Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.seipub.org/emr
Introduction
Knowledge workers defined by Davenport (2005) are
those regarding knowledge as living and their main
assets. Reinhardt et al. (2011) differentiated knowledge
work from other forms of work through the primary
task of "non-routine" problem , the solution to which
requires a combination of convergent, divergent,
and creative thinking. These definitions lead to the
conclusion that engineers are knowledge workers
performing knowledge work and engineering
organizations are knowledge intensive organizations.
Many knowledge intensive organizations utilize
knowledge management (KM) to better manage their
knowledge assets. Reasons to use KM come from a
Jennex (2009) study on aging work forces who found
that there is a great concern over the potential loss of
knowledge due to retirement of engineers in the
commercial nuclear industry. Also, Jennex (2006)
reported NASA (National Aeronautic and Space
Administration) due to the lack of KM practices has
led to the loss of document based knowledge on how
65
www.seipub.org/emr
Learning Organization
Security/protection of knowledge
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
www.seipub.org/emr
2.
3.
4.
Knowledge Content
1.
2.
3.
4.
resource
Impact on KM Strategy
a.
b.
b.
1.
2.
3.
a.
4.
b.
5.
6.
7.
Leadership/Management Support
1.
5.
67
www.seipub.org/emr
Dimen-sion
Average Value
Method
(MEAN/(STD.DEV))
Method
High Value
Average
Value
Item Count
High Value
Method
Item Count
Method
Agree
NonAgree
Agree
NonAgree
Agree
NonAgree
6.4
Impact on
(0.729)
Bus Process
(57)
Impact on
6.2
KM
(0.950)
Strategy
(57)
6.0
Leadership/
(1.05)
Mgmt
(57)
Support
6.3
Knowledge
(0.854)
Content
(53)
5.6
(1.31)
(32)
5.8
(0.898)
(31)
5.4
(1.33)
(31)
5.8
(1.08)
(29)
5.7
(0.705)
(57)
5.0
(0.115)
(57)
5.2
(1.20)
(57)
5.4
(0.977)
(53)
4.7
(1.06)
(32)
4.5
(0.891)
(31)
4.4
(1.31)
(31)
4.7
(1.12)
(29)
4.0
(1.67)
(57)
3.3
(2.34)
(57)
1.9
(1.49)
(57)
4.6
(2.61)
(53)
2.1
(1.64)
(32)
2.0
(1.84)
(31)
1.3
(1.38)
(31)
2.6
(2.23)
(29)
Total Items
(25 possible)
Strongly Agree
n=16
3.8
(0.5439)
3.5
(1.0328)
3.4
(0.8851)
17.4
(6.1207)
Agree
n=41
3.2
(1.0701)
2.3
(1.3233)
2.3
(1.3398)
11.9
(6.3332)
t-test data
t51=2.9787
p<0,01
t35=3.7243
p<0,01
t41=2.9997
p<0,01
t28=3.0513
p<0,01
Agree
n=57
Non-Agree
n=32
3.4
(0.9909)
2.6
(1.3595)
2.5
(1.3379)
13.4
(6.71091)
2.7
(1.3102)
1.3
(1.2854)
1.4
(1.3664)
7.7
(5.0902)
T-Test Comparison
Between Groups:
(Agree vs Non-Agree)
Note all tests are
significant
t51=2.61
p < 0.01
t64=4.26
p < 0.01
t60=3.46
p < 0.01
t79=4.57
p < 0.01
www.seipub.org/emr
69
www.seipub.org/emr
70
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2.
3.
www.seipub.org/emr
2.
5.
3.
6.
4.
7.
4.
Increased
knowledge
repositories
content
in
our
71
www.seipub.org/emr
2.
3.
4.
5.
Increased demand
knowledge content
and/or
searching
for
72
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2.
3.
4.
5.
www.seipub.org/emr
6.
in
7.
tlainc.com/articl205.htm
Knowledge
Management
Success.
Journal
of
1.
2.
3.
4.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Knowledge
Management
Success,
Journal
of
Strategy,
Information
Resource
REFERENCES
Management
International
Journal
of
Success
Success
International
Journal
of
on
2847-2853.
Effect
of
Knowledge
Management
Practices
of
Top
Management's
Commitment
on
73
www.seipub.org/emr
empirical
studies.
Knowledge
and
Process
74