How to cite this article: Ofoleta, K., C. (2015). The implications of
organisational culture for knowledge management processes. Knowledge Management. ResearchiGate
16/2/2015
About The Author:
The implications of
organisational culture for knowledge management processes
By
Kelechi C Ofoleta
(kogonuso@gmail.com)
ABSTRACT
The
purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between organisational
culture and Knowledge Management processes. The particular objective was to
identify the implications of organizational culture for Knowledge Management
processes.
It
was found that organisational culture is an important condition that operates
in every organisation, though invisible to the members of the organization and
can encourage or hinder its knowledge management operations. While there are varied opinions on precise meaning OC,
almost all the researchers agreed that it is top on the list of knowledge management
processes enablers. It was also found that the implications of organizational
culture for the knowledge management processes are that unless cultural that
permit mutual trust, collaboration, formalization, interactivity, learning, etc.,
exists to support the aim of knowledge management, the effort will be in vain.
This implication follows from the fact that knowledge management processes
which determine the outcome of the knowledge in an organization are directly
dependent on the above cultural factors. Above all, it was learned that
interaction, trust and collaboration among employees is significant when trying
to transfer tacit knowledge between people or convert tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge, thereby transforming it from the individuals to the
organizational layer. These are some of the hallmark implications of
organizational culture for the Knowledge Management process because they are
the only ways to infuse the knowledge base of the organization and guarantee
its sustenance once the knowledge has been captured via codification.
Keywords: Organizational Culture, Knowledge
Management, Information Management, Implications of Organizational Culture,
Knowledge Management Processes
1. INTRODUCTION
Managing Information to derive knowledge needed for
an organisation to leverage on to compete successfully is in itself a
challenge. But not compared to the challenges of effectively and efficiently
managing and sustaining the knowledge once it exists in the organization. These
challenges are of multi-fold, especially due to the fact that Knowledge management
places great importance on many processes, such as knowledge acquisition,
creative activity, storage, sharing, use and application. Each of these
processes is unique and depends on the core competencies of the establishment,
like ability to learn, adapt and change, which is in turn dependent on the
organization’s strategies supported through its existing or modified culture.
The challenges of
knowledge management meant that organizations differ systematically in the
styles and processes through which they manage knowledge to remain
competitively relevant. According to findings of numerous works on
knowledge management, organizational culture tops the list of these challenges
(see literature review), largely because it can help or hinder organizations
during challenging times like knowledge management. Hence the assumption of
this study is that organizational culture is in some ways connected with
knowledge management processes. While literatures reflect some sort of strong
connections existing between organizational culture and knowledge management
(KM), little information has been given specifically to the implications of
organizational culture (OC) for knowledge management processes. This study
intends to research and isolate some of the implications of OC for Knowledge
Management processes (KMPs), aimed at offering useful insight to organizations
towards effective knowledge management schemes.
In the pursuit, we first discuss the concept of organisational culture in
knowledge management and a brief overview of Knowledge, Knowledge Management
and Knowledge management processes. After presenting the brief overview above,
literature on the connection between organizational culture and knowledge
management processes is reviewed by paying particular attention to the
implications of OC for knowledge management processes. The methodology of the
study is by literature review only; hence the findings/ discussion of the results
will be presented next, and conclusions.
The research question that this study will address
is: What are the implications of organizational culture for Knowledge Management
processes? In other words, what are the potential effects of organizational
culture for Knowledge Management processes?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE?
Many studies, e.g. (Davenport, De Long, &
Beers, 1998; De Long, 1997; Alavi & Leidner, 1999) assert that
organizational culture is one of the most significant elements in achieving
knowledge management success. While it is
vital to connection KM ventures to
different variables like clear reason and dialect, senior management support,
etc., without linking it first to a learning agreeable culture
that permits shared trust to help representatives to eagerly share, create
and use knowledge, then the KM programme is bound to fail (Davenport, et al.,
1998). The above arguments establish to some
degree that organizational culture is required for effective KM practices to be
realised.
In order to continue exploring what literatures have learned so far
about OC, it will be reasonable at this point to define what OC means.
According to the study by Alavi, Kayworth, and Leidner, (2005) organizational
culture is an extensive idea and is hard to characterize. Additionally, they
attest that its changeable nature has suggested an expansion of various
approaches to clarify social conduct via researchers; however, it has,
likewise, prompted perplexity and an absence of understanding, owing to the
colossal scope of existing conceptualizations of the concept. As such there is
no, by and large, acknowledged concurrence on precisely what OC is, but, there
are a few accords that organizational cultures can be portrayed as far as
values, norms, and practices (De Long, 1997).
Focusing on the above, we draw from
Schein's three-level organizational culture framework
that delineates culture as far as essential assumptions, values, and artefacts.
Hence, organizational culture is defined as “a pattern of shared basic
assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external
adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way
to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 2004). Preceding
the work of Schein, Hofstede (1991) defines organizational culture as the
aggregate programming of the mind which recognizes the members of one
organization from an alternate. McDermott & O’Dell (2001) defined OC in
terms of shared values, beliefs and practices of the individuals in the
organization. Lastly, Chatman and Cha, (2003) allude to OC as an arrangement of
shared assumptions, values, and beliefs that show people what is fitting and
uncivilized behaviour.
2.2. IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE
As evidenced above, the
main things the literatures concur on is that there is no unambiguous meaning
of OC and yet that OC is the most important factor in establishing and
sustaining successful efficient KM project. Thus the broad nature of
organizational culture has an impact and
serves several functions. Understanding the
implications of these for knowledge management processes is crucial “to make
the enterprise act as intelligently as possible to secure its viability and overall
success as well as to otherwise realize the best value of its knowledge assets”
(Wiig, 1997). Davenport et al. (1998) argued that it is insufficient to
leverage knowledge alone as successful knowledge management strategies are
constantly driven by clear connections to business objectives which are
strung-out on the culture of the organization.
According to King, (2008) the connections in the middle of KM and
culture, or cultural components concerning the successful KM processes are an
indispensable piece of the tried and true ways of thinking about KM. Comparatively
Lee & Choi (2000) suggest that OC is discovered to be critical in
anticipating the knowledge management operations i.e. it determines the
processes by which new knowledge is created, legitimated, and distributed in
organizations (Karlsen & Gottschalk, 2004). McDermott & O’Dell (2001)
declare that OC is reflected in the obvious parts of the organisation, like its
mission and espoused values and also exists on a deeper level and embedded in the
way people communicate and act, perceive each other and understand each other's
actions. Besides, culture is hard to articulate, invisible to organizational
members and is settled in the organization's core values and assumptions about what knowledge is worth
exchanging (Karlsen & Gottschalk, 2004; McDermott & O’Dell,
2001). This is why OC elucidates
what is important and coordinates members’ endeavours without the costs and
inefficiencies of close supervision (Chatman & Cha, 2003).
De Long and Fahey
observed that organizational culture is important for Knowledge management
processes in that it aids in making the organisational context for social
interaction by representing the rules that decides the environment within which
people communicate and work. That is, it provides the norms and practices that
define who is expected to control what knowledge, as well as who must share it,
and who can hoard it. These cultural standard procedures shape how individuals
collaborate and sustain a substantial effect on knowledge creation, sharing,
and use (Delong & Fahey, 2000).
A slightly varied but related view is that organizational
culture creates the setting for
social communication that decides how knowledge will be shared in particular situations when it allows for effective
interaction and collaboration among employees. This is seen during efforts to
transfer tacit knowledge between people or convert tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge, thereby transforming it from the mortal to the organisational
level (Gold, Malhotra & Segars, 2001). This
is of tremendous criticalness, in light of the fact that it includes people and
cultural components that characterizes the connections between individual knowledge (tacit in
nature and hard to transfer) i.e. what
individuals know or know how to do, which is manifested in their
skills/experience (e.g., how to interview new recruits) and organizational knowledge
(codified tacit-explicit rule-based knowledge) i.e. knowledge embedded in an organizations’ systems,
processes, tools, and routines (DeLong &
Fahey, 2000).
Some
other major function of organisational culture in KM is that it aids in
distinguishing organization’s
distinctive competence to external constituencies such as differentiated skills,
complementary assets, and the routines they possesses to meet the basis of
competitive advantage in the industry (Chatman & Cha, 2003). Ultimately, without the benefit of culture that
perceives, supports, and prizes KM exercises, predictable execution of KM
exercises is unlikely (Gold, et al., 2001).
2.3.
OVERVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES
2.3.1.
KNOWLEDGE
Knowledge
is not information or data, however, it is identified with both, and the
contrasts between these terms are regularly a matter of degree. However
essential it may sound, then, it is still imperative to underscore that
information, data, and knowledge are not exchangeable ideas (Davenport and Prusak,
2000). Hence knowledge is defined as "a fluid mix of framed experience,
values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework
for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates
and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations it often becomes
embedded not only in documents but also in organizational routines, processes,
practices, and norms” (Davenport and Prusak, 2000). There are differing
meanings of Knowledge; however, this is the extent that the study can
characterize it given that the above is the most broadly acknowledged
definition. Anyway, worth to note is that, Knowledge is currently viewed as the
most essential property in the organizations (Akhavan, 2009).
2.3.2.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
According to Davenport
and Prusak, (2000) KM is generally concerned with the exploitation and the
advancement of the knowledge resources of an organization with the perspective
of fostering the organization's targets. This includes both explicit,
(documented knowledge) and tacit, (subjective knowledge of the organisation). Following
similar thinking, Akhavan, (2009) defined KM as a control to identify, collect,
separate out, store, share and use knowledge. Wiig (1997) suggests that KM is the deliberate
and express administration of knowledge-related procedures, patterns, projects
and strategies within an organisation. Additionally, King (2009) posited that
KM involves arranging, sorting out, spurring, and controlling of individuals,
processes and systems in the organization to insure that it’s learning related
resources are enhanced and viably utilized. Overall,
KM helps organisation to gather insights and foster understanding from its own
experience (Davenport & Prusak, 2000; Wiig, 1997).
2.3.3. KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT PROCESSES
The term knowledge management processes are in the literature referred
to as knowledge management practices. Hence, in this study both mean the same
thing, and will be used interchangeably. While
it is true that there is entanglement between these terms in the literature it
is necessary to be careful as not all practices can be seen as organisational
processes. According to Rasoulinezhad, (2011)
KM processes are defined as observable organizational activities that are
related to knowledge management. It is an interconnected set of diverse
business operations developed in an organization to create, store, transfer,
use and protect knowledge of the system in order to improve its business
performance (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). They further assert that storage and transfer
processes are based on the organization, structuring and dissemination of
organizational knowledge in order to effectively exploit it. Although these
processes can be independently developed, they can also complement one another,
especially when the documentation of information technologies (IT) is provided
(Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Davenport et al., 1998). Sveiby, (1997) suggests that KMPs can assist
the organisations in acquiring, storing and utilising knowledge processes for
problem solving, active learning, strategic planning and decision-making. Lastly,
KMPs helps protect intellectual assets from decay (Davenport et al, 1998).
2.4. CONNECTION BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES
The philosophical theory of knowledge suggests that
it is being socially constructed as people interrelate about shared tasks or
problems often intended to endorse or facilitate such processes (Moradi, Saba,
Azimi, & Emami, 2012). This concept has been connected to implicit aspects,
sometimes of an abstract nature, such as ideologies, beliefs, basic assumptions
of behaviour, or shared values which are factors of organisational culture. That said, there other observable and
explicit elements such as patterns and organisational patterns, symbols,
linguistic communication, rituals, myths, and ceremonies included as being
related to culture (Alavi, Kayworth & Leidner, 2005). Knowledge management processes are embedded
in social settings which heavily influence these processes (Alavi, et al., 2005).
Lopez, Peon, Ordas, (2004), considers that an organizational culture that is
supportive and or adaptive can enable the successful execution of knowledge
management technologies and practices.
It will be inconceivable to link organizational
culture to KMPs in isolation to cultural factors. There were variations of
cultural factors in the literature, but they all had significant links to KMPs.
According to Alavi et al, (2005) expertise, formalization, innovativeness,
collaboration and autonomy are cultural factor/ values that lead to effective
knowledge management. Other common cultural factors through which literatures
linked OC to KMPs, in particular knowledge creation are learning, collaboration, trust and formalization (Gan, Ryan & Gururajan, 2006; Saeed,
Tayyab, Anis-Ul-Haque, Ahmad, & Chaudhry, 2010). Additionally, Gan et al,
(2006) suggests Leadership, Incentives/rewards, and Kiasu-ism among cultural
factors that impact KMPs.
To conclude linking culture with KMPS the article reviewed the four frameworks linking Culture and Knowledge by De Long & Fahey, (2000) namely culture shapes, assumptions about which knowledge is important; Culture mediates the relationships between levels of knowledge; Culture creates a setting for social interaction; Culture shapes creation and acceptance of new knowledge. Overall, the frameworks suggested that interactivity, collaboration, sharing and teaching, dealing with mistakes and orientation to existing knowledge is the cultural characteristics, shaping social interaction within the context of knowledge management (Delong & Fahey, 2000).
3. METHODOLOGY
The methodologies used comprise only literature review,
which spanned the perceived concept of OC and KMPS. The essence of the
literature review was also applied to establish that organisational culture is
indeed of great importance, of KM as to warrant investigating its implications
for knowledge management processes. Having established that, this study further
reviewed the four frameworks of organisational culture by DeLong & Fahey,
(2000) which enumerated some of the implications of OC for KMPs via cultural
factors links to the two. Also, organisational cultural effects are common and
clearly see from the perspective of its factors rather than directly. Hence,
this work also explored the implications of OC for KMPs from this position, especially
using the studies by Alavi et al, (2005), Gan et al, (2006) and Saeed et al, (2010) in which, cultural factors Were all seen as
areas of the vast implications of OC for KMPs.
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION IMPLICATIONS
Our findings indicated that OC is very crucial for
KMPs, so crucial that it is almost impossible to successfully acquire, create,
store, share, use and apply organization's knowledge or share individual’s
knowledge within an organization without an organizational culture to support
these processes. Hence, what are the
implications of organizational culture for Knowledge Management processes? The
implications of OC for KMPs are imbedded on the cultural factors which greatly
influence KMPs. For instance, a culture
of trust is a valuable asset for any organization that nurtures and develops it
and as such, Lopez et al, (2004) asserts that to encourage innovation,
experimentation and risk taking in order to develop new knowledge or use
existing knowledge, that an atmosphere of trust and security must be ensured.
This is essential achieving effective KMPs because the level of trust within an
organization, especially among its employees greatly influences the amount of
knowledge that is shared. That said, it is important to note trust is difficult
to build and maintain, especially in larger organizations (Lee & Choi,
2003).
The literature review confirms that collaboration
is a cultural factor which strongly enables KMPs, such as knowledge creation,
transfer and sharing, however, without an OC that allows for shared
understanding among team members, very few knowledge creation activities are
conducted (Lee & Choi, 2003). The literature indicates that collaboration
is an important cultural enabler in knowledge management which contributes to
increased levels of knowledge interchange and knowledge creation (Lee &
Choi, 2003). Hence, the failure of existing culture in an organization to
support collaboration will result to ineffective knowledge sharing or creation
among the employees.
Furthermore, learning orientation as a cultural
factor exists in all organizations in any form and it is the basis of fostering
organizational learning. However, the OC must support the employees to have the
strong will to acquire knowledge to solve their problems and innovate on their
business process, in order to enable the organization to accumulate high
quality knowledge and will find it easier to satisfy its end users since KM
tools, methods, and principles will render a good fit with such
learning-oriented users (Yu et al., 2007). For a successful knowledge creation
to occur, organisations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture and
have education, training and mentoring programmes available to promote knowledge
acquisition (Lee & Choi, 2003). This is so because the literature suggests
that learning is a facilitator of knowledge management that allows an
organisation to be infused with novel knowledge and it stimulates knowledge
creation activities (Lee & Choi, 2003; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)
Table 1: Summary of the implications of organizational
culture for Knowledge Management Processes/Practices (KMPs)
Organizational culture and their
implications for Knowledge Management Processes (KMPs)
|
Cultural
Factors |
Connections with
Knowledge
Management (KMPs)
|
Implications for
Knowledge
Management (KMPs)
|
Mutual trust, |
Trust promotes creativity, engagement
management, empowerment, teamwork, and leadership during times of uncertainty
and change.
- Encourages an
environment that promotes knowledge creation as it reduces the fear of risk
-Allows
employees to perform a more honest job of aggregating useful information, and
making it available to others who need it when they call for it.
- Facilitates for open, substantive and influential
knowledge exchange which leads to knowledge creation |
A culture of trust is a valuable asset for
any organization that nurtures and develops it.
An atmosphere of trust and
security is essential to encourage innovation, experimentation and risk
taking in order to develop new knowledge and use existing knowledge. Lopez et
al (2004).
The level of trust greatly influences the
amount of knowledge that is shared
Employees need reassurances that they are
still valued members of their team after they give up their knowledge |
Collaboration |
- Determines the degree to which
people in a group actively assist one another in their undertaking
- Allows for increased points of knowledge exchange, which is a prerequisite
for knowledge creation
- Gets rid of common barriers to knowledge exchange by reducing fear and
increasing openness in teams
- Enable learning, sharing of cross-functional expertise, and sharing of
worker-to-worker knowledge
- Increases levels of knowledge
interchange and knowledge creation |
Without a culture that grants
for shared understanding among team members, very few knowledge creation
activities are conducted (Lee & Choi, 2003). |
Learning, |
- Defines any relatively
permanent alteration in behaviour that happens as a result of experience
(Robbins, Millet, Cacioppe & Waters-Marsh, 2001)
-Provides an avenue for the
organization to be infused with new knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Lee & Choi,
2003).
- Predicts knowledge creation
and learning actions
- Enhances the employees‟
knowledge applicative capability (Tsai & Lee, 2006)
|
With an accent on learning and
continuous development, organisation’s knowledge creation activities will
increase and employees can make for an active part in the operation.
For a successful knowledge
creation to occur, organisations should develop a deeply ingrained learning
culture and have education, training and mentoring programmes available to
promote scholarship. (Lee & Choi,
2003) |
Formalization |
- Rules, procedure and written
documentation such as policy manuals and job descriptions
- Uncertainty avoidance practices – in unknown
or unpredictable situations |
Regulations and directives help sequencing
problem solving and decision making, which in turn facilitate knowledge
accumulation (Gold et al., 2001).
Without a culture that grants for the formalisation of an organization’s KM
practice, avoidable mistakes in the process will be reprised. |
Leadership |
- Defines the ability to work and train
people and squads to accomplish finishes that possess been set by the system
- Driver for
effective knowledge management in organisations
- Provides solid and devoted
commitment to knowledge management initiatives
- Fosters
open knowledge sharing by creating an environment built on trust via teaching, dealing with mistakes, orientation to
existing knowledge |
What type of leadership is forcing the knowledge management operations?
Transactional Leadership vs.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational
leader has Charisma, individualized consideration and intellectual
stimulation to subordinates while Transactional leader lacks the above
qualities, but guide and motivate subordinates in the management of
established goals by clarifying the purpose and job requirements (Wood, Wallace, Zeffane,
Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osborn, 1998).
Surveys hold shown
that transformational leaders are strongly correlated to knowledge management
(Crawford, 2003).
Failure in ensuring
adequate leadership appears to have resulted in the bankruptcy of many
knowledge management initiatives (Ambrosio, 2000).
|
Incentives /
Rewards |
- Provides balance between intrinsic and
extrinsic motivators i.e. Extrinsic rewards are positively valued work
outcomes that are paid to the employee in the work setting whilst intrinsic
rewards are positively valued work outcomes that are picked up by the
employee directly as a outcome of project performance (Wood et al., 1998).
- Encourages knowledge sharing across role
and operational boundaries
- Formal assessment of achievements against
knowledge management aims |
Nevertheless, artificial or
extrinsic rewards that are not held by the cultivation of the organisation
are likely to be inefficient and may contribute to employee cynicism (O'Dell
&
Grayson, 1999).
Prospects of the employees that
they will be reward could thwarting knowledge management activities in the
system (Bock & Kim, 2002, 2003), especially if this expectation fails to
materialize. |
|
|
|
|
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the author has presented a proposal
to study the implications of organizational culture for knowledge KMPs. Through
a literature review of the importance of OC and the different links between
organisational culture and KM, more knowledge was offered on how OC is
considered as having very substantial implications for knowledge management
processes within an organisational context. The study is of interest mainly
from a pragmatic position. The importance of OC, the relationships between OC,
and KMPs may provide a hint as to how firms can adjust knowledge management
processes to maintain their competitive edge. Furthermore, knowledge managers
will be better able to understand the implications of OC for KMPs which are
critical for robust strategies to guarantee effective knowledge acquisition,
creation, storage, sharing, usage and application. This is because understanding
the implications OC for KMPs will help them to ascertain how appropriate their
existing OC is before embarking on KMPs strategies.
While use of a literature review is valid for this
study, it will be useful to conduct similar research using data from some
organizations to provide more specific implications of OC for KMPs. For
instance, it is a wild claim that effect of trust as a cultural factor is
dependent on the size of the organization, but to what extent cannot be
determined without testing this claim with actual data. Hence, this study’s
limitation is that some of the findings need further study to be able to
generalize them, given that bias can exist within literatures.
6. Bibliography
Akhavan, P., Atashgah , R. H., &Sanjaghi, M. (2009). Towards
knowledge management: An exploratory study for developing a km framework in
iran. International Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Production Research, 20(3),
113-120.
Alavi, M., &Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge management systems:
Emerging views and practices from the field. Communications of the AIS, 1,(5).
Alavi, M., &Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and
knowledge management systems. Management
Information Systems Quaterly, 25(1),
107-36.doi: 10.2307/3250961
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., &Leidner , D. E. (2005). An empirical
examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management
practices.Journal of Management Information
Systems, 22(3), 191-224.doi:
10.2753/MIS0742-1222220307
Ambrosio , J. (2000). Knowledge management mistakes: Experts reveal five
pitfalls to avoid when starting down the knowledge management path. Computerworld, 30(27), 44–45.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002).breaking the myths of rewards: An
exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resource Management Journal, 15(2), 169–196.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2003).Exploring
the influence of rewards on attitudes towards knowledge sharing. In M.
khosrow-pour (ed.), advanced topics in information resources management.
Pennsylvania: Idea Group Publishing.
Chatman, J. A., & Cha, S. E. (2003). Leading by leveraging culture. California Management Review, 45(4), 20-34.
Crawford, C. B. (2003).Exploring
the relationship between knowledge management and transformational leadership. Paper
presented at the ale 2003 conference, anchorage, Alaska..
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998).Successful
knowledge management projects.Sloan
Management Review, 39(2), 43.
Davenport, T. H., &Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organisations manage what they know. New
York: Harvard Business School.
De Long , D. (1997). Building the knowledge-based organization: How
culture drives knowledge behaviors. Ernst
& Young Center for Business Innovation, Working Paper, Boston.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to
knowledge management. The Academy of
Management Executive, 14(4), 113.
Gan , G. G. G., Ryan, C., & Gururajan , R. (2006). The effects of
culture on knowledge management practice: A qualitative case study of msc
status companies. Kajian Malaysia, 24(1), 97-128.
Gold, A., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. (2001). Knowledge management:
an organizational capabilities perspective. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 18,
185–214.
Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures
and organizations: Software of the mind. New York; London: McGraw-Hil.
King, W. R. (2008). An integrated architecture for an effective
knowledge organization.Journal of
Knowledge Management, 12(2),
29-41.
King, W. R. (2009). Knowledge
management and organizational learning. 3-13. New York: Springer
Karlsen, J. K., & Gottschalk , P. (2004). Factors affecting
knowledge transfer in it projects. Engineering
Management Journal, 16(1), 3.
Lee, H., & Choy, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers,
processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical
examination. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 20(1),
179-228.
Lopez , S. P., Peon, J. M. M., &Ordas, C. J. V. (2004). Managing
knowledge: The link between culture and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 93-104.
McDermott, R., & O'Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to
sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5(1), 76-85.doi:
10.1108/13673270110384428
Moradi, E., Saba, A., Azimi, S., &Emami, R. (2012).The relationship
between organizational culture and knowledge management.International Journal of Innovative Ideas, 12(3).
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the
dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
0'Dell, C., & Grayson, J. (1999). Knowledge transfer: Discover your
value proposition. Strategy &
Leadership, 27(2), 10-15.
Robbins, S. P., Millet , B., Cacioppe , R., & Waters-Marsh , T.
(2001). Organisational behaviour: Leading
and managing in australia and New Zealand. (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Rasoulinezhad, E. (2011). Measuring the role of knowledge management
processes in the commercial banks of iran. The
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 353-364.
Saeed, T. A. H. I. R., Tayyab, B. A. S. I. T., Anis-Ul-Haque, M., Ahmad,
H. M., &Chaudhry, A. U. (2010). Knowledge management practices: Role of
organizational culture. Knowledge
management practices: Role of organizational culture, 17(1), 1027-1036.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational
culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new
organizational wealth: Managing & measuring knowledge-based assets. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Tsai, M. T., & Lee, K. W. (2006). A study of knowledge
internalisation: From the perspective of learning cycle theory. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 57–71.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: An introduction and
perspective. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 1(1), 6–14.
Wood, J., Wallace, J., Zeffane, R. M., Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G.,
& Osborn, R. N. (1998). Organisational
behaviour: An Asia–pacfic perspective. Australia: John Wiley.
Yu, S. H., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, M. Y. (2004). Linking organisational
knowledge management drivers to knowledge management performance: An
exploratory study. Paper Presented at the
37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
Comments
Post a Comment