Knowledge management initiatives... - artigo - 2012

Knowledge management initiatives in theUnited Arab Emirates: a baseline study

C. Muhammad Siddique

Abstract

Purpose – The objective of this paper is to develop baseline data on knowledge management (KM)

initiatives of business organizations in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). UAE is a rapidly growing

economy in the Arabian Gulf region and it is timely to assess KM initiatives of UAE companies and the

barriers and challenges they face in KM adoption and implementation.

Design/methodology/approach – A survey research design was used to collect data on KM practices

of a sample of companies based in the emirates of Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Findings – Importance of KM practices is gradually being recognized in UAE and several organizations

have initiated a number of KM-related programs. Most KM initiatives are focused on explicit knowledge,

and companies are investing significant resources in building their ICT infrastructure. The study

documents the importance of a companywide KM strategy, top management commitment, proactive

HRM policies, and a supportive cultural environment as the critical success factors to advance KM

practice and theory in UAE.

Research limitations/implications – The study employed a non-probability sample which limits its

ability to generalize findings to the larger population of UAE business organizations.

Practical implications – The study offers much-needed baseline data on KM initiatives of UAE

companies, the benefits they associate with KM and barriers they must overcome to implement KM

practices. These baseline data are expected to encourage further research on KM in UAE and other Gulf

countries.

Originality/value – The study represents a first systematic and comprehensive attempt at reporting

baseline data on KM adoption in UAE.

Keywords Knowledge management, United Arab Emirates, Gulf region,Knowledge management initiatives, Knowledge management benefits,Barriers to knowledge management implementation, Critical success factors, Persian Gulf states

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

The past two decades have witnessed a growing interest in knowledge management (KM)

theory and practice in industrialized countries as well as in less developed countries.

Several organizations have put in place formal systems to effectively manage their existing

knowledge stocks and to create new knowledge to face emerging business challenges with

new competencies (Smith, 2001; Daft, 2010; Chawla and Joshi, 2010). KM is now

increasingly seen as a source of competitive advantage and a growing number of business

organizations are recognizing the importance of specific KM strategies and programs to

acquire, share, and leverage knowledge (Jones, 2010).

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is one of the few countries where different levels of

government have supported national programs to create greater awareness about the

strategic importance of KM and knowledge sharing in country’s social and economic

development (National Media Council, 2011). The Emirate of Dubai has been amajor force in

advancing the KM concept with several unique initiatives. One of the significant initiatives

PAGE 702 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 16 NO. 5 2012, pp. 702-723, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673271211262763

C. Muhammad Siddique is

based in the College of

Business Studies, Al

Ghurair University, Dubai,

United Arab Emirates.

Received November 2011Revised April 2012April 2012Accepted April 2012

The author would like toexpress his thanks to the ChiefEditor of JKM and twoanonymous reviewers formaking highly insightfulcomments on the paper.

was the establishment of a number of free zones (e.g. Knowledge Village, Media City, and

Internet City) to attract foreign universities and training institutes, media firms, and ICT and

software development companies to serve the growing needs of the business community.

Dubai Knowledge Village is perhaps ‘‘the world’s only free zone’’, which has brought

together a number of universities, HR companies and consulting firms ‘‘to develop the

region’s talent pool and establish the UAE as a knowledge-based economy’’ (Dubai

Knowledge Village, 2011). In 2006, the Emirate of Dubai established another important

official body, called ‘‘Knowledge and Human Development Authority’’ (KHDA), to act as a

quality assurance authority to monitor the development of education and human resource

sectors in the country.

The establishment of Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation in 2007 with a $10

billion endowment fund is perhaps one of the major government initiatives to advance KM in

the Arab region (Al Maktoum Foundation, 2007). In a detailed review of the current state of

knowledge in the region, Mohamed et al. (2008) have discussed at length the role of

Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Makhtoum Foundation and its commitment to knowledge creation

and consolidation of the existing intellectual capital. Mohamed et al. (2008) also note an

acute shortage of KM-related research both at the regional and organizational levels in the

Arab world. They call attention to intra and inter-regional KM gaps and discuss a number of

strategic options to bridge this gap. They have specifically stressed the importance of action

research in developing a better understanding of structural and cultural causes of KM gaps

and developing long-term action plans to realize the ‘‘knowledge society’’ envisioned by

most Arab countries. The present study represents an initial research effort to collect and

report preliminary data on KM initiatives of UAE organizations to assess their progress

towards KM adoption.

As indicated previously, the government initiatives are intended to encourage and

motivate both public and private organizations to pursue KM theory and practice in order

to strengthen their competitive position with innovative products and services in UAE’s

business environment which is becoming increasingly globalized. Considering the

country’s explicit interest in building intellectual and human capital, one would expect

UAE organizations to be actively involved in KM practices to acquire, develop, and share

knowledge to build and refine their knowledge resources and competencies. However, at

present systematic data are lacking to assess if this is indeed true. The present study

was undertaken to collect baseline data on UAE organizations’ KM infrastructure, KM

initiatives, perceived benefits of KM, and challenges and difficulties they encountered in

this endeavor. It is timely to carefully gauge the current state of KM theory and practice in

UAE in order to chart a future course of action to advance the KM philosophy in the

country.

The question as to whether KM initiatives facilitate transition to a knowledge-based economy

is a complex one and deserves systematic analysis in its own right. It is, however, widely

believed that KM is one of the key drivers of a knowledge-based economy along with several

other potent forces such as technology and globalization (Houghton and Sheehan, 2000;

Brinkley, 2006; Saisana and Munda, 2008). This view is widely shared by UAE and both

federal and state governments continue to encourage the business community to invest in

developing proper KM infrastructure and resources.

While the potential contribution of KM to a knowledge economy must be precisely assessed

by further research, some recent studies linking KM practices to innovation cast some initial

light on the process by which KM can act as a catalyst to facilitate transition to a

knowledge-based economy (Castro et al., 2011; Tseng et al., 2011). Companies with

sophisticated KM systems and effective knowledge networks are in a stronger position to

capture, disseminate and leverage knowledge to strengthen their R&D resources and

capabilities to develop new and innovative products and services. Such companies are also

shown to have a better learning and adaptive capacity, which in turn, enables them to

respond to changing business and social environments in a proactive manner (Brinkley,

2006).

VOL. 16 NO. 5 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 703

It is therefore important to assess KM resources and practices in order to address more

complex issues pertaining to the possible role of KM in facilitating innovation and change to

a new economic system where intangible assets will carry more weight than the traditional

inputs. The present study intends to generate initial data on KM practices and initiatives in

UAE to provide a forum for discussion and encourage further comparative research in the

Gulf region on the possible contribution of KM initiatives to a knowledge-based economy.

Review of KM literature

A large body of research on KM has appeared over the past two decades (KPMG, 1998;

Martensson, 2000; Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Chauvel and Despres, 2002; Kakabadse et al.,

2003; Ma and Yu, 2010). In recent years, a growing number of scholars from Asian countries

have shown special interest in the KM field and have looked at different aspects of KM

including in particular level of KM adoption, performance outcomes of KM, barriers to KM

implementation, and key success factors in KM adoption (Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004;

Singh et al., 2006; Chong et al., 2007; Chawla and Joshi, 2010; Mishra and Bhaskar, 2011).

While research on KM in the Middle East is still quite limited, some studies have appeared in

recent years. Most of these studies have been explicitly designed to examine the

relationship between different aspects of KM practice and measures of organizational

performance. Consequently, much of the current KM literature in the GCC or Middle East

provides only limited information on the extent of KM adoption.

Al-Athari and Zairi’s (2001) study based in Kuwait represents an earlier effort to look at the

impact of KM on performance outcomes. They found a positive association between KM and

different measures of organization performance such as customer satisfaction and better

profit margin. Al-Busaidi and Olfman (2005) in their Oman-based study examined in greater

detail the effects of different KM dimensions, including in particular, knowledge culture,

organizational and technical infrastructure, management support, vision clarity and reward

policy on performance measures such as customer satisfaction, quality improvement,

decision making, and financial benefits. They reported a positive correlation between

successful implementation of KM systems and all these outcome measures (i.e. customer

satisfaction, quality improvement, and financial performance).

Al-Alawi and Al-Marzooqi (2007) looked at the impact of organizational culture on knowledge

sharing in a survey of public and private companies in Bahrain. Their data showed a positive

association between knowledge sharing and trust, communication, information systems,

and rewards. In a study based in Kuwait, Marouf (2007) examined the impact of business

and social ties on knowledge sharing in an international corporation. The findings indicated

a strong relationship between the strength of business ties and sharing of both public and

private knowledge.

Perhaps the first UAE-based KM study was that of Boumarafi and Jabnoun (2008). Using

Al-Busaidi and Olfman’s (2005) survey instrument, the authors found a positive association

between measures of performance improvement and several KM dimensions considered in

the study (i.e. organizational culture, infrastructure, management support) except for reward

and vision clarity.

A recent study has investigated the impact of national culture on knowledge exchange in

Saudi Arabia. Using data from Saudi Telecom Company (STC), Al-Adaileh and Al-Atawi

(2011), examined the possible role of cultural attributes on knowledge exchange processes

within the STC. The authors found that cultural attributes of trust, innovation flow, supervision,

and reward have a strong positive relationship with knowledge exchange within the context

of the STC.

Present study

The present study was designed to explore the nature and level of KM adoption in UAE. Its

primary objective was to report preliminary data assessing the progress of UAE-based

public and private companies with respect to adoption of KM practices. The study looks at

PAGE 704 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 5 2012

the KM infrastructure of UAE companies, benefits they associate with KM and the problems

they might have encountered in the process of KM implementation. The study also identifies

critical success factors in KM adoption that may guide companies interested in

experimenting with KM theory and practice in UAE and other GCC countries.

Methodology

Study sample

Given the exploratory nature of the study, a non-probability sample was considered as an

efficient method to collect baseline data on KM initiatives of UAE companies (Hair et al.,

2009). An initial sample of 290 public and private companies was developed from the

emirates of Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Information about companies was obtained from

commercial directories developed by departments of Chamber of Commerce and Industry

and several private sources. The companies were identified for the survey using a

combination of characteristics such as company ownership, size, and nature of business

activity.

The study intended to obtain data from 500-600 respondents representing different strategic

business units (SBUs) of the 290 companies included in the initial sample. The target

respondent was defined as a senior employee holding a management or professional

position with the company or one of its SBUs. A networking sampling strategy was employed

where the target respondent was requested to give the name of one additional potential

respondent from another SBU of the company (Cooper and Schindler, 2008). A total of 740

SBUs were identified and questionnaires were delivered to target respondents in these

SBUs. With three follow-ups, 282 questionnaires were received. A total of 12 questionnaires

with more than half of requested data missing were excluded from the analysis, giving us a

final sample of 270 with a 36.5 percent response rate.

Survey instrument and measures

The survey questionnaire developed for the present study was fairly comprehensive and

covered areas such as KM infrastructure, KM initiatives, reasons for using KM, difficulties

faced in KM implementation, and critical success factors (CSFs) in KM adoption (see the

Appendix (see questionnaire). As indicated in the following, the questionnaire was

developed with input from companies to include context specific questions.

A number of KM assessment instruments currently on offer were examined in the planning

phase of this study. Specifically, we looked at two versions of the Knowledge Management

Assessment Tool (KMAT), one developed by American Productivity and Quality Center and

Arthur Anderson Consulting (1995), and the other by Maier and Moseley (2003). Both these

measures were pre-tested, and in each case, respondents expressed their concern with the

structure, wording, and relevance of several questions. Some respondents recommended a

thorough contextualization of these packaged survey instruments, while others suggested

developing an instrument specifically for the present study. Consequently, we decided to

design a questionnaire with input from the survey participants and academic colleagues

with special interest in the KM field. Several KM-related empirical studies were also

examined (e.g. Chase, 1997; Liebowitz et al., 2000; Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004; Wong

and Aspinwall, 2005; Singh et al., 2006; Chong, 2006) to identify key aspects of KM adoption

and question-items that could be included in the survey. While a number of questions were

adapted from the previous research with substantial modification to capture KM issues of

special relevance to the UAE context, a number of new questions were specifically

developed for this study. The key multi-item measures and their operational definitions are

briefly described in the following.

Knowledge acquisition sources: Taking a lead from the previous research (e.g. Chase, 1997;

Davenport et al., 1998; Gold et al., 2001), a list of 14 knowledge acquisition sources covering

areas such as benchmarking, team leaders, lessons learned from experience, customers,

and informal and formal discussions was developed. The respondents were asked to rate

each source on a 7-point scale anchored on ‘‘not at all important’’ to ‘‘extremely important’’.


KM initiatives: Since KM initiatives was the primary focus of this study, a comprehensive list

of KM initiatives was presented to respondents for rating on a seven-point scale ranging

from ‘‘no, it is not true’’ to ‘‘yes, it is mostly or always true’’. The initiatives covered several

areas such as documentation of KM-related resources, identification of internal skills,

knowledge, and expertise, and use of information and communication technology. Some of

the other areas considered included knowledge sharing, training opportunities, use of

outside KM experts to conduct seminars on KM, identification of best practices for

benchmarking, and company policies to protect knowledge from inappropriate use (Gold

et al., 2001; Singh et al., 2006).

Perceived benefits of KM: A number of potential benefits associated with KM practices as

indicated in the existing literature were included in the survey and respondents were

requested to rate each on a seven-point scale ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly

agree’’. The items covered different areas such as ease in sharing of best practices,

improving decision-making speed and quality, developing better organizational

competencies, increasing customer responsiveness and satisfaction, and gaining

competitive advantage (Chase, 1997; McAdam and McCreedy, 1999).

Knowledge sharing methods: The respondents were first asked about the extent to which

their SBUs shared knowledge with different functional units within the company. Following

this, they were given a list of ten knowledge sharing methods, abstracted from the existing

research on explicit and tacit knowledge (Gold et al., 2001; Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004;

Nonaka, 2007), and were requested to rate them on a seven-point scale with ‘‘not at all’’ and

‘‘most common’’ endpoints.

Barriers to KM implementation: A broad array of KM implementation problems were distilled

from the literature and respondents were asked to rate each on a seven-point scale

anchored as follows: ‘‘it is not true’’ and ‘‘it is mostly or always true’’. Some of the items

included in the survey consisted of poor understanding of the KM concept, lack of KM

strategy and proper culture, lack of top management support, insufficient resources to

develop KM tools, and poor incentive plans (DeLong and Fahey, 2000; Syed-Ikhsan and

Rowland, 2004).

Reasons for not using KM: A list of possible reasons for not using KM (Wong and Aspinwall,

2005) was rated by respondents on a seven-point scale with ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and

‘‘strongly agree’’ endpoints.

Critical success factors in KM adoption: Several studies have identified key factors that are

considered critical to a successful adoption of KM (Lee and Choi, 2003; Wong and

Aspinwall, 2005; Chong, 2006; Conley and Zheng, 2009). The present study included the 11

‘‘success factors’’ in KM adoption identified by Wong and Aspinwall (2005). The

respondents were requested to rate each factor in terms of its importance on a

seven-point scale ranging from ‘‘not at all important’’ to ‘‘extremely important’’.

Data analysis and findings

Sample profile

Table I highlights sample characteristics. More than half of the respondents worked in

middle and top management positions. About one quarter held non-management positions,

and worked as experts and specialists in different fields. The selection of senior employees

as target respondents was deliberate as we thought that these employees will be in a better

position to provide an accurate assessment of their companies’ KM resources and

initiatives.

The companies included in the sample reflected fairly well the overall distribution of major

industry sectors in UAE. In terms of company type, the sample included 82.2 per cent

service companies and 17.8 per cent manufacturing companies, which is consistent with

their respective proportions (87 and 13 per cent) in the national data for UAE (National Media

Council, 2011). The sample also represents fairly accurately the distribution of companies in


terms of their size and age. However, the sample under represents the private sector, which

comprises nearly two-thirds of the economic activity in the country.

Reliability and validity of measures

Reliability of measures was assessed by Cronbach’s (1970) alpha coefficient. Table II

summarizes alpha coefficients, means, and standard deviations of seven multi-item

measures (i.e. scales) used in the study. All measures produced alpha coefficients higher

than the threshold alpha value of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).

In addition to high reliability coefficients, the seven variables revealed strong positive

correlations with each other (see Table III), which further suggests that these variables

measured several distinct but highly interrelated aspects of KM. The consistent correlations

among seven scales also suggest that they belong to a common global variable referred to

as ‘‘KM adoption’’ in this study.

Table I Sample profile

N (%)

Respondent’s positionMiddle management 82 30.4Senior management 68 25.2Non-management technical/professional 65 24.1Supervisory 55 20.3

Respondent’s functional areaGeneral administration 98 36.3IT/R&D 75 27.8Human resources 50 18.5Marketing/sales 26 9.6Accounting/finance 21 7.8

Line of company’s businessIT/communication/consultation 54 20.0Engineering/production/fabrication 42 15.6Finance and banking 38 14.1Oil and gas 32 11.8Transport (air and road) 28 10.4Property development/construction 26 9.6Logistics/shipping/distribution 24 8.9Real estate management 18 6.7Miscellaneous services 8 2.9

Company typeService 222 82.2Manufacturing 48 17.8

Company ownershipGovernment 93 33.5Semi-government 105 38.9Private 72 26.7

Company sizeMore than 1,000 employees 123 45.6201-1,000 104 38.5100-200 43 15.9

Company age10 years or less 95 35.211 to , 21 60 22.221 to . 31 68 25.2More than 40 34 12.6N/A 13 4.8


As suggested by several writers (e.g. Churchill, 2007; Cooper and Schindler, 2008), for an

exploratory or a preliminary research of descriptive nature, it is sufficient to have items with

acceptable face validity. Accordingly, we used several survey items from the existing

research with established face validity. However, in order to contextualize these items, they

were presented for review and feedback to several academics and managers having

extensive experience with KM theory and practice. Following their input, the survey items

were extensively revised to ensure all items were relevant, easy-to-understand, and clear in

their intended meanings. This further strengthened our confidence in the validity of our

measures. In addition, we assessed the survey items for convergent validity. All scales

revealed strong correlations with their comparable external measures not used in the current

analysis (Churchill, 2007).

Adoption of KM in UAE

The section that follows presents data on UAE companies’ KM resources, KM initiatives,

perceived benefits of KM practices, barriers to KM adoption, and key factors that can enable

a successful adoption and implementation of KM. The section also offers data on companies

that did not practice KM theory and identifies their reasons for not using KM.

In consonant with previous research on KM practices and other related aspects (e.g. Singh

et al., 2006; Wong and Aspinwall, 2005), we used a combination of mean values and

percentages to report our findings. While we recognize the limitation of means as a data

reporting method, it is a relatively simple technique and seems appropriate for the intended

audience of this study.

KM infrastructure

Table IV presents data on some basic KM resources and tools (Chase, 1997). Most UAE

organizations possessed impressive resources and tools to pursue KM practices. Nearly all

organizations had internet and electronic mail facilities and had designed web sites to

Table II Alpha reliability coefficients, means, and standard deviations

ScaleNumber of

itemsAlpha

coefficientMinimum

value*Maximum

value* MeanStandarddeviation

Knowledge acquisition sources 14 0.76 39 82 57.86 11.01KM initiatives 20 0.82 48 102 68.97 13.35Benefits of KM 15 0.88 44 78 52.85 10.82Knowledge sharing methods 10 0.80 35 62 43.23 8.67Barriers to KM implementation 14 0.85 46 84 40.83 12.11Reasons for not using KM** 10 0.90 32 53 36.17 9.58Critical success factors in KM adoption 11 0.92 42 66 52.36 8.36

Notes: *Minimum andmaximum values refer to the actual values observed in the data. **This analysis was conducted for a sub-sample ofcompanies which did not practice KM (N=75)

Table III Inter-correlations among scales

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Knowledge acquisition sources –2. KM initiatives 0.84 –3. Benefits of KM 0.54 0.43 –4. Knowledge sharing methods 0.63 0.38 0.65 –5. Barriers to KM implementation 20.37 20.32 20.25 20.29 –6. Reasons for not using KM ** – – – – 0.33 –7. Critical success factors in KM adoption 0.42 0.51 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.31 –

Notes: *All correlations are significant at 0.01 or higher level of statistical significance. **This analysis was conducted for a sub-sample ofcompanies which did not practice KM (N=75)


provide information on company history, products and services. Most organizations had

in-house database (80 per cent) and management information systems (73 per cent) in

place. A little over one-third of the organizations reported to have an in-house library or a

reading room facility. Several organizations (17.4 per cent) had informal KM leaders, and a

little less than 2 per cent reported to have a full-time or part-time KM officer. However, our

further exploration revealed that none of the companies had yet created formal job titles

such as a KM officer or KM manager. They used this label informally for senior or more

experienced mentors and in-house consultants who usually addressed internal information

requests and dealt with new and junior employees’ day-to-day problems.

Knowledge acquisition sources

Respondents identified a number of knowledge acquisition sources and rated their

importance on a seven-point scale. The mean importance rating of knowledge acquisition

sources is summarized in Table V. While most knowledge sources received fairly high mean

rating, team leaders and lessons learned from projects, daily experiences, and

benchmarking were seen as most important knowledge acquisition sources. Respondents

also acknowledged the key role of employees and customers in company’s knowledge

acquisition efforts. In addition, they underscored the value of internal discussions,

brainstorming sessions, and external KM experts and consultants in enhancing their interest

in the KM concept.

Table IV KM infrastructure

N (%)

Internet and intranet facilities 268 99.2Electronic mail 265 98.1Web site on company activities 254 94.1Database management system 217 80.0MIS (Management information system) 198 73.3Shared databases 174 64.4Document repositories 162 60.0Data warehousing/storing 160 59.2Groupware 140 51.8Library or reading room 134 49.6Video conferencing 96 35.5Executive information system 55 20.4Research and development 51 18.9Informal KM leader 47 17.4Full or part-time KM officer/executive 5 1.8

Table V Knowledge acquisition sources

Mean St. Dev.

Team leaders 5.01 1.14Lessons learned from projects 4.83 1.19Daily experiences 4.77 1.19Senior employees/mentors 4.64 1.33Benchmarked companies/practices 4.60 1.10Line managers (middle and senior) 4.51 1.31Customers 4.47 1.28Informal discussions 4.41 1.07Appraisals/evaluations 4.35 1.13Formal discussions/brainstorming 4.32 1.16Meetings/discussions with subject matter experts 4.19 1.36Exit interviews 3.89 1.41Suppliers 3.83 1.17Competitors 3.12 1.14


KM initiatives

Given the focus of the present study, extensive data were obtained on KM initiatives. As may

be seen from Table VI, UAE organizations reported to have initiated a broad range of KM

activities. These activities included better documentation of internal KM-related resources,

identification of company-based skills, knowledge, and expertise, and increased use of IT to

store knowledge to enable and encourage employees to retrieve and reuse it. Most

companies also reported to have worked with outside KM experts to develop strategies to

promote KM theory and practice. Several organizations have initiated programs to offer

training to their employees in sharing and transferring knowledge across different functional

units.

However, as shown by the overall low mean rating values, these KM initiatives are still in their

early stage. The low mean values for most KM initiatives also suggest that several

companies are still considering certain KM ideas but have not taken any concrete steps in

this direction as yet.

Additional data on level of implementation of KM initiatives were obtained to more precisely

assess the application of KM ideas by companies investigated in this study. These data and

respondents’ detailed comments indicated an overall low to medium level of implementation

of KM practices among UAE companies.

It is also interesting to note that most UAE companies have currently focused on ITor explicit

knowledge management initiatives with a relative neglect of tacit or implicit knowledge.

While some companies are actively using mentoring and coaching to benefit from the

experience of more experienced and knowledgeable employees, effective mechanism are

Table VI KM initiatives

Mean St. Dev.

Better documentation of internal KM-related resources 4.96 1.29Identification of internal skills, knowledge, and expertise 4.87 1.17Increased use of IT-related technologies in day-to-day operations 4.69 1.25Increased use of Internet/e-sources to publish and access information 4.63 1.23Regular inter-departmental meetings to evaluate and shareinformation on new developments

4.11 1.26

Encouraging knowledge sharing across functional departments 4.03 1.27Offering training to teach employees how to share and transferknowledge

4.01 1.16

Inviting outside experts to conduct seminars/workshops on KMapplications

3.90 1.48

Conducting brainstorming sessions to generate ideas to facilitate KMimplementation

3.67 1.31

Identification of internal and external best practices for benchmarkingpurposes

3.61 1.22

Creating a supportive environment for knowledge sharing 3.58 1.19Putting in place policies and procedures to protect knowledge frominappropriate use or theft

3.52 1.24

Formulating strategies for managing tacit knowledge 3.43 1.16Developed a schedule for acquiring/developing knowledge over thenext 12 months

3.27 1.19

Regularly measuring the value of intellectual capital 3.24 1.13Developing systems/processes for converting knowledge into thedesign of new products/services

3.33 1.11

Developing systematic procedures/rules to categorize or codifyknowledge

3.29 1.08

Developing processes for applying knowledge learned from pastexperiences, successes and failures

3.50 1.40

Revised company’s mission statement to incorporate its KMgoals/objectives

2.60 1.09

Created a separate position of a ‘‘knowledge officer/manager’’ tomanage knowledge

1.98 1.01


not yet developed to leverage this knowledge to strengthen or sustain their competitive

advantage.

Benefits of KM

Companies using KM practices in some or most areas cited a number of reasons for

practicing KM theory. The most important reasons for using KM included better quality

decisions, effective management of resources, improved organizational efficiency, and

greater customer responsiveness (see Table VII). Respondents associated several other

benefits with KM such as creation of new knowledge, development of innovative products

and services, and sharing of best practices. It is, however, important to note that

respondents gave much lower rating to KM as a key source of competitive advantage.

Knowledge sharing

The survey participants indicated a substantial increase in knowledge sharing within their

organizations as one of their major KM initiatives. In a further question, we asked about the

most common knowledge sharing methods they used. The data summarized in Table VIII

show high rating for the following four methods: meeting and discussion forums, workshops

and seminars, project groups and teams, and company’s internal documents – manuals,

reports and policy papers. Training and development programs, mentoring and coaching,

and benchmarking also received fairly high rating as knowledge sharing methods. Other

means of knowledge sharing such as internet/intranet and company web sites are also

gaining recognition as effective sources to disseminate knowledge across the organization.

Table VIII Knowledge sharing methods

Mean St. Dev.

Meetings/discussion forums 5.11 1.42Workshops, conferences, seminars 4.97 1.36Project groups and teams 4.74 1.42Company’s internal documents (reports, policy papers andpublications) 4.47 1.40Training and development programs 4.08 1.32Mentoring and coaching 4.01 1.28Internal benchmarking 3.96 1.14Statements/speeches given by senior managers 3.77 1.22Company web site 3.65 1.27Internet/intranet 3.46 1.07

Table VII Benefits of KM

KM Mean St. Dev.

Leads to better quality decisions 5.19 1.24Improves management of resources 5.07 1.28Improves overall efficiency 4.61 1.13Increases customer responsiveness 4.55 1.37Helps create new knowledge for the organization 4.49 1.18Facilitates development of new and innovative technologies andproducts

4.31 1.21

Facilitates sharing of best practices 4.01 1.19Reduces operating and administrative costs 3.92 1.09Improves product quality and on-time delivery 3.84 1.34Reduces product/service development time 3.77 1.41Improves organization’s adaptive capacity 3.69 1.30Increases customer satisfaction 3.65 1.28Helps in developing better organizational competencies 3.61 1.12Enhances understanding of business environment 3.56 1.27Contributes to competitive advantage 3.29 1.24


As indicated by survey participants in their written comments, they also make extensive use

of informal social networks to share knowledge at work and in social contexts.

Barriers to KM implementation

A clear understanding of barriers to KM adoption is important to help companies

considering KM to assess and evaluate ways to overcome these barriers. Consequently,

extensive data were obtained on difficulties companies faced in implementing KM

programs. Poor understanding of KM as a theory and practice was the most important

barrier to advancing the KM practices in UAE. It was further noted that KM has not yet been

incorporated into organizational strategy or mission statements of most companies we

surveyed. Lack of proper organizational culture and marginal involvement of senior

management in KM programs were also seen as major barriers (see Table IX). Most

companies did not provide sufficient incentives to employees to pursue KM with real interest

and enthusiasm.

Reasons for not using KM

Difficulties in implementing KM was further explored by asking the companies that did not

use KM in any area (N: 75) as to why they have not considered KM theory and practice. As

seen from Table X, the respondents mentioned a number of reasons for not using KM. As

Table IX Barriers to KM implementation

Mean St. Dev.

Poor understanding of KM in the organization 5.13 1.51Company does not have a clear KM strategy 4.92 1.29A proper organizational culture is lacking 4.50 1.34KM not integrated into company’s mission statement or its keyobjectives

4.43 1.30

Lack of top management’s commitment and support 4.18 1.25Insufficient KM awareness across the organization 3.94 1.29Difficult to standardize key work processes 3.76 1.17Company incentives do not motivate employees to practice KM orpursue new initiatives

3.65 1.35

Departmental politics 3.54 1.29KM roles and responsibilities not clearly defined 3.42 1.27Company not seeking enough services of external KMexperts/consultants

3.37 1.23

Lack of proper documentation of KM related activities 3.22 1.16Organizational structure/hierarchy not supporting KM 3.14 1.21Insufficient allocation of resources to acquire or develop KM tools andequipments

3.11 1.19

Table X Reasons for not using KM

Mean St. Dev.

Employees unsure of KM’s potential benefits 5.14 1.48Role of KM in organization’s success or failure never established bysenior managers

4.95 1.73

Most employees have poor understanding of the KM concept 4.73 1.78Top management has not shown any interest in KM 4.15 1.77Employees are rarely encouraged to explore and practice KM theory 4.48 1.33Organizational culture not conducive to sharing of knowledge 4.17 1.28Company’s IT department has limited staff and expertise 3.88 1.70Company satisfied with its current infrastructure and performance 3.78 1.65Budgetary constraints do not allow use of external KM experts todevelop and practice KM

3.57 1.46

Organizational structure does not allow the use of KM strategy orpractice

3.23 1.34


expected, these reasons are fairly similar to the barriers to KM implementation discussed

previously. Most employees were unsure of KM’s potential benefits and their organizations

never articulated KM’s role in their success or failure. Employees were rarely encouraged to

advance their understanding of KM practices. Neither organizational culture nor structure

facilitated acquisition and sharing of knowledge in these organizations.

Critical success factors (CSF) in KM adoption

The survey participants were asked to rate a set of 11 ‘‘critical success factors’’ (CSFs) in KM

adoption as identifiedbyWongandAspinwall (2005) in their survey of academicswith interest

in KM and KM practitioners who had successfully implemented KM programs. The data

shown in Table XI reveal interesting findings. Themost important factors in KM adoption in the

UAE context included strategy and purpose, leadership and support, culture, and human

resourcemanagement policies. The other seven factors also received fairly highmean rating

scoresanddeserve attention to achieve success in implementation of KMpractices. Effective

motivational aids, training and education, financial and human resources, and KM

infrastructure were particularly considered important in KM adoption in UAE.

Discussion and implications

The present study offers preliminary data on KM initiatives of UAE companies, KM benefits,

problems in KM implementation, and factors perceived to be critical for a successful

adoption of KM practices.

It is striking to note that nearly half of the UAE organizations are either unaware of KM

philosophy or has only limited application of the KM concept. As shown by data summarized

in Figure 1, a little over half of the organizations reported to practice KM, including 25 per

cent organizations making use of KM theory and practice in ‘‘some areas’’, 18 per cent in

‘‘several areas’’, and 9 per cent in ‘‘most areas’’. Of the remaining 48 per cent organizations,

28 per cent ‘‘did not practice KM in any area’’, while 20 per cent practiced KM to ‘‘a very little

extent’’ – in one or two areas. This is certainly a matter of concern given the interest and

amount of resources different government levels in UAE have devoted to creating

awareness about knowledge capital and how an application of KM principles and practices

could contribute to breakthrough technologies, innovative products and services, and

overall organizational efficiency (see Figure 1).

UAE is widely seen as a regional commercial hub in the Middle East and its network of free

zone business clusters (where foreign companies are given 100 per cent ownership)

continue to attract leading multinational corporations from all over the globe. In view of this,

we expected UAE organizations to be fully aware of KM theory and practice and actively

involved in developing and building effective KM systems to enhance their competitive

Table XI Critical success factors (CSFs) in KM adoption*

Mean St. Dev.

Strategy and purpose 5.36 1.24Management leadership and support 5.25 1.32Culture 5.07 1.14Human resource management 5.01 1.12Motivational aids 4.86 1.16Continuous training and education 4.66 1.09Resources 4.61 1.13Organizational infrastructure 4.52 1.22Information technology 4.48 1.09Measurement 4.21 1.14Processes and activities 4.13 1.05

Note: These factors are composed of multiple items; a total of 66 items were used to measure these 11factorsSource: Wong and Aspinwall, 2005


resources and capabilities. However, the available data did not support this expectation. In

fact, it was a bit surprising that close to one-third of the companies we investigated did not

practice KM in any area. It was also surprising that not a single organization has created a

separate position with titles such as a ‘‘knowledge executive’’ or ‘‘chief knowledge officer’’

(CKO) to manage and advance knowledge. A standalone position of a knowledge manager

such as CKO is important to recognize the value of knowledge as a strategic resource and

empower and motivate employees to support KM initiatives (Earl and Scott, 1999; Herschel

and Nemati, 2000; Jones et al., 2003).

A better understanding of the KM concept certainly seems an important pre-requisite to its

successful adoption. Our extensive interviews with several company executives indicated

that most employees viewed ‘‘knowledge’’ as a form of ‘‘data’’ or ‘‘information’’ to be

managed by IT people. Considering the five-stage chain of knowledge flow – data !

information ! realization (knowledge) ! action/reflection ! wisdom – as described by

Kakabadse et al. (2003, p. 77), UAE organizations have a long way to go in developing such

a broad view of knowledge. It is perhaps due to their narrow view of knowledge that most

companies did not recognize the importance of creating separate organizational positions to

oversee KM programs and processes. Understanding of the concept of ‘‘tacit knowledge’’

was even more limited in our sample. In fact, most respondents did not make distinction

between explicit and tacit knowledge or thought this distinction to be important. They

generally used the term ‘‘knowledge’’ to refer to explicit knowledge, and as noted previously,

to them, it was just a new name for information. Consistent with this view, several

respondents held that KM was similar to ‘‘information management’’.

The experience of companies with successful KM programs (Grant, 1996; Davenport et al.,

1998; Chua and Lam, 2005; Nonaka, 2007) would suggest that UAE organizations must seek

to integrate KMagenda into company strategy andmission statement in order to advance the

KM concept. The top management has a significant role to play here, especially in building a

companywide awareness of KM practices and their potential contribution to company

performance. The top management can also help build a trusting culture where employees

will feel comfortable in sharing their knowledge and expertise with colleagues and other

stakeholders (Wong and Aspinwall, 2005; Chong, 2006). Since top managers control key

resources as well decision making processes in UAE and most other GCC countries, KM

adoption is unlikely to materialize without their active involvement and commitment.

As documented by several previous studies (Soliman and Spooner, 2000; Yahya and Goh,

2002), the human resource function can and must play a vital role in advancing KM

Figure 1 Level of KM practice in UAE


practices. Human resource professionals associated with UAE organizations would need to

realign recruitment and selection strategies with corporate mission and goals to strengthen

their organizations’ knowledge-based resources.

Finally, it is important to emphasize the role of learning institutions in advancing the KM

concept in UAE. Lack of awareness of KM practices and limited application of KM theory

and practice may be partly attributed to a weak interaction between academic institutions

and the business community. The academic institutions and the business community must

develop a collective perspective on KM issues and initiate joint research and development

programs to share their expertise in developing better KM systems and technology to

establish a stronger foundation for a knowledge-based economy (Mohamed et al., 2008).

The findings of this study highlight the current state of KM adoption in UAE and may serve as

a frame of reference for future research on KM theory and practice in UAE and other GCC

countries.

Limitations and future research directions

The findings reported here are based on a non-probability sample, and thus, some degree

of caution must be exercised in generalizing them to larger population of business

organizations. Also, given the focus of the present study on assessing the overall KM

practices and initiatives in UAE, we could not explore subgroup variations in KM initiatives in

relation to such key variables as company ownership (public versus private) or company

type (service versus manufacturing).

Future KM research in UAE and other Gulf countries can proceed on several fronts. One

option is to further explore the KM areas considered in this study with larger samples,

preferably, probability samples. The other avenue for future research would be to develop

analytical and causal research designs to investigate the possible link between KM

practices and innovation and other performance outcomes. Analytical studies may also be

designed to critically assess the relative contribution of KM initiatives, technology,

globalization, and other new developments to a knowledge-based economy, which has

become a highly cherished development goal for most countries in the Gulf region, and

perhaps around the globe. The findings of this baseline study provide a much-needed

platform for developing analytical research studies.

Questions pertaining to effective knowledge sharing within organizations also need to be

examined in greater detail in the UAE cultural context. Comparative studies of KM practices

of public and private companies as well as of service and manufacturing firms, which could

not be pursed in this study because of space limitations, make another important area that

merit examination in future research efforts. In order to benefit from the experience of

companies that have successfully implemented KM models, it would be useful to pursue

case studies of such companies. These companies and their KM models may be used as

benchmarks to guide UAE organizations considering KM theory and practice.

References

Al-Adaileh, R.M. and Al-Atawi, M.S. (2011), ‘‘Organizational cultural impact on knowledge exchange:

Saudi Telecom context’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 212-30.

Al-Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y. and Mohammed, Y.F. (2007), ‘‘Organizational culture and knowledge

sharing: critical success factors’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 22-42.

Al-Athari, A. and Zairi, M. (2001), ‘‘Building benchmarking competence through knowledge

management capability: an empirical study of the Kuwaiti context’’, Benchmarking: An International

Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 70-80.

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (2001), ‘‘Review: knowledge management and knowledge management

systems: conceptual foundations and research issues’’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-36.

Al-Busaidi, K. and Olfman, L. (2005), ‘‘An investigation of the determinants of knowledge management

systems success inOmani organizations’’, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol. 8

No. 3, pp. 6-27.


Al Maktoum Foundation (2007), Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation, available at: www.

mbrfoundation.ae/ HTMLVersion/default_ en_g.aspx

American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) and Arthur Anderson Consulting (1995), ‘‘Knowledge

management assessment tool’’, available as a pdf file at Google; KMAT-APQC; available at: www.apqc.

org/km/

Boumarafi, B. and Jabnoun, N. (2008), ‘‘Knowledge management and performance in UAE business

organizations’’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 6, pp. 233-8.

Brinkley, I. (2006), ‘‘Defining the knowledge economy’’, The Work Foundation, available at:

[email protected], (accessed March 28, 2012).

Castro, G.M., Lopez-Saez, P. and Delgado-Verde, M. (2011), ‘‘Towards a knowledge-based view of firm

innovation: theory and empirical research’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 871-4.

Chase, R.L. (1997), ‘‘The knowledge-based organization; an international survey’’, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 38-49.

Chauvel, D. and Despres, C. (2002), ‘‘A review of survey research in knowledge management:

1997-2001’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 207-23.

Chawla, D. and Joshi, H. (2010), ‘‘Knowledgemanagement initiatives in Indian public and private sector

organizations’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 811-27.

Chong, S.C. (2006), ‘‘KM critical success factors: a comparison of perceived performance versus

implementation in Malaysian ICT companies’’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 230-56.

Chong, X., Li-Hua, R. and Stonehouse, G. (2007), ‘‘Knowledge management in the Chinese public

sector: empirical investigation’’, Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 250-63.

Chua, A. and Lam, W. (2005), ‘‘Why KM projects fail: a multi-case analysis’’, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 6-17.

Churchill, G.A. (2007), Basic Marketing Research, 6th ed., South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.

Conley, C.A. and Zheng, W. (2009), ‘‘Factors critical to knowledge management success’’, Advances in

Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 334-48.

Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2008), Business Research Methods, 10th ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin,

Boston, MA.

Cronbach, L. (1970), Essentials of Psychological Testing, 3rd ed., Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Daft, R.L. (2010), Organization Theory and Design, 10th ed., South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.

Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), ‘‘Successful knowledge management

projects’’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.

DeLong, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), ‘‘Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management’’,

The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27.

Dubai Knowledge Village (2011), Dubai Knowledge Village, available at: www.kv.ae (accessed

October 2, 2011).

Earl, M. and Scott, I. (1999), ‘‘Opinion: ‘What is a chief knowledge officer?’’’, Sloan Management Review,

Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 29-38.

Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management: an organizational

capabilities perspective’’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.

Grant, R.M. (1996), ‘‘Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm’’, Strategic Management Journal,

Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 109-22.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Bush, R.P. andOrtinau, D.J. (2009),Marketing Research, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston,

MA.

Herschel, R.T. and Nemati, H.R. (2000), ‘‘Chief knowledge officer: critical success factors for knowledge

management’’, Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, Summer, pp. 37-45.

Houghton, J. and Sheehan, P. (2000), ‘‘A primer on the knowledge economy’’, Centre for Strategic

Studies, Victoria University, Wellington, available at: www.efses.com/documents/ (accessed March 30,

2012).

Jones, G. (2010), Organizational Theory, Design, and Change, global edition, Pearson Education,

Upper Saddle River, NJ.


Jones, N.B., Herschel, R.T. and Moesel, D.D. (2003), ‘‘Using ‘knowledge champions’ to facilitate

knowledge management’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 49-63.

Kakabadse, N.K., Kakabadse, A. and Kouzmin, A. (2003), ‘‘Reviewing the knowledge management

literature: towards a taxonomy’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 75-91.

KPMG (1998), ‘‘KnowledgeManagement Research Report 1998’’, KPMGConsulting, available at: www.

brint.com/papers/submit/knowmgmt.pdf

Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), ‘‘Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational

performance: an integrated view and empirical examination’’, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 20

No. 1, pp. 179-228.

Liebowitz, J., Rubenstein-Montano, B., McCaw, D., Buchwalter, J. and Browning, C. (2000), ‘‘The

knowledge audit’’, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3-10.

McAdam, R. and McCreedy, S. (1999), ‘‘The process of knowledge management within organizations:

a critical assessment of both theory and practice’’, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2,

pp. 101-13.

Ma, Z. and Yu, K.-H. (2010), ‘‘Research paradigms of contemporary knowledge management studies:

1998-2007’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 175-89.

Maier, D.J. and Moseley, J.L. (2003), ‘‘The knowledgemanagement assessment tool (KMAT)’’, The 2003

Annual: Volume 1, Training, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Marouf, L.K. (2007), ‘‘Social networks and knowledge sharing in organizations: a case study’’, Journal of


Martensson, M. (2000), ‘‘A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool’’, Journal of


Mishra, B. and Bhaskar, A.U. (2011), ‘‘Knowledge management processes in two learning

organizations’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 344-59.

Mohamed, M.S., O’Sullivan, K.J. and Ribiere, V. (2008), ‘‘A paradigm shift in the Arab region knowledge

evolution’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 107-20.

National Media Council (Department of Internal Information) (2011), ‘‘United Arab Emirates 2011’’,

Trident Publishing Company, London.

Nonaka, I. (2007), ‘ ‘The knowledge-creating company’’, Harvard Business Review,

November-December, pp. 96-104, (originally published in Harvard Business Review in 1991).

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Saisana, M. and Munda, G. (2008), Knowledge Economy: Measures and Drivers, European

Commission, Brussels, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, available at: http://composite-

indicators.jrc.ec.eropa.eu/documents (accessed April 2, 2012).

Singh, M.D., Shankar, R., Narain, R. and Kumar, A. (2006), ‘‘Survey of knowledge management

practices in Indian manufacturing industries’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 6,

pp. 110-28.

Smith, E.A. (2001), ‘‘The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace’’, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 311-21.

Soliman, F. and Spooner, K. (2000), ‘‘Strategies for implementing knowledge management: role of

human resources management’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 337-45.

Syed-Ikhsan, S.O.S. and Rowland, F. (2004), ‘‘Benchmarking knowledge management in a public

organization in Malaysia’’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 238-66.

Tseng, C.-Y., Pai, D.C. and Hung, C.-H. (2011), ‘‘Knowledge absorptive capacity and innovation

performance in KIBS’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 971-83.

Wong, K.Y. and Aspinwall, E. (2005), ‘ ‘An empirical study of the important factors for

knowledge-management adoption in the SME sector’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9

No. 3, pp. 64-82.

Yahya, S. and Goh, W.-K. (2002), ‘‘Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge

management’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 457-68.


Appendix

Figure A1 Knowledge management initiatives of UAE companies

The primary objec�ve of this survey is to compile some ini�al data on knowledge management prac�ces and ini�a�ves of public and private companies in UAE. Your par�cipa�on in the survey will be very much appreciated. We assure you that your answers to survey ques�ons will be kept confiden�al and used only for sta�s�cal analysis.

____________________________________

PART 1: KM resources

Below we have listed several KM-related resources. Please indicate the resources your organiza�on has at this �me. PLEASE CIRCLE “YES” OR “NO” DEPENDING UPON THE EXISTENCE OF A GIVEN RESOURCE IN YOUR ORGANIZATION.

1. Database management systems Yes N02. MIS (Management informa�on system) Yes No3. Internet and intranet facili�es Yes No4. Electronic mail Yes No 5. Website(s) on its ac�vi�es Yes No6. Shared databases Yes No7. Document repositories Yes No8. Groupware Yes No9. Library or a reading room Yes No10. Video conferencing Yes No11. Data warehousing/storing Yes No12. Full or part-�me KM officer/execu�ve Yes No13. Informal knowledge management leader Yes No 14. Research and development (R &D) Yes No15. Execu�ve informa�on system Yes No

Part 2: KM acquisi�on sources

1. Organiza�ons prac�cing knowledge management (KM) proac�vely create/acquire knowledge, share it with key stakeholders, and use knowledge assets in conduc�ng their day-to-day business opera�ons. To what extent does your organiza�on prac�ce “knowledge management” (KM)? PLEASE TICK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING SIX RESPONSE OPTIONS:

1. My organiza�on does not prac�ce KM in any area2. My organiza�on prac�ces KM to a very li�le extent3. My organiza�on prac�ces KM in some areas4. My organiza�on prac�ces KM in several areas5. My organiza�on prac�ces KM in most areas6. My organiza�on prac�ces KM in all areas

IF YOUR ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION IS “MY ORGANIZATION DOES NOT PRACTICE KM IN ANY AREA”,PLEASE ANSWER ONLY PARTS 7, 8, 9, and 10. IF YOU CHECKED ANY OTHER OPTION, ANSWER ALL PARTS.

2. Organiza�ons use several different sources to capture/acquire knowledge (both explicit and tacit). Please rate the importance of the following KM sources in the context of your organiza�on: PLEASE CIRCLE THE APPLICABLE RATING SCORE.

Not at all Extremelyimportant important1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Line managers (middle and senior) 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Customers 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. Senior employees/mentors 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Team leaders 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Suppliers 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. Compe�tors 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. Benchmarked companies/prac�ces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)


Figure A1

8. Mee�ngs/discussions with subject ma�er experts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Lessons learned from projects 1 2 3 4 5 6 710. Daily experiences 1 2 3 4 5 6 711. Informal discussions 1 2 3 4 5 6 712. Formal discussions/brainstorming 1 2 3 4 5 6 713. Appraisals/evalua�ons 1 2 3 4 5 6 714. Exist interviews (with employees

leaving the organiza�on). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PART 3: KM ini�a�ves

Please tell us about the KM ini�a�ves that your organiza�on has taken over the past two years. We have listed here a number of possible ini�a�ves that companies might consider to enhance their KM ac�vi�es. USE THE FOLLOWING SCALE TO ANSWER THE STATEMENTS LISTED BELOW:

No, it is Yes, it is mostlynot true or always true1 2 3 4 5 6 7

My organiza�on has:

1. Undertaken steps to iden�fy its internalskills, knowledge, and exper�se. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Started pu�ng greater emphasis on be�erdocumenta�on of internal KM-related resources. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Started encouraging knowledge sharingacross func�onal departments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Begun holding regular inter-departmentalmee�ngs to evaluate and share informa�onon new developments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Increased the use of internet/e-sourcesto publish and access informa�on. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Begun offering training sessions to teach employees how to share and transfer knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Developed systema�c procedures/rulesto categorize or codify knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Iden�fied internal and external best prac�ces for benchmarking purposes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Started to invite outside experts to conduct seminars/workshops on the value anduse of KM. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Started conduc�ng brainstorming sessionsto generate ideas to facilitate KM. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. Increased the use of IT-related technologiesin its day-to-day ac�vi�es. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. Developed processes for applying knowledge learned from past experiences, successes, and failures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Created a suppor�ve environment for knowledge sharing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. Revised company’s mission statement to incorporate its KM goals/objec�ves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. Put in place policies and procedures to protect knowledge from inappropriate use or the�. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Created a separate posi�on of a knowledgeofficer/manager to manage knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. Formulated strategies for managing tacit knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)


Figure A1

18. Developed systems/processes for conver�ng knowledge into the design of new products/services. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. Started regularly measuring the value of intellectual capital. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. Developed schedules for acquiring/developing knowledge over the next 12 months. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PART 4: KM benefits

What benefits do you perceive in KM for your organiza�on? PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING SCALE TO ANSWER THE STATEMENTS LISTED IN THIS SECTION:

Strongly Stronglydisagree agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

KM:

1. Helps create new knowledge for theorganiza�on. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Facilitates development of new,innova�ve technologies and products. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Improves product quality and on-�medelivery. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Improves management of resources. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Reduces opera�ng and administra�ve

costs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. Improves overall efficiency. 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. Increases customer responsiveness. 1 2 3 4 5 6 78. Leads to be�er quality decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 79. Gives us compe��ve advantage. 1 2 3 4 5 6 710. Facilitates sharing of best prac�ces. 1 2 3 4 5 6 711. Enhances understanding of business

environment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 712. Increases customer sa�sfac�on. 1 2 3 4 5 6 713. Improves organiza�on’s adap�ve capacity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 714. Helps in developing be�er organiza�onal

competencies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 715. Reduces product/service development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PART 5: Knowledge sharing methods

How do you share knowledge in your organiza�on? USING THE SCALE GIVEN BELOW, INDICATE THE EXTENT OF YOUR AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING KNOWLEDGE SHARING METHODS.

Strongly Stronglydisagree agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Workshops, conferences, seminars 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Internet/intranet 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. Training and development programs 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Mee�ngs/discussion forums 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Company website 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. Mentoring and coaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. Internal benchmarking. 1 2 3 4 5 6 78. Company’s internal documents (reports,

Policy papers, publica�ons). 1 2 3 4 5 6 79. Project groups and teams 1 2 3 4 5 6 710. Statements/speeches given by senior

Managers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

�me.

(continued)


Figure A1

PART 6: Barriers to KM implementa�on

Please tell us about the difficul�es your organiza�on might have faced in implemen�ng KM. USE THE FOLLOWING SCALE TO ANSWER THE STATEMENTS LISTED BELOW:

No, it is Yes, it is mostlynot true or always true1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In my organiza�on:

1. The concept of KM is not well understood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. There is a lack of top management’s commitment and support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. A proper organiza�onal culture is Lacking. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. There is a lack of proper documenta�on of KM related ac�vi�es. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. It is difficult to standardize key work processes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Incen�ve plans do not mo�vate employees to prac�ce KM or pursue new ini�a�ves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Company does not have a clear KM strategy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Insufficient alloca�on of resources to acquire or develop KM tools and equipments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Company not seeking enough services of external KM experts/consultants. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Organiza�onal structure/hierarchy doesnot support KM. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. KM roles and responsibili�es arenot clearly defined. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. Departmental poli�cs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 713. Insufficient KM awareness across the

organiza�on. 1 2 3 4 5 6 714. KM has not been integrated into company’s

mission statement or its key objec�ves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PART 7: Reasons for not using KM

If your organiza�on is not using KM, please tell us why your organiza�on has not employed KM? INDICATE THE EXTENT OF YOUR AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE STATEMENTS LISTED BELOW:

Strongly Strongly disagree agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In my organiza�on:

1. Employees are never encouraged to explore and experiment KM prac�ces. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Employees are unsure of KM’s poten�al benefits. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Most employees have poor understandingof the KM concept. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Company’s IT department has limited staff and exper�se. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Top management does not support KM. 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. Our organiza�onal structure does not

allow the use of KM strategy or prac�ce. 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. Role of KM in our organiza�on’s success

or failure is never established by senior managers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)


Figure A1

PART 8: Cri�cal success factors in KM adop�on

PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS IN TERMS OF THEIR IMPORTANCE TO KM ADOPTION. IF YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS NOT IMPLEMENTED KM, RATE THESE FACTORS IN GENERAL TERMS.

Not at all Extremelyimportant important1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Management leadership and support.2. Culture3. Strategy and purpose4. Resources5. Process and ac�vi�es6. Con�nuous training and educa�on7. Human resource management8. Informa�on technology9. Mo�va�onal aids10. Organiza�onal infrastructure11. Measurement

PART 9: Background data

In this concluding sec�on, we would like to request some background informa�on on you and your organiza�on. PLEASE CIRCLE THE RESPONSE CATEGORY THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION.

1. What specific posi�on do you hold in your organiza�on?a. Senior managementb. Middle managementc. Supervisoryd. Non-management technical/professionale. Other (Please specify) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What is your educa�onal experience?a. Did not complete high schoolb. High school graduatec. Cer�ficate or associate degreed. Undergraduate degreee. Graduate degree

3. In which department of your organiza�on do you usually perform your responsibili�es?a. General management/administra�onb. Opera�ons/produc�onc. Distribu�on/logis�csd. Finance/accoun�nge. Human resourcesf. Marke�ng/salesg. Technical/R&Dh. Other (Please specify) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. How many employees are working in your organiza�on?Number of employees: -----------------------------------

5. What is the major line of your company’s business (i.e., type of product produced or service provided or major industry sector/group to which your company belongs?)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Organiza�onal culture is not conducing to sharing of knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Budgetary constraints do not allow theuse of external KM experts to developour KM resources. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Company is sa�sfied with its current infrastructure and performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)


About the author

C. Muhammad Siddique is Professor of Management at the College of Business Studies, AlGhurair University, Dubai International Academic City, United Arab Emirates (UAE). Hereceived his Master’s degree from the University of Saskatchewan (1974) and PhD from theUniversity of Toronto (1980). He completed a two-year post-doctoral fellowship with NHRDP,Ministry of Health and Welfare, Ottawa, Canada. Before moving to UAE in 1995, Dr Siddiqueworked some 15 years in Canada in teaching, research, and program evaluation positions atthe University of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon), Government of Saskatchewan (Regina), andValley Health Services Association (Kentville), Nova Scotia. Dr Siddique has extensivelypublished on program planning and evaluation, human resource management, andmarketing strategies. His papers have appeared in several international journals including:International Journal of Human Resource Management, Industrial Relations, InternationalJournal of Health Services, Human Relations, American Journal of Psychiatry, and a numberof other journals. His current research interests are in the areas of knowledge management,learning organizations, international marketing, and organizational competitiveness.C. Muhammad Siddique can be contacted at: [email protected]

Figure A1

6. How would you classify your company?a. Manufacturingb. Service

7. Type of ownership?a. Governmentb. Semi-governmentc. Private

8. How old is your organiza�on? (Number of years in the current business line): -------------------------

PART 10: Comments and Sugges�ons

We would very much appreciate your wri�en comments on the survey. We also look forward to any sugges�ons that you may have for us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your coopera�on._________________________________________________________________

Notes: This ques �onnaire is a short version of the original ques�onnaire used in the survey. Ques�ons on company performance and several other topics which are not used in the present study are omi�ed from this ques�onnaire. Also, the sec�on on cri�cal success factors in KM adop�on is abridged from the larger survey which included 66 ques�ons under 11 areas shown in this ques�onnaire.


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Knowledge management initiatives... - artigo - 2012

Documents

Transcript of Knowledge management initiatives... - artigo - 2012