The seventh objective of the study was to identify measures of knowledge management enablers in administration at UNZA. This was done in answering the question whether the knowledge management environment was monitored and evaluated in administration at UNZA. The literate review in Chapter Two identified measurement as an important success factor for knowledge management implementation (Elliot & O’Dell 1999; Botha & Fouché 2002, Hasanalli 2003; Mathi 2004; Suresh 2012). It is thus important for organizations to measure their knowledge environments if knowledge management strategies are to work effectively. Evaluation of knowledge management environment helps organizations to track the progress of knowledge management implementation, as well as to determine its effectiveness and benefits. This is more reason Botha & Fouché (2002) advance that
130
organizations should evaluate and assess the relationship among culture, structure, processes, technology and leadership in knowledge management.
Measurement of knowledge environment requires different strategies, just as Roth & Lee (2009) argued that such strategies may including assessing organizational performance, effective use of knowledge management tools, evidence based decision making through use of knowledge management application reports and alignment of knowledge management practices with organization objectives, vision and strategy. The study used Roth & Lee (2009) strategies in assessing measurement of knowledge management environment in administration at UNZA. The study established that measurement in terms of performance indicators was not being done. The survey showed that a cumulative percentage of 62.7% of respondents indicated lower scores of not taking place at all, aware of this practice and considering implementation, on a statement if a formal system to measure and manage administrative intellectual capital was maintained and if such measures were used to assess the contribution that administrative and management staff made towards university performance. The interviews corroborate these survey findings, when the majority of interviewees explained that there was lack of performance measures for administrative staff and therefore their contribution towards university performance was not determined. Lack of performance appraisal systems was identified as a weakness in measuring employee performance and contribution to organizational performance.
The study further established that usage of knowledge management tools was not being monitored and assessed. The survey revealed that a cumulative percentage of 76% of respondents indicated lower scores of not taking place at all, aware of this practice and considering implementation, on the statement if usage of knowledge management applications and tools by administrative and management staff was regularly monitored and assessed. The response, not taking place at all was dominant with 32% of respondents indicating it. The survey results also corroborate with the interviews where the interviewees mentioned that they were not aware if monitoring and assessment was done. The response provided by two interviewees where systems were used, that the monitoring and assessment was done based on restrictive system privileges and by system administrators, was an explanation of physical use of the systems and not for assessment for knowledge management practices. This is also true to the response by one respondent who worked in CICT that usage of systems were monitored by using the Multi-Router Traffic Grapher (MTRG). For the MTRG only assed the number of hits per minute on the system and not
131
necessarily how the tools were used for knowledge management purposes. Therefore, usage of knowledge management tools was not monitored nor assessed.
Assessment of the knowledge management environment through knowledge management progress reports was also not done. The survey established that there was lack of a system of monitoring, reporting and continual assessment of knowledge management programmes and practices. This is evidenced in the findings that a cumulative percentage of 68% of respondents indicated lower scores of not taking place at all, aware of this practice and considering implementation, on such a monitoring, reporting and assessment system. With the response not taking place at all being dominant with 38.7% of respondents. The interviews established that there was no assessment of knowledge programmes and practices because there were no such formal knowledge programmes and practices in the first place. Interviewees indicated that knowledge management programmes were not even known by management because the university did not have a knowledge management policy. Majority of interviewees explained that most of the knowledge management practices that were happening in the university were not formally known, but coincidental or accidental and the practices done by employees were not thought as knowledge management programmes.
Further, the survey revealed that alignment of knowledge management practices with university’s vision, strategy and objectives as well as culture, structure, processes and technology was fully understood by top management. However, the interviews established that even though top management understood alignment of knowledge practices, the alignment was not being done because there was lack of formalised knowledge management programmes to align with university’ vision, strategy and objectives.
In view of the above interpretation and discussion on measurements, the survey established that the knowledge management environment was not monitored and evaluated at UNZA. This is so because the university has not institutionalised formal knowledge management programs and strategies that can be measured. This discovery at UNZA illuminates several problems of why knowledge management cannot be appreciated in university administration. Some knowledge practices are being done, but not known as knowledge practices, rather as employee’s routine work processes. The implications are that university performance cannot improve because the university has not yet realised its competitive advantage, through knowledge management. As Grossman (2006) advanced that
132
knowledge management measurement programmes could improve identification, mapping, monitoring and diffusion of intangible assets, knowledge flow patterns, social networks, critical knowledge issues and best practices in an organization, UNZA is on the losing end because of lack of formal knowledge management programs to measure.
The profile of the university on this section of measurements can therefore be ranked as not
taking place at all. The findings at UNZA are supported by similar findings in South African
business sector where Botha & Fouché (2002) established that very low scores on measurements were recorded because most companies did not have an evaluation plan of their knowledge management programmes. The university needs to develop and implement knowledge management policy and programs that can increase its competitive advantage. Further, measurements of the formally implemented knowledge management programs can make UNZA realise the potential it has to enhance its operations and improve organizational performance to compete favourably in the knowledge economy.