From the organisational perspective, twelve enablers influencing the success of the KM process were identified and partitioned into themes representing four dimensions: (i)
managerial influence, (ii) corporate environment influence, (in) process influence and (iv) resource influence.
(i) Managerial influence
Managerial influence refers to a set of enablers relating to the function or activity of management. The managerial influence affects knowledge practices of a company or an individual through organisational procedures from the top down. Four enablers were included in managerial influence: managerial support, strategic alignment, benchmarking and reward system.
Managerial support: support from top-level management has been widely recognised by
many scholars as essential for successful KM (Davenport et a l, 1998; Alazmi and Zairi, 2003; Wong and Aspinwall, 2005). Commitment and determination in adoption of KM should be clearly expressed at all levels as this can enable changes in an organisation which underpin success of other success factors (Chong, 2006). Additionally, characteristics of leadership, such as management style, competence and perception, contribute directly to KM success. For example, an empirical study by Forcadell and Guadamillas (2002) highlights that participative leaderships are more likely to get involved which leads to advancement and success of KM initiatives.
Strategic alignment: business strategy and organisational core competencies should be
defined clearly, and KM strategy has to be aligned and tied to these for ensuring that KM initiatives can be fit with the specific needs of the business (Egbu, 2004; Haider, 2009; Rehman et a l, 2010). As the benefits of KM are likely to be intangible and hard to measure, the strategy and purpose of KM should be clearly defined and identification of the benefits of KM efforts should be examined (Soliman and Spooner, 2000). Du Plessis (2007) suggested that KM strategy should be co-created by a team of specialists from various departments, such as IT and human resources, working alongside each other to guarantee buy-in from all the key role parties.
Chapter 3 - O rsanisational an d technological support
Benchmarking: it is inevitable that a KM initiative, as an expensive investment, has to be
somebody linked to impressive benefits, either tangible or intangible (Davenport et a l, 1999). Benefits could be directly measured, such as revenue earning or time saving, or indirectly calculated, such as process improvements or customer satisfaction. Chong (2006) suggested that a management tool like benchmarking can play a crucial role in KM implementation as it provides a systematic technique for measuring a company’s performance against strategic goals.
Reward system: in order to motivate employees to participate in knowledge sharing and
support knowledge culture, recognition of knowledge ownership should be emphasised (du Plessis, 2007). Bishop et a l (2008) suggested that individuals or even teams would like to see their knowledge contributions being acknowledged and rewarded. Hence reward systems are used for gaining employees’ enthusiasm for knowledge participation. There is debate about whether short-term or long-term, direct or indirect, or financial or non- financial rewards are the more suitable. However, long-term incentives have been advised as an effective means for promoting knowledge culture (Oliver and Kandadi, 2006; Bishop
et a l, 2008). Additionally, an effective use of performance measurement has also been
stressed for appraising actual performance and supporting fairness of assessment of individual or team-based performance (Hung et a l, 2005; Chong, 2006).
(ii) Corporate environment influence
Corporate environment influence refers to a set of enablers relating to the corporate environment in which the KM process operates. As knowledge practices are affected by complex social relationships within a company, the corporate environment is powerful in determining the success of KM initiatives. The context, in which the KM process is embedded, engenders the degree to which staff can participate. Three enablers were included in corporate environment influence: supportive culture, supportive activities and
supporting team.
Supportive culture: changes in corporate mindset may be required as it has a powerful
influence over employees’ behaviours and the adoption of new choices and tools. Open discussion and communication are a vital means to deliver vision, strategy and policy, or
Chapter 3 - Organisational an d technological support
Employee empowerment and involvement are at the heart of success in knowledge sharing (Chong, 2006). Moreover, a supportive culture needs to be introduced and supported at all levels of an organisation; this might be different from company to company. Many researchers agree with the importance of open culture as a catalyst to induce cooperation and a spirit of teamwork. Other supportive cultures, such as a knowledge-friendly culture, transparency and trust, are worthy of attention (Akhavan et a l, 2006; Hung et a l, 2005). Social relationships and interaction should be promoted and organisational constraints should be eliminated to build up a supportive environment for a knowledge sharing culture (Egbu, 2004).
Supportive activities: communication, collaboration, cooperation and opportunities for
networking need to be implemented organisation-wide (Soliman and Spooner, 2000; Hung
et a l, 2005; Bishop et a l, 2008). Provision of a physical environment for idea/knowledge
creation is mentioned by many scholars (Bechina and Ndlela, 2009). Various supportive activities are suggested, especially to support cross-functional and cross-departmental synergy.
Supporting team: authorities and delegated staff should be overtly appointed and open
cross-functional teams should be established (Liebowitz, 1999; Armbrecht et a l, 2001). An authorised person who has a responsibility for giving direction and support, making decisions or following progress in KM projects, such as a chief knowledge officer (CKO) or equivalent, should be officially appointed (Liebowitz, 1999). KM leadership at middle- level management and KM stewardship have to be clearly assigned as well, due to the fact that they work closely with all levels of employees (Armbrecht et a l, 2001). Specialist or supporting teams, with the participation of staff from across functions, can enhance an organisational ability to solve problems which leads to the creation of new knowledge.
(in) Process influence
Process influence refers to a set of enablers in respect of practical techniques used to support the KM process. Various techniques and strategies are implemented to amplify the know-how experience and expertise of employees. In practical terms, companies are looking for better ways to manage their knowledge, hence a wide range of knowledge practices are employed and various knowledge chaimels are used in companies. Two
Chapter 3 - Organisational a n d technological support
dimensions were included in process influence: knowledge practices and knowledge
channels.
Knowledge practices: the adoption of appropriate knowledge practices allows best
practices of individuals or groups of staff to be transferred, which then increases the overall performance of companies (Skyrme and Amidon, 1997). Knowledge practices, including brainstorming, mentoring, job rotation, communities of practice (CoP) and quality circles, are referred to as a facilitating element to promote knowledge sharing (Egbu, 2004). In addition, they should be integrated into organisational processes and -Staffs daily processes to avoid distraction from their actual jobs and increase their
willingness to cooperate (Bishop et a l, 2008).
Knowledge channels: the use of multiple channels of knowledge, such as functional
departments, suppliers and customers, is imperative for an organisation’s knowledge to flourish (Davenport et a l, 1998; Soliman and Spooner, 2000; Armbrecht et a l, 2001). Egbu (2004) emphasised that dialogue with functional departments and interaction with clients/customers and suppliers are essential to promote knowledge sharing in companies.
(iv) Resource influence
Resource influence refers to a set of enablers in respect of an organisation’s resources. Availability of resources is an important issue as their sufficient provision can regulate knowledge activities, both qualitatively and quantitatively (Holsapple and Joshi, 2000; Wong and Aspinwall, 2005). Three types of organisational resources were included in the resource influence: technological resources, human resources and financial resources.
Technological resources: information technology has been recognised as a key supportive
tool for managing knowledge. The use of information technologies can enhance the flow of knowledge across the company. Availability of and accessibility to them is recognised as an enabler for effective knowledge management (Davenport et a l, 1998; Armbrecht et a l 2001; Wong and Aspinwall, 2005). Bechina and Ndlela (2009) suggested that the issues of system usability, such as usefulness, user-friendliness and enjoyment, should be taken into account when deploying KM systems as it directly affects the technology adoption of
Chapter 3 - Or^anisational an d technological support
business goals and knowledge strategy should be aligned with information technology; hence KM teams and IT departments have to work side by side to achieve that goal (du Plessis, 2007).
Human resources: effective deployment of employee development and recruitment
programmes greatly contributes to the growth and direction of knowledge communities. Providing employees with training and learning opportunities and encouraging them to participate can help to advance and replenish organisational knowledge (Skyrme and Amidon, 1997; Hung et a l, 2005; Lehner and Haas et a l, 2008). Retaining knowledgeable staff and seeking new talent are critical responsibilities of human resource (HR) departments for managing personnel who possesses invaluable knowledge of organisations (Rehman et a l, 2010).
Financial resources: sufficient budget and financial support should be allocated and
committed to relevant functions, such as knowledge acquisition, research and development, and employee development programmes (Holsapple and Joshi, 2000). As the impact of any KM initiative is difficult to trace or measure, executives are not always willing to allocate a budget to or investment in such a project. A lack of commitment in budgeting and funding would be a major problem and barrier for effective KM implementation (Chong, 2006).