chapter 6 software engineers’ perspective towards km...

Chapter 6

Software Engineers’ Perspective towards KM

Practices in Indian Software Engineering

Organisations

“Good judgment comes from experience, and experience often comes from bad judgment” — Rita Mae Brown

Design of Experience Base Model for Software Process Improvement

198

6.1 Introduction

An employee is one of the valuable assets of the organisation and perhaps the most important

of all that contributes maximum in the efficiency and productivity of that organisation. In

fact, satisfied employees make for satisfied customers. Unmistakably, employee satisfaction

is utmost important and demands greater attention if client satisfaction is to be yielded and

reinforced. This means that significant efforts must be devoted to hire the right type of

personnel, nurturing and developing them, providing them with needed support,

compensating them adequately and inventing ways of retaining the best among them for as

long as possible.

Most businesses rely on the fact that their employees possess relevant knowledge and that

they can apply it to the task at hand. But a serious problem exists; this knowledge is not

owned by the organisation as such. Rather the knowledge is owned and controlled by its

employees. The following statements illustrate this situation:

“Our knowledge has legs - it walks home everyday”1

“Not only do you have experience walking out the door, you have inexperience walking in

the door”2

“An organisation’s knowledge walks out of the door every night and it might never come

back”3

The success or failure of the KM systems and the various KM practices claimed to be

adopted by software engineering organisations can be best judged from software engineers’

point of view as they are the ones who are the first-hand users of the KM systems and

technologies. The software engineers are the face of the SE organisations and can reflect the

true picture of the state of affairs in the area of KM in software industry. These are the people

who are actually engaged in the sharing and managing of their knowledge through KM

1 Leif Edvinsson, Brain of the year ‘98, Director of Intellectual Capital, Skandia Insurance Co. 2 Scott Eliot, Director Knowledge Management Product Groups, Lotus (KMWorld 2001) 3 Kevin Abley (Capgemini) in OR Society Conference on Knowledge Management, London, 1998


199

systems on a day to day basis. Therefore, their perspective is very important for

understanding the actual extent of KM in Indian software industry.

The perceptual world of a software manager is different from the perceptual world of

software engineers. Therefore, it is equally important to know about the software engineers’

perception for the development of an organisation. This chapter justifies the need of the

research and analyses the software engineers’ perception regarding KM system whether they

have adapted happily or is there any problem to be solved for further improvement. The study

also tests the hypothesis that whether SE organisations groups, work experience, age and

educational qualifications have significant influence on software engineers’ perceptions or

not.

At the outset, it is important to mention here that the contents of this chapter additionally

enrich the present study. The study of software engineers’ perspective towards KM is not an

explicit objective of the present research work. However, to have a holistic view, an attempt

was made to judge the software engineers’ perspective towards KM induction in Indian

software engineering environment. For this purpose, a questionnaire was prepared and

administered to the software engineers to get their views on various dimensions of KM

practices used in the industry (cf. Questionnaire set II in Appendix B). A sample of 302

software engineers was taken, drawing 100 each from three types of software companies.

6.2 Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Table 6.1 highlights the socio-economic background of the software engineers, interviewed

with the help of a questionnaire.

Table 6.1 reveals that out of 302 Software engineers, 40% belongs to age group of 25-35 and

36% are of 36-45 years of age and the remaining are either less than 25 years or above 46

years. The table reveals that maximum software engineers are above 5 years of domain

experience. Education-wise 144 software engineers (48%) have some professional

qualification, 70 (23%) software engineers are graduates and 79 (26%) software engineers are

post-graduates.


200

Table 6.1

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Group /Sub Group Number %age

Type of SE Company

Type I

Type II

Type III

100

100

102

33.11

33.11

33.77

Age Group

Below 25

25-35

36-45

46-55

Above 55

34

121

109

29

9

11.26

40.07

36.09

09.60

2.98

Work Experience

Below 1 yr

1-3 yrs

3- 5 yrs

Above 5 yrs

74

50

28

150

24.50

16.56

9.28

49.67

Qualification

Graduate

Post Graduate

Professional

Ph.D.

70

79

144

09

23.18

26.16

47.68

2.98

Total 302 100.00

For the purpose of analysing the perception of software engineers about knowledge

management in SE environment, this research divided the questionnaire into 5 sections. The

results of the analysis are also presented in the same scheme.

1. Awareness and understanding of KM

2. Knowledge sharing attitudes of the respondents

3. Respondents’ perception on KM and organisational issues

4. Perception on various organisational attributes related to KM

5. Perception about organisational IT Infrastructure


201

6.3 KM Awareness and Understanding

6.3.1 Familiarity with KM concepts and tools

In Type I organisations, 39% respondents know to some extent about KM concepts (cf. table

6.2 (a)). Similarly, in Type II and Type III, 54% and 42% respectively know somewhat about

knowledge management. On the basis of age profile of the respondents, less than 50%

respondents are somewhat familiar with the concepts and tools for managing knowledge. On

the other hand, less than 60% respondents know KM to some extent on the basis of their

work experience. Qualification wise, below 35% respondents are familiar to a large extent

about KM. Overall, 63.67% respondents have know-how about KM concepts and tools and

techniques for managing knowledge.

Statistically, co-efficient of variation reveals that there is more variability in the opinion of

Type III respondents and more consistency in Type I and Type II organisation respondents.

Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is insignificant because it is less than 1. The chi-

square test shows that the differences in the opinions of organisation group respondents is

significant at 1% LOS, thus leading to the rejection of null hypothesis (H01: The software

engineers are not acquainted with the concepts and tools of knowledge management) and

hence the result that the Software engineers are familiar with KM concepts and tools. The t-

test expresses the significant difference in organisation Type I and II at 1% LOS.


202

Table 6.2 (a)

Familiarity with KM concepts and tools

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Very Little

Little Cant say

Somewhat

Very Much

χ2 WAS Mean S.D. CV

Type Type I Type II Type III

4.00 6.00 7.00

19.00 19.00 20.00

19.00 6.00 9.00

39.00 54.00 42.00

19.00 15.00 22.00

52.62**

0.50 0.53 0.52

3.50 3.53 3.52

1.12 1.14 1.23

32.00 32.29 34.94

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

6.76 2.52 5.45

11.90 10.00

18.92 19.33 21.82 16.67 20.00

8.11

11.76 16.36 9.52

10.00

39.19 47.90 49.09 47.62 20.00

27.03 18.49 7.27

14.29 40.00

79.04**

0.61 0.61 0.31 0.36 0.60

3.61 3.61 3.31 3.36 3.60

1.25 1.07 1.06 1.25 1.43

34.63 29.64 32.02 37.20 39.72

Experience Below 1 yr 1-3 yrs 3-5 yrs Above 5 yrs

5.26 3.95 8.82

23.16 14.47 14.71 25.00

15.79 15.79 2.94

50.00

37.89 40.79 57.35 25.00

17.89 25.00 16.18

116.44**

0.40 0.68 0.57 0.00

3.40 3.68 3.57 3.00

1.17 1.11 1.18 0.71

34.41 30.16 33.05 23.67

Qualification Ph. D. Graduate Post Grad. Professional

13.79 0.98 9.01 3.45

17.24 19.61 18.02 22.41

3.45

13.73 14.41 5.17

31.03 42.16 45.05 56.90

34.48 23.53 13.51 12.07

107.32**

0.55 0.68 0.36 0.52

3.55 3.68 3.36 3.52

1.45 1.07 1.18 1.07

40.85 29.08 35.12 30.40

Industry Average 5.67 19.33 11.33 45.00 18.67 0.52 3.52 1.16 32.95

** significant at 1%

Table 6.2 (b)

Significance of Difference of Proportions

Comparison p1 p2 t-values

1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.58

0.58

0.69

0.69

0.64

0.64

3.23**

1.74

1.50



203

6.3.2 Knowledge Repository/ KM Software System in Organisations

It was attempted to judge how far the SE organisations which have invested hugely in

technology provide platforms for acquisition and sharing of knowledge through KM software

systems or do SE companies have knowledge repositories of some sort where accumulated

organisational knowledge is stored for future reuse. Organisation group-wise, in Type I, 92%

of the respondents say their organisations do not provide any formal knowledge repository

and KM software systems. Of Type II and III, 93% and 90% of the respondents respectively

state that SE companies do not have any repository for storing knowledge. Age group-wise,

majority of the respondents say that companies do not have any knowledge repository or KM

software system in place. 86.49% respondents of below 25 years and 90% respondents of

more than 55 years of age also gave the same answer.

Work experience wise also, majority of the respondents state that their organisations do not

have any formal knowledge repository or KM software systems. The same is the view given

by the majority of the respondents on the basis of qualification. Overall, almost 92%

respondents confirm the absence of any organisational knowledge repository system and any

KM software in the SE environment. The chi-square test reveals that the results are

statistically insignificant both at 1% and 5% LOS. Thus, the null hypothesis (H02: SE

organisations do not have any knowledge repository or a KM software system) is accepted.


204

Table 6.3

Availability of Knowledge Repository/ KM Software System in Organisations

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group Yes No χ2

Organisation Group

Type I

Type II

Type III

8.00

7.00

10.00

92.00

93.00

90.00

2.44

Age Group

Below 25

25-35

36-45

46-55

Above 55

13.51

5.88

7.27

7.14

10.00

86.49

94.12

92.73

92.86

90.00

12..82

Work Experience

Below 1 yr

1-3 yrs

3-5 yrs

Above 5 yrs

8.42

13.16

7.35

3.77

91.58

86.84

92.65

96.23

14.27

Qualification

Ph. D.

Graduate

Post Grad.

Professional

6.90

12.75

6.31

5.17

93.10

87.25

93.69

94.83

10.32

Industry Average 88..3333 9911..6677

6.3.3 Preference for Source of Information

Table 6.4 reflects the fact that majority respondents prefer the most the sources outside their

organisational knowledge sources like Internet to look for the problem-solving information.

Contacting a fellow worker or colleague is at the second rank followed by the corporate

knowledge repository. The main reason behind the least average score to the knowledge

repository could be the absence of any such source or the repository could be ill-managed or

not regularly updated.


205

Table 6.4

Preference for Source of Information

Source of information Average Rank Average Score Ranks

Corporate knowledge repository 2.17 44.19 3

Outside sources, e.g., Internet 1.88 54.04 1

Co-worker 1.95 51.77 2

6.3.4 Benefits of Documenting SE Knowledge

The software engineers were asked to rank the benefits they perceive the well documented SE

knowledge could provide to their projects. In response to this, the shorter activity time

appeared to be the most important benefit of documenting the SE project knowledge. This is

followed by the re-usability advantage at second rank though the average score is much poor

(65.69) than shorter activity time (83.55). But re-usability is the core motivation behind

knowledge management in software engineering. From the average score in Table 6.5, it is

evident that better product quality is another benefit of documenting the SE projects

knowledge, according to the Software engineers, though reduced budget and other product

cost factors do not get that much importance in Software engineers viewpoint.

Table 6.5

Benefits of well documented SE knowledge

Benefits of well documented SE knowledge Average Rank Average Score Ranks

Shorter activity time 1.65 83.55 1

Cheaper product 4.86 37.66 4

Better product quality 4.86 37.77 3

Reduced activity budget 4.94 36.58 5

Re-usability 2.90 65.69 2


206

6.3.5 Reasons behind not re-using experience

In order to know the reasons for the lack of knowledge re-use in software engineering

organisations, the respondents were asked to rank the importance they attach to the reasons

behind their not re-using experience in their working. Table 6.6 reflects that Software

engineers cite the lack of mutual trust among Software engineers as they rank the option

“others don’t share experience” as the first reason followed by the lack of documentation of

knowledge at the second rank. The next reason for not re-using experience with average score

of almost 50 is that project members do not discuss things in a well organised and formal

manner so that there is a proper flow of experience sharing among team members. Lack of

monetary compensation or other benefits and incentives for re-using experience has also been

cited as a reason behind not re-using experience.

Table 6.6

Reasons for not using Experience

Reasons for not using experience Average Rank Average Score Ranks

Lack of incentives/ compensation for reuse 3.60 48.36 4

I would rather be seen as an innovative software professional 4.10 40.03 6

Others don’t share experience 2.26 70.71 1

Nothing is documented well enough 3.27 53.79 2

Project teams don’t discuss things 3.53 49.49 3

Inadequate IT/ software support 3.65 47.47 5


207

6.4 Knowledge Sharing Attitude

6.4.1 Knowledge sharing is good

Table 6.7(a) indicates that organisation group-wise, in Type I organisations, 97% respondents

agreed that knowledge-sharing is good. Similarly, majority of respondents of Type II and III

organisations expressed that knowledge-sharing is good. Age-wise, majority of the

respondents of below 25 years of age and above 55 years strongly agree to the statement.

Work experience-wise, 98.53% Software engineers with 3-5 years experience and 96.05%

respondents with 1-3 years experience agree that sharing knowledge is good. Qualification-

wise, 63.73% graduate and 67.57% post-graduate respondents strongly agree that knowledge-

sharing is a positive activity while 93.10% PhD and 98.28% professional respondents were

also in the favour of knowledge sharing.

In nutshell, 98% respondents in all favour knowledge sharing activity in SE organisations.

This very clearly indicates that Software engineers are very positive towards sharing their

domain knowledge with their co-workers. Co-efficient of variation reveals that there is more

variability in the opinion of Type I organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type

II and III organisations’ respondents. The Coefficient of variation is highest in case of Type I

companies (i.e. 12.04) which shows the highest intra-group difference of opinions among the

respondents as compared to those of Type II and III companies.

Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is greater than 1 which implies that majority of

the respondents do agree with the statement ‘Knowledge sharing is good’. Since the

calculated value (CV) of Chi-square is greater than the table value (TV) the results are

significant at 1% LOS and the null hypothesis (H03: Software engineers believe that

knowledge sharing is not good) is rejected. Thus, it can be inferred that the Software

engineers in all types of organisations feel that knowledge sharing is good. The t-test

indicates the significant difference in organisation Type I and II at 5% LOS.


208

Table 6.7 (a)

Knowledge sharing is good

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group SD D N A SA χ2 WAS Mean S.D. CV Type Type I Type II Type III

1.00

3.00

2.00

37.00 32.00 34.00

60.00 67.00 64.00

21.10**

1.57 1.65 1.62

4.57 4.65 4.62

0.55 0.54 0.52

12.04 11.61 11.26

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

2.38

1.35 0.84 5.45

33.78 44.54 21.82 28.57 10.00

64.86 54.62 72.73 69.05 90.00

95.09**

1.64 1.54 1.67 1.64 1.90

4.64 4.54 4.67 4.64 4.90

0.51 0.52 0.57 0.61 0.30

10.99 11.45 12.21 13.15 6.12


1.32

2.63 1.47 3.77

27.37 34.21 35.29 45.28

72.63 61.84 63.24 50.94

50.52**

1.73 1.57 1.62 1.47

4.73 4.57 4.62 4.47

0.45 0.67 0.52 0.57

9.51 13.35 11.26 12.75


0.98

6.19 0.98 0.90 1.72

34.48 34.31 31.53 39.66

58.62 63.73 67.57 58.62

33.88**

1.52 1.61 1.67 1.57

4.52 4.61 4.67 4.57

0.62 0.56 0.49 0.53

13.72 12.15 10.49 11.60

Industry Average 0.33 1.67 34.33 63.67 1.61 4.61 0.54 11.71 SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N= Neutral; D= Disagree; SD= Strongly Disagree

* significant at 5% ** significant at 1%

Table 6.7 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.97

0.97

0.99

0.99

0.98

0.98

2.02*

0.91

1.16

* significant at 5%


209

6.4.2 Knowledge sharing and positive changes in company

Generally it is believed that the Software engineers feel that knowledge sharing will not make

any positive changes in the company. However, in practice it may not be the case. This

question was asked to software engineers of the three organisation groups. In case of

organisation Type I, 75% respondents were of the view that knowledge sharing brings

positive changes in the company. Majority of the respondents of group II and III

organisations also confirmed this view. Age-wise, 73.13% respondents of 36-45 years aged

feel that knowledge sharing results into positive changes. 25% respondents of 46-55 years

age agree to the statement. 95.45% respondents of below 25 years disagree to the statement.

On the basis of experience, 76.67% respondents having 1 to 3 years experience disagree to

the above statement. Majority of the respondents of the highest experience feel that

knowledge sharing is necessary for making positive changes possible in their organisations.

Qualification-wise, majority of the graduate, post-graduate and professional respondents

disagree to the statement ‘Knowledge sharing will not make any positive changes in the

company’. 33% PhD respondents are of the view that knowledge sharing can not bring any

positive changes in their work environment. Overall, the majority of respondents (76.11%)

believe strongly that knowledge sharing can bring positive changes in organisation.

Co-efficient of variation reveals that there is more variability in the opinion of Software

engineers of Type II organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type I and III

organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is less than 1. It

means majority of respondents disagree with the given statement. The chi-square test shows

that the differences in the opinion of organisation group respondents are insignificant. Hence,

we accept null hypothesis H04: As per the perception of software engineers, knowledge

sharing will make positive changes in the company. The t-test shows the insignificant

difference in various organisation groups. Difference may exist due to some fluctuations in

sampling.


210

Table 6.8(a)

Knowledge sharing will not make any positive changes in the company

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group SD D N A SA χ2 WAS Mean S.D. CV


13.33 13.33 13.33

61.67 60.00 66.67

6.67 10.00 3.33

15.00 6.67 13.33

3.33 10.00 3.33

14.86

0.67 0.60 0.73

3.67 3.60 3.73

0.99 1.11 0.96

26.98 30.83 25.74

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

45.45 2.99 13.43 15.00

50.00 61.19 73.13 40.00 100.0

7.46 4.48 20.00

4.55 16.42 5.97 25.00

11.94 2.99

21.54

1.36 0.27 0.88 0.45 1.00

4.36 3.27 3.88 3.45 4.00

0.71 1.14 0.82 1.02 0.00

16.28 34.86 21.13 29.57 0.00


22.22

10.53 13.95

46.67 76.67 68.42 65.12

13.33 10.53 6.98

20.00 6.67 10.53 9.30

11.11 3.33

4.65

25.80

0.49 0.63 0.79 0.74

3.49 3.63 3.79 3.74

1.33 0.75 0.77 0.97

38.11 20.66 20.32 25.94


15.91 10.59 17.78

66.67 59.09 68.24 55.56

9.09 7.06 4.44

13.64 10.59 13.33

33.33 2.27 3.53 8.89

18.89

0.00 0.73 0.72 0.60

3.00 3.73 3.72 3.60

1.41 0.96 0.92 1.18

47.00 25.74 24.73 32.78

Industry Average 13.33 62.78 6.67 11.67 5.56 0.67 3.67 1.03 28.07

SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N= Neutral; D= Disagree; SD= Strongly Disagree


Table 6.8(b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.75

0.75

0.73

0.73

0.80

0.80

0.29

0.93

1.22


211

6.4.3 Knowledge sharing and competitiveness among peers

It is commonly believed that sharing knowledge reduces competitiveness among the peers.

This notion was verified from software engineers of the three organisation groups. 72%

respondents of Type I organisations agreed that knowledge-sharing reduces the

competitiveness among peers. Similarly, in Type II and III organisations, majority of the

respondents agreed that sharing knowledge reduces competitiveness among the peers. On the

basis of the work experience of the Software engineers, majority of the respondents also

agreed to the statement ‘Sharing knowledge reduces competitiveness among the peers’.

Overall, 67.67% respondents were in favour of the statement and 21.33% respondents did not

agree that sharing knowledge reduces competitiveness among the peers.

Co-efficient of variation reveals that there is more variability in the opinion of Type III

organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type I and II organisations’ respondents.

Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is insignificant as it is less than 1. Since the

calculated value (CV) of Chi-square is greater than the table value (TV) the results are

significant at 1% LOS and the null hypothesis (H05: Sharing knowledge does not reduce

competitiveness among the peers.) is rejected. Thus, it can be inferred that sharing knowledge

reduces competitiveness among the peers. The t-test indicates that the difference in the

opinion of respondents of Type I and III and also between Type II and III is significant at 1%

LOS respectively.


212

Table 6.9(a)

Knowledge sharing reduces competitiveness among peers

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group SD D N A SA χ2 WAS Mean S.D. CV


3.00 5.00 11.00

13.00 9.00 23.00

12.00 10.00 11.00

37.00 29.00 23.00

35.00 47.00 32.00

76.92**

0.88 1.04 0.42

3.88 4.04 3.42

1.12 1.17 1.42

28.87 28.96 41.52

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

8.11 7.56 3.64 4.76

12.16 16.81 21.82 7.14 10.00

16.22 9.24 7.27 11.90 10.00

31.08 26.89 34.55 23.81 50.00

32.43 39.50 32.73 52.38 30.00

61.78**

0.68 0.74 0.71 1.12 1.00

3.68 3.74 3.71 4.12 4.00

1.26 1.33 1.23 1.16 0.89

34.24 35.56 33.15 28.16 22.25


6.32 5.26 8.82 5.66

12.63 14.47 17.65 15.09

12.63 5.26 11.76 13.21

24.21 31.58 27.94 37.74

44.21 43.42 33.82 28.30

58.03**

0.87 0.93 0.60 0.68

3.87 3.93 3.60 3.68

1.28 1.24 1.34 1.19

33.07 31.55 37.22 32.34


8.82 4.50 8.62

3.45 13.73 17.12 18.97

17.24 9.80 11.71 8.62

34.48 34.31 26.13 25.86

44.83 33.33 40.54 37.93

47.56**

1.21 0.70 0.81 0.66

4.21 3.70 3.81 3.66

0.85 1.30 1.26 1.37

20.19 35.14 33.07 37.43

Industry Average 6.33 15.00 11.00 29.67 38.00 0.78 3.78 1.27 33.60 SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N= Neutral; D= Disagree; SD= Strongly Disagree


Table 6.9(b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.72

0.72

0.76

0.76

0.55

0.55

1.29

4.99**

6.25**



213

6.4.4 Knowledge sharing is time consuming and additional responsibility

The software engineers were asked whether knowledge sharing is time consuming and seems

to be an additional responsibility. Organisation group-wise, 52% respondents of Type I

organisations agreed that knowledge sharing is time consuming and seems to be an additional

responsibility. Similarly, 51% respondents of Type II companies and 65% respondents of

Type III companies agreed that knowledge sharing is time consuming and an additional

responsibility. On the basis of work experience, more than 50% respondents of less than 1

year experience believe that knowledge sharing is time consuming and an additional

responsibility, while 64.7% respondents of 3-5 years experience and 58.49% respondents of

more than 5 years experience said that knowledge sharing is time consuming and seems to be

an additional responsibility. Only 27.34% respondents were of the view that knowledge

sharing is not time consuming. Overall, 34.67% respondents agree and 21.33% respondents

strongly agree to the statement. Hence, it can be concluded that software engineers are of the

opinion that sharing knowledge consumes their time and also increases their responsibility.

The chi-square test shows that the difference in the opinion of organisation group respondents

is significant at 1% LOS. The null hypothesis (H06: Knowledge sharing is not time

consuming and does not seem to be an additional responsibility.) is rejected. In other words,

we can infer that Software engineers feel that knowledge sharing is time consuming and an

additional responsibility. The t-test shows the significant difference in organisation Type I

and III and also in organisation group II and III at 1% LOS. Co-efficient of variation reveals

that there is more variability in the opinion of Type II organisations’ respondents and more

consistency in Type I and Type III organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three

organisation groups is insignificant because it is less than 1.


214

Table 6.10(a)

Knowledge sharing is time consuming and additional responsibility

(Percent)

Group /Subgroup SD D N A SA χ2 WAS Mean S.D. CV Type Type I Type II Type III

16.00 17.00 14.00

11.00 16.00 8.00

21.00 16.00 13.00

28.00 33.00 43.00

24.00 18.00 22.00

37.19**

0.33 0.19 0.51

3.33 3.19 3.51

1.37 1.36 1.30

41.14 42.63 37.04

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

14.86 15.13 20.00 16.67

10.81 13.45 10.91 7.14 20.00

10.81 22.69 12.73 16.67 10.00

32.43 26.89 47.27 45.24 30.00

31.08 21.85 9.09 14.29 40.00

99.32**

0.54 0.27 0.15 0.33 0.90

3.54 3.27 3.15 3.33 3.90

1.41 1.35 1.31 1.28 1.14

39.83 41.28 41.59 38.44 29.23


15.79 18.42 11.76 16.98

12.63 13.16 10.26 11.32

14.74 23.68 13.24 13.21

38.95 31.58 30.88 35.85

17.89 13.16 33.82 22.64

76.90**

0.31 0.08 0.65 0.36

3.31 3.08 3.65 3.36

1.33 1.31 1.35 1.39

40.18 42.53 36.99 41.37


17.24 21.57 13.51 8.62

6.90 9.80 16.22 8.62

10.34 16.67 17.12 18.97

41.38 32.35 33.33 37.93

24.14 19.61 19.82 25.86

41.47**

0.48 0.19 0.30 0.64

3.48 3.19 3.30 3.64

1.38 1.43 1.32 1.20

39.66 44.83 40.00 32.97



Table 6.10(b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.52

0.52

0.51

0.51

0.65

0.65

0.28

3.73**

4.01**



215

6.4.5 Knowledge sharing and compensation

It is generally believed that everyone likes to be compensated in one form or the other for

sharing one’s knowledge. The same was asked to 302 Software engineers. In Type I

organisations, 90% respondents agree that knowledge sharing must be compensated. (cf.

Table 6.11 (a)). Similarly, in Type II and III, majority of the respondents agree to the

statement. On the basis of the age, experience and qualification profile of the software

engineers, majority of the respondents agree that knowledge sharing must be compensated.

63.87% respondents of 25-35 years strongly agree to the statement. Overall, majority of the

respondents (92.33%) do agree that knowledge sharing must be compensated.

Co-efficient of variation reveals that there is more variability in the opinion of Type I

organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type II and III organisations’

respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is greater than 1 which means

majority of the respondents agree that knowledge sharing must be compensated. The chi-

square test reveals that the difference in the opinion of respondents of organisation groups is

significant at 1% LOS. Hence, the null hypothesis (H07: Software engineers do not want that

knowledge sharing must be compensated.) is rejected and it can be inferred that Software

engineers want that their organisations must compensate their knowledge-sharing activity.

The t-test shows the significant difference in organisation Type I and II and also in Type II

and III at 1% LOS.


216

Table 6.11(a)

Knowledge sharing must be compensated

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group SD D N A SA χ2 WAS Mean S.D. CV Type Type I Type II Type III

2.00

1.00

8.00 1.00 11.00

39.00 39.00 24.00

51.00 60.00 64.00

78.12**

1.37 1.59 1.51

4.37 4.59 4.51

0.80 0.51 0.73

18.31 11.11 16.19

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

0.84 1.82

0.84

16.22 2.52 5.45

20.00

32.43 31.93 34.55 40.48 40.00

51.35 63.87 58.18 59.52 40.00

98.67**

1.35 1.57 1.47 1.60 1.20

4.35 4.57 4.47 4.60 4.20

0.74 0.67 0.76 0.49 0.75

17.01 14.66 17.00 10.65 17.86


1.47

1.32

7.37 9.21 2.94 7.55

41.05 23.68 32.35 37.34

51.58 65.79 63.24 54.72

198.22**

1.44 1.54 1.56 1.47

4.44 4.54 4.56 4.47

0.63 0.72 0.69 0.63

14.19 15.86 15.13 14.09


1.96

0.98

13.79 6.86 6.31 3.45

27.59 32.35 36.94 34.48

58.62 57.84 56.76 62.07

38.24**

1.45 1.43 1.50 1.59

4.45 4.43 4.50 4.59

0.72 0.82 0.61 0.56

16.18 18.51 13.56 12.20



Table 6.11(b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.90

0.90

0.99

0.99

0.88

0.88

5.58**

0.90

6.31**


Table 6.12

Comparative Analysis of Knowledge Sharing Attitudes

(Percent)

Knowledge sharing Attitude Mean SD D N A SA Knowledge sharing is good. 4.61 0 0.33 1.67 34.33 63.67 Knowledge sharing must be compensated. 4.49 0.67 0.33 6.67 34.00 58.33 Sharing knowledge reduces competitiveness among the peers. 3.78 6.33 15.00 11.00 29.67 38.00 Knowledge sharing will not make any positive changes in the company. 3.67 13.33 62.78 6.67 11.67 5.56

Knowledge sharing is time consuming and seems to be an additional responsibility. 3.34 15.67 11.67 16.67 34.67 21.33


217

6.5 Rewards for Knowledge sharing

After judging the knowledge sharing attitude of the software engineers, it was attempted to

know the Software engineers’ preference of various methods of rewarding knowledge-

sharing activity. In the opinion of the majority of the respondents, rewarding knowledge

sharing initiative of employees with higher score in staff Key Performance Indicators is the

most preferred option while rewarding with special incentives like promotions, transfer to the

desired department/ project team etc. gain second rank (cf. Table 6.13). Financial incentives

for knowledge sharing are not very desirable by the Software engineers as compared to

higher score in their performance report or promotion benefit etc. as it has 50.87 average

score. It is also clear from Table 6.13 that getting no rewards or incentives for knowledge

sharing activity is the least preferred option which means that software engineers feel

strongly that knowledge sharing should be rewarded by some means in their organisations.

Table 6.13

Methods of Rewarding knowledge sharing activity

Rewards for Knowledge Sharing Average Rank Average Score Ranks

Higher score in staff KPIs 1.70 82.90 1

Provide recognition 5.18 33.12 4

Financially 3.94 50.87 3

Incentives like promotions 3.33 59.52 2

No rewards/ incentives 5.21 32.68 5


218

6.6 Software Engineers Perceptions on KM Issues

6.6.1 KM and Software engineers’ efficiency and productivity

The biggest advantage that the KM can provide is assumed to be increased efficiency and

productivity. The software engineers who are the actual users of the KM were asked their

views on ‘to what extent KM has increased employee’s efficiency and productivity?’

Organisation group wise, in Type I organisations, 96.67% respondents agree that KM does

increase employee’s efficiency and productivity in organisations. Similarly, 90% respondents

of Type II as well Type III organisations’ respondents also agree that KM enhances

productivity and efficiency. Age-wise, majority of the respondents of all the ages have agreed

to the statement. On the basis of experience, majority of the respondents also agree to the

statement. Education-wise, 100% Ph.D. and more than 96% professional respondents have

agreed that KM is beneficial to software engineers as far as the efficiency and productivity is

concerned.

Overall, 45% of the total respondents believe that KM increases employees’ efficiency and

productivity to a large extent and 47% of the total respondents are of the view that KM

increases employees’ efficiency and productivity to some extent. Thus, overall, the majority

of respondents (92.22%) think that KM increases employees’ efficiency and productivity.

Statistically, Co-efficient of variation reveals that there is more variability in the opinion of

software engineers of Type III and Type II organisations’ respondents and more consistency

in Type I Organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is greater

than 1. It means majority of the respondents are satisfied that KM increases employees’

efficiency and productivity. The t-test reveals significant difference in the opinions of

respondents of organisation groups Type I and II and in organisation groups Type I and III at

5% LOS.


219

Table 6.14 (a)

KM and Software engineers’ efficiency and productivity

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



3.33 3.33 3.33

6.67 6.67

55.00 40.00 46.67

41.67 50.00 43.33

11.91

1.35 1.37 1.30

4.35 4.37 4.30

0.65 0.75 0.74

14.94 17.16 17.21

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

13,64 1.49 2.99

27.27 2.99

31.82 41.79 49.25 80.00 25.00

27.27 53.73 47.76 20.00 75.00

103.17**

0.73 1.48 1.42 1.20 1.75

3.73 4.48 4.42 4.20 4.75

1.01 0.63 0.65 0.40 0.43

27.08 14.06 14.71 9.52 9.05

Experience Below 1 yr 1-3 yrs 3-5yrs Above 5 yrs

6.67 3.33 10.53

13.33

37.78 30.00 36.84 66.67

42.22 66.67 52.33 33.33

76.81**

1.16 1.60 1.32 1.33

4.16 4.60 4.32 4.33

0.89 0.66 0.92 0.47

21.39 14.35 21.30 10.85


11.36

2.57

9.09 2.35

66.67 56.82 51.76 25.64

33.33 22.73 45.88 71.79

67.57**

1.33 0.91 1.44 1.67

4.33 3.91 4.44 4.67

0.47 0.87 0.54 0.61

10.85 22.25 12.16 13.06

Industry Average

3.33 4.44 47.22 45.00 1.34 4.34 0.72 16.59


Table 6.14 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.97

0.97

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

2.07 *

2.07 *

0.00

* significant at 5%


220

6.6.2 KM and Organisation’s overall performance

All the respondents of Type I organisations and 90% of Type III organisations’ respondents

agree that overall performance of organisations has improved due to KM induction. Age-wise

also, all the respondents of below 25 years of age and above 55 years of age feel that overall

performance of organisations has improved due to KM induction. On the basis of experience,

majority of the lower and highly experienced respondents feel that overall performance of

organisations has improved due to KM induction. Qualification-wise, all the Ph.D. software

engineers agree to the same. Majority of the respondents of graduate, post-graduate and

professional qualifications have also responded that overall performance of organisations has

improved due to KM induction. Overall, the majority of respondents (91.12%) are satisfied

that KM induction in their organisations has improved the overall performance of their

organisations.

Co-efficient of variation reveals that there is more variability in the opinion of software

engineers of Type II and Type III organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type I

organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of the three organisation groups is significant

because it is greater than 1. The chi-square test shows that the difference in the opinions of

organisation group respondents is significant at 1% LOS. The t-test shows significant

difference in organisation group Type I and II, also in organisation group I and III at 1%

LOS.


221

Table 6.15 (a)

KM and Organisation’s overall performance

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



3.33

6.67 3.33

10.00 3.33

78.33 30.00 73.33

21.67 53.33 16.67

89.05**

1.22 1.30 0.97

4.22 4.30 3.97

0.41 0.90 0.80

9.72 20.93 20.15

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

2.99

5.97 10.00

11.94

40.91 55.22 71.64 65.00 50.00

59.09 32.84 19.40 25.00 50.00

73.29**

1.59 1.21 0.99 1.05 1.50

4.59 4.21 3.99 4.05 4.50

0.49 0.64 0.84 0.80 0.50

10.68 15.20 21.05 19.75 11.11


21.05 2.56

4.44 13.33 10.53

46.67 53.33 31.58 82.05

48.89 33.33 36.84 15.38

101.77**

1.44 1.20 0.84 1.10

4.44 4.20 3.84 4.10

0.58 0.65 1.14 0.50

13.06 15.48 29.69 12.20


2.35

9.09 2.35

4.71 10.26

100.0 75.00 55.29 53.85

15.91 35.29 35.90

45.49**

1.00 0.98 1.19 1.26

4.00 3.98 4.19 4.26

0.00 0.72 0.82 0.63

0.00 18.09 19.57 14.79

Industry Average

1.11 3.33 4.44 60.56 30.56 1.16 4.16 0.75 18.03


Table 6.15 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

1.00

1.00

0.83

0.83

0.90

0.90

4.67 **

3.55 **

1.52



222

6.6.3 KM induction and Software engineers’ overall workload

As per Table 6.16(a), 68.33% of respondents from Type I organisations do not feel that their

overall workload and job burden has reduced due to KM induction in their organisations.

Similarly, in Type II and Type III organisations, majority of the respondents responded that

their workload and job burden has not reduced due to KM induction. Only a few respondents

said that the overall workload and job burden has reduced due to KM induction in

organisations. Overall, 57.78% respondents replied that their workload and job burden has

not reduced at all or has reduced very little due to KM induction in their organisations.


engineers of Type II organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type I and Type III

organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is insignificant

because it is less than 1. The chi-square test shows that the difference in the opinions of

organisation group respondents is significant at 1% LOS. The t-test shows the insignificant

difference in various organisation groups, difference exists due to some fluctuations.


223

Table 6.16 (a)

KM induction and Reduction in Software engineers’ Job Burden

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



30.00 40.00 10.00

38.33 16.67 38.33

3.33 10.00

28.33 33.33 38.33

3.33 6.67 3.33

50.87**

-0.63 -0.50 -0.13

2.37 2.50 2.87

1.26 1.45 1.13

53.16 58.00 39.37

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

13.64 41.79 16.42 30.00

22.73 23.88 46.27 15.00 25.00

2.99 5.97 10.00

63.64 28.36 26.87 30.00 75.00

2.99 4.48 15.00

76.96**

0.14 -0.73 -0.43 -0.15 0.50

3.14 2.27 2.57 2.85 3.50

1.18 1.33 1.17 1.49 0.87

37.58 58.59 45.53 52.28 24.86


31.11 63.33 26.32 10.26

22.22 13.33 42.11 43.59

7.69

46.67 16.67 15.79 34.62

6.67 15.79 3.85

106.36**

-0.38 -0.10 -0.47 -0.32

2.62 1.90 2.53 2.78

1.34 1.37 1.43 1.14

51.15 72.11 56.52 41.01


13.64 27.06 48.72

43.18 30.59 23.08

66.67 4.55 2.35

33.33 36.36 37.65 20.51

2.27 2.35 7.69

148.14**

0.33 -0.30 -0.42 -0.85

3.33 2.70 2.58 2.15

0.47 1.16 1.30 1.41

14.11 42.96 50.39 65.58

Industry Average

26.67 31.11 4.44 33.33 4.44 0.42 2.58 1.31 50.78


Table 6.16 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.32

0.32

0.40

0.40

0.42

0.42

1.35

1.61

0.26


224

6.6.4 KM and Software engineers’ work-load and stress

Though KM provides certain benefits, it also has its dark side. Software engineers were asked

‘to what extent KM causes extra work-load and stress among them? Organisation group-wise,

in Type I organisations, 45% software engineers disagreed that KM causes any extra work-

load or stress among the software engineers. On the other hand, 46.67% respondents of Type

II Organisations and 76.67% respondents of Type III Organisations agree that KM causes

extra load and stress among the software engineers. Age-wise, majority of the respondents do

agree that KM causes extra work-load and stress among the software engineers. 55%

respondents of 46-55 years of age donot agree with the above statement. On the basis of work

experience and qualifications, majority of the respondents agree to the statement but 56.67%

respondents of 1-3 years experience disagree to the same. 31.76% post graduate respondents

also disagree with the above statement. Overall, only 55% respondents feel that KM causes

extra work-load and stress among software engineers.


software engineers of Type II Organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type I and

Type III Organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is

insignificant because it is less than 1. The chi square test shows that the difference in the

opinions of organisation group respondents is significant at 1% LOS. The t-test shows

significant difference in organisation group I and III, and in organisation group II and III at

1% LOS.


225

Table 6.17 (a)

KM and Software engineers’ Extra work-load and stress

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



3.33 20.00 3.33

41.67 23.33 10.00

13.33 10.00 10.00

41.67 36.67 56.67

10.00 20.00

79.84**

-0.07 -0.07 0.80

2.93 2.93 3.80

0.98 1.34 0.98

33.45 45.73 25.79

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

14.93 4.48 15.00

27.27 28.36 17.91 40.00

13.43 10.45 20.00

36.36 40.30 58.21 25.00 50.00

36.36 2.99 8.96

50.00

97.35**

0.82 -0.12 0.49 -0.45 1.50

3.82 2.88 3.49 2.55 4.50

1.19 1.18 1.03 1.02 0.50

31.15 40.97 29.51 40.00 11.11


17.78

15.79 3.85

22.22 56.67 26.32 16.67

8.89 13.33 10.53 12.82

33.33 30.00 47.37 58.97

17.78

7.69

80.14**

0.11 -0.27 -0.11 0.50

3.11 2.73 2.89 3.50

1.40 0.89 1.17 0.98

45.02 32.60 40.48 28.00


6.82 9.41 12.82

22.73 22.35 41.02

9.09 12.94 12.82

66.67 43.18 50.59 28.20

33.33 18.18 4.71 5.13

44.13**

1.33 0.43 0.19 -0.28

1.33 3.43 3.19 2.72

0.47 1.21 1.12 1.15

10.85 35.28 35.11 42.28

Industry Average

8.89 25.00 11.11 45.00 10.00 0.22 3.22 1.19 36.96


Table 6.17 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.42

0.42

0.47

0.47

0.77

0.77

0.78

5.52 **

4.78 **



226

6.6.5 KM and Software Process Improvement

Organisation group-wise, in Type I, 96.66% respondents opine that with the induction of KM

in their organisations, the software processes have improved. Similarly, in Type II and Type

III organisations, majority of the respondents also agree that with the induction of KM

practices, the software processes have improved. Age-wise, majority of the highest and the

lowest aged respondents are also of the same opinion. All the respondents of more than 55

years of age think that KM has improved the software process to a large extent. Majority of

the software engineers, on the basis of experience and qualification, also feel the same way.

52.56% respondents having more than 5 years experience also feel that KM has improved the

software process to a large extent. Overall, majority of the respondents (91.11%) do believe

that KM has improved the software process in their organisations.


engineers of Type III Organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type I and Type II

Organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS among three organisation groups is greater than 1.

It means majority of the respondents affirm that KM has improved software process in their

organisations. The chi square test shows that the difference in the opinions of organisation

group respondents is significant at 1% LOS. The t-test shows significant difference in

organisation group I and III and in organisation group II and III at 1 % and 5% LOS

respectively.


227

Table: 6.18 (a)

KM and Software Process Improvement

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



3.33 3.33

3.33

6.67

3.33 6.67

53.33 66.67 38.33

43.33 26.67 45.00

35.57**

1.37 1.13 1.15

4.37 4.13 4.15

0.66 0.76 1.03

15.10 18.40 24.82

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

5.97

4.55

7.46

2.99 2.99 10.00

68.18 65.67 44.78 30.00

27.27 25.37 44.78 60.00 100.0

71.31**

1.18 1.04 1.27 1.50 2.00

4.18 4.04 4.27 4.50 5.00

0.65 0.90 0.84 0.67 0.00

15.55 22.28 19.67 14.89 0.00


13.33

2.22

10.53 3.85

7.69

71.11 66.67 57.89 35.90

26.67 20.00 31.58 52.56

94.15**

1.22 0.80 1.11 1.37

4.22 3.80 4.11 4.37

0.55 1.17 0.85 0.79

13.03 30.79 20.68 18.08


10.26

6.82 2.35 2.56

66.67 4.55

56.82 55.29 53.85

33.33 31.82 42.35 33.33

188.67**

0.67 1.14 1.38 0.97

3.67 4.14 4.38 3.97

0.94 0.79 0.61 1.17

25.61 19.08 13.93 29.47

Industry Average

2.22 3.33 3.33 52.78 38.33 1.22 4.22 0.84 19.91


Table: 6.18 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.97

0.97

0.97

0.93

0.83

0.83

1.18

3.44 **

2.41 *



228

6.6.6 Atmosphere for sharing knowledge in organisations

Organisation group-wise, 61.67% software engineers of Type I organisations disagree that

their organisations promote and provide atmosphere for sharing knowledge and experience

among its employees. On the other hand, less than 50% respondents of Type II and Type III

organisations feel that there is a culture of knowledge sharing in their organisations. Age-

wise, majority of the respondents feel that their organisations support knowledge sharing to

very little extent and 50% respondents of above 55 years of age say that organisations

promote knowledge sharing to a large extent. On the basis of experience, majority of the

highly experienced respondents disagree to this. According to qualifications, less than 50%

respondents feel very little organisational support and 64% professional respondents disagree

with the statement. Overall, 46.66% respondents are against the belief that there is knowledge

sharing support systems in their organisations and 36.67% respondents agree to the above

statement.


software engineers of Type II organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type I and

Type III organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is

insignificant because it is less than 1. The chi-square test shows that the difference in the


significant difference in organisation group I and II, and in organisation group I and III at 1%

and 5 % LOS respectively.


229

Table 6.19 (a)

Atmosphere for sharing knowledge in organisations

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



10.00

61.67 36.67 31.67

13.33 6.67 30.00

16.67 16.67 35.00

8.33 30.00 3.33

105.63**

-0.28 0.20 0.10

2.72 3.20 3.10

1.02 1.45 0.89

37.50 45.31 28.71

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

5.97 2.99

18.18 43.28 52.24 40.00 50.00

9.09 11.94 13.43 55.00

45.45 20.90 25.37

27.27 17.91 5.97 5.00 50.00

100.27**

0.82 0.01 -0.21 -0.30 0.50

3.82 3.01 2.79 2.70 3.50

1.03 1.26 1.04 0.71 1.50

26.96 41.86 37.28 26.30 42.86


4.44 6.67

10.53

28.89 53.33 52.63 47.44

11.11 3.33 5.26 29.49

28.89 16.67 31.58 14.10

26.67 20.00

8.97

72.98**

0.44 -0.10 -0.42 -0.15

3.44 2.90 2.58 2.85

1.27 1.33 1.04 0.98

36.92 45.86 40.31 34.39


2.35 10.26

45.45 43.53 53.85

66.67 20.45 9.41 17.94

33.33 29.55 22.35 7.69

4.55 22.35 10.26

72.99**

0.33 -0.07 0.19 -0.46

3.33 2.93 3.19 2.54

0.47 0.96 1.27 1.11

14.11 32.76 39.81 43.70

Industry Average

3.33 43.33 16.67 22.78 13.89 0.01 3.01 1.16 38.54


Table 6.19 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.25

0.25

0.47

0.47

0.38

0.38

3.50 **

2.22 *

1.31



230

6.6.7 KMS and ease of knowledge capturing and sharing

It is assumed that KMS reduces manual labour and thus makes the capturing and sharing of

knowledge among the members of an organisation easy. Software engineers, the actual users

of the KMS, were asked ‘to what extent KMS in your organisation has made the capturing

and sharing of knowledge easy?’ Organisation group-wise, in Group I, all the respondents

agreed that KMS provides ease of knowledge capturing and sharing to the software

engineers. 71.67% of Group I respondents say that KMS provides ease ‘to some extent’ and

28.33% of respondents say that KMS provides ease of knowledge sharing to a large extent.

Similarly, in Type II and Type III Organisations, majority of the respondents have agreed to

the statement. Overall, majority of the respondents (97.78%) think that KM systems do

provide comfort and ease for capturing as well as sharing knowledge among software

engineers in SE organisations.

All the respondents of higher age (more than 46 years of age) feel that KMS has made the

capturing and sharing of knowledge easy. It is worth mentioning here that respondents of

higher age group as compared to lower age group have probably seen all times from no KM

systems at all to KM systems working in their organisations. Therefore, their responses have

more significance.


engineers of Type III organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type I and Type II

organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is greater than 1. It

means majority of the respondents affirm that KMS in their organisations has made the

capture and sharing of knowledge easy. The chi-square test shows that the difference in the


significant difference in organisation group I and II, and in organisation group I and III at 5%

LOS.


231

Table 6.20 (a)

KMS and ease of knowledge capturing and sharing

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



3.33

3.33

71.67 53.33 58.33

28.33 43.33 38.33

23.35**

1.28 1.40 1.32

4.28 4.40 4.32

0.45 0.55 0.65

10.51 12.50 15.05

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

2.99

2.99

40.91 59.70 70.15 65.00 25.00

59.09 37.31 26.87 35.00 75.00

32.87**

1.59 1.34 1.21 1.35 1.75

4.59 4.34 4.21 4.35 4.75

0.49 0.53 0.59 0.48 0.43

10.68 12.21 14.01 11.03 9.05

Experience Below 1 yr 1-3 yrs 3-5yrs Above 5 yrs

10.53

10.53

62.22 56.67 36.84 69.23

37.78 43.33 42.11 30.77

72.47**

1.38 1.43 1.11 1.31

4.38 4.43 4.11 4.31

0.48 0.50 0.97 0.46

10.96 11.29 23.60 10.67


4.55

2.35

100.0 65.91 64.71 46.15

29.55 32.94 53.85

35.17**

1.00 1.20 1.31 1.54

4.00 4.20 4.31 4.54

0.00 0.66 0.51 0.50

0.00 15.71 11.83 11.01

Industry Average

1.11 1.11 61.11 36.67 1.33 4.33 0.56 12.93


Table 6.20 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

1.00

1.00

0.97

0.97

0.97

0.97

2.02 *

2.02 *

0.00

* significant at 5%


232

6.6.8 Rewards for Knowledge Sharing

It is a common fact that to promote knowledge sharing in an organisation, it has to be

rewarded in some form or the other. Software engineers in the survey were asked as to what

extent knowledge sharing in their organisations is rewarded? 56.67% software engineers of

Type I organisations responded that knowledge sharing activity is rewarded in their

organisations to a very little extent. Similarly, respondents of Type II as well as Type III

organisations responded that knowledge sharing is very poorly rewarded. Age-wise, majority

of the lowest and the highest aged software engineers responded the same answer ‘very little’

and ‘not at all’. On the basis of experience and qualifications, majority of the respondents

also favoured ‘very little and not at all’ responses. Overall, 63.33% software engineers claim

that knowledge sharing in SE organisations is rewarded to a very little extent.



organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is significant because

it is greater than 1. The chi-square test shows that the difference in the opinions of

organisation group respondents is significant at 1% LOS. The t-test shows insignificant

difference in various organisation groups, i.e., difference exists due to some fluctuations.


233

Table 6.21 (a)

Knowledge Sharing is Rewarded

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



36.67 13.33 33.33

56.67 80.00 53.33

3.33 6.67 6.67

3.33

3.33

3.33

35.36**

1.47 1.73 1.30

4.47 4.73 4.30

0.72 0.57 0.97

16.11 12.05 22.56

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

40.91 31.34 23.88 10.00 50.00

54.55 62.69 68.66 60.00 50.00

4.55 5.97 2.99 15.00

10.00

4.48 5.00

60.66**

1.50 1.57 1.57 1.05 1.50

4.50 4.57 4.57 4.05 4.50

0.58 0.60 0.76 1.36 0.50

12.89 13.13 16.63 33.58 11.11


33.33 60.00 15.79 15.38

60.00 40.00 78.95 69.23

6.67

8.97

2.56

5.26 3.85

61.30**

1.53 1.40 1.68 1.45

4.53 4.40 4.68 4.45

0.62 0.49 0.73 0.98

13.69 11.14 15.60 22.02


36.36 21.18 35.90

33.33 61.36 70.59 53.85

66.67

5.88 2.56

5.13

2.27 2.35 2.56

112.62**

0.67 1.57 1.60 1.31

3.67 4.57 4.60 4.31

0.94 0.62 0.71 1.02

25.61 13.57 15.43 23.67

Industry Average

27.78 63.33 5.56 1.11 2.22 1.50 4.50 0.79 17.56


Table 6.21 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.93

0.93

0.93

0.93

0.87

0.87

0.00

1.72

1.72


234

6.6.9 Training related to KM Practices

The software engineers were asked to answer the question ‘To what extent they are provided

formal or informal training related to KM practices in their organisations?’ Organisation

group-wise, 63.33% of Type I organisations’ respondents feel that no training, whether

formal or informal, related to KM practices is provided in their organisations. Similarly,

majority of the Type III organisations’ respondents feel that there in no training on KM by

their respective organisations. On the other hand, more than half of the Type II organisations’

respondents claim that their organisations provide some training related to KM process and

practices. Age-wise, 63.64% respondents of below 25 years age feel the absence of any

training on KM. 70% respondents of 46-55 age also agree that there is either no training or

the training is very little on KM practices in their organisations. On the basis of experience,

majority of the respondents having 3 to 5 years experience also feel that training on KM is to

some extent. 55.13% respondents of above 5 years experience think that there is no KM

training provided in their organisations. However, 30.77% respondents having more than 5

years of experience state that the training provided by their organisations on KM practices is

very little. Qualification-wise, 66.67% Ph.D. respondents choose the option ‘not at all’. On

the other hand, 67.06% respondents of postgraduate and 53.84% professional respondents

feel that their organisations provide either no training or very little training on KM. Overall,

the majority of respondents (66.67%) do feel the absence of formal or informal training

related to KM practices in their organisations.



Organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is insignificant


organisation group respondents is significant at 1% LOS. The t-test shows the significant

difference in organisation group I and III at 5% LOS.


235

Table 6.22 (a)

Training related to KM Practices

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

CantSay

Some Extent

Large Extent



63.33 20.00 51.67

20.00 16.67 28.33

6.67 3.33

16.67 53.33 10.00

3.33 6.67

95.81**

1.23 0.70 0.72

4.23 3.70 3.72

1.17 1.07 1.48

27.66 28.92 39.78

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

63.64 31.34 43.28 65.00 100.0

13.64 19.40 32.84 5.00

5.97 2.99

22.73 34.33 20.90 30.00

8.96 67.50**

1.36 0.60 0.75 1.55 2.00

4.36 3.60 3.75 4.55 2.00

1.02 1.34 1.31 0.74 0.00

23.39 37.22 34.93 16.26 0.00


40.00 40.00 31.58 55.13

24.44 13.33

30.77

4.44

26.67 33.33 68.42 14.10

4.44 13.33 91.22**

0.73 0.73 1.32 0.94

3.73 3.73 4.32 3.94

1.32 1.44 0.46 1.33

35.39 38.61 10.65 33.76


66.67 61.36 38.82 38.46

15.91 28.24 15.38

4.71 5.13

33.33 22.73 28.24 25.64

15.38

64.78**

1.67 1.30 0.78 0.56

4.67 4.30 3.78 3.56

0.47 1.08 1.23 1.50

10.06 25.12 32.5442.13

Industry Average

45.00 21.67 3.33 26.67 3.33 0.88 3.88 1.28 32.99


Table 6.22 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.80

0.80

0.73

0.73

0.62

0.62

1.22

3.12 *

1.93

* significant at 5%


236

6.6.10 KMS and linking of organisational members

The software engineers were asked as to what extent IT enabled KMS has been able to link

all members of the organisation to one another. 68% of Type I organisations’ respondents,

53% of Type II organisations’ and 82% of Type III organisations’ software engineers said

that IT driven KMS could link the organisational members to some extent. On the basis of

experience, 64.45% respondents of less than one year experience and 94.87% respondents of

above 5 years of experience agreed that KMS links the members to one another within an

organisation.

However, 21.05% respondents of 3 to 5 years of experience disagree that KMS could provide

the link among the members within their organisations. According to qualification, majority

of the respondents of each level of qualification do feel that IT infrastructure in KMS in

organisations is helping its employees in linking to one another. Overall, majority of the

respondents (81.11%) are of the view that IT enabled KMS has been able to link the software

engineers within the organisational setup.


engineers of Type II organisations and more consistency in Type I and Type III

organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of the three organisation groups is insignificant

because it is less than 1. The chi square test shows that the difference in the opinions of

organisation group respondents is significant at 1% LOS. The t-test shows the significant

difference in organisation group I and II, and in organisation group II and III at 1% LOS.


237

Table 6.23 (a)

KMS and Linking of organisational members

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



1.67

10.00 16.67 8.33

3.33 13.33 3.33

68.33 53.33 81.67

16.67 16.67 6.67

33.11**

0.88 0.70 0.87

3.88 3.70 3.87

0.86 0.94 0.64

22.16 25.14 16.54

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

5.00

9.09 20.90 2.99 15.00

14.92 2.99

77.27 50.75 79.10 70.00 100.0

13.64 13.43 14.92 10.00

70.34**

0.95 0.57 1.06 0.65 1.00

3.95 3.57 4.06 3.65 4.00

0.71 0.97 0.54 1.01 0.00

17.97 27.17 13.30 27.67 0.00


1.28

22.22 6.67 21.05 3.85

13.33 13.33 10.53

48.89 60.00 68.42 83.33

15.56 20.00 11.54

63.36**

0.58 0.93 0.47 1.00

3.58 3.93 3.47 4.00

1.00 0.77 0.82 0.62

27.93 19.59 23.63 15.50


1.18

6.82 12.94 17.95

4.71 15.38

100.0 81.82 62.35 58.97

11.36 18.82 7.69

39.85**

1.00 0.98 0.85 0.56

4.00 3.98 3.85 3.56

0.00 0.62 0.91 0.87

0.00 15.58 23.64 24.44

Industry Average

0.56 11.67 6.67 67.78 13.33 0.82 3.82 0.83 21.73


Table 6.23 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.85

0.85

0.70

0.70

0.88

0.88

2.78 **

0.76

3.50 **



238

6.6.11 Documentation of Tacit knowledge

The software engineers were asked as to what extent KMS in their organisations had been

able to document the tacit knowledge. Majority of all the organisation groups’ respondents

agreed that KMS has not succeeded in documenting the tacit part of the knowledge, i.e., what

one knows how to do but can not express in words. Overall, the majority of the respondents

(91.11%) feel that KMS has failed in documenting the tacit knowledge.


software engineers of Type II and Type III organisations and more consistency in Type I

organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is greater than 1. It

means majority of the respondents understand that the tacit knowledge has not been

documented in their KM systems in their organisations. The chi-square test shows that the

difference in the opinions of organisation group respondents is significant at 1% LOS. The t-

test shows significant difference in organisation group I and III, and in organisation group II

and III at 1 % and 5% LOS respectively.


239

Table 6.24 (a)

Documentation of Tacit knowledge

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



65.00 56.67 68.33

31.67 36.67 15.00

3.33 3.33 10.00

3.33

6.67

42.89**

1.28 1.23 0.92

4.28 4.23 3.92

0.52 0.80 0.71

12.15 18.91 18.11

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

90.91 46.27 74.63 50.00 75.00

9.09 46.27 14.93 30.00 25.00

7.46 4.48 10.00

2.99

2.99 10.00

73.11**

1.09 1.39 0.96 1.00 1.25

4.09 4.39 3.96 4.00 4.25

0.29 0.62 0.76 0.89 0.43

7.09 14.12 19.19 22.25 10.12


64.44 60.00 52.63 65.38

35.56 40.00 31.58 17.95

5.26 11.54

10.53

5.13

71.05**

1.36 1.40 0.95 0.96

4.36 4.40 3.95 3.96

0.48 0.49 1.15 0.71

11.01 11.14 29.11 17.93


33.33 75.00 60.00 56.41

18.18 31.76 38.46

66.67 6.82 1.18 5.13

2.35

4.71 110.92**

0.33 1.11 1.14 1.33

3.33 4.11 4.14 4.33

0.47 0.49 0.84 0.57

14.11 11.92 20.29 13.16

Industry Average

63.33 27.78 5.56 1.11 2.22 1.14 4.14 0.71 17.15


Table 6.24 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.97

0.97

0.93

0.93

0.83

0.83

1.18

3.44 **

2.41 *



240

6.6.12 KMS and Ease of collaborative work of projects/teams

Of Type I organisations, 65% software engineers feel that KMS has increased the

collaborative work of projects or teams that are physically separated to some extent and

26.67% feel that KMS has eased the collaborative work in organisations to a large extent.

Similarly, 86.66% software engineers of Type III organisations and 80% of Type II

organisations’ respondents think that organisations’ collaborative capacity has increased

because of KMS. Overall, more than 86% respondents of all the organisations feel that KMS

helped their organisations in collaboration of physically separated teams or projects.


engineers of Type II organisations and more consistency in Type I and Type III

organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is significant because

it is greater than 1. The chi-square test shows that the difference in the opinions of


difference in organisation group I and II at 1% LOS.


241

Table 6.25 (a)

KM and Ease of collaborative work of projects/teams

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



8.33 3.33 6.67

16.67 6.67

65.00 23.33 78.33

26.67 56.67 8.33

106.58**

1.10 1.33 0.88

4.10 4.33 3.88

0.77 0.87 0.63

18.78 20.09 16.24

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

4.55 2.99 5.97 15.00 25.00

9.09 11.94 5.97

40.91 47.76 68.66 55.00 50.00

45.45 37.31 19.40 30.00 25.00

37.63**

1.27 1.19 1.01 1.00 0.75

4.27 4.19 4.01 4.00 3.75

0.81 0.76 0.70 0.95 1.09

18.97 18.14 17.46 23.75 29.07


2.22

10.53 7.69

4.44 20.00 10.53 5.13

44.44 46.67 31.58 71.79

48.89 33.33 47.37 15.38

61.64**

1.40 1.13 1.16 0.95

4.40 4.13 4.16 3.95

0.68 0.72 0.99 0.71

15.45 17.43 23.80 17.97


6.82 8.24 2.56

66.67 9.09 2.35 10.26

33.33 63.64 55.29 48.72

20.45 34.12 38.46

73.91**

0.33 0.98 1.15 1.23

3.33 3.98 4.15 4.23

0.47 0.75 0.82 0.73

14.11 18.84 19.76 17.26

Industry Average

6.11 7.78 55.56 30.56 1.11 4.11 0.79 19.22


Table 6.25 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.92

0.92

0.80

0.80

0.87

0.87

2.59 **

1.25

1.39



242

6.6.13 Encouragement to participate in teams with external experts

Organisation group-wise, in Type I organisations, 93.33% respondents agree that their

organisations encourage software engineers to participate in project teams with external

experts. 90% respondents in Type II organisations and 96.67% respondents of Type III

organisations also agree that their organisations allow them to participate and collaborate

with experts from outside their organisations. 75% respondents of more than 55 years of age

agree that their organisational support for external experts and projects is to a large extent.

Overall, majority of the respondents (93.33%) believe that their organisations encourage

them to participate in project teams with external experts.


software engineers of Type I organisations and more consistency in Type II and Type III

organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS among three organisation groups is greater than 1.

It means majority of the respondents are satisfied that the encouragement for participation in

projects with external experts is quite high. The chi-square test shows that the difference in

the opinions of organisation group respondents is significant at 1% LOS. The t-test shows

significant difference in organisation group II and III at 5% LOS.


243

Table 6.26 (a)

Encouragement to participate in teams with external experts

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



6.67

10.00 3.33

50.00 76.67 50.00

43.33 13.33 46.67

63.14**

1.30 1.03 1.43

4.30 4.03 4.43

0.78 0.48 0.56

18.14 11.91 12.64

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

9.09

1.49 5.00

9.09 8.96

54.55 74.63 50.75 45.00 25.00

27.27 16.42 47.76 50.00 75.00

67.55**

1.00 1.07 1.45 1.40 1.75

4.00 4.07 4.45 4.40 4.75

0.85 0.50 0.58 0.73 0.43

21.25 12.29 13.03 16.59 9.05


4.44

2.56

17.78

64.44 86.67 68.42 41.03

13.33 13.33 31.58 56.41

107.59**

0.87 1.13 1.32 1.51

3.87 4.13 4.32 4.51

0.69 0.34 0.46 0.64

17.83 8.23 10.65 14.19


2.27 1.18 5.13

4.55 7.06

66.67 56.82 57.65 66.67

33.33 36.36 31.58 28.21

12.16**

1.33 1.27 1.25 1.18

4.33 4.27 4.25 4.18

0.47 0.65 0.63 0.67

10.85 15.22 14.82 16.03

Industry Average

2.22 4.44 58.89 34.44 1.26 4.26 0.64 15.02


Table 6.26 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.93

0.93

0.90

0.90

0.97

0.97

0.93

1.18

2.07 *

* significant at 5%


244

6.6.14 Transfer of knowledge from experienced software engineers to new or less-

experienced software engineers

Organisation group-wise, Type I Organisations’ 58.34% respondents are of the opinion that

experienced Software engineers are encouraged in their organisations to share their

knowledge and experience with less-experienced and/or new Software engineers. However,

28.33% respondents of the same class do not agree to this. Similarly, in Type II as well as in

Type III organisations, majority of the respondents claim that their organisations encourage

experienced employees to transfer their knowledge to new employees. Age-wise 77.27%

respondents of below 25 years of age and 59.70% respondents of 25 to 35 years of age agree

that the socialisation among organisational software engineers is encouraged. On the basis of

experience, 78.95% respondents of 3 to 5 years experience also feel the same. According to

qualifications, all the Ph.Ds state that to a large extent the experienced Software engineers in

their organisations are encouraged to transfer their knowledge to new or less-experienced

Software engineers. Majority of graduate, post-graduate and professional respondents also

agree to the statement. Only a few respondents do not feel that their organisations encourage

their Software engineers to share their knowledge and experience among its members.

Overall, majority of the respondents (68.34%) feel that organisations encourage their

experienced employees to share and transfer their knowledge and experience to less-

experienced employees.


software engineers of Type I organisations’ respondents and more consistency in Type II and

Type III organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is

insignificant because it is less than 1. It means that there is diversion in the opinion of

organisation software engineers. The chi-square test shows that the difference in the opinions

of organisation group respondents is significant at 1% LOS. The t-test shows significant

difference in organisation group I and III, and in organisation group II and III at 1% and 5%

LOS respectively.


245

Table 6.27 (a)

Transfer of knowledge from experienced software engineers to new or less-experienced software

engineers

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



3.33 3.33

28.33 10.00 16.67

13.33 20.00

41.67 46.67 51.67

16.67 20.00 28.33

63.14**

0.47 0.70 0.85

3.47 3.70 3.85

1.07 1.00 1.11

30.84 27.03 28.83

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

5.97

9.09 20.90 14.93 30.00 25.00

13.64 13.43 5.97 15.00 25.00

50.00 43.28 47.76 50.00 50.00

27.27 16.42 31.34 5.00

67.55**

0.95 0.43 0.96 0.30 0.25

3.95 3.43 3.96 3.30 3.25

0.88 1.16 0.98 0.95 0.93

22.28 33.82 24.75 28.79 25.54


13.33

17.78 10.00 21.05 20.51

15.56 20.00

8.97

46.67 43.33 68.42 44.87

20.00 13.33 10.53 25.64

107.59**

0.69 0.33 0.68 0.76

3.69 3.33 3.68 3.76

0.98 1.22 0.92 1.05

26.56 36.64 25.00 27.93


10.26

20.45 16.47 25.64

4.55 14.12 15.38

61.36 45.88 35.90

100.0 13.64 23.53 12.82

12.16

2.00 0.68 0.76 0.15

2.00 3.68 3.76 3.15

0.00 0.95 0.99 1.23

0.00 25.82 26.33 39.05

Industry Average

2.22 18.33 11.11 46.67 21.67 0.67 3.67 1.07 29.16


Table 6.27 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.58

0.58

0.67

0.67

0.80

0.80

1.33

3.63 **

2.34 *



246

6.6.15 Transfer of best practices

It is commonly said that knowledge sharing is best promoted by the provision of processes

for transferring best practices that include documentation of all the aspects of the projects as

well as lessons learned. Software engineers were asked to give their opinion on this.

Organisation group-wise, 63.33% of Type I organisations’ respondents and 70% respondents

of Type III organisations agree that their organisations have well defined processes for

transfer of best practices and lessons learnt. On the other hand, in Type II organisations, one-

third respondents disagree to this. Age-wise, all the respondents of more than 55 years of age

agreed and majority of respondents of below 25 years and 36 to 45 years age agreed that their

organisations have systems and processes in place that allow the Software engineers to share

best practices. 37.31% respondents of 25 to 35 years disagree to the statement. On the basis

of experience, 47.37% respondents of 3 to 5 years and 74.36% respondents of above 5 years

experience also testify the presence of processes for transfer of best practices in their work

environment. Qualification-wise, majority of graduate and post-graduate respondents agree

and 38.46% professional respondents disagree. Overall, 56.67% respondents feel that

documentation and lessons learnt are shared and transferred among the members of their

organisations.


software engineers of Type II organisations and more consistency in Type I and Type III

organisations’ respondents. Overall, WAS of three organisation groups is insignificant



difference in organisation group I and II, and in organisation group II and III at 1% LOS.


247

Table 6.28 (a)

Transfer of best practices

(Percent)

Group /Sub Group

Not at All

Very Little

Cant Say

Some Extent

Large Extent



3.33

13.33 30.00 16.67

23.33 30.00 13.33

53.33 30.00 53.33

10.00 6.67 16.67

40.09**

0.60 0.07 0.70

3.60 3.07 3.70

0.84 1.00 0.94

23.33 32.57 25.41

Age Below 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

10.00

9.09 37.31 7.46 20.00

36.36 22.39 19.40 20.00

50.00 31.34 53.73 50.00 100.0

4.55 8.96 19.40 102.51**

0.50 0.12 0.85 0.10 1.00

3.50 3.12 3.85 3.10 4.00

0.72 1.02 0.82 1.04 0.00

20.57 32.69 21.30 33.55 0.00


2.56

26.67 23.33 26.32 12.82

31.11 36.67 26.32 10.26

33.33 36.67 36.84 60.26

8.89 3.33 10.53 14.10

48.10**

0.24 0.20 0.32 0.71

3.24 3.20 3.32 3.71

0.95 0.83 0.98 0.95

29.32 25.94 29.52 25.61


2.35

66.67 18.18 10.59 38.46

13.64 25.88 25.64

59.09 48.24 33.33

33.33 9.09 12.94 2.56

67.77**

0.00 0.59 0.59 0.00

3.00 3.59 3.59 3.00

1.41 0.89 0.92 0.91

47.00 24.79 25.63 30.33

Industry Average

1.11 20.00 22.22 45.56 11.11 0.46 3.46 0.97 28.03


Table 6.28 (b)



1 Vs. 2

1 Vs. 3

2 Vs. 3

0.63

0.63

0.37

0.37

0.70

0.70

4.13 **

1.10

5.18 **



248

6.7 KM Technologies

The software engineers were asked about the technology support tools existing in their

organisations for knowledge management. The respondents were asked to rate the various

KM technologies in terms of their frequency of use as well as their effectiveness in helping

them manage their knowledge. As it is clear from Table 6.29, the majority of the respondents

(83%) reported the Internet Browsers and Search Engines as the most frequently used KM

tools in their organisations, followed by Email and Groupware systems (76.5%). Corporate

Intranet/ Extranet and Communities of Practice are the other frequently used IT tools for

managing the knowledge by employees in software organisations. 74% of the respondents

stated Multimedia Repositories to be the least frequently used tool, followed by

Teleconferencing/ Videoconferencing reported by 69% respondents to be either used with

very low frequency or not used at all by them in managing their knowledge. Also half the

respondents reported that they never use Agents/ Filters for KM in their organisations.

External Server Services also find very low usage (8.7%). Workflow Management Systems

and Data mining and knowledge discovery tools are other technology components which find

deplorable use by software engineers in their routine knowledge management activity.

Majority of the respondents (78.8%) feel that Best Practices Repositories are the most

effective technology support tool for knowledge management (cf. Table 6.30). E-mail and

Groupware Systems are the next technology perceived to be very effective in managing

knowledge by 77.8% of the respondents. 74% of the software engineers surveyed stated

Communities of Practice to be another effective KM technology support tool. On the other

hand, majority of the respondents (79.4%) feel that External Server Services are less effective

in managing knowledge in organisations, followed by WWW Server/ Communication

Software which is perceived to be less effective KM tool by 67.7% respondents.


249

Table 6.29

Frequency Distribution of Technology Support Tools Used for KM Frequency (%age)

Technology Support Tools for KM Very High Fairly High Moderate Fairly Low Very Low Not At All Can’t Say

Corporate Intranet/ Extranet 97 (31.3) 90 (29.0) 47 (15.2) 23 (7.4) 10 (3.2) 28 (9.0) 15 (4.8)

Browsers/ Search engines 190 (61.3) 67 (21.6) 20 (6.5) 15 (4.8) 3 (1.0) 0 15 (4.8)

Search and retrieval tools 93 (30.0) 3 (1.0) 75 (24.2) 15 (4.8) 2 (0.7) 115 (37.1) 7 (2.3)

Agents/ Filters 53 (17.1) 20 (6.5) 50 (16.1) 10 (3.2) 10 (3.2) 155 (50.0) 12 (3.9)

E-mail and groupware systems 186 (60.0) 51 (16.5) 10 (3.2) 30 (9.7) 3 (1.0) 0 30 (9.7)

WWW server/ Communication software 20 (6.5) 47 (15.2) 27 (8.7) 29 (9.4) 47 (15.2) 128 (41.3) 12 (3.9)

Data repositories 112 (36.1) 8 (2.6) 77 (24.8) 20 (6.5) 2 (0.7) 85 (27.4) 6 (1.9)

Multimedia repositories 13 (4.2) 10 (3.2) 23 (7.4) 8 (2.6) 215 (69.4) 15 (4.8) 26 (8.4)

Best practices repositories 30 (9.7) 25 (8.1) 38 (12.3) 30 (9.7) 165 (53.2) 12 (3.9) 10 (3.2)

Data mining and knowledge discovery tools 32 (10.3) 67 (21.6) 47 (15.2) 27 (8.7) 32 (10.3) 95 (30.6) 10 (3.2)

External server services 17 (5.5) 10 (3.2) 47 (15.2) 27 (8.7) 62 (20.0) 132 (42.6) 15 (4.8)

Document management systems 8 (2.6) 110 (35.5) 62 (20.0) 20 (6.5) 8 (2.6) 100 (32.3) 2 (0.7)

Workflow management systems 8 (2.6) 7 (2.3) 12 (3.9) 128 (41.3) 82 (26.5) 67 (21.6) 6 (1.9)

Teleconferencing/ Videoconferencing 15 (4.8) 15 (4.8) 43 (13.9) 12 (3.9) 9 (2.9) 205 (66.1) 11 (3.5)

Communities of Practice (CoP) 105 (33.9) 60 (19.4) 56 (18.1) 15 (4.8) 15 (4.8) 52 (16.8) 7 (2.3)


250

Table 6.30

Frequency Distribution of Effectiveness of KM Technology Tools

Frequency (%age) Technology Support Tools for KM Highly

Effective

Fairly

Effective

Moderately

Effective

Less

Effective

Very Less

Effective

Not At

All

Effective

Can’t

Say

Corporate Intranet/ Extranet 136 (43.9) 84 (27.1) 34 (11.0) 29 (9.4) 27 (8.7) 0 0

Browsers/ Search engines 162 (52.3) 60 (19.4) 35 (11.3) 5 (1.6) 15 (4.8) 0 33 (10.6)

Search and retrieval tools 100 (32.3) 13 (4.2) 52 (16.8) 11 (3.5) 4 (1.3) 113 (36.5) 17 (5.5)

Agents/ Filters 46 (14.8) 38 (12.3) 41 (13.2) 61 (19.7) 16 (5.2) 102 (32.9) 6 (1.9)

E-mail and groupware systems 201 (64.8) 40 (13.0) 12 (3.9) 8 (2.6) 8 (2.6) 30 (9.7) 11 (3.5)

WWW server/ Communication software 32 (10.3) 40 (12.9) 16 (5.2) 45 (14.5) 65 (20.9) 100 (32.3) 12 (3.9)

Data repositories 140 (45.2) 86 (27.7) 27 (8.7) 30 (9.7) 6 (1.9) 15 (4.8) 6 (1.9)

Multimedia repositories 31 (10.0) 74 (23.9) 109 (35.2) 58 (18.7) 18 (5.8) 10 (3.2) 10 (3.2)

Best practices repositories 131 (42.3) 113 (36.5) 46 (14.8) 16 (5.2) 4 (1.3) 0 0

Data mining and knowledge discovery

tools

6 (1.9) 99 (31.9) 67 (21.6) 36 (11.6) 76 (24.5) 16 (5.2) 10 (3.2)

External server services 11 (3.5) 15 (4.8) 20 (6.5) 74 (23.9) 81 (26.1) 91 (29.4) 18 (5.8)

Document management systems 146 (47.1) 14 (4.5) 48 (15.5) 17 (5.5) 30 (9.7) 38 (12.3) 17 (5.5)

Workflow management systems 104 (33.5) 16 (5.2) 62 (20.0) 18 (5.8) 15 (4.8) 60 (19.4) 35 (11.3)

Teleconferencing/ Videoconferencing 23 (7.4) 69 (22.3) 90 (29.0) 68 (21.9) 39 (12.6) 6 (1.9) 15 (4.8)

Communities of Practice (CoP) 119 (38.4) 110 (35.5) 33 (10.6) 23 (7.4) 17 (5.5) 0 8 (2.6)

chapter 6 software engineers’ perspective towards km...

Documents