knowledge management .docx final paper for iiim conference
TRANSCRIPT
Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge Management in Knowledge Industry
: With special reference to Jaipur City
Authors
Sakshi Sharma
Research Scholar ,RTU
Ph. No. +919950028676
Swati Jha
Research Scholar, RTU
Ph. No. +918875816692
Dr. Manju Nair
Principal, ISIM Jaipur
Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge Management in Knowledge Industry:
With special reference to Jaipur City
Knowledge Management (KM) is a key ingredient that derives and enhances organizational performances. Knowledge design and distribution is the backbone on which knowledge industry thrives. Knowledge management is essentially about people – how they create, share and use knowledge. Knowledge management tool does not work effectively if it is not applied in a manner that is sensitive to the ways people think and behave. The remarkable growth and development of knowledge industry has also created a strong belief amongst many that, the driver of economy of India is its knowledge industry in all certainty. Literature available on knowledge economy shows that Knowledge Management is the preeminent resources of knowledge economy.
Knowledge Management is an innovative approach increasingly seen as a source of competitive advantage. Institutions spending on KM activities are expected to rise significantly over the next few years. India’s higher education system being the second largest in the world, only after the USA, is unique in matter of structure, history, and magnitude. Understanding the Inhibitors and Enhancers in the process of knowledge Management is important for the education industry in order to enable them to facilitate the process to be smooth and more objective.
The present study aims to examine these issues with evidence from the empirical data collected through the survey of academicians from various universities of Jaipur. This study shows how academicians from university departments perceive the Inhibitors and Enhancers to KM. For this purpose, three domains, namely - Acquisition, creation, and dispersion of knowledge are considered in three dimensions of Inhibitors and Enhancers- individual aspects, socio-organizational aspects, and technological aspects.
It aims to help in determining perception and understanding of employees working in different universities regarding the factors that hinder the development process of KM and the ones that support it. The findings suggest that academicians are more concerned with individual and socio organizational aspects of KM, rather than the technological aspect. People and their interactions create knowledge and promote the flow of knowledge.
Keywords: Knowledge Management (KM), Inhibitors, Enhancers, Knowledge Economy.
INTRODUCTION
Sustainability and High performance is defined by efficient Knowledge management in the
contemporary Knowledge industry. Knowledge is the real and permanent asset that an
organization can sustain for an indefinite time period, provided that this Knowledge is
disseminated in a right way to right people. Knowledge management is the process of capturing,
distributing, and effectively using knowledge. As evident from the literature available that
education sector is the most important sector where KM is the concept of prime
importance .Education is all about acquiring, analyzing and sharing the knowledge and
information that is available with a particular person. So, in every sense the KM the foundation
over which Knowledge industry thrives.
Institutions, today are investing a great deal of money to cultivate the organization environment
of Knowledge sharing and Knowledge management. Despite several efforts, the results are not
satisfactory. As Knowledge sharing is a voluntary activity, that can’t be mandated by the
management hence there are several barriers that inhibit the smooth flow of knowledge or
streamlining the process of Knowledge Management .At the same time there is a need to identify
the promoters of the Km processes in Educational institutions. These inhibitors and enhancers
have been classified into three broad categories on the basis of their nature, namely- individual,
socio organizational and technical factors.
The Individual factors are the factors that are due to the personality type or attitude of the
individual. Individual inhibitors are the ones that restrict the academician to participate in the
knowledge sharing process of the organization. These are not due to the Lacking on
organizations part but individualistic in nature. To remove these inhibitors the organizations need
to orient the employees in a way that, Knowledge sharing becomes a usual practice at work.
Individual enhancers to KM involves the personality characters and traits as well as the
behavioral aspect of employees that helps them to be a part of the holistic KM process and
conduct it efficiently and effectively.
Socio-organizational factors are due to the organization culture and climate. An organization
where much focus is given to KM provides required machinery and infrastructure to facilitate the
process. Socio-organizational inhibitors are the grey zones developed due to lack of support from
the organizations .To reduce these organizations must selectively focus on the key inhibitors, that
obstruct the flow of knowledge of common importance. .Whereas the socio organizational
enhancers are the initiatives taken on the organizational level to streamline the process of KM.
The Technical factors are the ones that are technical in nature, in a way that can be changed by
improving technical factors. The technical inhibitors are, the factors due to lack of technical
knowhow and trainings required for proper KM. These can be reduced by providing the required
training, aids and laying out proper systems and processes for KM. The technical enhancers
include the set of skills and capabilities, as well as well laid processes of conducting proper KM
practices.
The study focuses on identifying the most important inhibitors to and promoters of knowledge
management processes, out of the perceived common inhibitors and promoters. By analyzing the
responses from 6 Higher education institutions of Jaipur ,few generalizations has been made that
will help these organizations and similar players in Education sector to remove the inhibitors and
Promote the enhancers.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Several barriers and facilitators/enablers have been identified to KM implementation in multiple
domains. Aspects related to people, interpersonal relations and organization/management
processes predominate. For example, Aden felt and Lagerstrom (2008) presented organizational
culture as the most prominent enabler of KM on transnational projects. Newman (2006, p. 12)
stressed the CEO’s key role as a “masterful facilitator who can guide the organization through a
continuous process of strategic conversations that refocus the strategy on knowledge that is both
current and emergent” and Mac Neil (2004) stressed the role of the supervisor as facilitator of
knowledge sharing in teams.
Lee et al. (2003) suggested that the way failures are treated in organizations have a significant
impact on knowledge creation. When failures are seen as acceptable and used as tools for
learning, individuals are less motivated to cover up their own mistakes and more prone to use
past failures from others as sources of learning and improvement (Edmondson, 1996, 1999).Lin
(2006) suggested that organizational support influences the intention to facilitate knowledge
sharing through organizational perceptions of innovation characteristics and interpersonal trust.
Davis et al. (2005a) elucidated the key facilitators and inhibitors of knowledge sharing in large
global organizations. They called attention to elements such as information overload, the time
spent scanning large volumes of marginally relevant information, the diversity of media and the
lack of integration, the gathering of a range of relevant information from diverse sources and the
discussion of key issues with colleagues and other professionals, the developing and nurturing of
social networks, and the interface between disciplines, technologies, business units, functions,
and businesses. They argued that KM systems need to be integrative and flexible enough to
facilitate the dynamic interplay between different forms of knowledge across space and time.
According to Lee et al. (2003), evidence suggests that “learning and creating new knowledge are
related to the individual’s willingness to incur failures” (p. 200), and such willingness depends
largely upon the organization and team culture, including the trust climate.
The authors also stressed that the culture that emphasizes people independence and the correlate
tendency for not seeking help from others (e.g., supervisors, colleagues, experts) is detrimental to
new knowledge creation, problem solving and performance (Blau, 1955; Capers & Lipton, 1993;
Lee, 1997). This happens because the help-seeker fears losing power (Lee & Tiedens, 2001). On
the contrary, people can acquire new skills and competencies, discover unique problem-solving
strategies, develop network ties and create new knowledge (either at the individual or
organizational level of analysis) through help-seeking. Singh et al. (2006) found that culture and
financial constraints are the main barriers to KM implementation.
They also found that people neither disclose nor share knowledge that may adversely affect their
job security. Moreover, even when willing to share it, difficulties arise as inter-department
interactions are often insufficient, KM strategies are poor, access to knowledge is difficult and
general sharing is discouraged. Riege (2007) focused on knowledge transfer barriers between
foreign units of multinational companies, and suggested three domains in which barriers must be
overcome: people, organizational and technological barriers. Sun and Scott (2009) investigated
the barriers involved in knowledge transfer arising from the individual, team, organizational, and
inter-organizational levels. They identified aspects such as skills of communication and
persuasion, fear of loss of ownership, of knowledge control and of individual’s competitive
advantage, organizational culture and objectives that do not support learning, problems with
rewards, recognition, criticism and punishment, suspicion of whether other teams are sharing the
knowledge, lack of openness to ideas, organizational structures resistant to change, and lack of
mutual understanding/trust between organizations.
Jain et al. (2010), focusing on organizations and business schools in the Klang Valley, Malaysia,
identified barriers and strategies for promoting knowledge sharing. The lack of reward and
recognition, the lack of time and the lack of formal and informal activities to cultivate knowledge
sharing were identified as the strongest barriers. The lack of IT systems was rated low in terms of
barriers to knowledge sharing. The findings also suggested that individuals would be more
willing to share their knowledge if they felt that the top management wanted. Linking knowledge
sharing with rewards and performance appraisal, encouraging staff to publish the knowledge on
its website, and the use of a newsletter to disseminate the knowledge were also considered to be
effective strategies for promoting knowledge sharing.
One of the most useful contributions was provided by Riege (2005), who identified three-dozen
knowledge-sharing barriers that managers must consider for improving knowledge sharing,
categorizing them into three main domains: individual/personal, organizational, and
technological barriers. Amongst the barriers in the individual domain, they identified: (a) general
lack of time to share knowledge and to identify colleagues in need of specific knowledge; (b)
apprehension of fear that sharing may reduce or jeopardize people's job security; (c) low
awareness and realization of the value and benefit of possessed knowledge to others; (d)
dominance in sharing explicit over tacit knowledge such as know-how and experience that
requires hands-on learning, observation, dialogue and interactive problem solving; (e) use of
strong hierarchy, position-based status, and formal power; (f) insufficient capture, evaluation,
feedback, communication, and tolerance of past mistakes that would enhance individual and
organizational learning effects; (f) lack of contact time and interaction between knowledge
sources and recipients; (g) poor verbal/written communication and interpersonal skills; (h) lack
of social network; (i) taking ownership of intellectual property due to fear of not receiving fair
recognition and accreditation from managers and colleagues; (j) lack of trust in people because
they might misuse knowledge or take unjust credit for it. In the organizational domain, Riege
found barriers such as: (a) lack of leadership and managerial direction in terms of clearly
communicating the benefits and values of knowledge sharing practices; (b) shortage of formal
and informal spaces to share, reflect and generate (new) knowledge; (c) lack of transparent
reward and recognition systems that would motivate people to share more of their knowledge;
(d) corporate culture that does not provide sufficient support for sharing practices; (e) shortage of
appropriate infrastructure supporting sharing practices; (f) restricted communication and
knowledge flows (e.g. top-down).
Regarding the technological domains, they stressed aspects such as the lack of integration of IT
systems and processes, the lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of integrated IT
systems, the unrealistic expectations of employees as to what technology can and cannot do, the
mismatch between individuals’ need requirements and integrated IT systems and processes, the
reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and experience with them, and the lack of
training regarding employee familiarization of new IT systems and processes.
Disterer (2011) also considered that, regarding knowledge transfer, the aspects related with
people’s behavior are more important than the technical ones. Ruggles (1998) suggested the
formula 50/25/25 to hold the balance among three pillars: people, processes and technology. And
Nonaka and Toyama (2008) suggested that the people pillar is especially important for tacit
knowledge management, because tacit knowledge is more personal and subjective, it is deeply
rooted in action, commitment, and involvement in a specific context, making it difficult to
formalize and communicate (Davis et al., 2009b; Polanyi, 1967.
OBJECTIVES:
To identify the most significant Inhibitors and Enhancers for Knowledge management at
individual level.
To identify the most important Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge management at
social-organizational level.
To identify the most important Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge management at
technology level.
To suggest the strategies for reducing the identified Inhibitors and Enhancers of
Knowledge management.
To suggest the strategies for promoting the identified Enhancers of Knowledge
management.
HYPOTHESIS:
H01. Lack of time to interact and share knowledge is not the most important inhibitor of
knowledge management in individual dimension.
H02. Honesty and willingness to learn and share knowledge is not the most important
enhancer of knowledge management in individual dimension.
H03.Unsupportive organizational culture is not the most important inhibitor of knowledge
management in social-organizational dimension.
H04. Encouraging sharing through appropriate reward and recognition system is not the
most important enhancer of knowledge management in social-organizational dimension.
H05. Lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of IT system is not the most
important inhibitor of knowledge management in technology dimension.
H06. Orientation towards Technical aids is not the most important enhancer of knowledge
management in technology dimension.
RESEARCH METHODLOGY:
The survey approach with the help of questionnaire was used for data collection where
convenience sampling was selected for participant’s responses. Exploratory research design was
used to conduct the study. Sample of respondent was the employees of Different universities of
Jaipur city.
A total of 70 questionnaires were distributed among employees and 56 respondents gave their
responses. These participants were drawn from the different departments of. The data was
collected in the year 2014, and duration for the data collection was two weeks. In this study,
items of self-administered questionnaire were used as the data collection tool.
RESULT ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
BarriersThe main points are worth mentioning regarding barriers which suggests that KM in university
research centers faces “universal” difficulties. For example, the culture of “working alone”
corresponds to the “islands of knowledge” and to the organizational culture that does not foster
cooperation and sharing mentioned. The lack of time and the information overload are also
represented in, both in the individual level and in the socio-organizational processes barriers.
However, some barriers (e.g., teaching schedule, amount of administrative/bureaucratic work)
seem to be specific to university research centers. Academician are stressed by workload and
working conditions, have excessive administrative and teaching duties need to prepare and
manage an excessive number of examinations, and feel frustrated by the lack of incentives and
institutional support
Individual aspect of knowledge management
1 . Inhibitor of knowledge management
SNo.
PARAMETERS Average Mean
% of Respondent
1 Lack of time to interact and share knowledge 1 57.14%2 Fear of job security through sharing 4 42.85%3 Poor verbal -written communication ,and interpersonal
skills5 57.14%
4 Lack of motivators for sharing knowledge 2 42.85%5 Dominance in sharing explicit(what to do) over tacit(how
to do) knowledge3 71.42%
57.14% of respondents said Lack of time to interact and share knowledge is most important Barriers of knowledge management ,followed by Lack of motivators for sharing knowledge and Dominance in sharing explicit(what to do) over tacit(how to do) knowledge.
2. Enhancers of knowledge management
SNo.
PARAMETERS Average Mean
% of Respondent
1 Individual willingness to learn from failures 3 42.85%2 Continuous up-gradation of Knowledge and creativity 2 28.57%3 Well equipped and trained individuals 5 71.42%4 Strong interpersonal skills 4 57.14%5 Honesty and willingness to learn and share knowledge 1 42.85%
42.85% of respondents said Honesty and willingness to learn and share knowledge is most important Barriers of knowledge management, followed by Continuous up-gradation of Knowledge and creativity and Individual willingness to learn from failures.
Socio-organizational
3 . Inhibitor of knowledge management
SNo.
PARAMETERS Average Mean
% of Respondent
1 Excessive Teaching load and Administrative duties 3 42.85%2 Lack of appropriate reward and recognition system 2 57.14%3 Poor communication and lack of formal and informal
activities to cultivate knowledge sharing4 28.14%
4 Unsupportive organizational culture 1 57.14%5 Lack of training and development programs 5 42.85%
Unsupportive organizational culture has been ranked as the most important and biggest barrier of knowledge management by majority of respondents (57.14%) followed by Lack of appropriate reward and recognition system and Excessive Teaching load and Administrative duties.
4. Enhancers of knowledge management
SNo.
PARAMETERS Average Mean % of Respondent
1 Integrating knowledge management with the organization ‘s vision and mission
5 71.42%
2 Encouraging sharing through appropriate reward 1 42.85%
and recognition system3 Effective organizational communication culture 2 42.85%4 Regular top management support and feedback 3 42.85%5 Effective training and development programs 4 28.57%
Encouraging sharing through appropriate reward and recognition system has been ranked as the most important and biggest barrier of knowledge management (42.85%), followed by Effective organizational communication culture and Regular top management support and feedback.
Technology aspect
5. Inhibitor of knowledge management 57.14%
SNo.
PARAMETERS Average Mean
% of Respondent
1 Lack of integration of IT system and organization processes
2 42.85%
2 Lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of IT system
1 57.14%
3 Unrealistic expectations of employees as to what technology can and cannot do
5 71.42%
4 Lack of training regarding employee familiarization of new system and processes
4 42.85%
5 Reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and experience with them
3 28.57%
It was found that the Lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of IT system has been ranked as the most important and biggest barrier of knowledge management by 57.14 % of respondents ,followed by Lack of integration of IT system and organization processes and Reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and experience with them. The least ranked barrier was Unrealistic expectations of employees as to what technology can and cannot do.
6. Enhancers of knowledge management
SNo. PARAMETERS Average Mean % of Respondent1 Facilitated social networking using IT 3 28.57%2 Orientation towards Technical aids 1 42.85%3 Adopting IT that is appropriate for the particular
organization2 42.85%
4 Enterprise resource planning system 5 85.71%5 Designing IT based processes and promoting their
usage4 57.14%
It was found that the Orientation towards Technical aids and immediate maintenance of IT system has been ranked as the most important and biggest facilitator of knowledge management ranked first by 42.85%, of respondents, followed by Adopting IT that is appropriate for the particular organization. The least ranked barrier was Enterprise resource planning system.
SUMMARIZED DATA : Aspects Most important Inhibitor Most important Enhancer
Individual aspects
Lack of time to interact and share
knowledge
Honesty and willingness to learn and
share knowledge
57.14% 42.85%
Socio-organizational
aspects
Unsupportive organizational culture Encouraging sharing through
appropriate reward and recognition
system
71.42% 42.85%
Technology aspect
Lack of technical support and
immediate maintenance of IT system
Orientation towards Technical aids
57.14% 71.42%
Perceived Inhibitor and Enhancer among the three Domain On The Basis of
their DegreeDomain affecting KM Inhibitor Enhancer
% of
respondents
No. of
respondents
%of respondents No. of respondents
Individual Domain 41.07% 23 32.14% 18
Social–organizational
Domain
44.6% 25 55.35% 31
Technology Domain 14.28% 8 12.5% 7
Total 100% 56 100% 56
As per the analysis of data, out of the three Domains, Socio-organizational Domain was found to
be the biggest barrier to knowledge management with the average responses of 44.6%
academicians in universities of jaipur and 55.35% academicians also perceived socio-
organizational Domains as a leading promoters to KM, and 32.14% respondents feels individual
domains as a huge facilitators to KM.
Respondents have given the least preference to Technology Domain considering the both
Inhibitor and Enhancer of knowledge management with 14.28% and 12.5% respectively.
CONCLUSION
Through conducting research the opinion was formed that it is an important statistic, since it
could imply that the organization should be responsible for creating a nurturing environment for
KM activities for organizations’ competitiveness and market performance. Appreciative the
Inhibitors and Enhancers in the process of knowledge Management is imperative for the
Universities in order to facilitate the process of KM to be intent and competitive. All the three
domain were consider important inhibitor and enhancer to KM. Socio –organizational factor
effecting KM were ranked the most important as a barriers and facilitator both. The findings
suggest that academicians are more concerned with individual and socio-organizational aspects
of KM, rather than the technological aspect. But Technology is also an important facilitator, but
contrary to what some KM literature suggests, IT is not KM. People and their interactions create
knowledge and promote the flow of knowledge. The findings suggest that technological barriers
and facilitators also do also matter.
SUGGESTION AND RECOMMENDATION: Higher emphasis on evaluating results and rewarding merit, at both the individual and
collective level.
Replacing teachers with administrative staff for Administrative/bureaucratic and
academically irrelevant tasks.
Promote teamwork and Cooperation, as well as mutually profitable links between them
and other Institutions and companies.
Facilitate and foster the access to various resources like online libraries, Exchange
programs with foreign universities, conducting national and international conferences and
seminars.
Building an organization culture of trust amongst the employee and management in order
to facilitate proper knowledge sharing.
Laying out formal and informal communication channels in order to promote continuous
communication and knowledge dispersion.
Regular feedback and suggestion for improving the quality of job and additional work
assignment supplemented with fringe and Non-fringe benefits.
Conducting training for making academicians familiar with modern IT based tools of
teaching and information sharing.
To put greater emphasis on imparting Tacit knowledge with respect to explicit
knowledge. .
Promote the diffusion of knowledge produced in universities for the benefit of corporate
through corporate trainings and management development programs.
REFERENCES:
Athans, M. 2002. Portuguese research universities: Why not the best? Economia e Gestão
Global, 7 (1): 121–139
Athans, M. (2002). Portuguese research universities: Why not the best? Economia e Gestão
Global – Global Economics and Management Review, 7(1), 121-139.
Davis, J., Subrahmanian, E. & Westerberg, A. (2005a). The “global” and the “local” in
knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 101-113
Kale, D. & Little, S. (2005). Knowledge generation in developing countries: A theoretical
framework for exploring dynamic learning in high–technology firms. The Electronic Journal
of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 87-96
Lee, H., & Choi, B. 2003. Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 20 (1): 179–228
Lee, F., Caza, A., Edmonson, A., & Thomke, S. 2003. New knowledge creation in
organizations. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.)
Liao, S. H., Chang, J. C., Cheng, S. C., & Kuo, C. M. (2004). Employee relationship and
knowledge sharing: A case study of a Taiwanese finance and securities firm. Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, 2, 24-34
Makino, S. and A. Inkpen, 2003. Knowledge seeking Smith and M. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational learning and knowledge management pp: 233-252. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-36.
Riege, A. (2007). Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 11(1), 48-67.
Roth, J. (2003). Enabling knowledge creation: Learning from an R&D organization. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 7(1), 32-48.
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. California
Management Review, 40(3), 80-89.
Smalla, C. T., & Sage, A. P. (2005/2006). Knowledge management and knowledge sharing: A
review. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 5, 153-169.
Questionnaire
Dear Sir/ Ma’am
We are conducting a Research on “Inhibitors and Enhancers of Knowledge Management in
Knowledge Industry: With special reference to Jaipur City “among academicians of
universities in Jaipur city. We will be thankful to you, if you will spare your 10 mints for filling
this questionnaire. Your cooperation is Valuable.
NAME: GENDER:
AGE: EXPERIENCE IN TEACHING: ( )
0-2 yrs 2-4yrs 4-6yrs 6yrs and above
1. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) barriers as a individual aspect of knowledge management
SNo.
PARAMETERS RANKING
1 Lack of time to interact and share knowledge2 Fear of job security through sharing3 Poor verbal -written communication ,and interpersonal skills4 Lack of motivators for sharing knowledge5 Dominance in sharing explicit(what to do) over tacit(how to do)
knowledge
2. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) facilitators as a individual aspect of knowledge management
SNo.
PARAMETERS RANKING
1 Individual willingness to learn from failures2 Continuous up-gradation of Knowledge and creativity3 Well equipped and trained individuals 4 Strong interpersonal skills5 Honesty and willingness to learn and share knowledge
3. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) barriers as a Socio-organizational aspect of knowledge management
SNo.
PARAMETERS RANKING
1 Excessive Teaching load and Administrative duties2 Lack of appropriate reward and recognition system3 Poor communication and lack of formal and informal activities to
cultivate knowledge sharing4 Unsupportive organizational culture 5 Lack of training and development programs
4. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) facilitators as a Socio-organizational of knowledge management
SNo.
PARAMETERS RANKING
1 Integrating knowledge management with the organization ‘s vision and mission
2 Encouraging sharing through appropriate reward and recognition system
3 Effective organizational communication culture4 Regular top management support and feedback5 Effective training and development programs
5. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) barriers as a Technology aspects of knowledge management
SNo.
PARAMETERS RANKING
1 Lack of integration of IT system and organization processes2 Lack of technical support and immediate maintenance of IT
system3 Unrealistic expectations of employees as to what technology can
and cannot do4 Lack of training regarding employee familiarization of new
system and processes 5 Reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and
experience with them
6. Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to 5 (for least important) facilitators as a Technology aspect of knowledge management
SNo.
PARAMETERS RANKING
1 Facilitated social networking using IT2 Orientation towards Technical aids3 Adopting IT that is appropriate for the particular organization4 Enterprise resource planning system 5 Designing IT based processes and promoting their usage
Q7 Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to3 (for least important) major Barriers of knowledge management.
SNo.
DOMAIN TO KM RANKING
1 Individual aspect2 Socio-organizational aspect3 Technology aspect
Q8 Rank the following within 1 (for most important) to3 (for least important) major facilitators of knowledge management.
SNo.
DOMAIN TO KM RANKING
1 Individual aspect2 Socio-organizational aspect3 Technology aspect
Thanks for your cooperation