knowledge management: an integrative view and empirical examination

This article was downloaded by: [Laurentian University]On: 07 October 2014, At: 08:59Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Cybernetics and Systems: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucbs20

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:AN INTEGRATIVE VIEW ANDEMPIRICAL EXAMINATIONJoanna Paliszkiewicz aa University of Agriculture in Warsaw, Economic-Agriculture Department , Warsaw, PolandPublished online: 09 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Joanna Paliszkiewicz (2007) KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: ANINTEGRATIVE VIEW AND EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION, Cybernetics and Systems: AnInternational Journal, 38:8, 825-836, DOI: 10.1080/01969720701601148

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01969720701601148

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucbs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01969720701601148

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01969720701601148

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTEGRATIVE

VIEW AND EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION

JOANNA PALISZKIEWICZ

University of Agriculture in Warsaw, Economic-Agriculture Department, Warsaw, Poland

A lot of enterprises put a great emphasis on knowledge management.

In this article the aspects connected with building an integrative

knowledge management model have been presented. Author has also

described researches connected with this topic. The relationships

among social perspective, technical perspective, knowledge manage-

ment processes, and organizational performance were considered.

INTRODUCTION

For thousands of years, humans have been discussing the meaning of

knowledge, what it is to know something, and how people can generate

and share new knowledge. It is interesting to consider, that despite the

pervasiveness of epistemological discussions throughout history, the

world of business has begun to recognize the importance of knowledge

as a resource. Individual and organizational knowledge have been invis-

ible on balance sheets, overlooked in reward and incentive systems.

Companies have realized that, while managing data and information is

important, true competitive advantage lies in leveraging the unique,

powerful knowledge of the organization.

Companies attempting to deploy knowledge management may be

confused by a variety of efforts that go under the name of knowledge

Address correspondence to Joanna Paliszkiewicz, Szkola Gl�oowna Gospodarstwa

Wiejskiego, Wydzial Ekonomiczno-Rolniczy, ul.Nowoursynowska 166, 02-787 Warsaw,

Poland. E-mail: [email protected]

Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal, 38: 825–836

Copyright Q 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0196-9722 print=1087-6553 online

DOI: 10.1080/01969720701601148

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

management. Many companies have tried to improve knowledge assets

by centralizing knowledge management functions or by investing heavily in

information technology. However, most studies have not investigated how

companies can leverage knowledge for the improved performance. The

key question is not whether to manage knowledge, but how to manage it.

To fill this gap, prior researches have explored which factors are

essential for managing knowledge effectively. One of the challenges is

to decipher the relationships among these factors. Most studies have

examined the relationships of knowledge management enablers, pro-

cesses, or performance in isolation. For example, some researches have

focused on the relationship between enablers and processes (Appleyard

1996; Szulanski 1996; Hansen 1999). The emphasis of other studies is on

the relationship between enablers and organizational performance

(Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal 2001; Gold et al. 2001). Researchers

and practitioners have not tried an integrative model.

The primary objective of this article is to delineate an integrative

view of knowledge management. For this purpose, this article analyzes

the previous empirical studies and attempts to find relationships among

knowledge management factors such as organizational culture, tech-

nology IT, knowledge management process, organizational performance.

An integrative research model is built from a process-oriented perspec-

tive and then tested empirically.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

What is knowledge represents one of the most fundamental questions

that humanity has grappled with, and has occupied the minds of philo-

sophers for centuries. A useful way of arriving at a definition of what

knowledge is can be achieved by differentiating it from what it is not.

One of the most common distinctions in the contemporary knowledge

literature is between knowledge, information, and data.

Data is a set of discrete, objective facts about events. It can be

defined as raw number, images, words, and sounds that are derived from

observation or measurement. Information represents data arranged in a

meaningful pattern, data where some intellectual input has been added

(Paliszkiewicz 2005).

Knowledge is wider, deeper, and richer than data or information.

According to Hislop (2005), knowledge can be understood to emerge from

the application, analysis, and productive use of data and=or information.

826 J. PALISZKIEWICZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

In other words, knowledge can be seen as data or information with a

further layer of intellectual analysis added, where it is interpreted, meaning

is attached, and is structured and linked with existing systems of beliefs

and bodies of knowledge. Knowledge therefore provides the means to ana-

lyze and understand data information, provides beliefs about the causality

of events=actions, and provides the basis to guide meaningful action=

thought.

Davenport and Prusak (1998) definite it as: fluid mix of framed

experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that pro-

vides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experience and

information. It originates and is applied in the minds of ‘‘knowers.’’ In

organizations, knowledge often becomes embedded not only in documents

or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices,

and norms. Knowledge is a mixture of various elements; is fluid as well

as formally structured; is intuitive and therefore hard to capture in words

or understand completely in logical terms. Knowledge exists within

people, part and parcel of human complexity, and unpredictability.

Organizations possess two kinds of knowledge: external and internal.

External knowledge reflects awareness of regulations, competition and

market trends, as well as the ability to anticipate a market. Internal

knowledge includes an understanding of core competencies, know-

how, strengths, weaknesses and lessons learned from past experiences

(Paliszkiewicz 2004).

One of the reasons that we find knowledge valuable is its relatively

closer position to action than data or information. Knowledge can and

should be evaluated by the decisions or actions to which it leads. Better

knowledge can lead, for example, to measurable improvement in product

development and=or production. We can use it to make wiser decisions

about strategy, competition, customer needs, distribution channels, and

product and service life cycles (Nonaka and Takeuchi 2000). Knowledge

develops over time, through experience that includes what we absorb from

instructional courses, books, and mentors, as well as informal learning.

Many researchers have emphasized three major factors for managing

knowledge: enablers, processes, and organizational performance. Knowl-

edge management enablers are organizational mechanisms for fostering

knowledge consistently; they can stimulate knowledge creation, protect

knowledge, and facilitate the sharing of knowledge in organization.

Knowledge processes can be thought of as a structured coordination

for managing effectively. Typically, knowledge management processes

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION 827

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

include activities such as creation, developing, sharing, storage and

usage. Whereas knowledge processes represents the basic operations of

knowledge, enablers provide the infrastructure necessary for the organi-

zation to increase the efficiency of knowledge processes. Organizational

performance may be defined as the degree to which companies achieved

its business objectives. It may be measured in terms of organizational

learning, profitability, or other financial benefits in knowledge manage-

ment (Heeseok and Byounggu 2003).

Previous empirical studies can be classified into four categories

depending on how they identify the relationships:

(1) relationships between knowledge enablers [to identify the effect of

knowledge enablers, they have investigated various knowledge

enablers such as knowledge management methods, structure, and

culture (see Benett and Gabriel 1999)];

(2) relationships between knowledge enablers and processes [a central

proposition is that knowledge enablers should influence knowledge

processes for example transfer (Zander and Kogut, 1995; Appleyard

1996; Szulanski 1996; Hansen 1999)];

(3) relationships between knowledge process and organizational per-

formance [the purpose of these studies is to sharpen the understand-

ing of the effects of knowledge enablers for example: knowledge

management strategy on organizational performance (Bierly and

Chakrabarti 1996; Simonin 1997)];

(4) relationships among knowledge enablers, processes, and organiza-

tional performance (the primary objective of these studies is to

identify and assess knowledge enablers and processes for improving

organizational performance) (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal

2001; Gold et al. 2001).

Synthesis of previous studies yields some observations. First, an

integrative model is still missing. Although some studies investigate the

relationships among knowledge enablers, processes, or organizational

performance, they fail to explore the relationships between enablers

and processes simultaneously. If managers understand these relation-

ships in an integrative fashion, they can stand a better chance to improv-

ing the performance of company. Second, the knowledge transfer

process has been studied extensively whereas the other processes such

as creation or utilization have received relatively little attention.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

The objective is neither to propose a model that delineates all of the rela-

tionships underlying knowledge management nor to generate a longer

list of possible knowledge enablers or processes that affect organiza-

tional performance. Therefore the model highlights a few major factors

that can explain a large proportion of the variance in knowledge manage-

ment (Figure 1).

Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory

(Pan and Scarbrough 1998). This theory describes an organization from

the social and technical perspectives.

Social perspective consists of: managers, organizational culture, and

people. Managers may encourage or inhibit knowledge management.

Organizational culture is the most important factor for successful knowl-

edge management. Culture defines not only what knowledge is valued,

but also what knowledge must be kept inside the organization for sus-

tained innovative advantage. Organizations should establish an appropri-

ate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge within

an organization. This study focus on collaboration, trust, and learning.

People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge. It is people

who create and share knowledge. Therefore managing people who are

willing to create and share knowledge is important.

Figure 1. A research model.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Technical perspective contributes to knowledge management. This

technology infrastructure includes IT and its capabilities. IT is widely

employed to connect people with reusable codified knowledge, and it

facilities conversations to create new knowledge. Among technology-

related variables, this study focuses on IT support. It allows an organiza-

tion to create, share, store, and use knowledge. Therefore, the support of

IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledge management.

A number of studies have addressed knowledge management pro-

cesses; they divided knowledge management into several processes. In

this model five processes are considered: localization, acquisition and

development, transfer, codification, and usage. These processes are often

concurrent and not always in linear sequence.

Knowledge localization includes all activities, which indicate, where

knowledge exist. Knowledge acquisition and development includes the

knowledge acquired by an organization as well as that developed within

it. Acquired knowledge does not have to be newly created, only new to

the organization. Knowledge transfer is ‘‘transmission of knowledge

(experience, lessons learned, know-how) and use of transmitted knowl-

edge. It is conveying the knowledge of one source to another source’’

(Paliszkiewicz and Sobolak 2006). Knowledge codification is the capture

of knowledge so that it can be re-used either by an individual or by an

organization. The aim of codification is to put organizational knowledge

into a form that makes it accessible to those who need it. If knowledge

management is to thrive, organizations must create a set of roles and

skills to do the work of using knowledge.

The power of knowledge management is allowing organizations to

explicitly enable and enhance the productivity of these activities and to

leverage their value for the group as well as for the individual.

In order to achieve a better understanding of organizational perform-

ance, companies should attempt to link knowledge processes with inter-

mediate outcomes. An important intermediate outcome is organizational

creativity, which provides a key to the understanding of organizational

effectiveness and survival. Apart from this, the study adopts a specific

measure of organizational performance, which is developed by

Deshpande et al. (1993), and Drew (1997). This measure can be thought

of as a variation of the balances scorecard method. The organizational

performance is assessed by use of global output measures such as market

share, profitability, growth rate, innovativeness, successfulness in com-

parison with key competitors.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

The research was done in 511 small and medium enterprises from Silesian

Province in Poland. Questionnaires were administered to managers. An

analysis was performed on the 27 items that measure the components of

social perspective, 5 items for the technical perspective, other analysis were

performed on the 15 items for the each element of the knowledge manage-

ment process, and on the 10 items for organizational performance. Each

item was based on a five-point scale, from ‘‘very low’’ to ‘‘very high.’’

The research model illustrates the relationship among variables.

Models were run for each of the dependent variables. To meet the

assumptions of the regression analysis, the linearity, constant variance,

and normality were examined. Because the scatterplots of individual

variables do not indicate any nonlinear relationships, the linearity is

guaranteed. In all the model were checked: significance [Fisher–Snedecor

test (F)], coefficient R2, autocorrelation, violation of normality. The tests

approved the correctness of researched models.

The regression equations between the social perspective and knowl-

edge management processes are presented in Figure 2.

Items, which are positively-related which knowledge management

processes are:

. managers are responsible for creating learning organization (PR2);

. managers help workers to develop their knowledge (PR4);

Figure 2. The regression equations between the social perspective and knowledge manage-

ment processes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

. in organization people are encouraged to be creative (K1);

. members of organization support each other (K4);

. in organization is an atmosphere which favorable learning (K6);

. members of organization have a high self-esteem (K7);

. in organization is an atmosphere, which is characterized by readiness

to make preventive action and take responsibility for performance of

organization (K9);

. organization expects from people, precision and analytical approach

(K12);

. in organization work is organized rather in teams then individual (K15);

. employees are flexible (KL2);

. employees understand not only their tasks but also others’ task (KL3);

. employees can communicate well not only with their department mem-

bers but also with other department members (KL4).

The regression equations between the technical perspective and

knowledge management processes are presented in Figure 3.


processes are:

. organization provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of

time and place (IT1);

. organization provides IT support for systematic storing (IT2);

Figure 3. The regression equations between the technical perspective and knowledge

management processes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

. organization provides IT support for communication among members

of organization (IT3);

. organization provides IT support for simulation and prediction (IT5).

The regression equations between knowledge management pro-

cesses and organizational performance are presented in Figure 4.


processes are:

. the workers know where inside organization they can find information

(L4);

. organization gains knowledge from customers (L8);

. the decisions connected with acquiring of knowledge depend on the

further possibility of improving it (L11);

. the organization does not waste time to find information in wrong

places (L13);

. in organization the research connected with checking if everybody has

possibility to develop are leading (P5);

. organization builds databases on products and services (P9);

. memberships of teams know their and others learning styles (P12);

. in organization very often people work in groups or teams (P15);

. employees, who support collective learning in organization’s interest

and sharing their knowledge have better salary and have better chance

for promotion (T4);

Figure 4. The regression equations between knowledge management processes and

organizational performance.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

. employees share their knowledge and experience with others (T5);

. organization provides IT support for sharing of knowledge (T11);

. employees are encouraged to use brain storming methods (T12);

. knowledge in organization is exchanged by meetings dedicated to solve

problems (T14);

. knowledge is transferred by reports and business notes (T15);

. organization promotes people to not lose workers with strategic

knowledge (Z4);

. before dismissing of people it is being checked if their skills and knowl-

edge can be used in other ways (Z5);

. specialized employees are engaged in gathering of knowledge (Z10);

. experiences of employees are codified in computer systems (Z11);

. in organization are special repositories to gather best solutions and

experiences (Z12);

. members of organization are satisfied by the contents of job training or

self-development programs (W2);

. in organization often appears new ideas which generate innovative

products (W6);

. knowledge is all the time diffused and incorporated to new products

and processes (W12).

CONCLUSION

The results of investigation can help managers establish distinctive strategic

positions. Knowledge management strategies can be described along two

dimensions to reflect knowledge management focus. One dimension refers

to knowledge sharing via interpersonal interaction. The other dimension

refers to the capability to help create, store, share, and use an organiza-

tion’s explicitly documented knowledge. Knowledge management strate-

gists can sharpen weak knowledge management dimensions on the basis

of enablers mentioned in the study. The findings confirm that knowledge

management process is associated with cultural factors such as collabor-

ation, trust, and learning and IT support. The analysis confirms that

knowledge management processes affects organizational performance.

The findings of this study are interesting, but they should be con-

sidering in light of its inherent limitations. First, the study focuses on

small and medium enterprises; the result may differ in large companies.

Second, the results are limited to Polish firms; the generalizability from a

Polish setting to other countries may be questionable.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

The study is important from both theoretical and practical perspec-

tives. Theoretically, a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link

knowledge management enablers and processes with organizational per-

formance. The study is probably the first to establish this integrative view

of knowledge management. This framework may be used as a stepping-

stone for further empirical research on knowledge management. From a

practical point of view, the relationships among social perspective, tech-

nical perspective, knowledge management processes, and organizational

performance may provide a clue as to how firms can adjust knowledge

creation processes to sustain their performance. Furthermore, managers

will be better able to find which elements are critical for knowledge

management.

Managers set the tone for how a department, a division, or the entire

enterprises should perform. Within the framework of knowledge

management practices, managers are expected to create culture or an

organizational climate that sets work norms and value the transfer of

knowledge to produce value-added products and services.

REFERENCES

Appleyard, M. 1996. How does knowledge flow? Interim patterns in the semi-

conductor industry. Strategic Management Journal 17(10): 137–154.

Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Sabherwal, R. 2001. Organizational knowledge

management: A contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information

Systems 18(1): 23–55.

Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H. 1999. Organizational factors and knowledge man-

agement within large marketing departments: An empirical study. Journal

of Knowledge Management 3(3): 212–225.

Bierly, P. and Chakrabarti A. 1996. Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S.

pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal 17(10): 123–135.

Davenport, Th. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working knowledge. Harvard Business

School Press.

Deshpande, R., Jarley, U., and Webster, F. 1993. Corporate culture, customer

orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis.

Journal of Marketing 57(1): 23–37.

Drew, S. 1997. From knowledge to action: The impact of benchmarking on

organizational performance. Long Range Planning 30(3): 427–441.

Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., and Segars, A. H. 2001. Knowledge management: An

organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information

Systems 18(1): 185–214.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in

sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science

Quarterly 44(1): 82–111.

Heeseok, L. and Byounggu, Ch. 2003. Knowledge management enablers, pro-

cesses, and organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical

examination. Journal of Management Information Systems 20(1): 181.

Hislop, D. 2005. Knowledge management in organization. A critical introduction.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–16.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 2000. Kreowanie wiedzy w organizacji, Wyd. Poltext,

Warsaw, Poland.

Paliszkiewicz, J. and Sobolak, L. 2006. Knowledge transfer in small and medium

enterprises. In Innovation—sustainability—knowledge management, institut

superieur industriel Pierrard, edited by P. Pachura. Virton, Belgium: HEC

du Luxemburg, pp. 122.

Paliszkiewicz, J. O. 2004. Knowledge management: A short introduction. In

Poland in the European Union, edited by J. Szopa and P. Pachura,

Czestochowa: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Czestochowskiej, pp. 415.

Paliszkiewicz, J. O. 2005. Rozw�ooj organizacji poprzez zarzadzanie kapitałem

intelektualnym, Wydawnictwa Profesjonalne ALPHA pro. Ostroleka, pp. 11.

Pan, S. and Scarbrough, H. 1998. A socio-technical view of knowledge sparing at

Buckman laboratories. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(1): 55–56.

Simonin, B. 1997. The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical

test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Journal 40(5):

509–533.

Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of

best practice within the firm. Strategic management Journal 17(10): 27–43.

Zander, D. and Kogut, B. 1995. Knowledge and the Speer of the transfer and

imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organizational

Science 6(1): 76–92.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:59

07

Oct

ober

201

4

knowledge management: an integrative view and empirical examination

Documents