طراحی مدل بلوغ مدیریت دانش در کلاس جهانی بر اساس مدل تعالی: یک رویکرد آمیخته

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت صنعتی، گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران جنوب، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار دانشکده مدیریت، گروه مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران جنوب، تهران، ایران

چکیده

سازمان­های کلاس جهانی همواره تلاش می­کنند که جایگاه مدیریت دانش خود را تعیین نمایند. در این راستا، داشتن یک مدل بلوغ مدیریت دانش ضروری است. هدف این تحقیق طراحی مدل بلوغ مدیریت دانش در کلاس جهانی بر اساس مدل تعالی با استفاده از روش تحقیق آمیخته است. جامعه آماری تحقیق شرکت­های زیر مجموعه وزارت نفت است که مدیران ارشد این شرکت­ها به­عنوان واحد تحلیل آماری انتخاب شدند. بر اساس بررسی عمیق تحقیقات گذشته، مؤلفه­های توانمندساز اجرای مدیریت دانش و شاخص‌های نتایج کلیدی عملکرد مدیریت دانش در کلاس جهانی تعیین شدند. سپس توانمندسازها و نتایج کلیدی با استفاده از تکنیک­های تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی و تأییدی شناسایی و تأیید شدند. در نهایت، با تمرکز بر مطالعه تطبیقی و استفاده از روش پدیدارشناسی، کدگذاری‌های کیفی انجام شده و سطوح مدل بلوغ طراحی شدند. نتایج حاصله نشان می­دهد که سیزده توانمندساز اجرای مدیریت دانش و چهار نتایج کلیدی عملکرد مدیریت دانش در کلاس جهانی تعیین شدند. مدل بلوغ مدیریت دانش در کلاس جهانی بر اساس مدل تعالی دارای شش سطح است که به‌ترتیب عبارتند از: هرج و مرج، ابتدایی (آگاهی از نیاز به دانش)، هماهنگی و استانداردسازی دانش، بهینه­سازی دانش، بهبود مستمر دانش و انفجار دانش و نوآوری. مدیران و سیاستگذاران سازمان مورد مطالعه به­طور اخص و دیگر سازمان‌ها به‌طور عام می­توانند از مدل پیشنهادی در جهت ارزیابی سطح بلوغ مدیریت دانش خود و پیشی گرفتن از رقبا بهره‌برداری نمایند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing a Maturity Model of World-Class Knowledge Management based on the Excellence Model: A Mixed approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Behzad Ghasemi 1
  • Changiz Valmohammadi 2
1 PhD Candidate in Industrial Management, Department of Industrial Management, College of Management, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor of Information Technology Management, Department of Information Technology Management, College of Management, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
World-class organizations are continuously trying to determine their Knowledge Management (KM) position. In this regard, having a KM maturity model is essential. The purpose of this research is to design a World-Class Knowledge Management (WCKM) maturity model based on the excellence model using mixed method research. The statistical population of this research is the subsidiaries of the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum, and the top managers of these subsidiaries were selected as statistical analysis unit. Based on an in-deep review of the relevant literature, the components of the enabler of KM implementation and the indicators pertaining to the key results of WCKM performance were determined. Then, the enablers and the key results were identified and verified using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis techniques. Finally, through comparative study and phenomenology method, qualitative coding was performed and the levels of maturity model were determined. The obtained results show that the thirteen enablers of KM implementation and the four key results of WCKM performance were determined. The WCKM maturity model based on the excellence model includes six levels, namely, chaos, initial (awareness of the need for knowledge), coordinating and standardization of knowledge, knowledge optimization, knowledge continuous improvement, and eruption of knowledge and innovation, respectively. Managers and policymakers of the surveyed organizations, specifically, and other organizations in general, might use the proposed model towards assessing their KM maturity level and outperforming their competitors.
 
Introduction
The most fundamental characteristic of intelligent organizations in the 21st century is focused on knowledge and information. Knowledge Management Maturity Model (KMMM) is a powerful tool which can create knowledge changes and innovation all over the world (Nastiezaie & Noruzi Kuhdasht, 2017). In past studies, various KMMMs were presented (Pee & Kankanhalli, 2009; Lotti Oliva, 2014; Serenko et al., 2016). Each of KMMMs has played a key role in the development and success of KM in organizations and has developed the different levels of maturity using methods such as reviewing the literature of previous models, interviewing, and surveying the organizations’ experts. These models have designed their own specific methodology to determine the levels of KM maturity. Given the KMMMs presented in previous studies, finding a KM maturity model based on the excellence model that can provide the highest competitive advantage for organizations based on world-class criteria is less seen and is considered as the research gap. In other words, the research aims to design the levels of KM maturity model based on the enablers of KM implementation and the key results of the WCKM performance measurement. In order to design such a model, three main questions are raised: 1- What are the enablers of KM implementation? 2- What are the key results of the performance measurement of WCKM? 3- How is the WCKM maturity model based on the excellence model?
Case study
The Case Study of present research includes subsidiaries of Iranian oil industry, namely National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), National Petrochemical Company (NPC), National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC) and National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC).
Materials and Methods
Based on the result, this study is a fundamental research and in terms of methodology is an exploratory-descriptive. The research approach is a mixed method research of embedded design type. In the library study, the systematic literature review was done based on the model proposed by Ruschel et al. (2017) and the components of the enablers of KM implementation and the criteria of the key results of the WCKM performance measurement were extracted as the examined codes. The field study consists of two parts, quantitative and qualitative data collection. The data collected in quantitative part were analyzed using the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and SPSS and Smart PLS software. In the qualitative section, synergy between the enablers of KM implementation and the key results of the WCKM performance measurement was determined using comparative study approach and the levels of WCKM maturity model based on the excellence model are designed using the phenomenological approach and qualitative coding method.
 
 
Results
According to the obtained results, the thirteen enablers were identified and confirmed to enable the of KM implementation that including “Human Resource Management”, “KM Processes”, “Information Technology”, “Business Strategy”, “Intellectual Capital”, “KM System”, “Executive Practices of KM”, “Management Information System”, “Culture”, “Partnership and Cooperation with Business Partners”, “KM Road Map”, “Leadership Commitment and Support”, and “Organizational Environment” (Kazemi & Zafar Allahyari, 2010; Lin, 2013; Lotti Oliva, 2014; Valmohammadi and Ahmadi, 2015; Jahani et al., 2016). Also, the obtained results show that the four main key results of WCKM performance measurement are namely, “Knowledge Quality”, “Knowledge Utility”, “Knowledge Innovation”, and “Business Results”. The main result of the research shows that the WCKM maturity model was designed based on the enablers of KM implementation and the key results of the WCKM performance measurement. This model has 6 levels which include: Level 0: chaos, Level 1:  initial, Level 2: coordination and standardization of knowledge, Level 3: knowledge optimization, Level 4: continuous improvement of knowledge, and Level 5: knowledge eruption and innovation.
Discussion and Conclusion
The main contribution of this study is to design a WCKM maturity model based on the excellence model. Some levels of the maturity model are supported by Pee & Kankanhali (2009) and Khatibain et al (2010). The main difference between the research maturity model with other maturity models is that in this study, the KM maturity model was designed to reach the world-class. Also, in this study, the enablers of KM implementation were used to achieve the key results of WCKM performance, which shows the research maturity model has been designed based on the excellence model. Also, creating a new level of KM maturity called the knowledge eruption and innovation derived from world-class knowledge-based organizations in competitive markets is another difference of the maturity model of this research.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • World-Class Knowledge Management
  • Maturity Model
  • Excellence Model
  • mixed approach
  • Oil industry

1-Akhavan, P., Ebrahim Sanjaghi, M., Rezaeenour, J., & Ojaghi, H. (2014). Examining the relationships between organizational culture, KM and environmental responsiveness capability. VINE, 44(2), 228-248.

2-Akhavan, P., Jafar, M., & Fathian, M. (2006). Critical success factors of KMSs: a multi-case analysis. European Business Review, 18(2), 97-113.

3-Al Saifi, S. A. (2015). Positioning organisational culture in KM research. Journal of KM, 19(2), 164-189.

4-Alonso, L., Rubio, E. M., de Agustina, B., & Domingo, R. (2017). Latest clean manufacturing trends applied to a world class manufacturing management for improving logistics and environmental performance. Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 1151-1158.

5-Azar, A., Gholamzadeh, R., & Ghanavati, M. (2012). Path-structural modeling in management: Smart PLS Application, Tehran: Publishing Knowledge Look. (In Persian)

6-Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2009). SPSS for Psychologists: A Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS for Windows. NY:Palgrave Macmillan.

7-Cardoso, L., Meireles, A., & Ferreira Peralta, C. (2012). KM and its critical factors in social economy organizations. Journal of KM, 16(2), 267-284.

8-Chang, C‐ M., Hsu, M-H., & Yen, C-H. (2012). Factors affecting KM success: the fit perspective, Journal of KM, 16(6), 847-861.

9-Chang, C.L & Lin, T-C (2015). The role of organizational culture in the KM process, Journal of KM, Vol. 19 Issue: 3, pp.433-455.

10-Chen, L., & Fong, P. S. W. (2012). Revealing performance heterogeneity through KM maturity evaluation: A capability-based approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(18), 13523-13539.

11-Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H. and Wang, T.G. (2006), Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories, Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.

12-Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.

13-Desouza, K. C. (2006). KM maturity model: Theoretical development and preliminary empirical testing. Tesis doctoral. Chicago: University of Illinois, pp. 386.

14-Digalwar, A. and Sangwan, K. S. (2011). Role of KM in world class manufacturing: An empirical investigation. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

15-Ehms, K., & Langen, M. (2002). Holistic development of KM with KMMM, Siemens AG: Corporate Technology.

16-Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.

17-Gallagher, S., & Hazlett, S.-A. (1999) "Using the KM maturity model (KM3) as an evaluation tool", KM, 1-29.

18-Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-151.

19-Hamidizadeh, M.R & Fadaeinejad, M.E. (2010). A KM Approach to Format the Financial World-Class Policies, International Journal of Management & Information Systems, 14(5). 69-78.

20-Hasani, K., & Sheikhesmaeili, S. (2016). KM and employee empowerment: A study of higher education institutions. Kybernetes, 45(2), 337-355.

21-Hashim, R. A., & Sani, A. M. (2008). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Newly Integrated Multidimensional School Engagement Scale. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction (MJLI), 5, 21-40.

22-Hubert, C., & Lemons, D. (2010). APQC’s Levels of KMM. APQC, 1-5.

23-Jafari, M., Fathian, M., Jahani, A., & Akhavan, P. (2008). Exploring the contextual dimensions of organization from KM perspective. VINE, 38(1), 53-71.

24-Jahani, A., Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., & Fathian, M. (2016). Conceptual model for knowledge discovery process in databases based on multi-agent system. VINE Journal of Information and KM Systems, 46(2), 207-231.

25-Jordão, R. V. D., Melo, V. L. T., Pereira, F. C. M., & Carvalho, R. B. d. (2017). Intellectual capital in mergers and acquisitions: a case study in a world-class financial institution. Revista de Administração, 52(3), 268-284.

26-Kazemi, M., & Zafar Allahyari, M. (2010). Defining a KM conceptual model by using MADM. Journal of KM, 14(6), 872-890.

27-Khanifar, H., & Moslemi, N. (2016). Principles and foundations of qualitative research methods: a new and applied approach. Tehran: Publishing Knowledge Look. (In Persian)

28-Khatibian, N., Hasan gholoi pour, T, & Abedi Jafari, H. (2010). Measurement of KM maturity level within organizations. Business Strategy Series, 11(1), 54-70.

29-Kochikar, V. P. (2000). The KM Maturity Model – A Staged Framework for Leveraging Knowledge. Infosys Technologies Limited. Retrieved from http://www.infy.com/knowledge_capital/knowledge/KMWorld00_B304.

30-Kruger, C.J., & Snyman, M.M.M. (2007). A guideline for assessing the KM maturity of organizations, South African Journal of Information Management, 9(3), 240-252.

18-Kulkarni, U., & Freeze, R. (2004). Development and validation of a KM capability assessment model. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), 54-62.

19-Kuriakose K.K., Raj, B., Murty, S., & Swaminathan, P. (2010). KM maturity models – a morphological analysis. Journal of KM Practice, 11(3), 1232-1255.

20-Lasrado, F., & Uzbeck, C. (2017). The excellence quest: a study of business excellence award-winning organizations in UAE. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 24 (3), 716-734.

21-Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), KM enablers, processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination, Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179-228.

22-Lee, H. J., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). A Storage Model of organizational KM:  Latent Content Analysis.Expert Systems with Applications, 20(2), 299-311.

23-Lin, H. F. (2011). Antecedents of the stage‐based KM evolution. Journal of KM, 15(1), 136-155.

24-Lin, H. F. (2013). The effects of KM capabilities and partnership attributes on the stage‐based e‐business diffusion. Internet Research, 23(4), 439-464.

25-Lotti Oliva, F. (2014). KM barriers, practices and maturity model. Journal of KM, 18(6), 1053-1074.

26-Martin, V. A., Hatzakis, T., Lycett, M., & Macredie, R. (2005). Cultivating knowledge sharing through the relationship management maturity model. The Learning Organization, 12(4), 340-354.

27-Mary Tzortzaki, A., & Mihiotis, A. (2012). A three dimensional KM framework for hospitality and tourism. Foresight, 14(3), 242-259.

28-McKenzie, J., van Winkelen, C., & Grewal, S. (2011). Developing organisational decision‐making capability: a knowledge manager's guide. Journal of KM, 15(3), 403-421.

29-Mohanty, S., & Chand, M. (2005). 5iKM3 KM maturity model. TATA, 15-23.

30-Momeni. M., & Fa'al Gayomi, A. (2013). Statistical Analysis with SPSS, Tehran: New Book Publication. (In Persian)

31-MoP. (2016). Report of activities related to administrative and educational management. Iran: Ministry of Petroleum (MoP) of Iran. (In Persian)

32-Nastiezaie, N., & Noruzi Kuhdasht, R. (2017). The study of relationship between employee voices with knowledge sharing, Public Management Research, 10(35), 85-104. (In Persian)

33-Omar Sharifuddin bin Syed‐Ikhsan, S., & Rowland, F. (2004). Benchmarking KM in a public organisation in Malaysia. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(3), 238-266.

34-Pee, L. G., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). A model of organisational KM maturity based on people, process, and technology. Journal of Information & KM, 8(2), 79–99.

35-Perkmann, M. (2003) Organizational knowledge in the making: how firms create, use, and institutionalize knowledge, Information Technology & People, (16)4, 486-491.

36-Ragsdale, J., & Platz, j. (2017). TSIA KM Maturity Model (Mapping Evolution of KM from Recognition to Strategic Program), Technology Services Industry Association (TSIA).

37-Rasula, J., Bosilj Vuksic, V. & Indihar stemberger, M., (2008). The Integrated KM Maturity Model. Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 1331-5609, 47-62.

38-Ruschel, E., Santos, E. A. P., & Loures, E. d. F. R. (2017). Industrial maintenance decision-making: A systematic literature review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 45, 180-194.

39-Sadeh, E. (2017). Interrelationships among quality enablers, service quality, patients’ satisfaction and loyalty in hospitals. The TQM Journal, 29(1), 101-117.

40-Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Hull, E. (2016). An application of the KM maturity model: the case of credit unions. KM Research & Practice, 14(3), 338-352.

41-Shankar, R., Acharia, S., & Baveja, A. (2009). Soft‐system KM framework for new product development, Journal of KM, 13(1), 135-153.

42-Smith, A. D., & Rupp, W.T. (2004). Knowledge workers’ perceptions of performance ratings, Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(3), 146-166.

43-Svetlana, S and Robertas J (2010), the Model of KM System Maturity and its Approbation in Business Companies, Social Mokslai, 69(3), 57-68.

44-Tan, C. N.-L., & Md. Noor, S. (2013). KM enablers, knowledge sharing and research collaboration: a study of KM at research universities in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21(2), 251-276.

45-Tobin, P.K.J & Snyman, R, (2004). World-class KM: a proposed framework, South African Journal of Information Management,8(3).59-74.

46-Valmohammadi, C., & Ahmadi, M. (2015). The impact of KM practices on organizational performance: A balanced scorecard approach. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(1), 131-159.

47-Valmohammadi, C., & Ghassemi, A. (2016). Identification and prioritization of the barriers of KM implementation using fuzzy analytical network process: A case study of the Iranian context. VINE Journal of Information and KM Systems, 46(3), 319-337.

48-Wibowo, M. A., & Waluyo, R. (2015). KM Maturity in Construction Companies. Procedia Engineering, 125, 89-94.