Towards an Integrated Maturity Model of Knowledge Management Capabilities

Jean-Pierre Booto Ekionea

Faculty of Administration University of Moncton

Moncton

(New Brunswick) E1A 3E9 CANADA

Gérard Fillion Faculty of Administration

University of Moncton Moncton

(New Brunswick) E1A 3E9

CANADA

Michel Plaisent School of business studies

(ÉSG) University of Quebec in

Montreal (UQAM) Montréal (Québec) H3C 3P8

CANADA

Prosper Bernard School of business studies

(ÉSG) University of Quebec in

Montreal (UQAM) Montréal (Québec) H3C 3P8

CANADA

Abstract: The resource-based view of the firm is used to study the role of organizational knowledge in establishing sustained competitive advantage. The concept of the organisational knowledge capabilities development analyzes the organisational capabilities in three principal dimensions: Knowledge Management (KM) infrastructures, KM processes and KM competences. Indeed, the literature in KM, management and information technology shows that the development of the organisational capabilities is strongly related to the use of a maturity model. Also, the literature establishes a link between the level of maturity in KM capabilities and the level of organizational performance. However, there is very little work on the literature which develops an integrated maturity model for KM capabilities that use together the three principal dimensions. This work proposes a maturity model of Knowledge Management capabilities with three principal. Keywords: Knowledge Management (KM), KM Capabilities, Maturity Model, Business Performance, Sustained Competitive Advantage.

I. INTRODUCTION

The literature establishes a link between maturity level in Knowledge Management (KM) capabilities and organizational performance (Venkatraman, 1994; Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008). However, few works related to KM develop an integrated maturity model for KM capabilities which is using together KM-Infrastructures, KM-Processes, and KM-Competences. This paper proposes an integrated KM Capabilities Maturity Model (KMCMM) as suggested by Abou-Zeid (2003) and Chang and Ahn (2005). In this work, the concept of organizational capability is defined as a skill to carry out the deployment, combination, and coordination of resources and competences through various value flows in order to achieve strategic objectives such as sustainable competitive advantage and organizational performance (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008).

II. THE LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Organizational capabilities and knowledge management

The concept of organisational capability is defined like a skill to carry out the deployment, the combination and the coordination of resources and competences through various value flows to put in work the strategic objectives beforehand defined (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; and Grant, 1991). Thus, the literature supports that what brings the difference in the organisational performance is the way in which the organization manages the activities of its internal resources and not the control of its technical aspects or of the market (Peppart and Ward, 2004; Barney, 1991). This is why Amit and Schoemaker (1993) support that the key capability, by definition, require strategic visions, the time of development and the substantial investments.

The concept of organisational capabilities thus comes to answer the insufficiency of the theoretical assumptions in strategy, in general, and more particularly with a widespread theoretical thought according to which the fact of aligning a resource or its strategies with the business strategies would be enough to guarantee the business performance (Venkatraman and Prescott, 1990; Earl, 2001; Abou-Zeid, 2002; Booto Ekionea and Swan, 2008).

Because the development of the internal capabilities in accordance with the business objectives is perceived more and more like the only means likely to grant the sustainable competitive advantage and to support the business performance (Peppard and Ward, 2004). Indeed, the establishment of the strategy requires the development of capabilities on which the organization will have to hope to achieve its goals.

With this intention, the new business strategies should be concerned with know how the organization develops, nourish and use its competences in connection with the business objectives, the strategies of each organisational resources, the

978-1-4244-8694-6/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

business operations and the resource operations. In addition, concerning the KM capabilities, KM literature (Abou-Zeid, 2003; Chang & Ahn, 2005) analyzes the concept of organisational capability in three principal dimensions: knowledge infrastructures, knowledge processes and knowledge competences. Thus, for better determining the link between the KM and the concept of KM capabilities, it is important to know the maturity level which an organization can reach. The following section briefly presents some existing maturity models in management, IT and KM fields.

B. Existing maturity models

The analysis of some models in management, IT and KM refers to the development of a maturity model with three considerations: knowledge infrastructure, knowledge processes, and knowledge skills. Taking into account of these three principal dimensions, we observe that the few models suggested by the literature refer to five levels of maturity. Certain refers to, some time, in K-infrastructure (Venkatraman, 1994, Luftman and al., 2004), the other on K-processes (Venkatraman, 1994; Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ramasubbu et al., 2008), and some on K-skills (Peppart and Ward, 2004) as shown on table 1.

Table 1: Comparative analysis of some capability maturity models

Maturity

Level

Knowledge Capability Dimensions (Abou-Zeid, 2003; Chang & Ahn, 2005)

Knowledge Infrastructures Knowledge Processes Knowledge Skills

1 ♦ Localized exploitation (Venkatraman, 1994);

♦ Emergent IT as an asset, incomprehension between IT and business (Luftman et al., 2004).

♦ Localized exploitation (Venkatraman, 1994); ♦ Initial and unforeseeable process and slightly

controlled (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008);

♦ Initial process: ad hoc and chaotic organizational capability expressed and implemented in processes which are not defined (St-Amant and Renard, 2004);

♦ No formal process, reaction step by step (Luftman et al., 2004).

♦ People apply their knowledge (Peppart and Ward, 2004);

♦ Little motivation or reward (Luftman et al., 2004);

♦ Success depends on the individual efforts and competences (St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008).

2 ♦ Internal integration (Venkatraman, 1994; Puri, 2007);

♦ IT supports the transactions and the decisions (ex.: ESS and DSS) (Luftman et al., 2004).

♦ Internal integration (Venkatraman, 1994; Puri, 2007);

♦ Structured and reproducible process (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008);

♦ Refers to an organizational capability expressed and implemented in defined and documented processes (St-Amant and Renard, 2004).

♦ People integrate their knowledge (Peppart and Ward, 2004; Puri, 2007) ;

♦ Improvement of the individual and organizational efforts, competences, and knowledge (St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008).

3 ♦ Good comprehension between IT and the business (Luftman et al., 2004; Puri, 2007; Booto Ekionea and Swan, 2008).

♦ Reengineering (Venkatraman, 1994); ♦ Relevant processes integrated through the

organization (Luftman et al., 2004; Puri, 2007); ♦ Standard, coherent, defined, and

included/understood process (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008);

♦ Definition and repetition of the processes for the improvement of the firm capabilities (St-Amant and Renard, 2004).

♦ People interact with the others (Peppart and Ward, 2004).

4 ♦ IT facilitates and leads the business strategies, the vision, and the IT architecture is integrated with the partners (Luftman et al., 2004; Riege and Lindsay, 2006; Saraf et al., 2007; Ye Du et al., 2008).

♦ Network reengineering (Venkatraman, 1994); ♦ Controlled and measured process (Dekleva and

Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008); ♦ The practices are documented and their results are

quantitatively controllable and measurable (St-Amant and Renard, 2004).

♦ People coordinate their activities (Peppart and Ward, 2004);

♦ The risks and the rewards are shared (Luftman et al., 2004);

♦ The organization identifies competences, knowledge, and the best practices, and integrates them into its processes (St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008).

5 ♦ IT infrastructures are extended to the external partners; the IT and the business are adapted between the organization and partners (Luftman et al., 2004; Riege and Lindsay, 2006; Saraf et al., 2007; Ye Du et al., 2008).

♦ Redefinition of the business mission (Venkatraman, 1994);

♦ The business vision and the processes are elaborated with the partners (Luftman et al., 2004; Riege and Lindsay, 2006; Saraf et al., 2007; Ye Du et al., 2008);

♦ Process in continuous improvement (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008);

♦ Optimization and continuous improvement (Luftman et al., 2004).

♦ Optimization and continuous improvement (St-Amant and Renard, 2004).

III. DESIGN OF THE KM CAPABILITIES

MATURITY MODEL (KMCMM)

Thus, holding account of some existing maturity models (Venkatraman, 1994; Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Luftman et

al, 2004; Peppart and Ward, 2004; St-Amant and Renard, 2004) and of KM Capabilities dimensions as identified and described in section above, a KM capabilities maturity model is proposed here after.

Fig. 1: Maturity levels of the organizations by the KM (adapted from Venkatraman, 1994)

While more the maturity level of KM capabilities in an organization is high, the awaited benefit would be also high. We can as realize as the maturity levels of KM capabilities in an organization are divided into two main categories: firstly, the evolution levels (level 1: localised exploitation and level 2: internal integration) and secondly, revolution levels (level 3: re-engineering, level 4: networks re-design and on the level 5: redefinition of the business mission).

A. Comparative study of KMCMM to the existing models

The KMCMM is a model designed on the basis of existing maturity models in order to meet their identified

insufficiencies and the needs for application of the existing maturity models in the context of KM capabilities. Thus, the summary comparisons (see table 2) of the KMCMM with some maturity models proposed by IT, KM, and management literature show that the majority of the studies on the KM maturity models are related to the processes (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Harigopal and Satyadas, 2001; Klimko, 2001; Siemens, 2001; Berztiss, 2002; Johnson and Brodman, 2002; Kaner and Karni, 2004; Ramasubbu et al., 2008) and very few are interested in KM competences (Klimko, 2001; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008) and even less in KM infrastructures.

Table 2: Comparative study of the KMCMM with existing KM maturity models

Criterions (capabilities)

Do the following models include the capabilities of

Remarks

KMCMM (suggested

model)

CEMM (Harigopal

and Satyadas, 2001)

DM-CMM (Kaner and Kani, 2004)

The Siemens KMMM (Siemens,

2001)

KMMM (Klimko, 2001)

♦ Development,

deployment, and use of KM-

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

Organizational

capabilities related to the

KM-

Localise Exploitation of Knowledge

Internal Integration of Knowledge

Business Process Redesign because of knowledge

Business Network Redesign because of knowledge

Business Scope Redefinition because of knowledge

Evolution Level

Revolution Level

Low Range of potential benefice with KM High

Kno

wle

dge

Mat

urity

Lev

el

Low

High

Infrastructures Infrastructures ♦ Development,

deployment, and use of KM-Processes

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Organizational capabilities

related to the KM-Processes

♦ Development,

deployment, and use of KM-Skills

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES

Organizational capabilities

related to the KM-Skills

IV. CONCLUSION

Our aim in this paper was to understand the concept of KM capabilities and to suggest an integrated KMCMM taking into account the three KM capabilities: K-Infrastructures, K-Processes, and K-Skills. The KMCMM need to be more validated with further empirical studies. Once more validated, the KMCMM could be used as a diagnosis tool of KM capabilities and their strategic use within the organization. Thus, the manager will be capable to use the KMCMM for developing the KM capabilities in order to reach the business performance. On the other hand, the KMCMM could be used as a basis for further research on the subject by other researchers.

REFERENCES

[1] E-S Abou-Zeid, “CDeveloping Business Aligned Knowledge Management Strategy”, In E. Coakes (Ed), Knowledge Management: Current Issues and Challenges, IRM Press, 2003, pp. 156-172.

[2] E-S Abou-Zeid, “A Strategic Alignment Model for Knowledge Management”, IRMA International Conference Proceedings, 2002.

[3] R. Amit and P. J. H. Shoemaker, “Strategic Assets and Organizational Rents”, Strategic Management Journal, No. 14, No. 1, 1993, pp. 33-46.

[4] F M Ross Armbrecht Jr; Richard B Chapas; Cecil C Chappelow; George F Farris, “Knowledge Management in research and development”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 44, No.4, Jul/Aug 2001, pp. 28-48.

[5] J. B. Barney, “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage”. Journal of Management, No. 17, Vol. 1, 1991, pp. 99-120.

[6] A. T.Berztiss, “Capability Maturity for Knowledge Management”, IEEE, 13th International Workshop, on 2-6 sept 2002,, pp. 162-166.

[7] J.-P. Booto Ekionea, and D.E. Swain, “Developing and aligning a knowledge management strategy: Towards a taxonomy and a framework”, International Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2008, pp. 29-45.

[8] S.-G. Chang and J-H Ahn, “Product and process knowledge in the performance-oriented knowledge management approach”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2005, pp. 8-18.

[9] Dekleva, Sasa and David Drehmer (2001) “Measuring Software Engineering Evolution : A Rash Calibration”, Information Systems Research, 8/1): 95-104.

[10] M. Earl, “Knowledge management strategies : Toward a taxonomy”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2001, pp. 215-233.

[11] R. M. Grant, “The Resource Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implication for Strategy Formulation”, California Management Review, Spring, 1991, pp. 119-135.

[12] U. Harigopal and A. Satyadas, “Cognizant Enterprise maturity Model (CEMM)”, IEEE, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2001, pp. 449-459.

[13] M. Kaner and K. Renven, “A capability Maturity Model for Knowledge-Based Decision-making”, Information Knowledge Systems Management, Vol. 4, 2004, pp. 225-252.

[14] G. Klimko “Knowledge Management and maturity models: building common understanding”, . In: Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Knowledge Management, Bled Slovenia, 2001, pp. 269-278.

[15] J. N. Luftman, “Managing the IT Resource: Leadership in the Information Age”, Pearson, Prentice Hall, 2004.

[16] P. Ordóñez de Pablos and M.D. Lytras, “Competencies and human resource management: Implications for organizational competitive advantage”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12, No. 6, 2008, pp. 48.

[17] J. Peppart and J. Ward, “Beyond strategic information systems: towards an IS capability”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 13, 2004, pp. 167–194.

[18] S.K. Puri, “Integrating scientific with indigenous knowledge: Constructing knowledge alliances for land management in India”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2007, pp. 355.

[19] N. Ramasubbu, S. Mithas, M.S. Krishnan, and C.F. Kemerer, “Work dispersion, process-based learning, and offshore software development performance”. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2008, pp. 437.

[20] A. Riege and N. Lindsay, “Knowledge in the public sector: Stakeholder partnerships in the public policy development”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2006, pp. 24-39.

[21] N. Saraf, C.S. Langdon, and S. Gosain, “IS application capabilities and relational value in interfirm partnerships”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2007, pp. 320-341.

[22] Siemens, “Holistic Development of Knowledge Management with KMMM” In: Proceedings of the fourth IS Congress, Canada, 2001.

[23] G. St-Amant and L. Renard, "Proposition d’un modèle de gestion du développement des capacités organisationnelles", XIIième Conférence de l’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique (AIMS), Vallée de Seine 2, 3 et 4 juin 2004.

[24] N. Venkatraman and J.E. Prescott, "Environment-Strategy Coalignment: An Empirical Test Of Its Performance Implications”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1990, pp. 1-23.

[25] N. Venkatraman, “IT-enabled Business Transformation: From Automation to Business Scope Redefinition”, Sloan Management Review, Winter 1994, pp. 73-87.

[26] B. Wernerfelt, “A Resource Based View of the Firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, 1984. Pp. 171-180.

[27] A. Ye Du, X. Geng, R. Gopal, R. Ramesh, and A.B. Whinston, “Capacity provision networks: Foundations of markets for sharable resources in distributed computational economies”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2008, pp. 144-163.