THE EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE IN

COMMUNICATION INDUSTRY KANO STATE

BY

CHIOMA J. OZOH
SPS/12/MMN/00015

BEING A PROPOSAL PRESENTED TO THE SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES,

BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO. IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF
MASTERS DEGREE IN MANAGEMENT (M.SC MANAGEMENT).

SUPERVISED BY: DR A.J BAMBALE

MAY, 2016
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Employee performance are ways to appraise the employee for their effectiveness in the
company. Its issue is among the critical workforce management challenges of the contemporary time.
Hence more competitive organizations are those who align their organizational behavior with realities
of current work environment. The world itself is constantly shifting such that institutions of all types
have to adapt to external and internal changes for their own survival (Hemamalini, 2014). In other
words to survive and prosper in today‘s global economy, the concept of employee performance is
very important to many organizations and institutions. Employee performance is normally looked at
in terms of outcomes. However, it can also be looked at in terms of behavior (Armstrong 2012).
Many organizations have seen the need to invest in employees performance to improve their
proficiencies; this will led to greater returns.Employee performance can be manifested in
improvement in production, easiness in using the new technology and highly motivated workers.
Afshan, Sobia, Kamran & Nasir, (2012) and Kenney (2015), stated that employee's performance is
measured against the performance standards set by the organization. There are a number of measures
that can be taken into consideration when measuring performance for example using of productivity,
efficiency, effectiveness, quality and profitability measures (Ahuja 2015). Kinicki and Kreitner
(2007), employees are the most valuable asset of every company as they can make or break a
company’s reputation and can adversely effect profitability. Employees often are responsible for the
great bulk of necessary work to be done as well as customer satisfaction and the quality of products
and events pperformance according to, Yazid, Razali, & Hussin (2012).

Employee performance is argued to be the greatest contribution an employee can make to an

organization as it contributes to an organization achieving its strategic goals Arvey & Murphy (2008).
There are a number of studies which show that a high performing employee can produce between two
to ten times the output of a low performing employee (Ackerman & Kanfer, (2013) J. P.
Campbell,Gasser, & Oswald, 2006; Rimland & Larson, 2006, Rothe, (2008).

According to Leonard-Barton, (2015), an organisation that gives worth to knowledge as a source

of gaining competitive edge than competitors, should build up system that ensure constant learning,
and on the effective way of doing: O’Dell & Grayson (2008) concerning knowledge management, i.e.
the process of accurately transferring knowledge to the company staff in a timely manner to assist the
staff in taking proper action to improve the continuity of organizational performance: (Groff and
Jones 2013). The creation and subsequent management of an environment that encourages knowledge
to be created, shared, learnt, enhanced, organized and utilized for the benefit of the organization and
its customers. (Abell and Oxbrow, 2014). Wiig (2013, 2015) also emphasizes that, given the
importance of knowledge in virtually all areas of daily and commercial life, two knowledge-related
aspects are vital for viability and success at any level. These are knowledge assets that must be
applied,nurtured, preserved, and used to the largest extent possible by both individuals and
organizations; and knowledge-related processes to create, build, compile, organize,transform,
transfer, pool, apply, and safeguard knowledge.
Data and information are different from knowledge a lthough still interrelated. On one hand,
while data represents raw numbers or words about facts, observations, or perceptions; information is
processed data of relevance and purpose. On the other hand, knowledge is roughly, useful or
actionable information. Knowledge is information that's relevant to a decision. It is good
explanations, and it is solutions (even if partial) to problems people had.

Knowledge has become one of the most highly valued commodities in the modern economy.
Further, knowledge is considered the principal tool of competitiveness and innovation in the
composition of commodity chain to the broader processes of regional and national economic
development [Barney, 1995; Bhatt, 2000; Daniels and Bryson, 2002; Shapira et al., 2006]. The new
paradigm is that within the organization knowledge must be shared in order for it to grow. Sharing
knowledge among its management and staff grows stronger and becomes more competitive [Uriarte,
2008].
Knowledge Management (KM) is an approach to achieving organizational objectives by
making the best use of knowledge, or “doing what is needed to get the most out of knowledge
resources” [Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004].
Skyrme [2001] defines knowledge management as "the explicit and systematic management
of vital knowledge–and its associated processes of creation, organization, diffusion, use and
exploitation". In the modern economy, KM plays a key role and has been widely us ed by many firms
as one of the most effective means of achieving success in the information age [Malone, 2002].
Knowledge management is highly important to organizations in the other aspects such as
developing information and communication technology within the organization; it enables the growth
: Studies carried out in the communication industry has proved that lack of employee performance
affect the communication industry in nigeria This is because the commission has not being able to
put in place good strategies inform of incentives that will motivate them to stay. Ushie (2012) and
Agba (2007) posit that in Nigeria rather than providing the means by which workers could be
retained, employees are continually deprived of their psychological needs. These problems which are
evident in the Kano state comunication industry include; lack of knowledge acquisation, reluctance
of employees to share knowledge, and knowledge transfer ,lack of skill,lack of motivation,immediate
termination of employee, inter personal conflict with cowoker, career development, promotion,
subsidized staff quarters; working implements; staff welfare services, new policies, new procedures, a
new computer equipment installation, or a relocation of staff, cultural factors affects employee
altitude,

These problems have made it almost impossible for some communication service to cater for
their workforce personnel need, skill and experience to carry out their goals (Yang (2010),
(Hemamalini Suresh, 2014) Nowduri & Al-Dossary (2012). What are the possible reasons and the
solutions to overcome the situation? Specifically, the objective of this study is to empirically examine
the effect of Knowledge management on Employee performance in the Kano State communication
industry.

Nigerian telecommunication industry is fast growing in the country and this is continuously
necessitating dynamic changes in organizational activities relating structuring customer handling and
product portfolio. The managers of these firms in this industry are continually on each other’s toes
trying to outwit others by devising new strategies which charges and at the same time minimized the
cost of change implementationn.Studies carried out in the Nigeria communication industry has
proved that change implementation affect employee performance A new vision, set of driving values,
mission or goals constitute significant change. So do new performance standards, new policies or
procedures, a new computer equipment installation, or a relocation of your business (Hemamalini
Suresh, 2014).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Employee performance as an important issue has been receiving huge amount of research
(Yang 2010 & Hemamalini Suresh, 2014 & Waddell and Sohal, 2008 & Dembo (2013) & Saeed, et
al.2014 & Al-Mamary, et al.,2014& Dossary 2012& Dinesh & Ragel 2015 & Igbaria & Tan (2007 &
Devi 2009& Piersol 2006 & Armstrong 2012 & Ahuja 2015 & Kenney et al. (2015 & cultures
(Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston, & Triandis, 2015; De Long & Fahey, 2012). Simonin (2009 &(Lyles &
Salk, 2006; Mowery et al., 2006; Tiemessen et al., 2007& Eisenbergeret al.2006 & Wright and Geroy
2014 & Cheng & Chen (2007) This means there is a need for good and continuous management to
understand and control the element of employee performance.
Several studies relating organizational factor with and employee performance were conducted
with significant results. Some factors considered in these studies include, Critical success (Akhavan,
Mostafa & Mohammad 2006) & innovation (Darroch, & McNaughton, 2015), Job Satisfaction
Odembo (2013). Staying Competitive Leng, & Shepherdson, (2012), enablers, processes, Lee and
Choi, (2013), attitude Liaw, Chen, G. & Huang, (2008).value creation Kodama, (2016), Knowledge
sharing Hansen,mors& lovas (2016), Bhatti, & Qureshi, (2007). Al-Faris, Suliman, (2010).

Knowledge management is known to have received considerable amount of research interest

across different organizational criteria Goh, A. (2016), Groff & Jones(2013), Gourlay,
(2014).Giovanni (2012), Gevorgyan, & Ivanovski, (2009), Garud, & Kumaraswamy,(2016),Fahey,
Srrivastava, Sharon, & Smith, (2014), Emadzade, Mashayekhi, & Abdar, (2012), Davenport, &
Prusak, L (2008), Darr. and Kurtzberg, (2012) Bose, R. (2016) Bock. & Gulkim, (2015)”

Previous studies that attempted to investigate on the effect of knowledge management on

employee performance include, The Role of knowledge management in increasing performance
efficiency in Damascus University (2010).

Reviews of related literatures revealed that majority of the studies were not conducted in
Nigeria or Kano state. Some of these studies were only conducted in countries like,Korea Choi, B.
(2015). Pakistan Saeed, Lodhi and Iqbal, (2014) and Damascus Al-Faris, Suliman, (2010),. Therefore
the researcher, having the knowledge that these researches were conducted outside Nigeria will feel
the gap by carrying out further research on the subject matter within Nigeria to establish whether
there is a relationship between the two construct. And also, none of these studies have used the same
measuring instrument that will be adopted for this study. the study on the Effect of Knowledge
management on Employee performance has not being conducted especially in Communication sector
of Nigeria.

With the previous studies conducted in Korea Choi, B. (2015). Pakistan Saeed, Lodhi and
Iqbal, (2014) and Damascus Al-Faris, Suleiman, (2010). There was no literature that indicated the
study showing the relationship between Knowledge management and employee performance using
the sample of employee particularly in communication industry in nigeria. This means some gap exist
for future studies to fill in. First, there are limited studies on the effect of knowledge management on
employee performance, hence the need for further research to validate their relationship. Secondly,
this topic is under researched with respect to Nigeria and Kano State. A thorough search for relevant
studies both in Nigeria and internationally necessitated the need for this research.

So, the researcher pondered on why on earth isn't everyone "doing" effective Knowledge
Management? There are several common barriers to the successful adoption and practice of
Knowledge Management in an IT support organization:
 Taking a "tool centric" approach
 Focusing on a single individual, rather than a "team approach".
 Make it difficult and time
 Take a tactical and operational approach, ignoring behavioral change.
 Don't bother with monitoring or measuring
Thus, the study will examine the effect of knowledge management on employee performance
in the Nigerian communication, specifically in the Kano state.

1.3. Research Question

Having understood the need for this research to be carried out the following research questions
are to be adressed:
i. To what extent does knowledge acquisition affect employee performance in communication
industry in Kano State?
ii. To what extent does knowledge management affect employee performance in communication
industry in Kano State?
iii. To what extent does barriers to effective knowledge management on employee performance
in communication industry in Kano State?
iv. To what extent has knowledge sharing affect employees performance in communication
industry in Kano State?
v. To what extent does knowledge transfer affect employee performance in the communication
industry in Kano State?
vi. To what extent is the current status quo in communication industry in Kano State?

1.4. Objective to the Study

The main objective of the study is to examine the effect of knowledge management and employee
performance. The literature enables the the researcher to come up with the specific objectives.

i. To determine the extent to which knowledge acquisition affect employee performance in

communication industry in Kano State.
ii. To determine the effect of knowledge management on employee performance in
communication industry in Kano State.
iii. To what extent does barriers to effective knowledge management on employee performance
in communication industry in Kano State?
iv. To determine the extent to which knowlwdge sharing affect employees performance in
communication industry in Kano State
 v. To determine the extent to which knowledge transfer affect employee performance in
communication industry in Kano State.
vi. To what extent does knowledge transfer affect employee performance in communication
industry in Kano State?
1.5. Research Hypothesis
Based on the aforementioned research questions the following hypotheses are formulated:
H1: There is significant relatiosnship between knowledge acquisition and employee performance in
the communication industry.
H2: There is significant relationship between knowledge management and employee performance in
communication industry in Kano State.
H3There is a significant relqtionship betzeen To what extent does barriers to effective knowledge
management on employee performance in communication industry in Kano State?
H4: There is significant relatiosnship between knowlwdge sharing and employee performce in the
communication industry
H5: There is significant relatiosnship between knowlwdge transfer and employee performce in the
communication industry

1.6. Significance of the Study

This research which is about investigating the effect of knowledge management on employee
performance it is important to both theory and practice.
1.6.1 Theoretical Significance
The study is expected to be of importance with regards to the literature on Knowledge
management and Employee Performance.It will find out if knowledge management will lead to
Employee performance in the Nigerian communication service. The Nigerian communication is a
solid back bone for communication in Nigeria; the study of knowledge management is hoped to be
relevant to increase the knowledge and skills of employee performance while doing the job Yang
(2011), some studies conducted in the context of Knowledge management and employee performance
were done on private organizations other than the public. For example, the Role of knowledge
management in increasing performance efficiency in University (2010), sector. This study will be
conducted in the context of communication industry.

1.6.2 Practical significance:

This study will also be significant in practical sense; the study will generally be of importance
to the communication industry in Kano state. The study will provide knowledge that may be of
benefit to employee performance in the communication industry, on how to improve employee
performance. Findings of this study will provide directions and hints for knowledge acquisiton,
knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, knowledge implementation, innovation, training programs,
policies; management programs and management development programs to employee that will help
ensure employee performance within the communication industry.

1.7. Scope and delimitation of the Study

The Scope attempts to investigate the effect of knowledge management on employee
performance in communication industry Kano state. The study covers two construct namely the
independent variable (employee performance) and the dependent variable (knowledge management).
Specifically this study investigates two communication companies in Kano state which
includes MTN and Etisalat. These companies would be considered as part of the unit of analysis for
this study. It will also study the changing trend of knowledge management its roles, application on
employee performance and also it will measure the changes within its competitors.

1.8 Outline of the Study

The study will be presented in five chapters. Chapter one generally introduces the entire work.
This chapter is made of Background to the study, Problem statement, Research objectives, Research
questions, Research hypotheses, Significance of the study, Scope of the study and the outline of the
study.

Chapter two mainly discussed the two major variables of the study: Kknowledge
Mmanagement and Employee Performance. This chapter also highlights previous studies on
Knowledge Management and Employee Performance. The conceptual framework of the study which
sprouted in the course of review of related literatures will also be discussed here.

Chapter three also is that which discusses the proposed Research Methodology employed for
the study. The chapter explains the research setting, Population of the study, Sampling technique,
method of data collection and method of data analysis.

Chapter four will be presenting the descriptive analysis of the respondents for this study,
empirical results, key findings, test of hypothesis of the study, and also the discussions of the
findings.

Chapter five will finally present the summary of the findings, recommendation and
conclusion.
1.9. Defination of Terms
In the course of this study, the following terms and concepts were highlighted
i: Employees: According to Yale (2010), an employee is a worker or is gainfully employed by an
employer to work or deliver services to the organisation/company and then earns salary/wages at a
stipulated time.
ii. Performances: Motunrayo (2011), defines it’s as the extent to which an employee or group of
employees have gone in achieving the set goals or standards. Emmanuel (2015), also sees
performance as the rate or level of the output of an individual or organisation.
iii. Employee performance: Employee performance are all of the written, or otherwise recorded,
performance elements that set forth expected performance (Brian; 2009). Performance elements tell
employees what they have to do and standards tell them how well they have to do it. Developing
elements and standards that are understandable, measurable, attainable, fair, and challenging is vital
to the effectiveness of the performance appraisal process. It can also be seen as the job related
activities expected of worker and how well those activities were executed.

iv. Knowledge: According to Lesser and Prusak (2001), is defined as information, ideas, innovations,
expertise, talents, created or acquired by individuals or departments in manufacturing companiesto
enhnace productivity and effciency.
v. Management:The organization and coordination of the activities of a business in order to achieve
defined objectives. Another defintion of management by Gerald (2012), is the process and act of
organisation, planning and coordinating of human and resources for effectivness.
vi. Knowledge management: Is a process of creation, transmission and use of knowledge to improve
the performance of the company. It has also been defined by Abraham (2011), as the coordination and
planning information for effective dissemination.
vii. Explicit Knowledge: Explicit knowledge is formal and systematic, which can be easily
communicated and shared.
viii. Tacit knowledge: Tacit knowledge is the knowledge that people have in their minds. It is more
of an 'unspoken understanding' about something, knowledge that is more difficult to write down
(Liaw, Chen & Huang, 2008).
ix. Knowledge Management processes: Knowledge management is largely regarded as a process
involving various activities to deal with knowledge. Knowledge Management activities range from
knowledge generation and codification to transfer of knowledge (Kidwell, 2014).
x. Organization: A group of people who form a business ill order to achieve a particular aim.
xi. Compensation: This refers to direct and indirect rewards given to employees on the basis of the
value of the job, their personal contributions and their performances.
xii. Target: A result arrived at a goal or objectives aim at something.
xiii. Productivity: The measure of the output of goods and series relative to resource's available.
xiv. Communication: Two way process of reaching mutual understanding, in which participant not
only exchange information,news,ideas and feelings but also create and share meaning (Liebowitz &
Wilcox, 2014).
xv. Industry: Any general business activity or commercial entreprise that can be isolated from
others.
 CHAPTER TWO:
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Over the past 15 years, Knowledge Management (KM) has progressed from an emergent
concept to an increasingly common function in business organizations. As evidence of its maturity as
an area of academic study, a host of journals devoted to KM and intellectual capital management have
been created. As might be expected for a still emerging discipline, little quantitative empirical
research has been published. The bulk of the published work in the KM area comprises conceptual
frameworks and theoretical models.

Extant empirical research relies primarily on a small number of descriptive exploratory

qualitative case studies. Although this body of work contains valuable and insightful concepts and
frameworks that have helped to define and shape the KM discipline, it is time to begin testing and
advancing this work using more precise methods.

Perhaps the most significant gap in the literature is the lack of large-scale empirical evidence
that KM makes a difference to organizational performance. While survey research is beginning to
appear in KM journals, the bulk is descriptive. Of the few survey studies that examine relationships
between KM and other factors only a few articles empirically investigate the relationship between
KM and organizational performance.
Our objective for the research reported here was to conduct an exploratory quantitative survey
to be able to create a broader set of evidence regarding the relationship between KM and
organizational performance. While performance itself is a useful metric, the ultimate measure of
value is the ability to support an organization’s competitive strategy. This especially applies to KM, as
knowledge has been considered an organization’s most strategic resource. We therefore administered
a survey asking respondents to describe their organization’s involvement in KM practices, the
strategic focus of their KM initiatives, several intermediate performance measures aligned with
strategic value disciplines, financial performance measures, and several contextual factors addressing
characteristics about its competitive environment. Rather than merely describe the state of practice in
our respondents’ organizations, we investigated the relationships among KM practices, intermediate
and financial outcomes, and the organization’s competitive environment.
Our results indicate that KM practices are positively associated with organizational
performance as generally suggested by the KM literature, both qualitative and quantitative. More
specifically we found that KM practices are directly related to various intermediate measures of
strategic organizational performance (viz., customer intimacy, product leadership, and operational
excellence), and that those intermediate measures are, in turn, associated with financial performance.
Based on this evidence, our assumption (whose further support is beyond the scope of this research)
is that as long as KM practices enhance intermediate organizational performance, positive financial
performance will result.
This chapter is meant to review relevant literatures on employee performance and knowledge
management. Specifically, it attempts to conceptualize the construct of the study and its theoretical
trajectory. This chapter also discusses the relevant research that is relevant to the formulation of the
research hypothesis.

2.2 THE CONCEPT OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

In the organizational context, performance is usually defined as the extent to which an
organizational member contributes to achieving the goals of the organization. Employees are a
primary source of competitive advantage in service-oriented organizations (Luthans and Stajkovic,
(2009); Pfeffer, (2016). In addition, a commitment performance approach views employees as
resources or assets, and values their voice. Employee performance plays an important role for
organizational performance. Employee performance is originally what an employee does or does not
do. Performance of employees could include: quantity of output, quality of output, timeliness of
output, presence at work, cooperativeness (Güngör, 2011). Macky and Johnson pointed that improved
individual employee performance could improve organizational performance as well. From Deadrick
and Gardner's (2007) points, employee performance could be defined as the record of outcomes
achieved, for each job function, during a specified period of time. If viewed in this way, performance
is represented as a distribution of outcomes achieved, and performance could be measured by using a
variety of parameters which describe an employee's paten of performance over time. On the other
hand, Darden and Babin (2016) said employee's performance is a rating system used in many
corporations to decide the abilities and output of an employee. Good employee performance has been
linked with increased consumer perception of service quality, while poor employee performance has
been linked with increased customer complaints and brand switching. To conclude, employee
performance could be simply understood as the related activities expected of a worker and how well
those activities were executed. Then, many business personnel directors assess the employee
performance of each staff member on an annual or quarterly basis in order to help employees identify
suggested areas for improvement. As mentioned by Swart et al. (2016) thisemployee superior
performance occur only because of good quality training program that leads to employee motivation
and their needs fulfilment.According to Wright and Geroy (2014), employee competencies changes
through effective training programs. It not only improves the overall performance of the employees to
effectively perform the current job but also enhance the knowledge, skills an attitude of the workers
necessary for the future job, thus contributing to superior organizational performance.A good
employee performance is necessary for the organisation, since an organisation’s success is dependent
upon the employee’s creativity, innovation and commitment (Ramlall, 2008).According to Hawthorne
studies, and many other research work on productivity of worker highlighted the fact that employees
who are satisfied with their job will have higher job performance, and thus supreme job retention,
than those who are not happy with their jobs (Landy, 2016). Moreover, it is stated that employees are
more likely to turnover if they are not satisfied and hence demotivated to show good performance.
Employee performance is higher in happy and satisfied workers and the management find it easy to
motivate high performers to attain firm targets. (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2007). The employee could be
only satisfied when they feel themselves competent to perform their jobs, which is achieved through
better training programs.Recognizing the role of training practices, enable the top executives to create
better working environment that ultimately improves the motivational level as well as the
performance of the workforce.
Employees are the most valuable asset of every company as they can make or break a
company’s reputation and can adversely effect profitability. Employees often are responsible for the
great bulk of necessary work to be done as well as customer satisfaction and the quality of products
and events. Without proper training, employees both new and current do not receive the information
and develop the skill sets necessary for accomplishing their tasks at their maximum potential.
Employees who undergo proper training tend to keep their jobs longer than those who do not.
According to Farooq. M, & Aslam. M. K (2011), managers are trying their level best to develop the
employee’s capabilities, ultimately creating good working environment within the organization. For
the sake of capacity building managers are involved in developing the effective training programs for
their employees to equip them with the desired knowledge, skills and abilities to achieve
organizational goals. This struggle by the top management not only improves the employee
performance but also creates positive image of the firm worldwide, (Jia-Fang, 2010).Effective
training programs helps employees to get acquaintance with the desired new technological
advancement,also gaining full command on the competencies and skills required to perform at s
particular job and to void on the job errors and mistakes (Robert, 2006). Amongst the important
function of human resource management, one of the crucial function is employee development
through proper training and development programs. Employee development refers to the capacity and
capability building on an employee, and thus as of whole organization, to meet the standard
performance level (Elena P. 2012). More the developed employees, more they are satisfied with their
job, hence increasing the firm productivity and profitability. (Champathes, 2006).Past researches
proved a positive link between training and employee performance, as training brings benefits for the
employee along with for the firm by positively impacting employee performance through the
enhancement of employee’s competencies and behaviour. Firms that focuses on shareholders and
customer satisfaction realized the importance of investing in training, and thus recognizes the worth
of employee development (Evans and Lindsay, 2009). According to Swart et al., (2016), bridging the
performance gap refers to implementing a relevant training intervention for the sake of developing
particular skills and abilities of the workers and enhancing employee performance. According to
Wright and Geroy (2014), employee competencies changes through effective training programs. It
not only improves the overall performance of the employees to effectively perform the current job but
also enhance the knowledge, skills an attitude of the workers necessary for the future job, thus
contributing to superior organizational performance.
Data and information are different from knowledge although still interrelated. On one hand,
while data represents raw numbers or words about facts, observations, or perceptions; information is
processed data of relevance and purpose. On the other hand, knowledge is roughly, useful or
actionable information. Knowledge is information that's relevant to a decision. It is good
explanations, and it is solutions (even if partial) to problems people had.

Knowledge has become one of the most highly valued commodities in the modern economy.
Further, knowledge is considered the principal tool of competitiveness and innovation in the
composition of commodity chain to the broader processes of regional and national economic
development [Barney, 1995; Bhatt, 2000; Daniels and Bryson, 2002; Shapira et al., 2006]. The new
paradigm is that within the organization knowledge must be shared in order for it to grow. Sharing
knowledge among its management and staff grows stronger and becomes more competitive [Uriarte,
2008].

Knowledge Management (KM) is an approach to achieving organizational objectives by

making the best use of knowledge, or “doing what is needed to get the most out of knowledge
resources” [Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004]. Skyrme [2001] defines knowledge management as "the

explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge–and its associated processes of creation,
organization, diffusion, use and exploitation". In the modern economy, KM plays a key role and has
been widely used by many firms as one of the most effective means of achieving success in the
information age [Malone, 2002].

From another angle, Jashapara [2004] defines it as "the effective learning processes associated
with exploration, exploitation and sharing of human knowledge that uses appropriate technology and
cultural environments to enhance an organization's intellectual capital and performance." The
information technologies that support KM throughout an organization are referred to as Knowledge
Management Systems (KMS) [Holsapple, 2003 ; Park and Kim, 2006; Sedighi, 2006; and Zhang &
Zhao, 2006, to name a few]. KMS are computer-based information systems (including databases, data
warehouses, document management systems, and artificial intelligence) that manage knowledge
throughout the organization; their goal is to identify, capture, store, maintain, and deliver (retrieve,
transfer, and disseminate) useful knowledge in a meaningful form to everyone who needs it, anyplace
and anytime, within the organization [Turban et al., 2011].
Structured or unstructured, explicit or tacit knowledge from internal or external sources can be
stored in an organizational KMS [Davenport & Prusak, 1998]. The use of KMS to support KM
processes enables KM to achieve its goals. KMS improve effectiveness and efficiency of
organizational KM. Several empirical studies in different countries provided evidence on the
significance of KM and KMS such as Gold et al. [2001], and Jennex [2008] in the US, Chong [2006]
in Malaysia, Liu and Tsai [2007] and Wu & Wang [2006] in Taiwan, and Al-Busaidi & Olfman [2005]
in Oman.
KMS is a type of a Decision Support Systems (DSS). Well-designed decision support systems
guide decision-makers in their efforts towards achieving their objectives through providing them with
detailed information tailored specifically to their needs. A sizable literature looks into the effect of
using DSS on decision making efficiency and effectiveness. One can review many of these studies in
Dickson, Senn, and Charvancy [1977], Jenkins [1977], Ives, Hamilton, and Davis [1980], Courtney,
DeSanctis, and Kasper [1983], Jarvenpaa [1985], Sharda et al. [1988], A. R. Ganguly, and A, Gupta
[2005].
In relation to the current study, we believe there is a great deal of understanding in the
published literature (as will be seen shortly) that KM and KMS positively influence the performance
of business processes. At the same time, the same literature still points out to a need for empirical
research that shows that influence [Robles-Flores, 2011]. Many other studies have reported that the
use of KM and KMS result in business processes’ benefits such as effectiveness, efficiency,
innovativeness, productivity, and performance; and employees' benefits such as effective decision-
making, better learning, adaptability, satisfaction, and performance, and many others [Mohamed &
Jalal, 2011; Dermol, 2011; Alavi & Linder, 2001; Becerra-Fernandiz, Gonzalez, & Sabherwal, 2004;
Daven port &, Prusak, 1998].
A review of the corporate portals literature reveals that there are limited studies that have
focused on issues related to their Web design quality [Yang, Cai, Zhoe, & Zhou, 2005]. There are
some studies in the KM literature, such as Chung & Lee [2007], Liu & Tsai [2007], Jiang & Liab
[2008], Tiwana [2004] and Norman [2002] that have investigated the impact of KM, but at very
limited KM processes and or benefits scales.
 Assessing the specific impact of each KM process in dependently has not been addressed
adequately. Investigating the activities required for the systematic handling of knowledge resources is
necessary [Heisig, 2009]. Relating KM and business processes is a critical success factor for KM and
for effective use of corporate portal [Benbya et al., 2004]. Likewise, employees' perceived KMS
benefits are a significant determinant of their use [Wu & Wang, 2006; Becerra-Fernandez et al.,
2004].
Therefore, it is important for organizations to recognize the effect of supporting corporate
portals KM processes on business processes and employees. The use of corporate portals in
universities is growing worldwide [Li & Wood, 2005]. There is some literature on the use of
corporate portals in academic institutions [Al-Busaidi, 2009; Pino & Doucet, 2007; Li & Wood,
2005], however empirical studies that assess the impact of supporting KM processes through
corporate portals on business processes and employees in the academic context are very limited.
AlBusaidi [2010] investigated this impact in an academic institution. Her study investigated KM
processes based on Gold et al.'s [2001] classification. Studies are called for to investigate this impact
based on different KM processes classifications.
United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) private universities have been under growing pressure from
their governmental counterparts to become more effective, efficient, innovative, and competitive.
Their target has been to capture a reasonable market share of the higher education industry
growing total demand. While anxiously searching for solutions, these universities have learnt that one
of the most important competitive weapons is an efficient and effective knowledge management
system. A system that is capable of increasing their business revenues while decreasing average
operations costs.
The environment in which organizations operate and make decisions today is becoming more
and more difficult to deal with and predict. Business environment factors can be divided into four
major categories: markets, consumer demands, technology, and societal [Turban et al., 2011]. The
intensity of most of these factors increases with time, leading to more pressures, more competition,
and so on. In addition, organizations and departments within organizations face decreased budgets
and amplified pressures from top managers to improve performance in terms of profitability, growth,
and risk:
Based on related literature, Bacerra-Fernandez et al. [2004] note four trends that drive
knowledge management: increasing domain complexity, accelerating market volatility, intensified
speed of responsiveness, and diminishing individual experience. First, intricacy of internal and
external processes, increased competition, and the rapid advancement of technology all contribute to
increasing domain complexity. Second, the pace of change, or volatility, within each market domain
has increased rapidly in the past decade. Third, the time required to take action based upon subtle
changes within and across domains is decreasing. Fourth, High employee turnover rates have
resulted in individuals with decision-making authority having less tenure within their organizations
than ever before.
Adopting knowledge management, organizations can improve their capabilities of creating,
managing, sharing and applying their knowledge, sharpen their business intelligence, enhance their
managerial decisions efficiency and effectiveness, and ultimately achieve better business performance
[Herschel & Jones, 2005; and Lo & Chin, 2009].
Knowledge management is rooted in the concepts of organizational learning and
organizational memory. When members of an organization collaborate and communicate ideas, teach,
and learn, knowledge is transformed and transferred from individual to individual [Bennet et al.,
2003].
Knowledge Management Processes
In his paper [Bray, 2013] has identified and reviewed four perspectives within the literature
surrounding knowledge management (KM) research at the organizational level: information systems,
management, organizational learning, and strategy perspectives.
The current study is concerned with the information systems perspective. Alavi & Leidner’s
[2001] MIS Quarterly article represents the seminal review piece on KM and information systems;
often cited in subsequent works. Their article frames the knowledge-based view of the firm,
extending earlier research by Nonaka [1994], and Grant [1996], and Argote & Ingram [2000] in this
area. Specifically, Alavi & Leidner [2001] propose that knowledge represents information possessed
in the minds of individuals, specifically “personalized information (which may or may not be new,
unique, useful, or accurate) related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations,
and judgments.”
Their review article suggests other alternative representations of knowledge as well, to include
knowledge as representing a state of mind, object, process, access to information, or a capability. In
each case, information systems play roles in supporting the “management” of knowledge.
Additionally, Alavi & Leidner [2001] develop a framework for analysis of the supporting role
of an information system with KM, specifically four sets of socially enacted, interdependent
knowledge processes:
a. Knowledge creation
b. Knowledge sharing (to include storage and retrieval)
c. Knowledge transfer
d. Knowledge application
Gold et al. [2001] also provided a similar classification, but with a new KM dimension. They
indicated that the capability of the organizational KM is assessed by incorporating tools and
mechanisms that support not only knowledge acquisition, knowledge conversion, knowledge
application, but also knowledge protection.
Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004] classified these processes as knowledge discovery, knowledge
capture, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application. Heisig [2009] had summarized and analyzed
about 160 frameworks of KM processes. His analysis indicated that the most frequent categorizations
of KM processes are identify, create, store, share, and apply knowledge.
The current study adopts Becerra-Fernandez et al.'s [2004] framework of the KM processes.
This framework has been intensively tested and hence accepted in the KM research. According to
Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004], "Knowledge discovery is defined as the development of new tacit or
explicit knowledge from data and information or from the synthesis of prior knowledge.
Knowledge capture is defined as the process of retrieving either explicit or tacit knowledge
that resides within people, artifacts, or organizational entities. Knowledge sharing is the process
through which explicit or tacit knowledge is communicated to other individuals. Finally,
knowledge application process supports the process through which some individuals utilize
knowledge possessed by other individuals without actually acquiring, or learning, that knowledge."
According to Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004], effectiveness enables the organization to:
a: perform the most suitable processes and make the best possible decisions,
b. become more effective by helping them to select and perform the most appropriate processes, and
c. quickly adapt their processes according to the current circumstances, thereby maintaining process
effectiveness in changing times.
On the other hand, organizations lacking in KM find it difficult to maintain process
ffectiveness when faced with turnover of experienced and new employees.
Impact on Organization Efficiency
As explained by Becerra-Fernandez et al [2004], efficiency enables the organization to:
a. perform the processes quickly and in a low-cost fashion,
b. be more productive and efficient,
c. improve the interrelated aspects of organizational processes (effectiveness, efficiency,
innovativenes) through several means, including better knowledge being imparted to individuals
(through exchange, socialization, and so on), and d. improve these processes through other means,
including better knowledge being imparted to individuals (through exchange, socialization, and so
on) and the provision of workable solutions (through directions and routines), for employees to solve
the problems faced in their tasks.
Impact on Organization Degree of Innovation of the Processes
According to Storck & Hill [2000], innovation enables the organization to:
 a. Perform the processes in a creative and novel fashion that improves effectiveness and
efficiency - or at least marketability,
b. produce innovative solutions to problems as well as to develop more innovative organizational
processes through increasingly rely on knowledge shared across individuals, and
c. Enhance process innovation through enabling riskier brainstorming.
Impact on Employee Adaptability
Based on Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004], employees are likely to adapt when they interact
with each other; thus they are:
a.more likely to expect change,
b. continually learn from each other, thus they are likely to possess the information and knowledge
needed to adapt whenever organizational circumstances so require,
c. less likely to be caught by surprise, and
d. aware of new ideas and be involved in free-flowing discussions not only prepare them to respond
to changes, but they also make them more likely to accept change.
5. Impact on Employee Learning KM can affect the organization’s employees in several ways:
a. it can facilitate their learning (from each other as well as from external sources). This learning by
individual employees allows the organization to become constantly growing and changing in response
to the market and the technology [Sabherwal, 2008],
b it can help enhance the employee’s learning and exposure to the latest knowledge in their fields.
This can be accomplished in a variety of ways including externalization and internalization,
socialization, and communities of practice. Nonaka and Takeuchi [1995] have described
externalization as the process of converting tacit knowledge into explicit forms, and internalization as
the conversion of explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. Externalization and internalization work
together in helping individuals learn.
Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004] have explained that Socialization also helps individuals
acquire knowledge but usually through joint activities such as meetings, informal conversations, and
so on. One specific, but important, way in which learning through socialization can be facilitated
involves the use of a community of practice, defined as an organic and self-organized group of
individuals who may be dispersed geographically or organizationally but communicate regularly to
discuss issues of mutual interest.
Impact on Employee Satisfaction
Bontis [2003] found that in organizations having more employees sharing knowledge with one
another, turnover rates were reduced, thereby positively affecting revenue and profit:
a. Employees feel better because of their knowledge acquisition and skill enhancement,
b. Employees’ market value is enhanced relative to other organizations’ employees, KM also
provides employees with solutions to problems they face in case those same problems have
 been encountered earlier, and effectively addressed, providing tried-and-tested solutions (eg,
via the direction mechanism) amplifies employees ‘ effective ness in performing their jobs,
C. Amplifying employees’ effectiveness in performing their jobs through providing tried-and-
tested solutions. This helps keep those employees motivated, for a successful employee would
be highly motivated while an employee facing problems in performing his job would likely
be demotivated [Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004], and - additional increases in employee job
satisfaction derive from KM practices: mentoring and training are excellent motivators, and
communities of practice provide intimate and socially validated control over their own work
practices [Brown & Duguid, 1991].
d. Thus, as a result of their increased knowledge, improved market value, and greater on-the-job
performance, KM facilitates employees’ job satisfaction.
e. It can help enhance the employee’s learning and exposure to the latest knowledge in their
fields. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways including externalization and
internalization, socialization, and communities of practice.

2.3 THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Hypotheses Development
Becerra-Fernandez et al. [2004] identify that knowl edge management relied on four main
kinds of knowledge management processes as follows: discovery, capture, sharing, and application.
Knowledge discovery may be defined as the development of new tacit (includes insights, in tuitions,
and hunches) or explicit knowledge (refers to knowledge that has been expressed into words and
numbers) from data and information or from the synthesis of prior knowledge.
The discovery of new explicit knowledge relies most directly on combination, whereas the
discovery of new tacit knowledge relies most directly on socialization. Knowledge discovery is
SSessential for the establishment of organizational memory [Becerra-Fernandez etal., 2004;
Davenport & Pursak, 1998]. Corporate portals provide a rich working space that permits searching,
accessing, processing, and querying content from different sources. They also provide collaboration
and communication tools. Corporate portals speed up business processes through rapid access to
relevant and accurate corporate information and knowledge [Guruge, 2002; Turban et al., 2009].
They eliminate delays, frustration and inefficiency. Thus, corporate portals enable efficient
and effective knowledge discovery. Empirical studies by Chang & Lee [2007] and Jiank & Lia [2008]
found that knowledge acquisition (discovery) significantly improves performance and innovation.
Knowledge acquisition through corporate portals also promotes learning. Corporate Portals integrate
collaboration and communication tools (email system, chats, discussion forums, etc.). Collaborations
and interactions between individuals promote learning [Teece, 1998].
 Employees’ adaptability is highly related to their learning capability. As knowledge discovery
enables employees to learn from each other, and from organizational knowledge bases, employees
will most likely have enough knowledge that enables them to anticipate changes, deal with these
changes, get used to new requirements, and manage their work as is needed [Becerra-Fernandez e
t al., 2004]. Likewise, innovation is closely related to learning. The higher the learning is, the greater
the innovation [Weerawardena, O’Cass, & Julian, 2006]. Given all these perceived business
processes’ and employees' benefits, knowledge discovery may contribute to employees’ job
satisfaction. Users’ satisfaction may result from net benefits resulted from the system use
[DeLone & McLean, 2003; Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004; Jennex & Olfman, 2006, Jennex, 2008
2.5 REVIEW: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Historically, knowledge has always been managed, at least implicitly. However, effective and
active knowledge management requires new perspectives and techniques and touches on almost
all facets of an organization. We need to develop a new discipline and prepare a cadre of knowledge
professionals with a blend of expertise that we have not previously seen. This is our challenge!(Wiig,
in Grey 2006 ). Knowledge management is a surprising mix of strategies, tools, and techniques some
of which are nothing new under the sun: storytelling, peer-to-peer mentoring,and learning from
mistakes, for example, all have precedents in education, training, and artificial intelligence practices.
Knowledge management makes use of a mixture of techniques from knowledge-based system design,
such as structured knowledge acquisition strategies from subject matter experts (McGraw and
Harrison-Briggs 2009) and educational technology (e.g., task and job analysis to design and develop
task support systems; Gery 2014 ).
Drucker was the fi rst to coin the term knowledge worker in the early 2012s ( Drucker2016 ). Nonaka
and Takeuchi (2016) studied how knowledge is produced, used, and diffused within organizations and
how this contributes to the diffusion of innovation.Knowledge management has its roots deeply
ingrained in the study of knowledge which has been a deeply contested issue since ancient times
(Drucker, 2013; Turban & Aronson, 2014). However, knowledge management as a field of study
itself is relatively a new concept which surfaced in the early 2012s (Drucker, 2013; Metaxiotis,
Ergazakis & Psarras, 2016: 7; Prusak, 2014: 1003). With a relatively short history to its current
development, knowledge management is still a turbulent and ''noisy'' field which is used to refer
many things. A large number of working definitions of knowledge management is circulating in the
literature and around companies worldwide (Kakabadse, Kakabadse & Kouzmin, 2013). Some
researchers are of the opinion that the complexity behind defining knowledge management is partially
attributed by the challenges in identifying knowledge itself (Choo, 2008; Cortada & Woods, 2009;
McAdam & McCreedy, 2009; Metaxiotis, Ergazakis & Psarras, 2016).Wiig (2007) proposed that
knowledge management is the systematic and explicit management of knowledge-related activities,
practices, programmes and policies within the enterprise. Another definition by Sveiby (2007) posited
that knowledge management is the art of creating value to organisations by leveraging intangible
assets. Malhotra (2008: 58) defines knowledge management as catering to the critical issues of
organisational adaptation, survival and competence in face of increasingly discontinuous
environmental change… Essentially, it embodies organisational processes that seek synergistic
combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies and the
innovative capacity of human beings.A widely-accepted view on knowledge management is by
Davenport and Prusak (2012) who proposed that knowledge management is largely concerned with
the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an organisation with the view of
furthering the organisation’s objectives. It is also explained that the knowledge assets mentioned in
their definition include both explicit, documented knowledge and tacit, subjective knowledge of the
organisation (Davenport & Prusak, 2012). It is also argued that knowledge management improves an
employee’s comprehension in a specific knowledge domain through the systematic and organised
process of finding, selecting, organising, distilling and presenting knowledge (Davenport & Prusak,
2012; Poh, 2014; Tidd, 2014; Wiig, 2013, 2007, 2015). Knowledge management helps an
organisation gains insights and further understanding from its own experience (Davenport & Prusak,
2012; Despres & Chauvel, 2009; Poh,Developments in Knowledge management focused on proving
electronic databases, network systems and software to encourage the distribution of knowledge
(Chow and Chan, 2008). With the help of technology now open access moment has also initiated all
over world and receiving increased attention of scholars and academicians, librarians. Open access
gives better visibility for researcher’s scholarship. It has been observed that open access articles are
cited by other authors more frequently than comparable articles that aren’t openly available. No
researcher wants to waste time and money conducting a study if they know it has been attempted
elsewhere. But, duplication of effort is all-too-possible when researchers can’t effectively
communicate with one another and make results known to others in their field and beyond. According
to Parekh (2009) collaboration helps in Sharing valuable knowledge, avoiding reinventing the wheel,
reducing redundant work and cost for invention, Creating knowledge with the help of experts and
experienced persons, giving a right direction to the enthusiastic intelligent students, making them
experts of future, solving problems aroused at primary level which will save time, money and man
power. It gives idea of which kind of change industrial firms wanted? Which kind of problems they
are facing and to solve it, which kind of research works they are expecting from the university will be
cleared well in advance. Maximum production with the lowest cost is the main aim of all enterprises
if they were raw materials, or machinery and technology or management deals.The ability to manage
knowledge is becoming increasingly more crucial in today’s knowledge economy. The task of
effective and competitive management of organizations becomes necessary, and knowledge
management, if understood and applied properly, may be a useful tool for business transformation as
well as the key of competitive advantage (Jennex, 2007).

2.3 Knowledge and Knowledge Management

Different models and schemes describe knowledge management within an organisation. Within the
presented organisation, an understanding of knowledge management was slowly created, agreed upon
and broken down into the following components:

 People: as providing the information and looking for and receiving pieces of content
 Content: the ‘real’ pieces that carry information that can generate knowledge3

 Routines and procedures: secure the ways to provide, collect, forward and access existing and
new information

 Technology: tools to create, exchange, store and make available these pieces that carry
information

 In the Organisation people, content, technology and routines are co-existent.

he more formalized task of knowledge management – at least decided so in the organisation at hand
– is to lead and execute activities to support and enhance single components and sub-components. It
is also to support and enhance the connectedness of people, content, technology and routines within
the organisation and to take (at least co-) ownership of the process described in Chapter 3. Looking at
Diagram 1, KM should make interfaces permeable and identify and support intersections.

An organisation’s definition of knowledge management is not always understood the same throughout
the organisation. This agreed upon definition of KM is therefore important – but is only the first step
towards a transparent and knowledge-sharing organisation. This definition will need clarifications and
adjustments again and again as new needs become visible.

3 Processing Knowledge Management: from Inventory to Intervention

As till then nobody in the organization has been explicitly responsible for knowledge management it
seemed appropriate to firstly get an overview on what is available in the organisation. Thus the
prospected first activities4 of the advisor were described as leading a way through the following:

This primary step, according to Luckhardt (no year), “… comprises of classification, selection,
acquisition, indexing and storage of knowledge resources”5 , describing the status quo in the
organisation. Next, this inventory needs to be analyzed. It would be best to compare this status quo
with a prospected situation in order to identify bottlenecks and fields for intervention and
amelioration. However, this ideal situation would require a viable description of a prospected
situation – which seldom exists, at least not in detail.
1. Collection / Overview of Knowledge Inventory

The knowledge inventory should list and connect all necessary information about the above
mentioned: people, routines and procedures, content and technology. Thus, the knowledge inventory
is a meta-information centre. Collecting and summarizing this knowledge inventory already is a
critical first step where barriers will be encountered.

2. Expert’s Analysis

The expert knowledge manager can be used to identify the first signs/avenues for enhance-ments –
just from analysing what is given in knowledge inventory. Considering that the suc-cessful
implementation of KM can only be achieved when all players are properly involved in the process,
the expert’s external analysis is only an initial step in defining KM activities.

3. Participatory Analysis

Having the personnel aboard and giving them the space to reflect on their own situation, their own
input and their own needs provides very valuable hints. In most cases, participation will strengthen
the process and the chances for a change. Participatory processes also help external advisors to
understand how the organisation ‘functions’ from within

4. Proposal of Interventions

As a next step, personnel involved should work on creating ways to improve knowledge management
in the future. Summarizing ideas that have been developed in a participatory manner, and proposing
alternatives to resolve bottlenecks and realize enhancements, is one of the main tasks for a knowledge
manager. These alternatives may consist of various ap-proaches, like implementing new routines,
collecting new information, using new technology, etc.

5. Conducting Selected Interventions

After – in best case: participatory – prioritisation and decision on activities on how to enhance the
management of knowledge, these activities should be implemented – thus creating a change in the
inventory.

6. Knowledge Management System

The formalized process of updating technologies, routines, organisational structures and personal
skills would then be called ‘Knowledge Management System’.

4. Reality Check: Barriers for Knowledge Management

The study described a kind of ‘ideal’ process – which may appear rather mechanistic and per-haps
even naïve. In reality, working with people is never like a control loop that entails simply scrutinizing
problem areas and then re-adjusting these for change.
As mentioned, this paper should primarily be seen as a southern African case study, the examples
mentioned below have a higher likelihood to be relevant in southern Africa, but could also help to
avoid surprising revelations elsewhere.

The structure of this chapter is based on the categories from chapter 2: technology, content, routines,
organisation and personnel. As personnel are found to be crucial for knowledge management, this
sub-chapter will be more detailed. Some barriers identified will fit into several categories.

4.1 Barriers in Technology

High-end and elegant software solutions could make life easier in many regards. Software for data
interchange, archiving, information sharing, communication, work flow management and so on could
be quick and easy solutions to restructuring knowledge management.
Technological solutions typically require a budget, however. And this can easily become a giant
constraint. Even if free software10 is available, there is often a lack of hardware; lack of bandwidth
and lack of IT literacy when it comes to handling the software, thus making costs rise even higher
than comparable ‘pay’-software.
Moreover, an organisation can be caught in a technological trap, caused by a long gone deci-sion for
special software. Reversing this old decision once the software has been implemented could become
impossible – due to financial or reputational reasons or because of a lack of skills.
In some countries, special technologies are more ubiquitous than others. e.g., most people in Africa
are more familiar to and used to work with mobile phones compared to computers: “Mobile phone is
the African computer. If we want to train health workers in Africa we can't ignore the mobile phone”
(Shakei, 2011). According to Greenwood, Louise (2009) and own experience even money transfers
work via mobile phone, Chigona (2007) describe extensively used mobile chat applications.

4.2 Barriers in Content

To collect content for the knowledge inventory can be hard work – no matter where in the world you
are. Transforming implicit knowledge into explicit information is an activity in which special skills
and often creativity are needed.11 Some communication and information proc-esses are very difficult
to describe. Few possible content e.g. a description on how to gain special and restricted information,
could even be illegal or against organisational rules. Other examples could include unauthorized
informal meetings or exchange via software that is not authorised within the organisation (e.g. Instant
Messengers).
Another barrier is linked to individual skills: delivered content may simply not be understood. Maps
only make sense if people know how to read them – which is not always the case in southern Africa.
To work with digital or analogue audio files as well as video files, people must have the experience or
know-how on using a suitable media player.

4.3 Barriers in Routines and Procedures

Some processes and procedures that are only claimed to exist, e.g. regular departmental meetings. In
addition, work plans or strategy and progress papers may only represent ideal situations that have no
link to reality. Some routines may not be recognized as routines by employees – such as everyday
joint coffee breaks among staff. Some processes may work in certain cases but not in others or never
again – which makes them unreliable. For example: you need to ask a particular person for access to
the staff library but if this person does not respond to your request you are stuck without the info you
require.
Some work is carried out without planning – which may lead to inventing the wheel again and again.
This could be due to a culture of ‘last minute‘ or ’hands on’ crisis management. Thus strategic and
planned work frequently has a low priority, while variable ad-hoc processes become ‘routine’, and
‘quick and dirty’ becomes being ‘business as usual’.

4.4 Barriers in Organisation

A knowledge-sharing culture in an organisation that is badly role-modelled by those highest in the

organisation’s hierarchy can hinder knowledge management. High ranking staff may consider
themselves to be more important than others – manifesting in not sharing informa-tion.
Hierarchically-structured organisations appear to be the standard in southern Africa. Here, staff is
deeply influenced by line managers’ behaviour. Thus, if high ranking members of the organisation are
unreliable or don’t follow up on activities or do not care, middle and low ranking staff will not either.
Also, “structures are multi-layered, polyvalent, and often contradictory … (and) … maybe invisible
even to those who inhabit them.” (Ferguson 1990, p17) For instance, the head of organisation could
explicitly be telling everybody to use and support knowledge management – but may not apply this
instruction to his- or herself. This would strengthen a culture of ‘saying but not taking it serious’ or
‘not practising what you preach’ – which hinders all processes, including knowledge management.
This culture of ‘unreliability’ within an organisation makes it difficult to cooperate and succeed.
The cooperation ideal – when it comes to planning and decision making and wanting person-nel’s
ideas to be included in the decision making – can lead to a deadlock. This can be due to the fact that
staff members do not understand what the decision is all about and are afraid of admitting this
(selective) ignorance. As a response personnel could then choose the strategy of delay. Another reason
for refusing to take action on anything or to be decisive can be the uncertainty of the line manager’s
wish.
Personnel fluctuation seems to play a huge role in NGOs especially in southern Africa. In 20 months
from about 100 colleagues 34 quit.1
Organisational survival – especially in the face of budget and funding restrictions –is often the main
focus, thus strategic issues like ‘knowledge management’ do not have high priority.
From a system theory13 point of view, any organisation aiming for autopoiesis, recreates itself again
and again, and even wants to avoid changes – including changes that concern the sharing of
knowledge. The persistency of an organisation also hinders hiring innovative – and thus more likely
KM-friendly – personnel.
Interesting would even be to consider information as a currency. Personnel ‘pay’ with bits and pieces
of information – but they will not give it for free.
4.5 Barriers in Personnel
The human factor is a key factor. Many of the above mentioned issues are connected to indi-vidual
behaviour.
A first challenge is that personnel might not have any idea or understanding of what ‘knowl-edge
management’ is all about; there is no or at least no matching definition of KM in the personnel’s
mind.14
Providing and sharing information can be hindered by a lack of motivation: employees do not receive
or do not understand the surplus that comes along with cooperating on knowledge management. All
they see is that they have to give information to others – which, from the individual point of view,
does not make sense at all, because keeping information secret and unshared can help to secure a
job.15
Some display of information is meaningless for personnel, e.g. even highly qualified staff do not
know how to read a map. Messages may not be properly understood –as prime exam-ple, in South
Africa there are 11 official languages, English being a second language for the majority of the
population. This easily leads to chaotic communication and incorrect transmis-sion of information.16
Personnel – even those of high rank – might have difficulties dealing with knowledge-sharing
technology – or technology in general. And some of those personnel will not admit to this lack of
skills.
When it comes to working on an online questionnaire, for example, some staff do not differ-entiate
between phrasing aspects, how different questions are formulated, and techno-logical aspects, how
the submission of the answers will work electronically. Thus, people re-sponsible for technologies
feel the pressure of working on enhancement of content and phrasing.
Non-cooperative attitudes of line management and colleagues lead to stagnation, resignation and
avoidance of the active search for information.
The priority of focusing on-time problems makes it difficult to focus on strategic activities like
knowledge management. Personnel often do not seem to have the time for knowledge management
procedures during day-to-day work.
As well as each organisation, also each individual – no matter whether operative or strategic staff –
has different interests and hidden agendas which could be in opposition to a transpar-ent knowledge
management system. People are afraid to lose their job; people are afraid of giving ‘secret’
information; people do not trust each other. Personnel or co-workers easily suspect a hidden agenda
on the part of the knowledge manager – even if this does not exist. This suspicion could lead to
reservation and non-cooperation.
The knowledge manager him- or herself may even have a hidden agenda – like carrier planning – that
could hinder the proper enhancement in knowledge sharing. He or she might prefer to have a visible
output of his / her activities, instead of ‘only’ influencing the organisation’s knowledge sharing
culture, which cannot be captured in statistics. Ferguson (1990, p. 40) states: “In ‘development
discourse’, the fact that there are no statistics available is no excuse for not presenting statistics, and
even made up numbers are better than non at all.”17
When proposing procedures for knowledge management, different co-workers could support different
parts of the procedure, those being parts they can personally benefit from. Different, but also
necessary parts of processes and routines are jeopardized by the same person. E.g. cooperating when
it comes to creating an online archive for research articles but not providing the own collection of
research articles.
From a more political point of view, aiming to gain power could be a main motivator for mem-bers of
the organisation. Thus, the sharing or not-sharing of information is a sub-function in the quest for
power. Sharing information can only be motivated by win-situations for the provider of information.

Handling Barriers in Intercultural Contexts

As a manager or advisor in KM in intercultural contexts – but also in ‘normal’ contexts – different
strategies to deal with barriers will come up. Find here selected examples plus a proposal considering
the hierarchical focus.

Punctual Attempts and Failures and Successes

Identifying barriers isn’t that easy as it seems, sometimes co-workers would deny that there is a
barrier – this must be an indicator to watch out. Reacting to barriers in most cases will not necessarily
solve the problem but lead to the next barrier. Thus being prepared to reflect and to learn will always
be necessary, for there will never be an easy pre-describable circumvention for barriers. Here selected
experiences from southern Africa.

Processing Knowledge Management: from Inventory to Intervention

As till then nobody in the organization has been explicitly responsible for knowledge management it
seemed appropriate to firstly get an overview on what is available in the organisation. Thus the
prospected first activities4 of the advisor were described as leading a way through the following:

This primary step, according to Luckhardt (no year), “… comprises of classification, selection,
acquisition, indexing and storage of knowledge resources”5 , describing the status quo in the
organisation. Next, this inventory needs to be analyzed. It would be best to compare this status quo
with a prospected situation in order to identify bottlenecks and fields for intervention and
amelioration. However, this ideal situation would require a viable description of a prospected
situation – which seldom exists, at least not in detail.

1. Collection / Overview of Knowledge Inventory

The knowledge inventory should list and connect all necessary information about the above
mentioned: people, routines and procedures, content and technology. Thus, the knowledge inventory
is a meta-information centre. Collecting and summarizing this knowledge inventory already is a
critical first step where barriers will be encountered.

2. Expert’s Analysis

The expert knowledge manager can be used to identify the first signs/avenues for enhance-ments –
just from analysing what is given in knowledge inventory. Considering that the suc-cessful
implementation of KM can only be achieved when all players are properly involved in the process,
the expert’s external analysis is only an initial step in defining KM activities.

3. Participatory Analysis

Having the personnel aboard and giving them the space to reflect on their own situation, their own
input and their own needs provides very valuable hints. In most cases, participation will strengthen
the process and the chances for a change. Participatory processes also help external advisors to
understand how the organisation ‘functions’ from within.

4. Proposal of Interventions

As a next step, personnel involved should work on creating ways to improve knowledge management
in the future. Summarizing ideas that have been developed in a participatory manner, and proposing
alternatives to resolve bottlenecks and realize enhancements, is one of the main tasks for a knowledge
manager. These alternatives may consist of various ap-proaches, like implementing new routines,
collecting new information, using new technology, etc.

5. Conducting Selected Interventions

After – in best case: participatory – prioritisation and decision on activities on how to enhance the
management of knowledge, these activities should be implemented – thus creating a change in the
inventory.
6. Knowledge Management System

The formalized process of updating technologies, routines, organisational structures and personal
skills would then be called ‘Knowledge Management System’.

Reality Check: Barriers for Knowledge Management

Chapter 3 described a kind of ‘ideal’ process – which may appear rather mechanistic and per-haps
even naïve. In reality, working with people is never like a control loop that entails simply scrutinizing
problem areas and then re-adjusting these for change.
As mentioned, this paper should primarily be seen as a southern African case study, the examples
mentioned below have a higher likelihood to be relevant in southern Africa, but could also help to
avoid surprising revelations elsewhere.

The structure of this chapter is based on the categories from chapter 2: technology, content, routines,
organisation and personnel. As personnel are found to be crucial for knowledge management, this
sub-chapter will be more detailed. Some barriers identified will fit into several categories.

Alavi and Leidner (2014), define knowledge as “knowledge is information possessed in the mind of
individuals: it is personalized information (which may or may not be new, unique, useful, or accurate)
related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations, and judgments.”. Different
types of knowledge result in different processes of knowledge capturing and sharing (Davenport and
Prusak, 2008) and different implications on management (Grant, 2006). Knowledge resides in a
person, passed around by people and individuals, nurtured and expanded by people themselves and
applied by them eventually. Druker 2014 cited in Nelson and Mc Cann (2009). Yan and Wu (2008)
indicated that as knowledge is considered as a source of competitive advantages for organization and
organization strive to protect their intellectual assets, the same applies to individuals who perceive
knowledge as power and privilege, in order for them to share this power and privilege with others,
and they will require getting something back in return.As knowledge has become the most valuable
resource in this knowledge-intensive economy, organizations are striving to capitalize on their
knowledge assets through effective knowledge management strategies and practices.Making
knowledge available to the right people at the right time is crucial for building and sustaining an
organization’s competencies (Alazmi & Zairi, 2013). Despite substantial consensus regarding the
strategic value of knowledge, the actual processes of knowledge creation, transfer, and retention in
organizations still remain to be
fully elucidated (Argote, 2009; Argote & Ingram, 2012). Considering that individual knowledge and
expertise are assets that can provide an edge to organizations (Chermack, Provo, & Danielson, 2016),
a greater understanding is necessary of how individuals create, share, and use knowledge within the
organization along with what factors influence each of the process. Research has shown that shared
context or common ground is important for knowledge sharing, especially tacit knowledge sharing
(Augier, Shariq, & Vendelo, 2014).
Alavi and Leidner (2014) suggest that knowledge represents the most strategically valuable resource
in the business and economic environment and has become a differentiating competitive factor in
companies. Most discussions and definitions of knowledge distinguish between two types: tacit and
explicit. Explicit knowledge represents the type of knowledge that is often captured in documents,
libraries, written policies and procedures, files, manuals, and databases. Explicit knowledge is
articulated and codified and can be expressed in formal and systematic language (Nonaka, 2016).
Tacit knowledge is defined as highly personal and hard to articulate and formalize, making it difficult
to communicate or share with others and is deeply rooted in individuals’ actions and contextual
experience as well as in the ideals, values, or emotions he or she embraces (Williams, 2006). One
type is formalized and systematic knowledge, which includes factual and declarative knowledge
(“knowing that”), explicit rules and scientific (ordered and verified) knowledge. The other type is an
informal, practical and experience-based knowledge (“knowing how”), which is at least partly tacit
and only manifests itself in the actions of persons (Ramussen & Nielsen, 2011).Organizational
knowledge is defined as the sum of individual’s knowledge and knowledge already existing in
organizational systems, processes, products, rules, and culture (Grundspenkis, 2007). Organizational
learning is the organization’s capacity to create or acquire new knowledge,and then develop that
knowledge for the benefit of the organization (Beitler, 2006). Competitive advantage depends on an
organization’s ability to continuously configure and integrate knowledge into value-creating
strategies. Knowledge integration depends on coordination between individuals and the knowledge
they retain (Roland, 2006).it is important to transfer the knowledge to avoid situations operational
skills and solutions for problems have to be reinvented (Schwartz, 2006). Knowledge transfer is a
process to communicate and apply knowledge from one source to recipient (Darr & Kurtzberg, 2012)
and mainly focuses on learning (Schwartz, 2006).The source and recipient could be separate or any
kinds of combination of individuals, groups and organizations (Darr & Kurtzberg, 2012). Frequent
interaction between the sender and recipient enables enhancing the flow of knowledge (Schwartz,
2006). Both tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge and the combination of the both could be transferred
(Gevorgyan and Ivanovski, 2009). Knowledge transfer could be done more efficiently when the
transferred knowledge is more explicit and less tacit (Schwartz, 2006).
Hikes et al. (2006, p.2) indicated that knowledge consists of data → information → knowledge; it is
also the power to decide on a course of action and it can be passed to other individuals as
well.Davenport and Prusak (2012): "Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experiences, values,
contextual information and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating
new experiences and information." While intranets and information repositories may provide means
for people, they are not good in helping people apply the new knowledge in the context of process
work (Massey et al. 2015).Knowledge has been distinguished for its ability for application,
integrating the theoretical information with practical experience and the general system of the
individuals and the organizations producing a capability or a new gift called knowledge. (Giovanni,
2012).Knowledge, recognised as being an important resource to organisations these days, has to be
effectively and efficiently managed for organisations to leverage on it to obtain competitive
advantage to achieve success in the dynamic business environment (MDC, 2016). The new,
knowledge-based economy places great importance on the creation, use and effective diffusion of
knowledge (Ford & Staples, 2006; Lu, Leung & Koch, 2006; Mannington, 2009; Martensson, 2012;
Metaxiotis, Ergazakis & Psarras, 2016; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2016; Salojarvi, Furu & Sveiby, 2016;
Spiegler, 2012; it Beijerse, 2009). This makes it an imperative for organizations to concentrate on
maintaining and developing the knowledge capital that they possess in order to innovate and remain
competitive. The organization’s ''ability to learn, adapt and change, becomes a core competency for
survival'' (Metaxiotis, Ergazakis & Psarras, 2016).Many opinions agree on the general content of
knowledge management but they vary in the accurate description of the inputs and processes of
knowledge management (Al-Faris, 2010). To this end, Zwain et al., (2010), defined Knowledge
management as the organized collection of information from sources inside and outside the
organization,then analyzing and interpreting them so as to conclude indications used in guiding and
enriching the organization‟s processes to improve the performance till it reach higher achievement. It
also, implies the integrated systematic entry of the management and the activation of the participation
in the organization‟information including databases, documents, policies, procedures in addition to
the employees‟ past experience (Prusak, 2014). Therefore, knowledge should be employed to solve
problems facing the organization and knowledge application should aim at achieving the
organization‟s goals. Nevertheless,Allameh and Abbas, (2010) classified knowledge into three levels:
Core Knowledge, Advanced Knowledge,Innovative Knowledge, However, Zwain et al.,(2012)
conducted the following dimensions of the knowledge management process: knowledge
identification, knowledge acquisition & Transferring, knowledge storage, knowledge sharing,
knowledge application. Hence, these processes depend on each other; therefore, based on the previous
studies,Itami (2007) has indicated knowledge is considered one of the invisible assets of an
organization; knowledge is necessary for people to perform their job and used as management tool to
take crucial decision. Itami added that invisible assets are something which cannot be attained easily
as it takes time, training and practice. For example company brand, employees skills, organization
reputation are invisible assets which cannot be seen or measured directly and similar is knowledge.
Nonaka et al., (2012 cited in Haigh et al 2008) indicated that knowledge can be divided into explicit
knowledge and tacit knowledge; explicit knowledge is easy to generate, stored and shared within an
organization. However tacit knowledge is people accumulated experience over many years and it is
noticed in their decisions, actions and comments towards situation which occurs in personal or
professional life.According to this approach, knowledge is considered the key or strategic asset to
hold the potential of SCA (Argote & Ingram 2012; Grant 2006a; Lopez
2016) and firms gain CA through the acquisition, transfer and subsequent use of strategic
assets, in this case, knowledge (Nonaka 2014; Prahalad & Hamel 2012; Riahi-Belkaoui
2013).Knowledge is in the same context as financial, human, and other resources but the only one
which increases with use rather than diminishing (Duffy 2012). Nonaka, Toyama and Nagata

(2012) define knowledge assets as firm-specific resources that are indispensable to create value for
the firm, including inputs, outputs, and moderating factors of the organisation‟s knowledge creating
activities, and hence they are constantly evolving (Moustaghfir 2009).Moreover, unlike most
traditional resources, knowledge cannot easily be purchased in a ready-to-use form. This asset is
difficult to transfer among firms because of transaction and transfer costs and also because of its
possible tacit nature. Knowledge, particularly context specific tacit knowledge, tends to be unique
and, therefore, difficult, if not impossible, to imitate (Teece 2008). To obtain similar knowledge, the
company‟s competitors have to engage in similar experiences, but obtaining knowledge through
experience takes time (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez & Sabherwal 2016). In other words, the
sustainability of CA is derived from the time constraint on rivals learning what the other organisation
already knows (Teece 2008) which creates a sustained knowledge-based barrier to competition (Zack
2009).To explain why knowledge is considered extremely important for sustaining CA in today‟s
environment, Jackson, Hitt and DeNisi (2013) offer several reasons. First, the nature of work which
has been changing for the past few decades requires both tacit and explicit knowledge and the ability
to apply that knowledge to work. When work continues to change in unpredictable ways, the ability
to learn and adapt becomes very important to acquire and master new knowledge. Moreover, in the
contemporary business environment, the nature of knowledge has dramatically changed due to many
scientific developments and other ongoing discovery processes (Dimitriades 2016)Due to the widely
recognised importance of knowledge, James (2016) and Moustaghfir (2009) propose theoretical
frameworks of knowledge asset management which delivers Strong Capability and long-term
superior performance based on the firm‟s knowledge assets, which are defined as stocks of
knowledge from which services are expected to flow for a period of time that may be hard to specify
in advance‟ with an economic life viable within the industry and market context (Boisot 2009, p. 3).
Knowledge assets include a firm‟s intellectual assets, employees‟skills and know-how (Hall 2013)
and are leveraged into a firm‟s capabilities which in turn impact on its performance and provide it
with a SCA (Grant 2014, 2006b; Moustaghfir 2009;
Rouse & Daellenbach 2015). Sharing the same point of view, Jackson, Hitt and DeNisi (2013) state
that in today‟s complex and challenging environment with high uncertainty, unpredictability and
dynamism, managing knowledge-based resources has become the key for gaining SCA and sustained
superior performance (Grant 2006a; Sharkie 2013; Teece, Pisano
& Shuen 2007).Knowledge is a complex and elusive concept. In discussions aimed at formulating a
definition of knowledge, knowledge has normally been distinguished from data and information in
two ways (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez & Sabherwal 2016).Some researchers such as Nonaka and
Takeuchi (2016) and Wiig (2009) support a more complete perspective, according to which
knowledge is fundamentally different from data and information and is defined as being justified
beliefs about relationships among concepts relevant to a particular area of knowledge. It may be
viewed from five categories or perspectives of knowledge as (1) a state of mind, (2) an object, (3) a
process, (4) a condition of having access to information, or (5) a capability (Alavi & Leidner 2014).A
more simplistic view considers knowledge to be at the highest level in a hierarchy with information at
the valuable middle level and data to be at the lowest level (Davenport & Prusak 2008; Dilnutt 2012;
Earl 2014; Stenmark 2015; Tiwana 2015). According to this view,knowledge is intrinsically similar to
information and data, although it is the richest and deepest of the three, and is, consequently, the most
important. Alternatively, knowledge can be represented in a circular model because of the iterative
nature of knowledge development (Jones 2014). Other researchers (Bollinger & Smith 2014; Vance
2007; Wu 2012) include an additional layer, wisdom, while some (Shankar et al. 2013) explore the
concept of a knowledge value chain. Data is raw unanalysed facts that are measures or attributes of
phenomena, which are out of context and have no relation with other facts (Loshin 2014; Robbins et
al. 2012; Zikmund 2012). Data is, therefore, objective (James 2016; Tiwana 2015).Knowledge has
been categorised in many different ways. Traditional epistemology identifies three distinct kinds of
knowledge: knowledge of things and objects, knowledge of how to do things, and knowledge of
statements or propositions (Musgrave 2013).However, since the emergence of the knowledge
economy, the traditional categories of knowledge are both imprecise and difficult to operationalise for
management purposes, leading to a number of new classifications being proposed (Blumentritt &
Johnston 2009).Throughout these categories, the most notable and important classification is two
kinds of knowledge: tacit (or embodied) and explicit (or codified) (Bollinger & Smith 2014;
Debowski 2006; Nonaka 2016; Pemberton & Stonehouse 2012; Polanyi 2007). Explicit knowledge is
knowledge that can be documented, categorised, transmitted to others as information, and illustrated
to others as through demonstrations, explanations and other forms of sharing. By contrast, tacit
knowledge is knowledge which draws on the accumulated experience and learning of a person and
which is hard to reproduce or share with others. Equivalent to these forms of knowledge, Hansen,
Nohria and Tierney (2009) have identified two approaches. The first is codification, in which
knowledge is encoded and structured prior to being stored in databases and made available. Explicit
knowledge (market data, competitor profiles, and customer characteristics) can be codified. The
second approach, personalisation, ties information to individuals who provide creative, analytically
rigorous advice on highlevel strategic problems by channeling individual expertise. Tacit knowledge
(scientific expertise, operational know-how, industry experience, and business judgment) requires this
person-to-person approach. Although quite distinct, it is possible to convert explicit knowledge into
tacit knowledge.
Knowledge management can be defined as the organisational capability which identifies,
locates (creates or acquires), transfers, converts and distributes knowledge into competitive
advantage‟ (Walters 2015).According to Darroch and McNaughton (2015) The management function
that creates, locates, and manages the flow of knowledge within an organisation to ensure that
knowledge is used effectively and efficiently for the long-term benefit of the organisation. Rasgoti
(2012) described knowledge management as „a systematic and integrative process of coordinating
organisation-wide in pursuit of major organisational goals‟ including the acquisition, creation,
storage, sharing, diffusion, development, and deployment of knowledge.
while Wiig (2009) described the objectives of KM are „(a) to make the enterprise as intelligently as
possible to secure its viability and overall success and (b) to realise the best value of its knowledge
assets‟,according to APQC (2008) „the management discipline concerned with the systematic
acquisition, creation, sharing and use of knowledge in organisations, aiming to improve a firm‟s
competitiveness via continuous, rapid innovation. Duhon (2008) described
knowledge management as a combination of technology supporting a strategy for sharing and using
both the brain power resident within an organisation‟s employees and internal and external
information found in information containers the goal of Knowledge Management is to simultaneously
manage data,information, explicit knowledge while leveraging the information resident within in
people‟s head (tacit knowledge) through a combination of technology and management practices.
Knapp (2008) described knowledge management as „a set of processes for transferring intellectual
capital to value such as innovation and knowledge creation, knowledge acquisition, organisation,
application, sharing, and replenishment.while O‟Leary (2008) described it as the the formal
management of knowledge for facilitating creation, access, and reuse of knowledge, typically using
advanced technology. Bassi (2007) described knowledge management as the process of creating,
capturing and using knowledge to enhance organisational performance Liebowitz and Wilcox(2007)
described it as the ability of organisations to manage, store, value, and distribute knowledge. Van der
Spek and Spijkervet (2007) described the explicit control and management of knowledge within an
organisation aimed at achieving the company‟s objectives. Theriou and Chatzoglou (2008)
summarise the definitions adopted by different
academics that the learning organisation is an organisation which adopts specific strategies,
mechanisms, and practices that encourage its members to learn continuously so that they can adapt to
the changing business environment Leng and Shepherson (2012) as cited in James (2016) posit that
Knowledge Manament can improve efficiency and effectiveness, along with responsiveness and
flexibility to market changes. It can also be used to improve product development, innovation and
quality, and develop a better understanding of customer and stakeholder relationships (Davenport &
Prusak 2008; Hauschild, Licht & Stein 2014; Martensson 2012; Skyrme & Amidon 2008).
Knowledge management is not only associated with managing knowledge as a resource, but
also to manage business processes that take place using that resource. It should involve the
analysis of existing knowledge as a resource, as well as defining the objectives regarding the
generation, protection and application of new knowledge, then transfer, exchange and
dissemination of knowledge, effective use of knowledge and performance measurement.
From external sources, the knowledge is generated by purchasing technology and software,
hiring experts, using consultants and strategic partnerships. Internal creation of knowledge is
a process of individual learning in a group of individuals as well as the process of
"organizational learning". In both cases, the key role is on the company’s (organizational)
units of research and development and on the units in charge of education and training of
employees (Krstic, 2007, pp. 53–66).The knowledge management process aims to support innovation
and encourage the free flow of ideas through the company. It helps increasing revenues (because the
products and services
are delivered to market faster) and reducing costs (because it eliminates redundant and
unnecessary business processes). This process increases the time that employees spend in the
company, because their knowledge and efforts are valued by the system of rewards.
Ultimately, the knowledge management process increases the value of the company and its
competitiveness as a whole, because it increases the efficiency and effectiveness, the
relationship of all resources and innovation (Tisen et al., 2006).In the knowledge management
process, there are four main abilities that refer to skills acquisition, assimilation and transformation of
knowledge, and ability to use and exploit knowledge (Zahra & George, 2015).
O’Dell & Grayson (2008) pointed out that knowledge management is "the process of accurately
transferring knowledge to the company staff in a timely manner to assist the staff in taking proper
action to improve the continuity of organizational performance"; while such a process includes steps,
such as knowledge creation, verification, collection, classification and storage, sharing and access,
use, improvement and elimination.Yang (2014) pointed out that knowledge, from the perspective of
knowledge management, can be defined as follows: Knowledge is a fluid mix that includes framed
experience, values, contextualized information, and organized and analyzed information that can be
understood and can be applied to solve problems and make decisions.Lee et al (2010) pointed out that
knowledge management refers to the organizational and technological infrastructure of an
enterprise.Summarizing the above, this study adopts the definition of O’Dell & Grayson (2008)
concerning knowledge management, i.e. the process of accurately transferring knowledge to the
company staff in a timely manner to assist the staff in taking proper action to improve the continuity
of organizational performance.
The field of knowledge management has traditionally been dominated by information technology and
technology-driven perspectives (Davenport, De Long, & Beers, 2008; Gourlay, 2014). However, this
turned out to be an ineffective approach to knowledge management. To be a successful knowledge-
based organisation in the era of knowledge economy, it is important for the organization to implement
an effective and economical knowledge management strategy (Bose, 2016). However, with increasing
investment on the implementation of knowledge management, the knowledge management
practitioners are frequently requested to evaluate the contribution and benefits of knowledge
management to the organization‘s performance. Positive benefits enable the practitioners to gain
more investment and supports from decision makers on future improvements. Moreover, Bose (2016)
presented the importance of measuring knowledge in order to enable managers and practitioners to
analyze the knowledge management system and find bottlenecks. However, due to the inherent
measurement difficulty of knowledge which is invisible, measurement is considered as the least
developed aspect in KM (Bose, 2016). Moreover, all other influences from competitive environment
and industry conditions, make it most difficult to measure the impact of organizational performance
on knowledge management (Kim, 2006).Ghalayini and Noble(2006) categorized the measurement
development phases into: traditional management measures, non-traditional management measures
and integrated measures. Traditional management measures, Currently, there are no available
standardized metrics for organizations to evaluate their knowledge management performance.
According to Liebowtz (2012), knowledge mangement metrics can be divided into system measures,
output measures, and outcome measures. Several concrete evaluation approaches will be introduced
in the Knowledge Management is about interventions in the organizations' knowledge base, which by
definition includes individual and collective intellectual assets that help an organization to perform its
tasks (Amelingmeyer 2012; Probst et al. 2012; Romhardt 2008).A common way to further structure
Knowledge Management measurement approaches is to distinguish between deductive-summarizing
and inductive-analytical approaches.
As an introductory step it is useful to distinguish between raw information and knowledge
(Edwards, 2016). Raw information may be widely available to a number of agencies, but only some
organisations will be able to convert the information into relevant knowledge and to use this
knowledge to achieve their aims. The processes by which they do this are known as KM strategies. In
the section below on KM in the corporate sector, a further distinction will be made between first and
second generation Knowledge Management strategies. While the first generation focused on
systematising and controlling existing knowledge and knowledge sharing within an organisation, the
second generation Knowledge Management strategies have shifted towards enhancing the conditions
for innovation and knowledge creation (McElroy, 2012).
Knowledge management success depends highly social- technical interaction between
technology and organization elements Lin & Lee (2016). Technology will be the platform to support
the storage and access of the knowledge; social elements will deal with the human factor and what
affect knowledge sharing within individuals in organization.
While performance itself is a useful matrix, the ultimate measure of value is the ability to
support an organization’s competitive strategy. This especially applies to KM, as knowledge has been
considered to be organization’s most strategic resource (Zack et al 2009). Nevertheless organization
need to measure knowledge to manage it properly, having a performance measure for knowledge
management will improve the management of knowledge and would ensure outcomes are delivered
and will avoid its failure.
Knowledge Management refers to the various ways (technological, cultural and procedural) in
which organizations try to extract greater value out of knowledge (Jennex & Olfman, 2016); it can be
considered to be the management of the context and environment for knowledge acquisition,
representation, transformation, sharing, and use; it therefore involves all aspects of an organization -
social, technological, and human. KM relies heavily on social and cultural components, and overlaps
with organizational development, innovation, and competitive intelligence (Mayfield, 2008). This
explains why organizational culture is important in KM. A culture where knowledge sharing is not
encouraged would adversely affect the KM efforts. Lee and Choi (2013) have included culture,
structure, people and information technology as knowledge management enablers.
2.4 Knowledge Sharing
There for knowledge sharing is the dissemination of a specific skills and talent to perform a task in
the best possible way.Other scholars have denied knowledge sharing as the process of creating new
business and processes via the socialization and learning of knowledge workers. Lin & Lee (2016)
Boer (2016) has defined knowledge sharing as social-relation process in which employees attempt to
set up a common understanding about topic and create a method of transforming this understanding
into an action to improve organization performance.Lin & Lee (2006) stated that knowledge sharing
will influence the success of any knowledge management initiative and governs in effectives, not
effectively sharing knowledge with organization will defeat the purpose of having a Knowledge
Management Sharing, moreover the success of organization is due to the collective effort of it
employees to meet organization objective Akhavan (2006) indicated that one of the success factors of
any knowledge management initiative is knowledge sharing which essential to achieve a successful
Knowledge Management Sharing.
Boer (2016) indicated knowledge sharing is important to establish a common understanding among
working team, knowledge sharing is allow the conversion of certain activities to achieve an outcome
and finally knowledge sharing is enable conflict resolution via establishing a common understanding
of the situation.
Nevertheless some scholars argue that Knowledge sharing is not beneficial to organization, as there
are some implications associated with it. For clarification purposes suppose that there are two
manufacturing department in one organization whom relay on the same source of knowledge and both
departments share knowledge extensively among their team. They will end up building similar
product and end up competing each other. Hansen et al (2016) indicated that there are negative
implications to uncontrolled knowledge sharing within organization as it might cause counter
competitive among teams within organization this will lead to wasted resources and duplicate work.
Lin & Lee (2006), pointed that knowledge sharing with organization is affected by two main elements
social elements and technical elements Yang (2010), indicated that the elements attitude to sharing,
attitude to learning, organization support and leadership role which affects knowledge sharing in
organization. However no of those elements indicates factors influencing employee behaviour to
share knowledge. Bock and Gulkim (2015), indicated that individuals knowledge sharing behaviour
is governed by two main factors which are association and contribution ,those two factors will
influence employees attitude towards knowledge sharing and then only they will develop a positive
intention to share knowledge. Moreover knowledge is perceived as a valuable position for individual
thus in order for them to share it with other, employees will demand for a return in exchange for
it.Yang and Wu (2007) indicated that sharing knowledge is a personal behaviour and the transaction
of knowledge from the possessor of knowledge to the recipient of knowledge is perceived as a
conflict of interest between the knowledge possessor and the organization. This is also known as
social dilemma where the individual benefit will result in organizational loses.Osterloh and Weibel
(2016) indicated that knowledge sharing is considered as a case of pragmatic social situation, where
employees try to maximize their individual benefit at the expenses of the group, and this is known as
social dilemma. It is one of the reasons which prevent employees in organization from sharing
knowledge; social dilemma can hinder the knowledge sharing in organization if not highlighted and
resolved properly.
Ho (2008), referred to organization performance at the ability of the organization to achieve
its planned or set objectives; furthermore it is pointed at the effectives and the efficiency of the
organization in fulfilling its financial and non financial goals.Zack et al 2009, suggested that there are
three main elements in which organization performance can be measured on; product leadership,
customer intimacy and operation excellence.
Knowledge Sharing is defined by Yu et.al.(2010) as “Processes that involve exchanging
knowledge between individuals and groups”. According to Liaw, et.al (2008) Knowledge sharing is
one of important goal of an organization where all individuals’ experiences and knowledge can be
transferred as an organizational asset and maintained for future learning and creating new knowledge
with the help of ICT. Knowledge sharing is the transfer and communication of knowledge. It is an
activity through which knowledge is exchanged among people, friends, or members of a family, a
community, an organization or collaborative parties.
It is “making available what is not known”Nonaka(2016) focuses in his study on knowledge sharing
and transfer inside organization. He mentioned knowledge sharing gives rise to an overall view of an
organization not as a machine for processing information but as a living organism in which everyone
is a knowledge worker.

2.8 Knowledge Management in the communication industry in Nigeria

Even though it may be described in many different ways, Knowledge Management is generally
concerned with how organisations create (learning processes), disseminate (knowledge sharing), and
measure (intellectual capital measurement) knowledge related assets (Argote 2009, Edvinsson and
Malone 2007, Huber 2014, Sveiby 2007, Sveiby and Risling 2006).In terms of creation, knowledge is
considered endogenous (Romer 2006, 2012) driving increasing returns on investments in new
knowledge. This perception encouraged extensive study of ‘knowledge sharing’, which emerged from
the field of organisational learning. Successful knowledge sharing
involves extended learning processes as new knowledge is integrated into products, services, or
business processes both old and new (Nelson and Rosenberg 2013). Practically every writer on
management argues that measurement is critical to the success of organisations (Fitz-Enz, 2016).
Without measurement managers are unable to focus on the attainment of sustainable objectives
because their attention is not focused on the appropriate facts. This has led to a plethora of
measurement methods specifically focusing on the measurement of intellectual capital (see, for
example, Andriessen 2016, Daum 2013, Lev 2014).Goh (2016) advocates that knowledge adds value
to an organisation through its contribution to products, processes and people. Furthermore, Turner and
Jackson-Cox (2015) emphasise that knowledge creation within an organisation centres on the crucial
presumption that human based knowledge is created and enlarged by means of social interaction.
Relying on Nonaka and Takeuchi's (2016) work, they conclude it is this interaction that converts
individuals’ explicit knowledge into collective, structural and procedural, that is implicit knowledge
within an organisation. On the other hand, Knowledge Management transforms these intellectual
assets into enduring value by identifying knowledge that is useful for management actions. According
to Minonne (2008), in coordination with an organisation’s strategic objectives, Knowledge
Management provides support in exploring, innovating, disseminating and automating corporate
knowledge. An integrative Knowledge Management approach embraces cultural, organisational,
procedural, and methodical integration and as such enhances an organisation's capability for
productivity, quality and innovation gains.Over many years, authors have proffered a variety of
suggestions about the development of suitable KPIs for the management of knowledge assets (see,
for example, Arora 2015, Edvinsson and Malone 2007, Fitz-Enz 2016, Lev 2014, Neely 2015,
Sveiby2007 and Turner 2006) but they have often been focused on operational, rather than strategic
aspects of Knowledge Management.

2.9. Knowledge Transfer

King et al., (2016) appointed two important element in developing effective organizational
knowledge; (i) communication and (ii) information processing. Most of the existing Knowledge
transfers models were rooted from communication model, group information processing model and
knowledge creation model. Communication based model was elucidated by schramm and later being
improvised by Jacobson while the second is based from Hinsz’s and tindale model. The third one is
based from Nonaka’s A dynamic Theory of Organizational knowledge creation model. Within the
communication-based approach, the transfer of knowledge is regarded as a message encoded in a
medium by a sender to a recipient in a given context. Schramm’s communication model initially
consisted of three elements; (i) Sender, (ii) Recipient and (iii) Message. The receiver becomes the
“recipient” or “user”, since it is the subject who learns or acquires knowledge (not simply the
message receiver) whereas; the “sender” is the knowledge holder. The message becomes the “object”,
as it can be produced by complex knowledge. Scharmm’s later enhanced the model by including
Media. Media is the channels used to communicate the message, palliate its passage, and enhance its
chances of completing a communicative act. Scharmm’s model becomes the most referred basic
model in many knowledge transfer framework. Knowledge transfer seeks to organize, create, capture
or distribute knowledge and ensure its availability for future users. It is considered to be more than
just a communication problem. Knowledge transfer is more complex because (1) knowledge resides
in organizational members, tools, tasks, and their sub networks and (2) much knowledge in
organizations is tacit or hard to articulate.
2.5 Knowledge Management: Review of Empirical Studies
Knowledge Management is an impressive, multidisciplinary, and controversial concept. Knowledge
Management enables the existing individual knowledge to be captured and transformed into
organizational knowledge, which in turn must be diffused and shared by many employees. These
employees use this knowledge but they also create new individual, which becomes organizational,
and so on. Knowledge Management is also the management of organization’s knowledge that can
improve many features of organizational performance so as to
be more “intelligent acting” (Gupta, Iyer, & Aronson, 2012). Although knowledge management has
been extensively studied by researchers and academics there is not exist a generally accepted
definition of knowledge management concept. Defining knowledge management is not an easy
issue because it is multi-faced and controversially concept and what’s more is a mix of strategies,
tools, and techniques. Different authors and researchers have presented different definitions of
knowledge management.Wiig (2016) proposed that Knowledge Management is a group of clearly
defined process or methods used to search important knowledge among different knowledge
management operations. He also added that knowledge management aims were firstly to facilitate an
organization in acting intelligently, in order to secure its viability and success, and secondly to make
an organization to realise the best value of its knowledge assets. Therefore, the general purpose of
knowledge management is to maximise organization’s effectiveness (Wiig, 2007).Moreover, Jennex
(2007), defined knowledge management as the practice of selectively applying knowledge from
previous experiences of decision making to
current and future decision-making activities with the express purpose of improving the
organization’s effectiveness. According to Holsapple and Joshi (2016) knowledge management is an
entity’s systematic and deliberate efforts to expend,cultivate, and apply available knowledge in ways
that add value to the entity in the sense of positive results in accomplishing its objectives or fulfilling
its purpose.There are more than three discrete perspectives of knowledge management,each one
leading to a different definition (Dalkir, 2016). From business
perspective, knowledge management is a business activity with two primary aspects:Treating the
knowledge components of business activities as an explicit concern of business reflected in strategy,
policy, and practice at all levels of the organization; and, making a direct connection between an
organization’s intellectual assets-both explicit and tacit- and positive business results (Barclay and
Murray, 2007).From the cognitive perspective or knowledge science perspective,
knowledge is the fundamental resource that allows us to function cleverly. Over time, considerable
knowledge is also transformed to other manifestations, such as books, technology, practices, and
traditions, within organizations of all kinds and in society in general. These transformations resulted
in cumulated expertise and when used appropriately, increased effectives (Wiig, 2013).From
processor technology perspective, knowledge management is the
concept under which information is turned into actionable knowledge and made available in a usable
form to the people who can apply it (information week, 2013).Coleman (2009) defined knowledge
management as an umbrella term for wide variety of interdependent and interlocking functions
consisting of: knowledge creation, knowledge valuation and metrics, knowledge mapping and
indexing, knowledge transport, storage and distribution, and knowledge sharing.
At the same year Scarbrough et. al. (2009) defined knowledge management as “the process of
creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing, and using knowledge for the boost of organizational learning
and performance”. For Robinson et. al (2016) knowledge management is “a method of exploiting, or
transforming knowledge as an asset for organizational use to help continuous improvement”
(Bishop,Bouchlaghem, Glass, & Matsumoto, 2008). While, Grey (2006) stated that knowledge
management is a collaborative approach to the creation, capture,organization access and use of an
enterprise’s intellectual assets.Holtshouse (2008) proposed that knowledge is a kind of flow that can
transfer knowledge between knowledge supplier and knowledge demander. In addition, Petrash
(2006) supported that knowledge management is getting the right
knowledge to the right people at the right time so they can make the best decisions.Finally,
knowledge management is an organised, systematic business optimisation strategy that selects,
collects, stores, organises, packages, and communicates information that consider vital to the business
of a company in a manner that improves employee performance and corporate
competitiveness(Bergeron, 2013).Concluding we could say that all knowledge management beliefs
and methodologies that have been developed focused on the belief that knowledge is an
important asset which needs to be handled cautiously while the core of knowledge management is to
get the right knowledge to the right people at the right time.Therefore, knowledge management is a
process that facilitates organizations to capture, select, organise, distribute, and transfer significant
information, knowledge,and expertise so as to gain business advantage.
Knowledge Management is a driving force of critical importance for business success or failure.
Knowledge management is a new but complex process with many factors influencing its
implementation. These factors, also known as knowledge management enablers, should be clear in an
organization, because not only they create knowledge but they also prompt people to share their
knowledge
and experiences with others (Yeh, Lai, & Ho, 2006).Nowadays the great objective of many
organizations is to identify a suitable knowledge management system and manage their knowledge
successfully. A broad range of success factors for a knowledge management implementation have
been identified in the literature. One of the earliest studies of knowledge management critical factors
was presented by Skyrme and Amidon in 2007. They highlighted
seven key success factors, including a strong link to business imperative, a compelling vision and
architecture, knowledge leadership, knowledge creating and sharing culture, continuous learning, a
well-developed technology infrastructure and systematic organizational knowledge processes (Wong
& Aspinwall, 2016).Davenport et al. (2008) conducted a study to explore the practices of 18
knowledge management projects in 24 companies, with the aim of determining the factors associated
with the effectiveness. The result identified 18 successful projects with eight success factors. These
factors were linking knowledge management to economic performance or industry value, a clear
purpose and language, a standard and flexible knowledge structure, multiple channels for knowledge
transfer, culture, technical and organizational infrastructure, change in motivational practices, and
senior management support (Wong, 2016). In addition, at the same year Ruggles (in Mathi, 2016)
pointed out that factors such as people, process and technology should be taken under consideration
in knowledge management implementation, focusing mainly in people and then following process
and technology. Arthur Anderson Business Consulting (2009) believed that people,corporate culture
and information technology are the biggest enablers of knowledge management implementation.
According to this research knowledge management enablers are the key factors that determine the
effectiveness of knowledge management within an organization. Holsapple and Joshi (2012).Firstly,
they investigate the factors, which derived from various literature sources,and probably influence the
success of knowledge management. Secondly, they conducted a Delphi study in order to asses the
appropriateness for the factors they evaluated and explored earlier. They suggest three types of
influences, managerial,resource, and environmental, containing different factors each one. Hasanali in
2015 claimed that the success of knowledge management depends on many different
factors. His success factors are leadership, culture, structure, roles and responsibilities, IT
infrastructure, and measurement. Likewise, Chourides et al.(2013) highlighted five categories of
factors namely, strategy, human resource management information technology, quality, and marketing
(Wong, 2016).Also another empirical study conducted by Davenport and Probst (2015) suggested a
more extensive list of success factors for the implementation of
knowledge management. This list included leadership, performance measurement,
organizational policy, knowledge sharing and acquisition, information-systems
structure, and benchmarking and training. Bixler (2015) created a four pillar model
to show the importance of different factors for ensuring successful implementation
of knowledge management initiatives. The four pillars were leadership, organization, technology and
learning (Mathi, 2016). In addition Stankosky and Baldanza (2012) developed a conceptual
framework for knowledge management in which the four pillars were organization, technology,
leadership, and learning.Moreover, Mathi (2016) proposed that the factors which determine
knowledge management success in an organization are culture, knowledge management organization,
systems and information technology infrastructure,effective and systematic processes and measures
(Akhavan, Jafari, & Fathian, 2006).Finally, another knowledge management model that could be
mentioned is the one developed by Arthur Anderson and the American Productivity and Quality
Center (2006, 2009, 2012). In this model four catalytic factors are emphasized for successful
knowledge management: Leadership, organizational culture, measurement and technology. It is
important each factor to be designed and managed in alliance with the others for the support of the
knowledge management process. Knowledge management has been always important for business
success and can contribute to gain competitive advantage. Organizations today have realised that in
order to succeed they have to view and manage knowledge as an asset (Lim et al. 2009). According to
Hlupic et al. (2015) knowledge management is considered to be the vehicle for organization
effectiveness and competitiveness. Κnowledge management facilitates companies to be faster, more
efficient, and more innovative.In addition, Gold et al. (2014) stated that the effective application of
knowledge management enables a firm to become innovative, better harmonize its efforts,quickly
commercialise new products, foresee surprises, become more responsive to market changes and
decrease redundancy of knowledge and information available to it. Researchers claimed that
organizations achieve the competitive advantage only when accurate and important knowledge is
transformed, distributed, and intergraded (Probst, Buchel & Raub, 2008). In addition Wang and
Plaskoff (2015) stated that effective knowledge management demands a knowledge management
system which intergrades organization, people, process, and technology.Companies that generate new
knowledge and distribute it broadly throughout the organization and rapidly embody it into new
technologies and products are considered successful. This procedure promotes innovation and creates
competitive advantage. According to Ernest & Young survey in 2007, executives recognise
innovation as the most important attribution from knowledge management. (Metaxiotis, Ergazakis,
Prassas, 2016).Lucier and Torsilieri (2014) supported that the effective knowledge management can
hasten growth, drive individual and organizational learning, provide competitive advantage and
generate benefits for shareholders. Finally, some other advantages of knowledge management that
have been widely accepted include organizational learning, enhanced intellectual asset management,
increased operational efficiency, time-to-market improvement, and continuous improvement.
(Demarest, 2007).
2.9.1 ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Performance is the end result of activities; it includes the actual outcomes of the strategic
management process (Alrubaiee, 2012). Likewise Ben Zaied et al., (2015) posited that the
organizational performance is represented by the success in achieving its goals. Organizational
performance constitutes all behaviors related to organizational objectives depending on the
contribution levels ofindividuals to the organization (Borman and Motowidlo, 2013). However, the
organizational performance is the mirror that reflects the organization‟s ability in achieving high
productivity provided it is combined with the customers‟satisfaction and having a well market share
that can provide a suitable financial refund and do social and ethic responsibilities towards the
environment where the organization works and the society (Tubigi and Alshawi, 2015). Similarly,
scholars considered organizational performance as the achieved results of the
interaction between the activities of communication and information technology sector and its
resources or the difference between the financial goals and the non-financial ones in a specific period
of time (Rajneesh and Kaur, 2014). Furthermore, Venkatraman and Vasudevan, (2006) noted that
measurement for the organizational performance relies on the fields of performance in the business
organizations vary and differ according to their different businesses , nature of activities and the
degree of focus on the fields that is believed to achieve goals are considered a priority for the
organization ( e.g. Giovanni, 2012). Although scholars have different attitudes towards identifying
fields of performance and ways of measuring them,hence some of them pay attention to the
shareholders‟ goals as major fields of performance that the organization should rely on measuring the
performance.Darroch (2016) conclude that the financial performance will remain the field that
determines the extent of the organization‟s success and its inability
to achieve the basic level of the financial performance. However, its existence will be in danger, only
if the performance includes non financial scales, the background image of the performance will show
up the thing which the financial indications fail to do (Zainol and Ayadurai, 2011). In consistent with
this, Sink and Tuttle (2009) also realized that performance should not be treated only as a financial
concept. Thus, it is suggested that particularly in the service sector, non-financial performance should
receive serious consideration.Nofal e al., (2014) argued that relying only on the financial ratios in
evaluating the performance gives incomplete image about the organization. Therefore, this method in
evaluation should be enhanced and supported by operational performance‟s scales to build
measurement system for effective performance in the organization such as market share, customer
retain. To this end, Noruzy et al., (2013) argued that if the manger cares of the total performance of
the organization, he will be able to create a balance between the operational and the financial
interests. Traditionally, firm performance has been viewed and measured in accounting terms. An
additional issue should be raised here; due to confidentiality concerns, it is often challenging to obtain
actual accounting data from organizations unless they are publicly quoted companies.Coulter and
Robbins (2006), further pointed out that performance is an objectively existing fact that provides both
objective and subjective evaluation.As a result, previous research studies looking into performance
related issues used self-reported financial and non-financial performance measures Alrubaiee
(2012).However, Tseng and Lee, 2014, Pointed out,that some scholars have continually discussed the
organizational performance measurement index. For example,Tippins and Sohi (2013) suggested
profitability, rate of return on investment, customer retention, and sales growth rate as the
organizational performance measurement indexes, while Lee and Choi (2013) suggested market share
rate,comparisons of success with other companies, growth rate, profitability, and ability to innovate as
the organizational performance measurement indexes.
Although organizational performance encompasses many specific areas of firm outcomes (i.e.
dimensions) (Richard et al., 2009; Thang et al., 2008; Morganand Strong, 2013; Nwokah, 2008), we
focused only on four key dimensions to measure organizational performance< Profitability, market
share, sales growth, and customer satisfaction.Therefore, the study evaluates organizational
performance using the subjective approach to measuring performance of Telecommunication and
information technology organization relative to its competitors across four attributes: profitability,
market share, sales growth, and customer satisfaction.. A number of authors defend the adequacy of
subjective measures as opposed to objective ones (Pertusa-Ortega et al.2010). Conceptually, growth
reflects increases in sales and is often reflected in market share gains. Growth in sales and market
share are important to a business to ensure long-term viability and resource availability.Profitability
primarily reflects current performance (Venkatraman and Vasudevan2006). Similarly,profitability is
considered by Hunt and Morgan (2016) as the ultimate organizational outcome and is commonly used
in strategic management studies. Furthermore, Vorhies and Harker (2012) argued that customer
satisfaction represents the effectiveness ofthe organization in delivering value to its customers and is
often viewed as an antecedent to profitability (Alrubaiee,2013).
 PERF
ORMANCE PYRAMID FOR IDENTIFYING PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Source: Dooley, 2013

There
seems to be increasing
interest in Knowledge Management these days
.
In fact, reports
are that
Google no longer has an overriding emphasis on
simply
being the best "se
arch engine"
-
instead, they have
placed increasing emphasis on the importance of
Knowledge Management
by positioning their latest
Enterprise Search product
as a key device in ta
pping into an organization's collective knowledge.
The Costs of Poor Knowledge Management
IT Management is coming to the realization that departments are simply not sharing information
as well as
they could
. There are too many "silos of information"
associated with each department
-
resulting in a lack of
shared
knowledge
, ideas and experience. The result?
* Re
-
discovery of knowledge
-
when a workaround or
solution is not captured and shared effectively,
someone else is likely going to have to "re
-
in
vent that
wheel" to solve the same issue

D
uplication
of effort
-
Not sharing a reusable solution
means my
colleague
is going to have to expend the
same or more effort to re
-
create their version of the
solution

L
onger resolution times
-
having to reinvent s
olutions
means incident/request average resolution time is higher than it otherwise would be

Without effective Knowledge Management,
a
support center will experience
more
frequent
escalation
s
to higher level support teams
(since back
-
line subject matter ex
perts are not sharing
information with the front
-
line service desk)

When solution
s
take longer
to achieve
, and escalations are more f
requent,
customer dissatisfaction
tends to be the result

All of this leads to
higher costs
of IT support operations, which
of course
IT
management is
keenly
inter
e
sted
in driving down these days
Knowledg
e Management (KM) to the rescue!
A process driven, best
-
practice KM implementation can in
fact address many of these challenges, resulting in huge benefits
-
to the IT support
organization, as well as
to customers and users.
The surprise to many is that the
concept of effective KM is not new.
The
Consortium for Service
Innovation
(
www.serviceinnovation.org
)
pioneered and
has been promoting the value of effective
Knowledge Mana
gement in a "support center" for over two decades. The Knowledge Centered Support
2
(KCS) model of how to effectively impl
ement and practice K
nowledge
M
anagement in a support center has
been widely adopted by some of the world's leading companies and
organ
izations.
Only now, due to
global competition,
increased pressure
on costs, and demand for greater quality of service, more
and more
organizations are
finally realizing the business value of
true
Knowledge
Management.
The latest version of the ITIL framew
or
k
-
ITIL 2011
-
underscores this
heighted level of importance. It
has
elevated
K
nowledge Management
to
the statu
s of
a full
-
fledged ITIL
process
. ITIL portrays KM as a
process that should be actively shared in across an IT organization, with
process ow
ners, managers, and practitioners all contributing
knowledge, and benefiting from shared
ideas and
experiences.
A
Knowledge Management System (called an "SKMS"), is the collect
ion
of
integrated databases and repositories that hold
s
this shared
knowledge,
enabling managers and practitioners
across the organization
to get the
right information at the
right time
-
thereby improving
solution re
-
use and quality, the
quality of decision
-
making,
reducing
escalations, speeding average resolution time, improving st
aff utilization, and lowering overall costs of
operation.
Barriers to
Implementing
Successful Knowledge Management
So why on earth isn't everyone "doing" effective Knowledge Management? There are several
common
barriers to the successful adoption and pra
ctice of Knowledge Management in an IT support organ
i
zation:

Taking a "tool centric" approach
. Management mistakes
Knowledge Management for a tool or system,
instead of an organization wide
"process".
This is all
too common a phenomenon, since IT manage
rs and practitioners
typically have a implementation/support technology
background. Compounding this, vendors want nothing more
than to sell lots of knowledge management tools, systems and
databases. The problem, as the saying goes, is that "a fool with
a
tool is still a fool". A Knowledge Management tool will not
produce a KM process
-
tha
t requires a "process approach":
defining and documenting the process first, following by selecting
appropriate tools and technology.

Focusing on a single individu
al, rather than a "team approach".
To realize effective Knowledge
Management throughout an organization, everyone
should feel they
have a "piece of the action". All IT
support managers and practitioners, from the front
-
line service desk, to executive man
agement, should
feel as though they are contributors to, and beneficiaries of, the KM process. When the focus is on
only
one individual to be the owner, manager and care taker of all the knowledge, that is a sure
-
fire recipe
for failure.
3

Make it difficul
t and time
-
consuming to participate.
When
your implementation r
e
quire
s
practitioners and managers to
take
several
extra steps to submit an article or soluti
on to the
knowledge base, or to retrieve information from it
, you are in
fact creating "roadblocks
" to adoption and usage
.
Instead, look
to remove roadblocks, making the use of the KM system an
integral part of the workflow. Rather than d
esign
ing
the user
interface to be complicated, requiring the submission of just the
right
phrase in ord
er to retr
ieve something useful, keep it
simple, user
-
friendly, fast and effective.

Take a tactical and operational approach, ignoring behavioral
change.
This concept stems from the well known concept that
"if you build it, they will come". The notion being that
if you build and deploy a KM system, people with
contribute and use it naturally. There should be no need to bother with how you are going to motivate
people to contribute to, and use the system. Won't they just change naturally?
Fact is, they won't.
Implementing Knowledge Management is one of those "big changes" requires a well thought out
organizational change plan, to change "the organization" over time as you implement the process.

Don't bother with monitoring or measuring
. This barrier stems fro
m the one above, namely that
merely
having a KM system drives
adoption and increasing usage.
So w
hy should there be any need for
monitoring
and reporting
the usage of the system, in order to determine who is contributing, who is
using, and to what extent?
The reality is that if you don't measure it, you can't manage it. And you
can't improve it over time.
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
l
i
k
e
a
n
y
o
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
d
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
a
s
e
t
o
f
m
e
t
r
i
c
s
a
n
d
K
P
I
s
,
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
o
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
i
t
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
v
a
l
u
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
.
The Solution
:
Employ
a
"
Service
-
Life
cycle
"
Approach
First, view
Knowledge Management
it as an organization wide process, requiring a "service lifec
ycle"
approach
to implementation
.
Implementing Knowledge Management is best accomplished by viewing it as
a process
, not a "tool or system". It
uses
a tool
and/or systems to capture, store, and effectively
share knowledge. Use the guidelines documented
in ITIL 2011, facilitated by the KCS model, to guide
the design, development, deployment, and
operation of a KM process
-
along with supporting
systems and tools (a "Service Knowledge
Management System
"
or SKMS).

Start with a
Service Strategy
: establish
your
compelling vision for
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
y
o
u
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
to a "knowledge centered" service
4
provider, along with a supporting mission, goals and objectives.

Develop a total approach with
Service Design
: design your Knowledge Management process, along
with supporting systems, t
ools, metrics and other elements
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
a
"
m
a
s
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
'
f
o
r
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

Implement KM using a
Service Transition
approach: using your "master plan" as input, begin work at
implementing the various components over time
-
p
e
o
p
l
e
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
(
i
t
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
a
l
l
t
h
r
e
e
,
p
l
u
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
)

Embed it within your
Service Operation
processes. Make knowledge capture an
d re
-
use an integral
part of every process
-
f
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
during the monitoring of events; while resolving an incident;
a
n
d
when trouble
-
shooting a problem. The idea is to either access and put captured knowledge to work, or
capture knowledge while "in the workflow".

Keep
it going with
Continual Improvement
. Having designed metrics and reporting for your KM
process, make the monitoring and reporting on KM performance part of your monthly IT
management
meetings. Assess performance to goal, and look for ways to improve the
KM process, people aspects,
and supporting tools and systems.
Your Plan
:
to "Build
it In
" to
the
DNA
of Your Organization
Start with a Service Strategy

Establish a compelling vision that all embrace, and that this is going
to require organizational change
.
Realize that the implementation of successful Knowledge Management is going to impact the way
people work
-
and that means "organizational change". People are going to have to change the way
they work in order to capture knowledge at its source, as a
"by
-
product" of their work effort. Yes,
the
implementation of KM will
streamline processes,
provide tools, and
remove "roadblocks"
to capturing
and submi
tting
a knowledge article
-
but driving
and coordinating
all of these tactical and operation
changes
should be a
strategic
initiative
to institute an
organizational change to adopt knowledge
management. This means ...
o
Engaging h
igh level
executive management
to
visibly support
the launch of your KM initiative initially, and periodicall
y to
report on its progress.
o
A
compelling vision
, communicated initially and
on an on
-
going basis, for how
K
nowledge
M
anagement can benefit
everyone
. The vision must speak to, and resonate with all
audiences
-
support staff, management, users and custome
rs.
What steps can you take? Consider incorporating the words
"knowledge centered" into your vision/mission statement. If
you have a set of core principles, consider adding "sharing
knowledge" as one of your core values. Communicate the vision initially
and on an on
-
going
basis during implementation.
5
o
Establishing t
he "
right people
" on a cross
-
functional implementation team, to
direct and guide
the implementation
o
f
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
, and
ensure organization
-
wide "buy
-
in" and
participation in the roll
-
out and adoption
.
o
T
he utilization of an
organizational change model
to guide and facilitate the change over time,,
such as "
Kotter's
Eight
Principles
" of organizational change
.

Realize Knowledge Management is
ap
rocess
, not a system
-
it "uses
a system
"
. The second step to
success is to realize that implementing Knowledge Management is to treat it not as a tool or system,
but as a process. You might choose to use a "Wiki" to stored shared information, or a database, or a
collection of
repositories
-
but without a well desi
gned "process" that is embedded in the way people
do their work, your tools and databases will
soon
go
un
used, and rapidly fall out of date. Like any
process, a KM process needs an owner, and manager
-
someone to be accountable for the quality of
the proce
ss, and someone to oversee and manage daily activities. It needs to be measured and
assessed for performance. It must be documented, including how activities are an integral part of
daily
operating procedures.
The enabling resources and capabilities
-
t
he people, with KM systems and tools,
must be well defined. It
must also have clear inputs and outputs, and deliver value to all stakeholders
-
customers, users, management and support staff.
T
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
S
t
e
p
s
t
o
Design
ing
and Implement
ing
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

Establish a
guiding KM t
eam, but g
ive eve
ryone a "piece of the action".
Set
-
up a cross
-
functional
team to lead and guide your implementation through design, development, deployment and on
-
going
support, but pay particular attention to how you can make
"knowledge management" a part of
everyone's job.
When support staff, team leads, manager and executives all find it necessary to extract
from, and contribute to, the Knowledge Management system, the process
-
and the system
-
becomes
embedded in the life
of the organization. That is the end
-
goal.

Revise your
service operations
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs
)
, such as
Incident Management, Request Fulfillment, and Problem Management
,
to embed
searching and contributing to the KM system.
In this way,
searching and
contributing to your KM system does not become added steps, but is an
integral
part
of the in
-
line mainstream workflow process. No extra steps required.
Roadblocks removed.

Revise
your
job description
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
so that contributing to the KM
system
is required by operations personnel, such as service desk staff, and other
I
T
support groups. For
example, support staff might be required to "Contribute three KM articles/solutions per quarter".
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
p
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
.

Build it into you
r
reward and r
ecognition program
. Make the
contribution to KM, and its use, an
integral part of reward and recognition. For example, no awards for outstanding performance should
6
be given where the team member failed to meet their contribution requirement for the quarter.

Integrate your
KM syste
ms
and tools
so they are
simple, fast and effective
. Google sets the bar when
it comes to search, and your KM process should follow industry
-
leading examples. The search engine
should allow for
"
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
"
search
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
s
e
a
r
c
h
by phrase/keywords
.
T
h
e
search engine
-
along wi
th support databases
-
should be fully
indexed to enable quick results sorted in relevance
order.
Attention should be paid to supporting
structured as well as unstructured data in databases
and linked repositories.
Supporting systems and tools should sup
port
KM
embedded in the workflow
,
so that a submission is
a
"by
-
product" of the work effort. For example, during
Incident Management a search should be
automatically i
nvoked after classifying the incident.
Extra steps or navigation should not be r
equired.
A
match report should return the most likely solutions/workarounds at the top of the list. If no solution
is
applicable, and the analyst ends up devising and documenting a new solution, submitting to the KM
process should be just a few keystroke
s.

Include an embedded QA sub
-
process
to expedite solution review and
processing
. Once the
submission has been made, direct these
electronic records
to an appropriate Subject Matter Expert
(SME) for that area of knowledge. These might be technical or ap
plication management specialists in
back
-
line support groups. SME's should have as a daily responsibility the review, editing and approval
of submitted KM articles, so these can be incorporated into the SKMS in a timely fashion. This also
ensures that kn
owledge added is accurate, complete, and published only to the proper audiences (for
example, "internal use only", or "user
-
ready").
Keep it Growing and Maturing with Continual Improvement

Establish a set of metrics and KPIs to measure
, monitor
and report
on the adoption and success of
your KM process
. People pay attention to things that are measured and reported, and as we
h
a
v
e
s
a
i
d
,
"you can't manage it if you can't measure it". Establish a core set of metrics on KM,
each with a
realistic target,
and ma
ke the reporting on KM part of your monthly management IT "scorecard". This
will raise the visibility of KM in everyone's eyes, and also enable you to assess the growth, impact
and
value of KM. Sample metrics might include:
o
Number of articles added
-
pe
r day, week, month
-
evidence of the overall growth of the
knowledge base (increasing)
o
KB contributions
and solution re
-
use
by support team member
-
showing who is contributing,
how much
(increasing)
7
o
Number and percentage of solutions re
-
used, indicating w
hich solutions/articles are popular,
vs. those that are not (increasing)
o
Solution re
-
use by team member (minimal percentage of contributions should be reused on a
regular basis).
o
Number and percentage of incidents resolved where a knowledge article was ins
trumental in
resolution/fulfillment
-
evidence that the KB is providing solutions (increasing)
o
User satisfaction level, as measured through an on
-
going pop
-
up survey during the close of the
KB search
-
should show a h
igh level of user satisfaction
(target
4 out of 5 or 80%)

Seek feedback via periodic surveys
. Ask support staff as a part of periodic emplo
yee satisfaction
surveys how your KM process and systems can be improved. Do the same with your customers
during
periodic customer surveys. Analyze the feedback , and incorporate improvements.
How Do Y
ou K
now Y
ou've
A
rrived?
Implementing an effective
KM process will take leadership, time, and a lot of effort. Procedures and
systems will be updated, skills sharpened, and organization change will be accomplished. Your
culture will
be transformed over time. In the end, the pay
-
off will be
substantial
.
Average resolution time will be
reduced. Employee productivity will increase, along with support staff satisfaction. Customer and
user
satisfaction will increase due to accurate and reliable solutions being more readily available
, either directly
from t
he serviced desk, or a SKMS equipped self
-
service system.
Management will be able to make higher
quality decisions due to the right information being available when they need it.
How do you know you've arrived?
When
someone asks your IT
support staff, a
nd they simply say "
Oh yes
-
we have Knowledge Management. It
'
s just the way we work
2.9 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The proposed model for this research has two variables; Employee performance as the dependent
variable and knowledge management as the independent variable. Though Employee performance
will be treated a unidimensional variable, whereas knowledge management will be treated as a
multidimensional variable which has four dimensions knowledge, knowledge management,
knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer. The dimensions under knowledge management are the
antecedent of Employee performance. Therefore, improved Employee performance depends on
knowledge, knowledge management, knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer.
2.9.1 Conceptual Model
Figure 2:1

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

KNOWLEDGE

EMPLOYEE

KNOWLEDGE PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT

KNOWLEDGE
SHARING

KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER

Source: The researcher

 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses, research methodology and procedures undertaken by this study. Specifically,
this chapter covers population of the study, sample size and sampling technique measures.which will
be adopted for the study, method of data collection as well as method of data analysis used for the
study.

3.2 Research Design

Research design has been viewed as a blue print or road map indicating the methods and procedured
for collecting and analyzing information ( Zikmund,Baban Carr, Grifflin 2010).
This study will consider survey design because it attempts to seek the effect and relationship between
knowledge management on employee performance. Thus the hypothese will be formulate to see
wheather knowledge management would determine employee performance.
However, the study will acquire cross sectional design,the cross sectional study involves gathering
the data for a particular study at a point in a time to meet the research objectives (cavanna et al 2014).
Cross sectional survey will be choosen to avoid the long time consumption charaterized by
longitudinal research.

3.3 Population of the Study

The entire group of people, objects, events or things that a researcher has interest in investgating is
called population (Sekaran & Bourgie 2010). Zikmund et al, (2010), also viewed population as the
entire group of people, events or things of interest that the researcher wishes to investigate. Inferences
are usually made by the researcher from the population.

Therefore, the population of this study focuses on the staff of Nigerian communication industry
kano.The total numbers of staff consist of 460 employees of the four major communication industry.

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

A sample has been defined by Zikmund et al (2010) as a subset or some part of a larger
population.An ideal sample is needed to reduce the cost of sample error and to truly represent the
population .Therefore in deciding the sample size for this study adopting a scientific approach
becomes neccessary. Therefore Krejcie and morgan (2012). Scentific approach will be used for this
research.It is a generalised scientific guideline for determing the sample size Krejcie and Morgan
(2012) provided a table which requires no calculation. therefore in selecting the sample size for this
study 210 structured questionare will be distribnuted to the staff of the communication industry and
thus the staff serves as the unit of analysis for the study.
The application of Krejcie and morgan (2012) model require no calculation because they have
developed a table for selecting an appropriate sample size.
Therefore , based on Krejcie Scentific table the above population 210 has an appropraite sample size
of 460 (see Appendix A).
The study will be aimed at drawing samples from four communication industry operating in kano
state. Therefore there is a need for cluster sampling. Cluster sampling as the name implies involves
classifying sample elements into groups from which elements of the population would be selected
.Cluster sampling involved categorizing research location into groups and selecting elements from
each group using a given sampling technique (zikmund et al 2010). The communication will be
categorised into four classes : Mtn, Glo, Airtiel,Etisalat all in Kano State,

3.5 Method of Data Collection Technique

Questionnaires will be used as the main instrument for this study, before setting out for data
collection a letter of introduction will be collecte from the Department of Business Administration
and Entrepreneurship Bayero University Kano.In this letter it will be stated for request of assistance
from the participating companies Mtn,Glo,Airtiel,Etisalat.This letter will help the researcher greatly
in facilitating the conduct of the study by building confidence and trust in the minds of the
management of these organization who will give permission for distribution of the questionaires.
These questionaqires will be distributed through hand delivery to these respondents.

3.6 Method of Data Analysis

This study will adopt the quantitative approach in which satistical computation will be used to
explain the relationship between the variables under investigation. The relationship between the
variable under investigation. The statistical package for social science (spss) version 20 will be used
in analyzing the relationship between the variable for the study. Therefore upon the completion of this
study combinations of both desscriptive and inferential statistics will be employed to analyze the
interpret the data, The Dependent and Independent variables will be analyzed using the multiple
linear regressions..

3.7 Meaurement of Variables

This research has 2 construct to be measured, They are knowledge management and employee
performance. This section measure the construct of the model.
3.7.1 Knowledge Management
To measure knowledge management generic knowledge management scale will be used to measure
knowledge management which was developed by Lee and Sukoco, (2007).The scale has sixteen
items which will be coded using five point likert scale.

3.7.2 Employee Performance

To measure employee performance generic employee performance scale will be used to measure
employe performance which was developed by Mc Elroy (2012) . The scale has sixteen items which
will be coded using five point likert scale.
 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO
Dear Respondent,
This questionnaire is designed purely for academic research purpose.It is meant to aid in data
collection that can satisfy the requirement for award of Msc degree in management. The
questionnaire is desisgned to source data for testing the effect of knowledge management and
employee performance in Nigerian Communication company in kano state;Your responses will be
strictly treated as confidential and therfore your identity is not required .Thank you in anticipation of
your prompt cooperation and assistance.

Part 1 Knowledge Management

Please indicate in your opinion the extent to which you agree with each of the following attributes of
knowledge managenent please circle the answer that applies to you as indicated in the scale below.

Never Rarely Usually Often Always

1 2 3 4 5
S/N Statement NEVER RARELY USUALLY OFTEN ALWAYS
Knowledge
K1 Knowledge brings about success in
an organization
K2 Knowledge is most important in
employees performance
K3 knowledge is most important in
realizing ultimate personal potential
K4 How is knowledge
managed by your
organization
Knowledge management

KM1 Knowledge management

supports the objectives and
goals of the organization
KM2 Knowledge management
initiatives lead to change in
organizational culture
KM3 Knowledge Management
applies systematic approaches
to find, understand, and use
knowledge to create value
KM4 Has knowledge management
enhanced product
development in your
organization
Knowledge sharing
KS1 Sharing and distributing
 knowledge by means making
knowledge available to others
KS2 Information sharing supports
the objectives and strategies
of the organization
KS3 While doing the job, new
information and skills are
gained
KS4 The schedule for the future
training program is
known in advance
Knowledge transfer
KT1 The workers always share
their opinions with the
other through documents and
e-mails
KT2 The workers explain their
personal opinions to
their colleagues by writing
KT3 The workers always share
experience and
thoughts with each other
KT4 The workers are willing to
share their thoughts
and experience with each
other
Part 2 Employee Performance

Please indicate in your opinion the extent to which you agree with each of the following attributes
of employee performance. please circle the answer that applies to you.

Never Rarely Usually Often Always

1 2 3 4 5
S/N Statement NEVER RARELY USUALLY OFTEN ALWAYS
Employee
E1 I carry out my work
deligently
E2 we express our selves to
the management
E3 I like the people I work
with
E4 I feel secured in my job
Employee performance
EP1 Employee Performance
and attitude helps
towards achieving
organizational goals
EP2 Employee’s performance
is effective in achieving
higher productivity
EP3 My salary is based on
my performance
EP4 I will perform well if am
promoted
Job performance
JP1 I enjoy going to work
and performing at my
best
JP2 I am clear about what I
need to do and how my
job performance will be
evaluated
JP3 Hard work has to do
with my performance on
my job
JP4 I have a sense of
belonging in my place of
work
Organizational
performance
OP1 The organization
encourage me to go
extra miles in delighting
 our customers
OP2 I perform well if I am
given the opportunity to
work
OP3 our combined effort
boost performance and
leads to organizational
growth
OP4 I feel compelled to
resume early to work

Part 3: Demographic Information

Information: Please read and tick as appropraite in the provided box your exact assessment of the
following demographic information.
Q1- Gender
Male
Female

Q2 - Age
21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60 and above

Q3 - Work E xperience
Less than one year 1-5 years 5 to 10 years 10-15years 15 years and above

Q4 – Educational Qualification
HND First Degree Masters Degree Doctorate Degree Others

Q5 – Designation
CEO Director HOD Manager Supervisor Team Leaders CCE