Using Interpretive Structural Modeling to Determine the Relationships among Knowledge Management Criteria inside Malaysian Organizations

This paper is concerned with the establishment of relationships among knowledge management (KM) criteria that will ensure an essential foundation to evaluate KM outcomes. The major issue under investigation is to assess the popularity of criteria within organizations and to establish a structure of criteria for measuring KM results. An empirical survey was conducted among Malaysian organizations to investigate KM criteria for measuring success of KM initiatives. Therefore, knowledge workers as the respondents were targeted to establish a structure of criteria for evaluating KM outcomes. An established structure of criteria based on the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is used to map criteria relationships inside organizations. This structure is portrayed to identify that how these set of criteria are related. This network schema should be investigated and implemented to promote innovation and improve enterprise performance. To the researchers, this survey has significant insights into relationship between KM programs and business success.

• Reza Sigari Tabrizi
• Yeap Peik Foong
• Nazli Ebrahimi

• Knowledge Management
• Knowledge ManagementOutcomes
• KM Criteria
• Innovation
• Interpretive Structural Modeling

[1] Vittal S. Anantatmula,Outcomes of Knowledge Management Initiatives.
2005, International Journal of Knowledge Management, pp. 50-67.
[2] 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.
[3] Mark E. Van Buren, A Yardstick for Knowledge Management. 1999,
Training & Development, pp. 71-78.
[4] E. Turban and J.E. Aronson, Decision support systems and intelligent
systems. 6th edition. s.l. : Prentice Hall, 2001.
[5] 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.
[6] J. Ahn and S. Chang, Valuation of knowledge: A business performanceoriented
methodology. . Hawaii : HICSS35, IEEE Computer Society. ,
2002. The 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, .
[7] A. Fairchild, Knowledge manage metrics via a balanced scorecard
methodology. Hawaii : s.n., 2002. 35th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences.
[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] Jr. Ronald D. Fricker, Sampling Methods for Web and E-mail Surveys.
Naval Postgraduate School. [Online] October 9, 2006. [Cited: May 5,
2010.]
http://www.nps.navy.mil/orfacpag/resumePages/papers/frickerpa/Draft%
20Internet%20Survey%20Sampling%20Chapter.pdf.
[10] Chong Siong. Choy, Kuan Yew. Wong, and Binshan. Lin, Criteria for
measuring KM performance outcomes in organisations. 7, 2006,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106, pp. 917-936.
[11] Rick Gorvett and Ningwei. Liu, Using Interpretive Structural Modeling
to Identify and Quantify Interactive Risks. (Online) 2007. (Cited: May 1,
2010.)
http://www.actuaries.org/ASTIN/Colloquia/Orlando/Papers/Gorvett.pdf.
[12] AP. Sage, Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Largescale
Systems. New York, NY : McGraw Hill, 1977. pp. 91-164.
[13] M. D. Singh and R. Kant, Knowledge management barriers: An
interpretive structural modeling approach. 2, 2008, International Journal
of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 3, pp. 141-
150.