Applied Soft Computing 12 (2012) 527535

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Soft Computing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asoc

Segmenting critical factors for successful knowledge management

implementation using the fuzzy DEMATEL method
Wei-Wen Wu
Department of International Trade, Ta Hwa Institute of Technology, 1.Ta Hwa Road, Chiung-Lin, Hsin-Chu 307, Taiwan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 18 May 2008
Received in revised form 5 June 2011
Accepted 14 August 2011
Available online 22 August 2011
Keywords:
Knowledge management (KM)
Critical factors
Fuzzy set theory
Decision Making Trial and Evaluation
Laboratory (DEMATEL)

a b s t r a c t
Knowledge is a key source of sustainable competitive advantage. In response to increasingly drastic
and competitive environments, many organizations wish to better utilize and manage knowledge for
business success. For the purpose to execute formal knowledge management (KM) effectively, some
works have suggested several critical factors of KM implementations. However, in a strategic view, such
a list of critical factors must be further honed to increase practical usefulness, as not all critical factors
necessarily share the same importance. Moreover, assessing the importance of critical factors inevitably
involves the vagueness of human judgment. Hence, this study presents a favorable method combining
fuzzy set theory and the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method to segment
the critical factors for successful KM implementations. Also, an empirical study is presented to illustrate
the proposed method and to demonstrate its usefulness.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In Taiwan, many rms recognize that utilizing and managing corporate knowledge provides the competitive advantage and
improved performance, and try to employ a variety of ways to
enhance their rate of knowledge creation and utilization. Some
rms manage knowledge with formal knowledge management
(KM) initiatives and structures, while other organizations do indeed
manage knowledge informally as part of their normal activities
without the use of the terminology and concepts of formal KM
structures [20]. Knowledge has the ability to utilize information and
inuence decisions, as well as the capability to act effectively [2].
The power of knowledge is a very important resource for preserving
valuable heritage, learning new things, solving problems, creating
core competences, and initiating new situations for both individual
and organizations [32]. Therefore, numerous rms desire to better
activate and leverage the knowledge for achieving value creation
and business success. In order to implement the KM effectively,
some creditable works have provided several critical factors of KM
implementation [38,53], involving business needs, KM purposes,
top management support, technology, communication, culture and
people, sharing knowledge, incentives, time, measurement, cost,
and so on.
However, in a strategic view, those critical factors are all signicant but not necessarily to implement at the same time. Even

Tel.: +886 3 5927700x2902; fax: +886 3 5925715.

E-mail address: itmike@thit.edu.tw
1568-4946/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2011.08.008

a same critical factor may be differently important to individual

rm with the varied priorities; due to each organization has its
own purposes, strategies, conditions of resources, and capabilities
in KM implementation. Especially, it is hard to obviate the possibility of the causal relationship within those critical factors. If the
kind of causal relationship can be profoundly disclosed, the critical factors are able to be well prioritized and segmented into some
meaningful groups. Hence rms can properly adjust the importance
of critical factors according to the strategic needs of different KM
phases. A list of critical factors is required to be further decomposed
for higher practical usefulness. To determine the importance of critical factors is a qualitative decision-making problem and inevitably
involves the vagueness of human judgments [33].
Thus, in terms of the critical factor segment, it is better to employ
an effective method which can deal with the vague judgments
of human and model the causal relationship within critical factors. The fuzzy set theory is a mathematical way which can handle
vagueness in decision-making [1,68]. The Decision Making Trial and
Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) is a potent method which helps
for generating a structural model and visualizing the causal relationship by offering a causal diagram [1113,18]. Hence, this study
proposes a favorable method combining the fuzzy set theory and
the DEMATEL to segment the critical factors for successful KM initiatives. An empirical study is presented to illustrate the proposed
method and to demonstrate its usefulness and validity. The rest of
this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, some of the prior
literature related to the critical factors of KM implementation is
reviewed. In Section 3, the proposed method is developed. In Section 4, an empirical study is illustrated. Finally, according to the

528

W.-W. Wu / Applied Soft Computing 12 (2012) 527535

ndings of this research, concluding remarks and suggestions are

presented.
2. KM implementation
Reacting to an increasingly rival business environment, numerous organizations are emphasizing the importance of KM to create
competitive advantage, and basing the KM strategy on their unique
resources and capabilities. For implementing the KM successfully,
it is a wise way to starts with a well understanding in terms of critical factors of KM implementation. The concept of knowledge and
the related critical factors are discussed below.
2.1. The concept of knowledge
As [26] emphasize, competitive advantage depends on how efcient the rm is in building, sharing and utilizing the knowledge.
There are some peculiar characteristics of knowledge, such as:
it is intangible and difcult to measure, is volatile, is embodied
in agents with wills, sometimes increases through use, has wide
ranging impacts, often has long lead times, and can be used by different processes at the same time [63]. Especially, [31] argues that
knowledge inertia may enable or inhibit ones ability on problem
solving, which is stemming from the use of routine problem solving procedures, stagnant knowledge sources, and following past
experience or knowledge; to conquer the problem of knowledge
inertia, it is necessary to update and share knowledge. Additionally, for knowledge to make contribution, it needs to be converted
into competencies, and competence is only important as a strategic resource when it is relatively distinctive to its competitors
[25].
Concerning the distinction between data, information, and
knowledge, as [50] states, if data becomes information when they
add value, then information becomes knowledge when it adds
insight, abstraction, and better understanding. In fact, data is
mainly considered as raw numbers that once processed becomes
information and when put in specic context, this information
becomes knowledge; the knowledge as a state of mind posits that
individuals expand their personal knowledge through the inputs
received from their environment [2]. According to [38], in the transformation process, data is organized and structured to produce
general information, and then the information is arranged and ltered to produce contextual information for specic users, next
individuals assimilate the contextual information and transform
it into knowledge.
Ref. [24] raise many types of knowledge, such as: systemic
knowledge, explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge, hidden knowledge, and relationship knowledge. Although many categories have
been suggested, the most frequently used distinction is tacit versus
explicit knowledge [47]. Explicit knowledge is provided by the
conventional classroom instruction, which bases in data and is
converted into information; by contrast, tacit knowledge bases
in practice and experience, which leads to mastery provided the
awareness related to the task at hand [25]. According to [40],
explicit knowledge can be expressed in words and numbers and
shared in the form of data, scientic formulae, specications, and
manuals, it can therefore be readily transmitted between individuals formally and systematically; whereas tacit knowledge includes
subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches, is highly personal and
hard to formalize, as well as is difcult to communicate or share
with others. As [39] indicates, organizational knowledge is created
by a continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge,
and there are four patterns of interaction including socialization,
internalization, externalization, and combination within a spiral
model.

2.2. Issues of knowledge management

Organizations need to discover how to motivate their people
to share the tacit knowledge which is the most valuable form
of knowledge and is recognized as a strategic asset, though the
tacit knowledge is usually very subjective and resides inside ones
head so that is difcult to communicate, comprehend and quantify
[15]. The explicit knowledge is easier to be digitalized and transferred, so that it can be captured and shared with others by the
use of information technology [24]. Additionally, overemphasizing on explicit knowledge, especially by IT investments, may lead
to a situation that companies lose their valuable tacit knowledge,
whereas overemphasizing tacit knowledge may lead to a result
that tacit knowledge on its own does not enhance innovation [24].
Indeed, organizations work with KM should focus on transposing
tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and converting individual knowledge into organizational knowledge [38]. Especially, it
is important to make tacit knowledge explicit at the organizational level through thrust and relationship building processes [24].
Further, in order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage,
companies need to emphasize the total knowledge base of the
company, i.e. the explicit-and tacit knowledge, both internally and
externally [24,26].
KM is the organizational optimization of knowledge to achieve
enhanced performance, increased value, competitive advantage,
and return on investment, through the use of various tools, processes, methods and techniques [28]. Also, KM is a systemic way
to manage knowledge in the organizationally specied process of
acquiring, organizing and communicating knowledge, in order to
enable employees to perform more effective and productive works
[2]. KM and related strategy concepts are promoted as important
components for organizations to survive, because KM is regarded
as a prerequisite for higher productivity and exibility in both the
private and the public sectors [38]. There are numbers of frameworks have developed to promote the KM implementation. Most
frameworks of the KM can be classied as prescriptive, descriptive,
and a combination of the two; the prescriptive frameworks direct
the ways to engage in KM activities, whereas the descriptive frameworks identify signicant attributes for the success of KM initiatives
[48]. According to [2], those different frameworks have many similarities: most of the life cycles are articulated in four phases where
the rst one is a create phase; and the last phase concerns the
ability to share and use knowledge.
The issues of KM can be studied into several aspects with different views. Some studies deal with the topics covering entire KM
activities, such as: the successful KM process requires understanding the operations of the four stages [8]; KM can be split into four
separate activities, each dealing with a particular aspect [62]; a
model of knowledge creation consists of three elements, namely,
the SECI process, workplace, and the knowledge assets [41]; the
knowledge manipulation activities need to be properly altered and
deployed by timely knowledge valuation [17]; and the knowledge
development cycle as the process of knowledge generation, knowledge storage, knowledge distribution and knowledge application
[2].
2.3. Successful KM implementation
In the knowledge economy, a key source of sustainable competitive advantage and consequent protability relies on the way
to create, share, and utilize knowledge as a strategic resource
[9,22,37,51,52]. For a solid implementation of KM, organizations
need to emphasize the knowledge base on not only explicit and
tacit [24], but also internal and external [26], even individual
and organizational [38]. Moreover, the frameworks of KM should
consider purpose/objective, knowledge, technology, learning, and

W.-W. Wu / Applied Soft Computing 12 (2012) 527535

people/culture of the organization, which is a holistic and peopledriven approach that considers both the knowledge cycle and
the cultural environment [48]. Successful implementation of KM
requires (1) aligning the contributions of key organizational actors,
(2) promoting the development of knowledge networks, and (3)
providing support by delivering a purposeful message [46].
For the purpose of implementing the KM successfully, there are
many critical factors required to be considered. For example, it
is important to well evaluate and select a favorable KM strategy,
because the effective management starts with a proper strategy
[14]. Moreover, it is not easy to success in implementing any business activity without top management support and trust relation
in an organization, no matter how the business activity is well
planned. The KM planning is only the beginning; the successful
KM implementation is the real challenge. According to [45], the
main obstacles to KM implementation were: lack of ownership of
the problem, lack of time, organizational structure, senior management commitment, rewards and recognition, and an emphasis on
individuals rather than on teamwork. As important as awareness of
those main obstacles is, it is also important to recognize certain key
success factors in KM implementation. In order to improve these
KM initiatives and link them to business strategy, [35] suggest a
process-oriented knowledge management approach to bridge the
gap between human- and technology-oriented KM.
Understanding critical success factors will provide a huge
advantage in successful KM planning and subsequent deployment.
There are several critical factors of KM implementation suggested
by some scholars and experts. For example, in order to be successful
in KM activities, [53] emphasizes that rms and their managements must be entrepreneurial. Moreover, [38] suggests some
critical elements to successfully create and implement a knowledge management strategy, including: purposes, support from top
management, communication, creativity, culture and people, sharing knowledge, incentives, time, evaluation, and cost. Further, [3]
raises a list of KM success factors, involving strong unied leadership, align KM with mission and business needs, cohesive and
engaged team, understand current problems and issues, collaboration and communication, innovation, best practices and lessons
learned, understanding and appropriate use of current technology,
IT infrastructure, workow and change cycles, security, establish
metrics, reliability and integrity, accessibility and portability, costeffective, and interoperability.

was aimed at the fragmented and antagonistic phenomena of world

societies and searched for integrated solutions. In recent years, the
DEMATEL has become very popular in Japan [18,27,66,67], because
it is especially pragmatic to visualize the structure of complicated
causal relationships with digraphs. The digraph portrays a basic
concept of contextual relation among the elements of the system, in
which the numeral represents the strength of inuence. A digraph
may typically represent a communication network, or some domination relation between individuals. Suppose a system contains a
set of elements S = {s1 , s2 , . . ., sn }, and particular pair-wise relations
are determined for modeling with respect to a mathematical relation R. Further, to portray the relation R as a direct-relation matrix
that is indexed equally on both dimensions by elements from the
set S. Then, except the case that the number is 0 appearing in the
cell (i, j), if the entry is a positive integral that has the meaning of:
(1) the ordered pair (si , sj ) is in the relation R, and (2) there has the
sort of relation regarding that the element si causes element sj .
The DEMATEL can map out complex relationships among factors
and to identify key factors [34,5660], which is based on digraphs
that portrays a contextual relation among the elements of the system and can be converted into a visible structural model of the
system with respect to that relation [42]. The tangible product of the
DEMATEL exercise is a structural model appearing as a causal diagram which may divide sub-systems into cause group and effect
group. In particular, DEMATEL has the ability not only to demonstrate directed relationships of sub-systems, but also to clarify the
degree of interactions between sub-systems. Thus, toward analyzing a complex system, if we wish to capture the causaleffect
relationship among sub-systems, apparently the DEMATEL is helpful. In order to apply the DEMATEL smoothly, this study rened the
version of [11]. Essential denitions are described as below.
Denition 1. The initial direct-relation matrix Z is a n n matrix
obtained by pair-wise comparisons in terms of inuences and
directions between criteria, in which Zij is denoted as the degree
to which the criterion i affects the criterion j, i.e., Z = [Zij ]nn .
Denition 2. The normalized direct-relation matrix X, i.e.,
X = [Xij ]nn and 0 xij 1 can be obtained through formulas (1) and
(2), in which all principal diagonal elements are equal to zero.
X =sZ
s=

(1)
1

max

n

z
j=1 ij

1in

3. Methodology
For building and analyzing a model involving causal relationships between complex factors, the DEMATEL is a potent
and comprehensive method. In order to extend the DEMATEL
for decision-making in fuzzy environments, the essentials of the
DEMATEL and the fuzzy set theory are discussed below.

i, j = 1, 2, ..., n

(2)

Denition 3. The total-relation matrix T can be acquired by using

the formula (3), in which the I is denoted as the identity matrix.
T = X(I X)1

(3)

Denition 4. The sum of rows and the sum of columns are separately denoted as D and R through the formulas (4)(6).
T = tij ,

3.1. The DEMATEL method

Graph theory has grown tremendously in recent years, largely
due to the usefulness of graphs as models for computation and
optimization. Applying the graph theory, we can easily visually
discover things inside the complex problem, because the graph
displays mathematical results with visualization clearly and unambiguously. The DEMATEL is based on digraphs, which can separate
involved factors into cause group and effect group. Directed graphs,
known as digraphs, are more useful than directionless graphs,
because digraphs can demonstrate the directed relationships of
sub-systems.
The Battelle Memorial Institute conducted a DEMATEL project
through its Geneva Research Centre [12,13]. The original DEMATEL

529

D=

i, j = 1, 2, ..., n

n


(4)

tij

(5)

tij

(6)

j=1

R=

n

i=1

where D and R denote the sum of rows and the sum of columns,
respectively.
Denition 5. A causal diagram can be acquired by mapping the
dataset of (D + R, D R), where the horizontal axis (D + R) is made by
adding D to R, and the vertical axis (D R) is made by subtracting
D from R.

530

W.-W. Wu / Applied Soft Computing 12 (2012) 527535

3.2. Fuzzy set theory

In the real world, many decisions involve imprecision due to
goals, constraints, and possible actions are not known precisely
[1], judgments for decision-making are often given by crisp values, though crisp values are an inadequate reection of situational
vagueness. To solve this kind of imprecision problem, fuzzy set
theory was rst introduced by [68] as a mathematical way to represent and handle vagueness in uncertainty. In fuzzy set theory, each
number between 0 and 1 indicates a partial truth, whereas crisp
sets correspond to binary logic: 0 or 1. Hence, fuzzy set theory can
express and handle vague or imprecise judgments mathematically.
Generally, decision-makers usually tend to give assessments
based on their past experiences and knowledge, and also their estimations are often expressed in equivocal linguistic terms. Based
on the denition of fuzzy sets, the concept of linguistic variables is
introduced to represent a language typically adopted by a human
expert. A linguistic variable is a variable whose values, namely linguistic values, have the form of phrases or sentences in a natural
language [4,19,61]. The linguistic variable is very useful in dealing
with situations which are described in quantitative expressions.
Especially, linguistic variables are used as variables whose values are not numbers but linguistic terms [69]. The linguistic term
approach is a convenient way for decision makers to express their
assessments. In order to efciently resolve the ambiguity arising
in incomplete information and the fuzziness in human judgments,
the use of linguistic scales is necessary and important. In practice,
the linguistic values can be represented by fuzzy numbers, and the
triangular fuzzy number is commonly used. This study builds on
some important denitions and notations of fuzzy set theory from
[69] and [5]. The related denitions are as follows.
is a subset of a universe of discourse
Denition 6. A fuzzy set A
X, which is a set of ordered pairs and is characterized by a membership function A (x) representing a mapping A : X [0, 1]. The
is called the membership
function value of A (x) for the fuzzy set A

value of x in A, which represents the degree of truth that x is an

It is assumed that  : X [0, 1], where
element of the fuzzy set A.
A
while  (x) = 0
A (x) = 1 reveals that x completely belongs to A,
A

indicates that x does not belong to the fuzzy set A.

= {(x,  (x))}, x X, where  (x) is the membership function
A
A
A
and X = {x} represents a collection of elements x.
of the universe of discourse X is convex
Denition 7. A fuzzy set A
if
A (x1 + (1 )x2 ) min(A (x1 ), A (x2 )),

x [x1, x2], where  [0, 1]

(7)

of the universe of discourse X is normal

Denition 8. A fuzzy set A
if max A (x) = 1
is a fuzzy subset in the universe
Denition 9. A fuzzy number N
of discourse X, which is both convex and normal.
of the universe of
Denition 10. The -cut of the fuzzy set A
= {x X| (x) }, where [0,1].
discourse X is dened as A
A
can be dened as a
Denition 11. A triangular fuzzy number N
triplet (l, m, r), and the membership function N (x) is dened as:

N (x) =

x < l,

0,

(x l) , l x m,

For achieving an effective solution of problem-solving, the

group decision-making is important to any organization, because
it usually impacts upon those decisions that affect organizational
performance. Specically, the group decision-making is the process
of arriving at a consensus based upon the reaction of multiple individuals, and it can facilitate the exchange of ideas and information
whereby an acceptable judgment may be obtained [6,30].
There are several useful defuzzication methods which can
be divided into two classes by considering either the vertical or
the horizontal representation of possibility distribution [44]. In
achieving a favorable solution, the group decision-making is usually important to any organizations. To deal with the problems in
uncertainty, an effective fuzzy aggregation method is required. Any
fuzzy aggregation method always needs to contain a defuzzication
method due to the results of human judgments with fuzzy linguistic variables are based on TFNs. The defuzzication refers to the
selection of a specic crisp element based on the output fuzzy set,
which convert fuzzy numbers into crisp may score. This study is
applying the converting fuzzy data into crisp scores developed by
[44], the main procedure of determining the left and right scores
by fuzzy minimum and maximum, the total score is determined as
a weighted average according to the membership functions.
This study here adopts the CFCS (Converting Fuzzy data into
Crisp Scores) defuzzication method for the fuzzy aggregation procedure, because the CFCS method can give a better crisp value than
the Centroid method. The CFCS method is based on the procedure of determining the left and right scores by fuzzy min and
fuzzy max, respectively, and the total score is determined as a
weighted average according to the membership functions [42]. Let
zijk = (lijk , mkij , rijk ) indicate the fuzzy assessments of evaluator k (k = 1,
2,. . .,p) about the degree to which the criterion i affects the criterion j. To aggregate the result of these fuzzy assessments, this study
uses the CFCS method which includes ve-step algorithms.
Assume X to be an arbitrary convex and bounded fuzzy number. The assessed values of qualitative criteria metrics for NBSC,
X = (L xij , m xij , R xij ), i = 1,2,3,4 and j = 1,2,3. . .,7 in this study. X =
(L xij , m xij , R xij ) is TFNs, and xij presents at the left, middle and right
positions, L xijk , m xijk , R xijk , represent overall average ratings of aspect
p

ith, criteria jth over kth evaluators, and xij , p = 1, 2,. . .. . .k, is fuzzy
numbers for each evaluator. The normalization of TFNs as follows:
(1) Normalization:

0,

m x r,
x > r,

where l, m, and r are real numbers and l m r.

max
min

xmkij =

(mkij minlijk )
max
min

(rijk minlijk )

xrijk =

max
min

(8)

(9)

(10)

where max
= maxrijk minlijk .
min
(2) Compute left (ls) and right (rs) normalized value:
xlsijk =

xrsijk =

(m l)

(r x)

(r m)

(lijk min lijk )

xlijk =

xmkij
(1 + xmkij xlijk )
xrijk
(1 + xrijk xmkij )

(11)

(12)

(3) Compute total normalized crisp value:

xijk =

[xlsijk (1 xlsijk ) + xrsijk xrsijk ]

[1 xlsijk + xrsijk ]

(13)

W.-W. Wu / Applied Soft Computing 12 (2012) 527535

Table 1
The fuzzy linguistic scale.
Linguistic terms

Triangular fuzzy numbers

Very high inuence (VH)

High inuence (H)
Low inuence (L)
Very low inuence (VL)
No inuence (No)

(0.75,1.0,1.0)
(0.5,0.75,1.0)
(0.25,0.5,0.75)
(0,0.25,0.5)
(0,0,0.25)

Being in need of enhanced competitive advantage, most organizations wish to enrich and utilize knowledge effectively. In
this section, an empirical study shows how a high-tech company
applied the proposed method to segment a list of critical factors for
a successful KM initiative.
(14)
4.1. Problem descriptions

(5) Integrate crisp values:

zij =

1 1
p
(z + zij2 + + zij )
p ij

valuable insight for problem-solving. Further, with the help of a

causal diagram, we can make better decisions by recognizing the
difference between cause and effect factors.
4. Empirical study and discussions

(4) Compute crisp values:

zijk = minlijk + xijk max
min

531

(15)

3.3. The proposed method

The DEMATEL method is a highly pragmatic way to form a structural model of evaluation for better decision making. To further
the practicality of the DEMATEL method for group decision making
in a fuzzy environment, the analytical procedure of the proposed
method is explained as follows:
Step1: identifying the decision goal and forming a committee.
Decision making is the process of dening the decision goals, gathering relevant information, generating the broadest possible range
of alternatives, evaluating the alternatives for advantages and disadvantages, selecting the optimal alternative, and monitoring the
results to ensure that the decision goals are achieved [16,43]. Thus,
the rst step is to identify the decision goal. Also, it is necessary
to form a committee for gathering group knowledge for problemsolving.
Step2: developing evaluation factors and designing the fuzzy
linguistic scale. In this step, it is necessary to establish sets of signicant factors for evaluation. However, evaluation factors have the
nature of causal relationships and are usually comprised of many
complicated aspects. To gain a structural model dividing involved
factors into cause group and effect group, the DEMATEL method
must be used here. For dealing with the ambiguities of human
assessments, the linguistic variable inuence is used with ve
linguistic terms [29] as {Very high, High, Low, Very low, No} that
are expressed in positive triangular fuzzy numbers (lij , mij , rij ) as
shown in Table 1.
Step3: acquiring and aggregating the assessments of decision
makers. To measure the relationship between evaluation factors
C = {Ci |i = 1, 2, ..., n}, it is usually necessary to ask a group of experts
to make assessments in terms of inuences and directions between
factors. Then, using the CFCS method, those fuzzy assessments are
defuzzied and aggregated as a crisp value which is the zij . Hence,
the initial direct-relation matrix Z = [zij ]n n can be obtained by Eqs.
(7)(15).
Step4: establishing and analyzing the structural model. On the
base of the initial direct-relation matrix Z, the normalized directrelation matrix X can be obtained through Eqs. (1) and (2). Then, the
total-relation matrix T can be acquired by using Eq. (3). According
to Denitions 5 and 6, the causal diagram can be acquired through
Eqs. (4)(6). The causal diagram is constructed with the horizontal
axis (D + R) named Prominence and the vertical axis (D R) named
Relation. The horizontal axis Prominence shows how much
importance the factor has, whereas the vertical axis Relation may
divide factors into cause group and effect group. Generally, if the
(D R) axis is plus, the factor belongs to the cause group; otherwise, the factor belongs to the effect group if the (D R) axis is
minus. Hence, causal diagrams can visualize the complicated causal
relationships of factors into a visible structural model, providing

Case Company G is a Taiwan rm with more than USD 250 million turnover and over 1250 employees worldwide. The company
is one of the worlds leading manufacturers in the Broadband Wireless Networking business, offering various solutions and products
ranging from Wireless ADSL technology, Access Points, Wireless
Routers, Client Adapters, and Built-in Modules. In order to succeed
in a dynamic business environment, it is now a leading company strategy to apply KM to create, share, and utilize knowledge
to increase competitive advantages. Also, Company G wanted to
transform and leverage their knowledge into competitive advantages through formal KM implementation. However, Company G
ran into trouble when making KM initiatives, because any KM
initiative needs to take into account several complex factors systematically, such as: purpose; the condition of resources and their
capabilities; even the preferences of a company.
Although they recognized many critical factors in successful KM
implementation, there arose the problem (since those critical factors were not equally important) of how to segment them into
meaningful groups. In order to acquire sensible segments, Company G therefore set up a KM development committee consisting
of the General Manager and several managers representing the
marketing, nancial, production, human resource, and information technology departments. The following shows how Company
G utilized the proposed fuzzy DEMATEL method to evaluate and
segment a list of critical factors for its KM initiative.
4.2. Applications of proposed method
The committee followed the proposed method with the
four-step procedure. First, they dened the decision goals for segmenting critical factors into signicant groups in order to launch
the KM initiative successfully. In step 2, the committee built and
inspected a list of critical factors which was mainly based on the
works of [38] and [3]. Those factors were: top management support (C1 ), communication (C2 ), culture and people (C3 ), sharing
knowledge (C4 ), incentives (C5 ), time (C6 ), trust (C7 ), cost (C8 ), performance measurements (C9 ), information technology (C10 ), and
security (C11 ). Also, they decided to use the fuzzy linguistic scale
(Table 1) for making assessments.
In step 3, once the relationships between those factors were
measured by the committee through the use of the fuzzy linguistic
scale, the data from each individual assessment could be obtained.
For example, the assessment data of the General Manager are
shown in Table 2. Then, using the CFCS method to aggregate these
assessment data, the initial direct-relation matrix (Table 3) was
produced. In step 4, based on the initial direct-relation matrix, the
normalized direct-relation matrix (Table 4) was obtained by formulas (1) and (2). Next, the total-relation matrix (Table 5) was acquired
using formula (3). Then, using formulas (4)(6), the causal diagram
(Fig. 1) could be acquired by mapping a dataset (see Table 5) of
(D + R, D R). Looking at this causal diagram, it is clear that evaluation factors were visually divided into the cause group including:

532

W.-W. Wu / Applied Soft Computing 12 (2012) 527535

Table 2
The assessment data of the general manager.

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

CS

C9

C10

C11

No
H
H
L
H
VL
VL
L
No
No
No

VH
No
VH
L
H
L
L
H
VL
No
VL

H
L
No
L
H
L
L
L
VL
VL
VL

VH
H
VH
No
H
L
L
L
VL
VL
VL

H
VL
VH
VL
No
VL
VL
VL
No
No
No

VH
L
VH
VL
L
No
No
VL
No
No
No

VH
L
VH
VL
L
No
No
VL
No
No
No

VH
H
VH
VL
L
VL
VL
No
No
No
No

VH
H
VH
L
L
H
H
H
No
VL
VL

H
L
VH
L
L
H
H
H
VL
No
VL

H
L
H
L
H
H
H
L
VL
VL
No

Table 3
The initial direct-relation matrix.

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

CS

C9

C10

C11

0.000
0.802
0.869
0.641
0.839
0.600
0.500
0.567
0.230
0.367
0.263

0.800
0.000
0.834
0.533
0.869
0.567
0.609
0.633
0.400
0.333
0.359

0.869
0.673
0.000
0.500
0.770
0.567
0.577
0.533
0.400
0.533
0.400

0.700
0.738
0.834
0.000
0.600
0.467
0.533
0.500
0.500
0.391
0.533

0.839
0.600
0.929
0.400
0.000
0.359
0.500
0.359
0.333
0.333
0.220

0.738
0.641
0.867
0.467
0.567
0.000
0.200
0.467
0.263
0.367
0.220

0.770
0.705
0.802
0.467
0.577
0.131
0.000
0.433
0.263
0.263
0.327

0.633
0.705
0.899
0.359
0.533
0.367
0.391
0.000
0.400
0.467
0.300

0.834
0.667
0.700
0.567
0.467
0.633
0.667
0.567
0.000
0.400
0.433

0.839
0.705
0.929
0.545
0.600
0.600
0.667
0.733
0.400
0.000
0.327

0.600
0.500
0.667
0.673
0.633
0.567
0.633
0.533
0.359
0.433
0.000

Table 4
The normalized direct-relation matrix.

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C1
C8
C9
C10
C11

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

CS

C9

C10

C11

0.000
0.096
0.104
0.077
0.101
0.072
0.060
0.068
0.028
0.044
0.032

0.096
0.000
0.100
0.064
0.104
0.068
0.073
0.076
0.048
0.040
0.043

0.104
0.081
0.000
0.060
0.092
0.068
0.069
0.064
0.048
0.064
0.048

0.084
0.089
0.100
0.000
0.072
0.056
0.064
0.060
0.060
0.047
0.064

0.101
0.072
0.112
0.048
0.000
0.043
0.060
0.043
0.040
0.040
0.026

0.089
0.077
0.104
0.056
0.068
0.000
0.024
0.056
0.032
0.044
0.026

0.092
0.085
0.096
0.056
0.069
0.016
0.000
0.052
0.032
0.032
0.039

0.076
0.085
0.108
0.043
0.064
0.044
0.047
0.000
0.048
0.056
0.036

0.100
0.080
0.084
0.068
0.056
0.076
0.080
0.068
0.000
0.048
0.052

0.101
0.085
0.112
0.065
0.072
0.072
0.080
0.088
0.048
0.000
0.039

0.072
0.060
0.080
0.081
0.076
0.068
0.076
0.064
0.043
0.052
0.000

C1 , C2 , C3 , C4 , C5 , C6 and C7 while the effect group was composed of

such factors as C4 , C9 , C10 and C11 .
4.3. Discussions
In this empirical study, the case Company wanted to implement
formal KM in a stepwise manner, and needed to segment a list
of critical factors into meaningful groups for making decision in

successful KM initiatives. According to the result from this proposed method, several implications about business management
can be derived as follows.
It is important to distinguish whether a critical factor belongs to
the cause group factors or the effect group. The cause group implies
the meaning of the inuencing factors, whereas the effect group
denotes the meaning of the inuenced factors. If we want to reach
a high level of performance in terms of the effect group factors,

Table 5
The total-relation matrix.
C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

CS

C9

C10

C11

(D + R)

(D R)

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11

0.169
0.239
0.279
0.186
0.241
0.176
0.174
0.182
0.109
0.131
0.108

0.264
0.157
0.282
0.179
0.250
0.177
0.190
0.193
0.130
0.131
0.121

0.268
0.230
0.188
0.175
0.237
0.176
0.185
0.182
0.128
0.151
0.124

0.251
0.236
0.278
0.119
0.220
0.166
0.182
0.179
0.140
0.137
0.139

0.240
0.199
0.261
0.147
0.131
0.138
0.160
0.145
0.109
0.117
0.093

0.227
0.201
0.253
0.152
0.193
0.095
0.125
0.156
0.101
0.120
0.092

0.229
0.207
0.243
0.151
0.193
0.110
0.101
0.151
0.100
0.107
0.104

0.224
0.215
0.264
0.146
0.195
0.142
0.152
0.108
0.119
0.134
0.105

0.268
0.232
0.268
0.184
0.208
0.185
0.197
0.188
0.084
0.139
0.130

0.280
0.247
0.305
0.189
0.233
0.189
0.205
0.214
0.136
0.100
0.123

0.233
0.205
0.255
0.189
0.217
0.171
0.187
0.177
0.121
0.137
0.076

2.653
2.368
2.876
1.817
2.317
1.725
1.857
1.875
1.276
1.405
1.215

4.646
4.441
4.921
3.862
4.057
3.440
3.551
3.680
3.360
3.625
3.183

0.660
0.294
0.831
0.229
0.578
0.010
0.163
0.070
0.809
0.816
0.753

1.993

2.073

2.045

2.046

1.739

1.715

1.694

1.805

2.085

2.221

1.968

W.-W. Wu / Applied Soft Computing 12 (2012) 527535

0.80

1.00
0.80

C5

0.60

C3
C1

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

C4

C7

0.20

C8

C6
5.00

6.00

-0.40

D-R

C6

D-R0.00

C5

C2

C7

0.20

-0.20

533

C11

-0.80

C2

0.00
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

-1.00

4.50

5.00

C4

-0.40

C11

C9 C10

C3

C8

-0.20

-0.60

C1

C9

-0.60

D+R

C10
-0.80

Fig. 1. The causal diagram (a).

D+R

it is necessary to control and pay a great deal of attention to the

cause group factors beforehand. From the result of segmenting the
list of critical factors, it means that successful KM implementation
requires a high level of focus on the cause group (C1 , C2 , C3 , C5 , C6 ,
C7 and C8 ) rather than the effect group (C4 , C9 ,C10 and C11 ); though
the cause group factors are difcult to move, while the effect group
factors are easily moved [18]. Further, through this causal diagram
(Fig. 1.) several valuable cues can be obviously obtained for making profound decisions. For example, among these eleven critical
factors, culture and people (C3 ) is the most important factor by the
highest (D + R) priority of 4.921. Also, it is the most inuencing factor by the highest (D R) priority of 0.831, but it is quite difcult to
be changed. As to the information technology (C10 ), it is the most
easily inuenced and moved factor because it has the lowest (D R)
priority of minus 0.816. Moreover, we can directly look those factors scattered in the causal diagram and perceive that three key
critical factors for successful KM initiative are: culture and people
(C3 ), top management support (C1 ), and incentives (C5 ).
With the proposed fuzzy DEMATEL method, the case Company
successfully segmented a list of critical factors into expressive
groups for making decision in the KM initiative. According the
results of segmentation, it was revealed that the most crucial factors are culture and people, not information technology. Although
culture and people are not easily changed, they are the core part
of promoting a successful KM initiative and the root of creating sustainable competitive advantage. Knowledge does not exist
independent of human experience [49]. Several studies have indicated that culture and people issues are the most decisive factors
[7,10,15,23,45,48]. Hence, if the case Company wishes to succeed
in its KM initiative, it must emphasize the importance of people and to nurture a favorable culture such as an innovative and

Fig. 2. The causal diagram (b).

Table 7
i + R
i )def and (D
i R
i )def .
The values of (D
i + R
i)
(D
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11

def

i R
i)
(D

4.366
4.241
4.551
3.811
3.939
3.434
3.557
3.632
3.379
3.598
3.258

def

0.479
0.262
0.552
0.163
0.396
0.119
0.152
0.080
0.555
0.675
0.563

entrepreneurial culture. Finally, all KM initiatives are unique so that

a segmented result may not be completely suitable for other companies. However, the proposed fuzzy DEMATEL method is quite
useful in segmenting several critical factors into profound groups
for making better decisions in a fuzzy environment.
Additionally, [36] suggest a fuzzy DEMATEL solution which is
better than other studies that aggregating all the data of the experts
right after obtaining the initial direct-relation fuzzy matrix. Hence,
it is interesting to conduct comparison with the fuzzy DEMATEL
solution suggested by [36]. As a result, we can obtain the causal
diagram (Fig. 2) based on Tables 6 and 7. The main dissimilarity
between Figs. 1 and 2 is that the location of C9 . Although these two
fuzzy DEMATEL methods produce almost similar results, this does
not mean that the fuzzy DEMATEL developed by [36] is not useful.

Table 6
i + R
i and D
i R
i.
The values of D

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11

i
R

i
D

i
i + R
D

i
i R
D

(0.520, 1.413, 3.897)

(0.544, 1.466, 3.958)
(0.519, 1.444, 4.036)
(0.515, 1.441, 4.004)
(0.403, 1.239, 3.557)
(0.394, 1.196, 3.512)
(0.387, 1.184, 3.505)
(0.419, 1.265, 3.653)
(0.532, 1.465, 4.025)
(0.605, 1.579, 4.190)
(0.478, 1.382, 3.922)

(0.803, 1.887, 4.578)

(0.671, 1.683, 4.402)
(0.911, 2.058, 4.686)
(0.412, 1.279, 3.782)
(0.641, 1.637, 4.338)
(0.385, 1.205, 3.610)
(0.449, 1.307, 3.839)
(0.433, 1.311, 3.817)
(0.190, 0.881, 3.043)
(0.260, 0.983, 3.176)
(0.160, 0.844, 2.989)

(1.322, 3.300, 8.475)

(1.215, 3.149, 8.361)
(1.430, 3.501, 8.722)
(0.927, 2.719, 7.786)
(1.044, 2.876, 7.895)
(0.779, 2.401, 7.122)
(0.836, 2.491, 7.345)
(0.852, 2.576, 7.470)
(0.722, 2.346, 7.068)
(0.865, 2.561, 7.366)
(0.638, 2.226, 6.911)

(3.094, 0.474, 4.058)

(3.288, 0.216, 3.858)
(3.125, 0.614, 4.167)
(3.592, 0.162, 3.266)
(3.145, 0.398, 3.935)
(2.870, 0.009, 3.216)
(3.120, 0.122, 3.453)
(3.203, 0.045, 3.398)
(3.592, 0.584, 2.510)
(4.000, 0.596, 2.571)
(3.661, 0.537, 2.511)

534

W.-W. Wu / Applied Soft Computing 12 (2012) 527535

These two fuzzy DEMATEL methods can complement rather than

replace one another in order to conduct informed analyses.
5. Concluding remarks
Knowledge is the fundamental basis of competition, so that
organizations must endeavor to enrich their knowledge resources
and need to design a knowledge strategy to enhance a sustainable competitive advantage. A successful KM initiative requires
identifying of critical factors which guide the success of KM implementation. However, all critical factors are signicant, but do not
necessarily share the same importance, even having causal relationships between them. With a strategic view, such a list of
critical factors must be further honed for higher practical usefulness. Rather than just simply ranking the critical factors, the
DEMATEL method provides a favorable solution.
The DEMATEL method is based on graph theory that enables us
to project and solve problems visually, and it can divide multiple
factors into cause group and effect group in order to better capture causal relationships visibly, as well as convert the relationship
between critical factors into an intelligible structural model of the
system. However, in many cases, the judgments of decision-making
are often given as crisp values, but crisp values are an inadequate
reection of the vagueness in the real world. The fact that human
judgment about preferences are often unclear and hard to estimate
by exact numerical values has created the need for fuzzy set theory
when handling problems characterized by vagueness and imprecision. A more sensible approach is to use, instead of numerical
values, linguistic assessments in which all assessments of criteria in the problem are evaluated by means of linguistic variables.
Hence, there is a need to extend the DEMATEL method with fuzzy
set theory and linguistic variables for decision-making in fuzzy
environments.
However, in order to handle this kind of fuzzy MCDM problem in terms of the critical factor segment, this study developed
the fuzzy DEMATEL method. This proposed method extends the
DEMATEL method by applying both linguistic variables and a fuzzy
aggregation method, so that it can effectively deal with vague and
imprecise judgments in group decision-making. In particular, this
method can also successfully divide a set of complex factors into a
cause group and an effect group, as well as giving a visible causal
diagram. Through the causal diagram, the complexity of a problem
is easier to capture, whereby profound decisions can be made.
The DEMATEL has been successfully applied in a variety of elds
such as: nding critical services [29], importance-performance
analysis [21], selecting management systems [53]; a value-created
system of science park [35], choosing knowledge management
strategies [64], corporate social responsibility programs choice and
costs assessment [54], group decision-making [36], safety management system [34], innovation policy portfolios [20], global
managers competencies [65], the system failure mode and effects
analysis [50], performance evaluation [65], municipal solid waste
management [10,15], and so on. Yet, apart from [10,15,55], it is
rarely to use the DEMATEL for dealing with the issue of KM. Thus,
this paper segments critical factors for successful KM implementation using the fuzzy DEMATEL method, and successfully extends
the practical applications of fuzzy set theory and EDEMATEL into
the eld of KM.
The proposed fuzzy DEMATEL method is comprehensive and
applicable to all organizations facing difcult problems that require
group decision-making in the fuzzy environments to segment complex factors. As concerns this empirical study, the proposed fuzzy
DEMATEL method worked smoothly in tackling the problem of
segmenting the critical factors into meaningful groups in order to
facilitate the KM initiative. The result of this study indicates that a
successful KM initiative needs to highlight critical factors such as:

culture and people, top management support, incentives, communication, and so on. Especially, the root causes is the culture and
people that may inuence other factors when implementing KM
activities. The nding not only offers a meaningful base to deepen
the understanding with regard to the KM initiative, but also provides a clue to develop effective interventions to promote the KM
implementation with a stepwise manner. However, the study has
some limitations. First, the study only conducted a case study; the
nding should not be generalized to other enterprises. Second, it
is believed that different enterprises may have different concerns
about criteria for KM implementation. In this sense, it is worthwhile to perform more cases study in order to unearth new criteria
for use. Additionally, it calls for periodical diagnoses in order to
grasp the dynamic KM activities with different interventions and
promotion strategies.

References
[1] R.E. Bellman, L.A. Zadeh, Decision-making in a fuzzy environment, Management
Science 17 (4) (1970) 141164.
[2] H. Benbya, G. Passiante, N.A. Belbaly, Corporate portal: a tool for knowledge
management synchronization, International Journal of Information Management 24 (3) (2004) 201220.
[3] C. Bixler, Knowledge management and the learning organization converge, KM
World 11 (4) (2002) 2122.
[4] M.F. Chen, G.H. Tzeng, C.G. Ding, Combining fuzzy AHP with MDS in identifying
the preference similarity of alternatives, Applied Soft Computing Journal 8 (1)
(2008) 110117.
[5] S.J. Chen, C.L. Hwang, F.P. Hwang, Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision making
Methods and Applications, Springer, New York, 1992.
[6] C.H. Cheng, Y. Lin, Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation, European Journal of Operational
Research 142 (1) (2002) 174186.
[7] T.H. Davenport, S.L. Jarvenpaa, M.C. Beers, Improving knowledge work processes, Sloan Management Review 37 (4) (1996) 5365.
[8] M. Demarest, Understanding knowledge management, Long Range Planning
30 (3) (1997) 374384.
[9] K.C. Desouza, Strategic contributions of game rooms to knowledge management: some preliminary insights, Information & Management 41 (1) (2003)
6374.
[10] A.C. Edmondson, A.B. Winslow, R.M.J. Bohmer, G.P. Pisano, Learning how
and learning what: effects of tacit and codied knowledge on performance
improvement following technology adoption, Decision Sciences 34 (2) (2003)
197224.
[11] E. Fontela, A. Gabus, The DEMATEL Observer, DEMATEL 1976 Report. BATTELLE
Institute, Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland, (1976).
[12] A. Gabus, E. Fontela, World Problems, An Invitation to Further Thought Within
the Framework of DEMATEL. BATTELLE Institute, Geneva Research Centre,
Geneva, Switzerland, (1972).
[13] A. Gabus, E. Fontela, Perceptions of the World Problematique: Communication Procedure, Communicating With Those Bearing Collective Responsibility
(DEMATEL Report No. 1). BATTELLE Institute, Geneva Research Centre, Geneva,
Switzerland, (1973).
[14] C. Gopal, J. Gagnon, Knowledge, information, learning and the IS manager,
Computerworld 29 (25) (1995) SS1SS7.
[15] K. Hafeez, H. Abdelmeguid, Dynamics of human resource and knowledge management, Journal of the Operational Research Society 54 (2) (2003) 153164.
[16] P. Hess, J. Siciliano, Management: Responsibility for Performance, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1996.
[17] C.W. Holsapple, K.D. Joshi, Knowledge manipulation activities: results of a Delphi study, Information & Management 39 (6) (2002) 477490.
[18] S. Hori, Y. Shimizu, Designing methods of human interface for supervisory
control systems, Control Engineering Practice 7 (11) (1999) 14131419.
[19] Y.C. Hu, R.S. Chen, G.H. Tzeng, Discovering fuzzy association rules using fuzzy
partition methods, Knowledge-Based Systems 16 (3) (2003) 137147.
[20] C.Y. Huang, J.Z. Shyu, G.H. Tzeng, Reconguring the innovation policy portfolios
for Taiwans SIP Mall industry, Technovation 27 (12) (2007) 744765.
[21] H.Y. Hu, Y.C. Lee, T.M. Yen, C.H. Tsai, Using BPNN and DEMATEL to modify
importance-performance analysis model - A study of the computer industry,
Expert Systems with Applications 36 (6) (2009) 99699979.
[22] V. Hutchinson, P. Quintas, Do SMEs do knowledge management? Or simply
manage what they know? International Small Business Journal 26 (2) (2008)
131154.
[23] B.D. Janz, P. Prasarnphanich, Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture, Decision
Sciences 34 (2) (2003) 351384.
[24] J.A. Johannessen, J. Olaisen, B. Olsen, Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: the
importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what
to do about it, International Journal of Information Management 21 (1) (2001)
320.

W.-W. Wu / Applied Soft Computing 12 (2012) 527535

[25] J.A Johannessen, B. Olsen, Knowledge management and sustainable competitive advantages: the impact of dynamic contextual training, International
Journal of Information Management 23 (4) (2003) 277289.
[26] J. Jordan, P. Jones, Assessing your companys knowledge management style,
Long Range Planning 30 (3) (1997) 392398.
[27] M. Kamaike, Design elements in the passenger car development: the classication and the inuence analysis in case of recreational vehicle, Bulletin of JSSD
48 (1) (2001) 2938.
[28] J.M. Kamara, C.J. Anumba, P.M. Carrillo, A CLEVER approach to selecting a knowledge management strategy, International Journal of Project Management 20 (3)
(2002) 205211.
[29] C.W. Li, G.H. Tzeng, Identication of a threshold value for the DEMATEL method
using the maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to nd critical services provided by a semiconductor intellectual property mall, Expert Systems with
Applications 36 (6) (2009) 98919898.
[30] R.J. Li, Fuzzy Method in group decision making, Computers and Mathematics
with Applications 38 (1) (1999) 91101.
[31] S.H. Liao, Problem solving and knowledge inertia, Expert Systems with Applications 22 (1) (2002) 2131.
[32] S.H. Liao, Knowledge management technologies and applications-literature
review from 1995 to 2002, Expert Systems with Applications 25 (2) (2003)
155164.
[33] C. Lin, B. Tan, P.J. Hsieh, Application of the fuzzy weighted average in strategic
portfolio management, Decision Sciences 36 (3) (2005) 489511.
[34] J.J.H. Liou, L. Yen, G.H. Tzeng, Building an effective safety management system
for airlines, Journal of Air Transport Management 14 (1) (2008) 2026.
[35] C.L. Lin, G.H. Tzeng, A value-created system of science (technology) park by
using DEMATEL, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (6) (2008) 96839697.
[36] C.J. Lin, W.W. Wu, A causal analytical method for group decision-making under
fuzzy environment, Expert Systems with Applications 34 (1) (2008) 205213.
[37] R. Maier, U. Remus, Implementing process-oriented knowledge management
strategies, Journal of Knowledge Management 7 (4) (2003) 6274.
[38] M. Martensson, A critical review of knowledge management as a management
tool, Journal of Knowledge Management 4 (3) (2000) 204216.
[39] I. Nonaka, A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science 5 (1) (1994) 1437.
[40] I. Nonaka, N. Konno, The concept of ba: building a foundation for knowledge
creation, California Management Review 40 (3) (1998) 4054.
[41] I. Nonaka, R. Toyama, N. Konno, SECI, Ba and leadership: a unied model of
dynamic knowledge creation, Long Range Planning 33 (1) (2000) 534.
[42] S. Opricovic, G.H. Tzeng, Defuzzication within a multicriteria decision model,
International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems
11 (5) (2003) 635652.
[43] S. Opricovic, G.H. Tzeng, Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research
156 (2) (2004) 445455.
[44] M. Oussalah, On the compatibility between defuzzication and fuzzy arithmetic operations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 128 (2) (2002) 247260.
[45] People Management, The people factor, People Management 4 (2) (1998) 38.
[46] S. Raub, D. Von Wittich, Implementing knowledge management: three strategies for effective CKOs, European Management Journal 22 (6) (2004) 714724.
[47] R. Roos, J. Roos, Measuring your companys intellectual performance, Longe
Range Planning 30 (3) (1997) 413426.
[48] B. Rubenstein-Montano, J. Liebowitz, J. Buchwalter, D. McCaw, B. Newman, K.
Rebeck, The Knowledge Management Methodology Team, A systems thinking framework for knowledge management, Decision Support Systems 31 (1)
(2001) 516.

535

[49] R. Sabherwal, I. Becerra-Fernandez, An empirical study of the effect of knowledge management processes at individual, group, and organizational levels,
Decision Sciences 34 (2) (2003) 225260.
[50] S.M Seyed-Hosseini, N. Safaei, M.J. Asgharpour, Reprioritization of failures in a
system failure mode and effects analysis by decision making trial and evaluation laboratory technique, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91 (8) (2006)
872881.
[51] I. Spiegler, Technology and knowledge: bridging a generating gap, Information & Management 40 (6) (2003) 533539.
[52] D.J. Teece, Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of rm structure
and industrial context, Long Range Planning 33 (1) (2000) 3554.
[53] W.H. Tsai, W.C. Chou, Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: a novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP, Expert
Systems with Applications 36 (2) (2009) 14441458.
[54] W.H Tsai, J.L. Hsu, Corporate social responsibility programs choice and costs
assessment in the airline industry-A hybrid model, Journal of Air Transport
Management 14 (4) (2008) 188196.
[55] M.L. Tseng, Using a hybrid MCDM model to evaluate rm environmental
knowledge management in uncertainty, Applied Soft Computing 11 (1) (2011)
13401352.
[56] M.L. Tseng, Implementation and performance evaluation using fuzzy network
balanced scorecard, Computers & Education 55 (1) (2010) 188201.
[57] M.L. Tseng, Using linguistic preferences and grey relational analysis to evaluate
the environmental knowledge management capacities, Expert Systems with
Applications 37 (1) (2010) 7081.
[58] M.L. Tseng, An assessment of cause and effect decision making model for rm
environmental knowledge management capacities in uncertainty, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 161 (14) (2010) 549564.
[59] M.L. Tseng, Application of ANP and DEMATEL to evaluate the decision-making
of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 156 (14) (2009) 181197.
[60] M.L. Tseng, Y.H. Lin, Application of Fuzzy DEMATEL to develop a cause and effect
model of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila, Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 158 (14) (2009) 519533.
[61] C.V. Von Altrock, Fuzzy Set Theory & Neurofuzzy Applications in Business and
Finance, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1996.
[62] K.M. Wiig, Integrating intellectual capital and knowledge management, Long
Range Planning 30 (3) (1997) 399405.
[63] K.M. Wiig, R.D. Hoog, R.V.D. Spek, Supporting knowledge management: a selection of methods and techniques, Expert Systems With Applications 13 (1)
(1997) 1527.
[64] W.W. Wu, Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined
ANP and DEMATEL approach, Expert Systems with Applications 35 (3) (2008)
828835.
[65] W.W. Wu, Y.T. Lee, Developing global managers competencies using the
fuzzy DEMATEL method, Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2) (2007)
499507.
[66] M. Yamazaki, K. Ishibe, S. Yamashita, I. Miyamoto, M. Kurihara, H. Shindo,
An analysis of obstructive factors to welfare service using DEMATEL method
reports of the faculty of engineering, Yamanashi University 48 (1997)
2530.
[67] A. Yuzawa, A state and subjects of TMO conception for city core vitalization
countermeasure: a case study of Maebashi TMO conception, Bulletin of Maebashi Institute of Technology 5 (2002) 6167.
[68] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control 8 (2) (1965) 338353.
[69] L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning, Information Science 8 (1975) 199249, 301357 (II).