Knowledge Management Supportive Hr

Knowledge Management Supportive Human Resource Environment ABSTRACT The successful implementation of knowledge management (KM) can provide the capability to understand the market, accurately assess the customers' needs, and turn them into products and services by integrating organizational resources. Since organization's knowledge is personal, building of organizational knowledge is unthinkable without employees. This study has two objectives. One is to identify differences between the perceived importance (organizations without KM) and the actual importance (organizations with KM) attributes for successful KM implementation. The other is to develop and empirically examine the knowledge supportive human resource (HR) factors affecting the success of KM From the results of statistical analysis, important generalizations are suggested Attributes with lower degree of perceived importance were implemented less frequently and Top Management Support is a critical factor for KM success. 1. INTRODUCTION Knowledge Management (KM) includes the process of discovery, creation, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge. For successful implementation of KM program, executives and managers need to understand the various organizational aspects including organizational structure, culture, human resource, and technology. Especially, human resource became one of the critical factors for effective KM. Organizational knowledge must be created based on each employee's knowledge. That is, organizational knowledge is personal and building of organizational knowledge is unthinkable without employees. As numerous organizational studies have recommended, KM supportive human resource (HR) environment has been a key to success factor for KM program. However, little empirical research has been conducted on this issue. Moreover, there has been no investigation as to how organizations that have not been engaged in KM perceive success factors of KM differently than organizations that have implemented KM. Thus, there are two objectives of this study. First is to identify differences between the perceived importance (organizations without KM) and the actual importance (organizations with KM) attributes for successful KM implementation. The second objective is to develop and empirically examine the HR factors affecting the success of KM. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Studies from various disciplines have identified several key HR variables for the success of KM The findings by leading KM researchers are major sources that can be used to identify the critical success factors of KM. Numerous studies point out the importance of training in KM. Training should

provide employees and managers the skills and information to fulfill their responsibilities. One of the reasons for the failure in effective work behaviors would be insufficient training to support KM principles. Well-engineered training initiatives help to retain knowledge within the organization. Employee involvement describes how all employees can contribute effectively to meeting the organization's objectives. Employee involvement is one of key factors in successful KM implementation because the nature of knowledge creation and sharing is unthinkable without employee involvement. The transformation to a knowledge-based organization requires peer-to-peer collaboration. That is, teamwork is an essential source of the knowledge generation process. Creating teams allows organizations to apply diverse skills and experiences towards its processes and problem-solving An organization's members must work together and build on each other's ideas and strengths. Anyone who has knowledge and interest in a problem should be included on the team. Employee empowerment is also a key factor for KM success because true empowerment can give the employees a sense of ownership in the overall aim of the organizational KM system. Employers can value their employees' expertise through empowerment (Martinez, 1998). Further, employers can tape into employees' knowledge and help them communicate their knowledge by creating ways to capture, organize, and share knowledge. For successful KM project, the visible leadership and commitment of top management must be sustained throughout a KM effort because effective knowledge creation is not possible unless leaders empower employees and show a strong commitment to the organization. That is, top management must be willing to communicate with employees to make knowledge realistic and coordinate KM implementation process. To exert their leadership and commitment in implementing a KM project: (1) they must have sufficient knowledge; (2) they must have realistic expectation of KM results; (3) they must communicate with employees; and (4) they must have the ability to coordinate the different interests of functional units involved in the KM implementation process. 3. RESEARCH DESIGN The sampling frame for this research consisted of the U.S. firms listed in the Gallup Organization's client database. A total of 1000 questionnaires were distributed. The number of returned questionnaires was 220. Among the returned questionnaires, three responses were unusable because too many values were missing. Thus 217 responses were used for the data analysis.

Statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Paired t-tests were used to identify differences between the perceived importance and the actual importance attributes. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the relationships between the five factors from HR and the overall perception of KM. For this statistical test, the level of significance (alpha) was set at 0.05. The questionnaire consists of two sections. The first section of the questionnaire asked 18 questions about perceived importance and actual importance for KM implementation. In the second section, widely recognized KM related items were presented to identify the HR success factors of KM. They were also asked whether or not organizations have already implement KM. 59 responding organizations states that they have started to implement KM as shown in Table 1. Based on the literature review, five hypotheses and the research model in figure 1 were proposed. H1: A higher level of employee training is positively associated with the success of KM project. H2: A high degree of employee involvement is positively associated with the success of KM project. H3: A higher level of teamwork is positively associated with the success of KM project. H4: A higher degree of employee empowerment is positively associated with the success of KM project. H5: Strong top-management leadership and commitment is positively associated with the success of KM project. 4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS This section provides statistical analysis and findings. The findings are presented in the following order: the difference between the perceived importance and the actual importance for successful KM implementation, and the measurement of KM success. 4.1 Comparison of Perceived Importance and Actual Importance Table 2 illustrates the mean scores of the degree of importance and the degree of actual importance for 15 human resources attributes concerning KM. Attributes are presented by the descending order of mean scores of perceived importance.

The degree of perceived importance held by respondents for human resource attributes of KM ranged from 3.72 to 4.71 with a group mean rating of 4.26 + 0.54 (5 = very important, 3 = moderately important, 1 = not important). The highest rated human resource attribute of KM was "A spirit of cooperation and teamwork," with a mean rating of 4.71. Other attributes that received higher perception of importance by managers included "Promote employee ownership and workmanship (M = 4.53)" and "Top management encouragement toward formal/informal communication (M = 4.49)." The lowest rated attribute was "Knowledge management awareness training to nonsupervisory employees," with a mean rating of 3.72; however, this still lies between moderately important and important. Other attributes receiving lower ratings were "Encouraging knowledge creating teams such as knowledge task force, the future group, or learning group (M = 3.78)" and "Providing the employees with adequate information of knowledge management related principles through training (M = 3.85)." The degree of actual importance of KM for human resource attributes ranged from 2.35 to 3.40 with a group mean rating of 2.90 [+ or -] 0.77 (5 = extensively implemented, 3 = moderately implemented, 1 = not implemented). The human resource attribute that was mostly implemented was "Top management encouragement toward utilization of the knowledge management system," a mean rating of 3.40. "Encouraging employees to participate in internal and external new learning opportunities (M = 3.34)" and "A spirit of cooperation and teamwork (M = 3.33)" followed. The attribute "A sprit of cooperation and teamwork" received higher perception scores in both importance and implementation. The least implemented attribute was "Encouraging knowledge is creating teams," with a mean rating of 2.30. Other human resource attributes that were less implemented were "Knowledge management awareness training to non-supervisory employees" and "Providing the employees with adequate information of knowledge management related principles through training," both with mean ratings of 2.35. Paired t-test was used to compare the degree of perceived importance with the degree of actual importance. There were significant differences between the degree of perceived importance and the degree of actual importance for all attributes (MD = 1.36, t = 24.480, p < 0.001). Attributes with lower degree of perceived importance were implemented less frequently. 4.2 KM Success Multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationships of the five independent variables (Top management leadership, teamwork, participation, empowerment, and training) with KM success (table 3). The data show that the independent variable as a whole explained 7.2% of the variance in the success of KM, significant at the 0.05 level. "Top management leadership" was

related to the success of KM, with a probability of 0.000. Therefore, H1 was accepted that "Top management leadership" would be positively associated with the success of KM. Other factors were not found to be positively associated with the success of KM. The factors of "Teamwork, Participation, Empowerment, and Training" failed to support hypotheses H2, H3, H4, and H5, respectively. However, "Teamwork" and "Participation" were related to the success of KM if the significant level was expanded by the [alpha] level of 0.1. 5. CONCLUSION AND LIMITATION The results of comparison between perceived importance and actual importance indicate that attributes with lower degree of perceived importance were implemented less frequently. This result is in line with the result in innovation studies like BPR and TQM. That is KM is another emerging innovation and it shares similar success factors with BPR and TQM. It seems the executives for this study are fully aware that a KM program needs fundamental organizational commitment as for other innovations such as BPR and TQM. The relationship between each of the hypothesized actual importance factors and KM success was tested by employing multiple regression analysis. The findings of the analysis indicate that top management leadership and commitment is critical to KM success. That is only organizations that are already engaged with KM implementation recognize top management leadership and commitment as an enabling tool for the success of KM. This finding is highly consistent with previous research results. On the other hand, one of the major limitations to this study is the possibility of a biased perception of KM. As a means of organizational performance improvement, KM has been publicized as a major tool or technique through the mass media as well as various academic writings, including reports by major consulting companies. As a result, KM has been viewed as a major catalyst for performance improvement without any assessment of the actual impact of its implementation. Consequently, this exaggeration of circumstances may affect managers' perception of KM principles and the actual usage of those principles. TABLE 1: KM STATUS Schedule

Frequency (a)

Percent (%)

Have already implemented

59

29.8

Within the next 2 years

82

41.4

More than 2 years from now

44

22.2

Probably never

13

6.6

(a) N=198

TABLE 2: MEAN SCORES OF DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE TOWARD HUMAN RESOURCES Perceived Attributes

Mean (a) [+ or -] SD

Top Management Leadership Top management encouragement toward

4.49 [+ or -] 0.66

Formal/informal communication Top management leadership and commitment

4.36 [+ or -] 0.80

Toward knowledge management Top management encouragement toward

4.12 [+ or -] 0.84

Utilization of the knowledge management system Teamwork A spirit of cooperation and teamwork

4.71 [+ or -] 0.54

Supporting team-based approaches to problem-

4.41 [+ or -] 0.70

solving Encouraging knowledge creating teams such as

3.78 [+ or -] 0.99

knowledge task force, the future group, or learning group Involvement Actively encourage employee involvement in

4.41 [+ or -] 0.73

decision processes Promote ongoing employee contributions

4.30 [+ or -] 0.71

A formal system that allows for contribution of

4.24 [+ or -] 0.83

every employee's opinions or suggestions Empowerment Promote employee ownership and workmanship

4.53 [+ or -] 0.72

Organizational commitment to empower people

4.46 [+ or -] 0.73

Organizational support to seek human values of

4.17 [+ or -] 0.85

employees Training Encouraging employees to participate in internal

4.26 [+ or -] 0.77

and external new learning opportunities such as conferences, training seminar, university courses, etc. Providing the employees with adequate information

3.85 [+ or -] 0.94

of knowledge management related principles through training Knowledge management awareness training to non-supervisory employees

3.72 [+ or -] 0.93

Actual Attributes

Mean (b) [+ or -] SD

Top Management Leadership Top management encouragement toward

3.40 [+ or -] 0.97

formal/informal communication Top management leadership and commitment

2.82 [+ or -] 1.03

toward knowledge management Top management encouragement toward

2.59 [+ or -] 1.08

utilization of the knowledge management system Teamwork A spirit of cooperation and teamwork

3.33 [+ or -] 1.03

Supporting team-based approaches to problem

3.20 [+ or -] 1.03

solving Encouraging knowledge creating teams such as

2.30 [+ or -] 1.12

knowledge task force, the future group, or learning group Involvement Actively encourage employee involvement in

2.93 [+ or -] 1.03

decision processes Promote ongoing employee contributions

2.84 [+ or -] 1.04

A formal system that allows for contribution of

3.00 [+ or -] 1.07

every employee's opinions or suggestions Empowerment Promote employee ownership and workmanship

3.08 [+ or -] 1.13

Organizational commitment to empower people

3.03 [+ or -] 1.16

Organizational support to seek human values of

2.88 [+ or -] 1.05

employees Training Encouraging employees to participate in internal

3.40 [+ or -] 0.97

and external new learning opportunities such as conferences, training seminar, university courses, etc. Providing the employees with adequate information

2.35 [+ or -] 1.02

of knowledge management related principles through training Knowledge management awareness training to

2.35 [+ or -] 1.09

non-supervisory employees (a) 5 = Very Important, 3 = Moderately Important, 1 = Not Important (b) 5 = Extensively Implemented, 3 = Moderately Implemented, 1 = Not Implemented

TABLE 3. EFFECT OF FIVE CATEGORIES OF IMPORTANCE ON THE SUCCESS OF KM PROJECT Categories

Standardized

Significance

Adjusted

Coefficient ([beta])

Level of Slope

[R.sup.2]

Leadership

.277

.000

.072

Teamwork

.133

.093

Participation

.136

.084

Empowerment

.033

.693

Training

.081

.324

Top Management

REFERENCES Acton, T. and Golden, W., "Training the knowledge worker: A descriptive study of training practices in Irish software companies". Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 27, 2003, 137-147. Bartlett, C.A., et. al., "Building competitive advantage through people". MIT Sloan Management Review, Volume 43(2), Winter 2002, 34-41. Cohen, S. and Backer, N., "Making and mining intellectual capital: Method or madness?” Training & Development, Vol.53 (9), 1999, 46-50. Davenport, T. and Grover, V., (2001), "Special issue: Knowledge management", Journal of Management Information Systems, Vo1.31 (1), 2001, 7-10. Dess, G. and Picken, J., "Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century", Organizational Dynamics, Vol.28 (3), 2000, 18-34. Greengard, S., "Will your culture support KM?” Workforce, Vol.77 (10), 1998, 93-94. Lesser, E., et. al., "Preserving knowledge in an uncertain world". MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol 43(1), Fall 2001, 101-2. Martinez, M., "The collective power of employee knowledge", HR Magazine, Vol.43 (2), 1998, 8894.