Knowledge Management Criteria among Malaysian Organizations: An ANOVA Approach

The Knowledge Management (KM) Criteria is an essential foundation to evaluate KM outcomes. Different sets of criteria were developed and tailored by many researchers to determine the results of KM initiatives. However, literature review has emphasized on incomplete set of criteria for evaluating KM outcomes. Hence, this paper tried to address the problem of determining the criteria for measuring knowledge management outcomes among different types of Malaysian organizations. Successively, this paper was assumed to develop widely accepted criteria to measure success of knowledge management efforts for Malaysian organizations. Our analysis approach was based on the ANOVA procedure to compare a set of criteria among different types of organizations. This set of criteria was exploited from literature review. It is hoped that this study provides a better picture for different types of Malaysian organizations to establish a comprehensive set of criteria due to measure results of KM programs.

Authors:

• Reza Sigari Tabrizi
• Yeap Peik Foong
• Nazli Ebrahimi

Keywords:

• KM Criteria
• Knowledge Management
• KMOutcomes
• ANOVA

References:

[1] T. Davenport and L. Prusak, Working Knowledge: How Organisations
Manage What They Know. Boston, Massachusetts : Harvard Business
School Press., 1998.
[2] Mark E. Van Buren, "A Yardstick for Knowledge Management". 1999,
Training & Development, pp. 71-78.
[3] R. LUBIT, "Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Management: The Keys
to Sustainable Competitive Advantage". , 2001, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 29, pp. 164-178.
[4] A. Macintosh, "Position paper on knowledge asset management".
Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute. [Online] 1998. WWW:
http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/nalm/kam.html..
[5] L. T. Ndlela and A. S. A du Toit, "Establishing a knowledge
management programme for competitive advantage in an enterprise".
2001, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 21, pp.
151-165.
[6] Chong Siong . Choy and Wong Kuan. Yew and Binshan Lin, "Criteria
for measuring KM performance outcomes in organisations". , 2006,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106, pp. 917-936.
[7] D. Longbottom and P. Chourides, "Knowledge management: a survey
of leading UK companies". Versailles France : s.n., 2001. Proceedings
of the Second MAAQE International Conference. pp. 113-26.
[8] Vittal. Anantatmula, and Shivraj Kanungo, "Establishing and
Structuring Criteria for Measuring Knowledge Management Efforts".
2005. 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. pp. 1-
11.
[9] Chong Siong . Choy, "Criteria for measuring KM performance outcomes
in organisations". Kuala Lumpur : s.n., 2006. Knowledge Management
Conference & Exhibition (KMICE). pp. pp. 123-131.
[10] Vittal S. Anantatmula, "Outcomes of Knowledge Management
Initiatives". 2005, International Journal of Knowledge Management, pp.
50-67.
[11] E. Turban and J.E. Aronson, "Decision support systems and intelligent
systems". 6th edition. s.l. : Prentice Hall, 2001.
[12] R. Austin and P. Larkey ,"The future of performance measurement:
Measuring knowledge work". [book auth.] In A. Neely (Ed.). Business
Performance Measurement. Theory and Practice. s.l. : Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
[13] J. Ahn, and S., Chang "Valuation of knowledge: A business
performance-oriented methodology" . Hawaii : HICSS35, IEEE
Computer Society. , 2002. The 35th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, .
[14] A. Fairchild, "Knowledge manage metrics via a balanced scorecard
methodology". Hawaii : s.n., 2002. 35th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.
[15] P. Royston, "Approximating the Shapiro-Wilk W-Test for nonnormality".
20, 1992, Statistics and Computing, pp. 11-119.