Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

2. Literature review
2.1 What is “Knowledge Management”?
Samuel Kai Wah Chu et al.
KM has been discussed widely in <strong>the</strong> literature. Wiig (1997: 1), regarded as one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> earliest reviews
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> developments in KM, puts forward that <strong>the</strong> objectives <strong>of</strong> KM is to “realize <strong>the</strong> best value <strong>of</strong> its
knowledge assets” so as to secure an organization’s viability. A more precise definition <strong>of</strong> KM may be:
“a systematic and integrative process <strong>of</strong> coordinating organization-wide activities <strong>of</strong> acquiring, creating,
storing, sharing, diffusing, developing, and deploying knowledge by individuals and groups in pursuit <strong>of</strong>
major organizational goals” (Rastogi, 2000: 40).
2.2 Importance <strong>of</strong> measuring Knowledge Management
There has been an increasing recognition on measuring KM performance <strong>of</strong> an organization to
investigate <strong>the</strong> effectiveness and maturity <strong>of</strong> KM. There is a common saying: “If it can’t be measured it
can’t be managed”. Therefore <strong>the</strong>re is a need to measure KM so that corporate leaders can have a
basis on which performance can be monitored. Scholars and practitioners have developed different
models <strong>of</strong> performance metrics aiming to measure effectiveness <strong>of</strong> KM. Among <strong>the</strong> different
measurement methodologies on KM performance proposed in <strong>the</strong> literature, this study adopted <strong>the</strong>
knowledge management maturity model (“KMMM”) to measure <strong>the</strong> KM maturity level <strong>of</strong> listed
companies in mainland China.
2.3 Methods <strong>of</strong> measuring KM - KM maturity model
Kuriakose, Raj, Murty and Swaminathan (2010) proposed that a KMMM is a structured approach for
implementing KM. Various forms, structures and characteristics <strong>of</strong> KM maturity model (“KMMM”) has
been developed, and a few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> selected KMMMs
Name <strong>of</strong> models and <strong>the</strong> work in Dimensions Maturity stages Research method(s)
which it was cited
Knowledge Management
Framework Assessment and
Knowledge Journey in
KPMG (2000)
People
Process
Content
Technology
KNM TM in Hsieh, Lin and Lin (2009) Process
Information
technology
Culture
KM 3 in Gallagher and Hazlett
(2000)
Knowledge Management
Capability self-assessment
Framework in Collison and
Parcell (2004)
Infrastructure
Culture
Technology
KM strategy
Leadership
behaviors
Networking
Learning
before, during
and after
Capturing
knowledge
Knowledge chaotic
Knowledge aware
Knowledge focused
Knowledge managed
knowledge centric
Knowledge chaotic stage
Knowledge conscientious
stage
KM stage
KM advanced stage
KM integration stage
K-Aware
K-Managed
K-Enabled
K-Optimised
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Survey
In-depth interview
Focus group
Questionnaire
Critical success
factors analysis
Fill in <strong>the</strong> self
assessment
individually, and
<strong>the</strong>n conduct focus
group discussion
KPMG (2000) defines people, process, content and technology as <strong>the</strong> four key areas <strong>of</strong> KM. Based on
<strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> organizational activities, <strong>the</strong> surveyed firm is placed in a five-level model called
<strong>the</strong> ‘Knowledge Journey’ which starts from knowledge chaotic level and progresses to knowledge
aware, knowledge focused, knowledge managed, and knowledge centric level.
130