Some characteristics, of practices due to CMM in this level include
Organization sets quantitative quality goals Processes are integrated (and measured) Meaningful variations in process performance can be distinguished from random
variation (noise) Allowing to predict trend s in process The artifact are detailed measures which lead to productivity and quality activities
Optimized: Now, KM is embedded in the business model, the organization design must be realigned, and KM can no longer be called an initiative or project at this stage, the business relies on it.
In this level, enablers and their relationship with organizational performance are identified precisely, and also the KM process work efficiently and effectively and evaluate systematically, but continuous changes in environment force continuous modification and even innovation in the model, also understanding the cause and effect relationship can prevent defect from recurring. Some characteristics, of practices due to CMM in this level include
The entire organization is focused on continuous improvement Ability to identify weaknesses and strengthen the process proactively Preventing the occurrence of defects Improvement occurs both by incremental advancements in the existing process and by
innovations using technologies and methods
15
Data on the effectiveness of the KM practices, is used to perform cost benefit analyses of new technologies and proposed changes to the organization
The staff analyzes defects to determine their causes. In summary the KM readiness, processes are defined, planned, realized and the working models are improved systematically.
Conclusion
In this paper, the literature of critical success factor, KM framework and KM maturity model are reviewed briefly and these artifacts can be concluded by content analysis, include:
Introducing the major aspects of KM as; KM enablers, KM processes, KM strategic alignment, of course this model in its details, is not universal and the value of the key factors depend on the context of each organization.
Proposing some variables in KM enablers and KM strategic alignment such as BPR effects and the relationship between business strategies (e.g. cost leadership) and KM strategies (e.g. codification)
Proposing new maturity model based in 3 major aspects of KM, as the sample shows in table 5. The model can help managers to understand the position of KM with respect to cause and affect relationships. To deploy KM projects effectively in each business process or services, the model can point at the most important factors and support the strategic decision of managers.
Of course the real world is too more complex, this model tries to simplify it as much as possible; however for deploying this model completely, organizations need to a decision support technology for example a data warehouse to realize the great amount of computation, and mining historical data.
In future research, this model can be customized in a special context and utilized as a benchmarking tools
Table56: the proposed model for evaluating the KM Maturity
KM-CMM Proposed Detail Initial Repeatable Defined Managed Optimized
Goals Organizational readiness to change and deploying KM
Experienced in KM initiation
Develop a model to align the activities
Realized the plan and model
Improved the KM systems continuously
Human Organization
KM Enablers
Technology
Poor-Middel Middel Middel-Good
Good-Excellent
Excellent
Acquisition
Application
KM Processes
And Content Creation
Poor Poor-Middel Middel-Good
Good-Excellent
Excellent
Business Strategy KM Enablers
KM Strategic Alignment
KM Processes
Poor Poor-Middel Middel-Good
Good Excellent
6 The table is shown as a sample and the value of cells refers to a four-level scale, from poor to excellent
16
References
Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E. (2001) Review Knowledge management and knowledge
management system: Conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly, 25, 1, 2001, 107-136
Bixler, Charles H. (2002), Applying the four pillars of knowledge management, D.Sc. of The George Washington University, KMWorld, January 2002 Volume 11, Issue
Boudreau, J.W. Strategic Knowledge Measurement and Management, In S. Jackson, M. Hitt & A. DeNisi (Eds.), Managing Knowledge for Sustained Competitive Advantage: Designing Strategies for Effective Human Resource Management, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,Publishers.http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs/PDFs/SpecialTopics/Boudreau%20Knowle ge%20Measurement%20Frontiers%20Chapter%2006-01-02%20for%20distribution.PDF
Choi, Byounggu and Lee, Heeseok (2002), Expert Systems with Applications 23, 173–187
Davenport, Thomas H, De Long, David W, Beers, Michael C, (1998), Successful knowledge management projects, Sloan Management Review, winter 1998, pp:43-57
Earl M.(2001), Knowledge Management Strategies: Towards a Taxonomy, Journal of Management Information Systems, Summer, (18:1), 2001, pp. 215-233
El Sawy, Omar (2002), Redesigning Enterprise process for e-business, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Singapore
Galliers, SC: B. (1999), Towards the integration of e-business, knowledge management and policy considerations within an information systems strategy framework / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8 (1999) 229–234
Hasanali, Farida, (2002), Critical Success Factors of Knowledge Management, KM Consultant, APQC, http://old.apqc.org/free/articles/dispArticle.cfm?ProductID=1536
Heather A. Smith, Dr. James D. McKeen (2003)Valuing The Knowledge Management Function, May, 2003, School of Business, Queen’s University, Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario, Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises, http://www. business.queensu.ca/kbe/docs/Smith-McKeen%2003-10.pdf
Henning Gebert, Malte Geib, Lutz Kolbe, Gerold Riempp (2002), The Second International Conference on Electronic Business Taipei, Taiwan, December 10-13, 2002
Holsapple, C.W and Singh, M, (2001), The Knowledge Chain Model: activities for competitiveness, Expert System with Applications, 20, pp: 77-98
Jinxi,Wu and Jisheng, Liu, (2001), Knowledge Chain Management: Emerging Models and Practices from the Field, The 6th International Symposium on International Manufacturing,9th - 11th September 2001 , pp: 167-176
Kakabadse, Nada K, Kakabadse, Andrew and Kouzmin, Alexander, (2003) Reviewing the knowledge management literature: towards taxonomy, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7 NO, 4 2003, pp. 75-91,
Lee, Heeseok and Choi, Byounggu (2003), Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, an Integrative View and Empirical Examination, Journal of management information systems, vol 20, no, 1, pp: 179-228
Lee, Jang-Hwan, and Kim, Young-Gul, (2001), A Stage Model of Organizational Knowledge Management: a latent content analysis, Expert system and applications, 20, pp: 299-311
17
M’Rad, Taha Ben, (2000) Knowledge Management Framework For a Software Development Department within a Mobile Telco Organization, MS Thesis http://inforge.unil.ch/francais/enseignement/dpiomemoires20012002/benmrad.pdf.pdf
Malhotra, Yogesh, (2000), Knowledge Management for [E-] Business Performance. Information Strategy: The Executives Journal, v. 16(4), summer 2000, pp. 5-16
Moffett, Sandra, Rodney McAdam, and Stephen Pakinson (2003), Technology and people factors in Knowledge management: an empirical analysis, Total quality Management, Vol, 14, No.2, pp: 215,224
Ndledla, L. T and Toit, A. S. A. du. (2001), establishing knowledge management programme for competitive advantage in an enterprise, International Journal of Information Management, 21, pp: 151-165
Okunoye, Adekunle,(2003) Applicability of Context-Aware Framework of Knowledge Management in sub Saharan Africa - A Research Proposal, Williams College of Business, Xavier University , Cincinnati, Ohio, proceedings/amcis/2003 http://aisel.isworld.org/proceedings/amcis/2003
Paulk, Mark C, Curtis, Bill, Chrissis, Mary Beth, and Weber, Charles V.(1993), Capability Maturity ModelSM for Software, Version 1.1, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
Probst, Gilbert, Steffen Raub & Kai Romhardt (2001), Managing Knowledge Building Blocks for success, John wily and Sons, LTD, Chichester, New York
Skyrme David J (2000) Developing a Knowledge Strategy: From Management to Leadership Knowledge, Chapter 3 in Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works, ed. Daryl Morey, Mark Maybury and Bhavani Thuraisingham, MIT Press (2000)
Storey, John and Barnett, Elizabeth, (2000), Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 4. Number 2.pp: 145-156
Tierney,T,(1999), What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge? Harvard Business Review, March/April, (106)
Turban, Efraim, Ephraim McLean, James Wetherbe, (2002a), IT for Management, John wily and Sons, United State of America
Turban, Efraim, Gay, Aronson, and Narasimha, Bolloju, (2002b) Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Printed in the United State of America
Weerdmeester, Pocaterra , Hefke, 2003,Next generation of KM, Information Societies Technology(IST),www.kmadvantage.com/docs/km_articles/KM_Maturity_Model_of_VISION_Project.pdf
