Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

3. Research model and hypo<strong>the</strong>ses
Farnaz Rahimi and Mohamad Ebrahim Maroosi
In this paper we assessed knowledge management level in <strong>the</strong> organization by measuring 5 factors:
3.1 Knowledge management process
This factor refers to <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> procedural knowledge and workflow (Housel, Thomas, Bell, &
Arthur, 2001) that may cover process management <strong>of</strong> knowledge capture and creation: <strong>the</strong> learning
and training activity arrangement in <strong>the</strong> organization’s knowledge retention (Nissen & Espino, 2000).
Knowledge management process emphasis on ga<strong>the</strong>ring, organizing, maintaining and using
knowledge in organizations. It is agreed that <strong>the</strong> only sustainable competitive advantage for a firm
comes from <strong>the</strong> value it can generate from its knowledge (Beveren, 2002).
In this section we ask <strong>the</strong> respondents to state if exiting knowledge management processes in
Khorasan Razavi Gas Company is appropriate.
3.2 Leadership support
Leadership Support and commitment is critical to a KM planning (Martensson, 2000; Manasco, 1996
Truch, 2001; Jarrar, 2002; Sharp, 2003; Davenport et al., 1998)
Leaders are important in acting as models to typify <strong>the</strong> desired behavior for KM. They can influence
o<strong>the</strong>r employees to follow <strong>the</strong>m and increase <strong>the</strong> employee's willing to take part in KM. O<strong>the</strong>r
leadership competencies that would be important include steering <strong>the</strong> change effort, conveying <strong>the</strong>
importance <strong>of</strong> KM to employees, maintaining <strong>the</strong>ir morale, and creating a culture that promotes
knowledge sharing and creation.
(Holsapple and Joshi, 2000).
In this part we ask <strong>the</strong> respondent to specify whe<strong>the</strong>r exiting knowledge management
support by top management.
3.3 Organizational Culture
Verbeke et al. (1998). “A system <strong>of</strong> shared norms and behaviors that are learned by members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
organization and shape <strong>the</strong>ir way <strong>of</strong> doing” (p. 313). In general, a culture supportive <strong>of</strong> KM is one that
highly values knowledge. The biggest challenge for most KM efforts actually lies in developing such a
culture. Davenport et al. (1998) suggested that companies should ensure that <strong>the</strong>ir KM initiatives fit
into <strong>the</strong>ir organizational culture, or <strong>the</strong>y should be ready to change it.
We ask our respondent if exiting organizational culture support knowledge management.
3.4 Technological infrastructures
Though KM is not about technology, it plays an important role in KM. (Skyrme and Amidon (1997),
Davenport et al. (1998), APQC1999.Alavi and Leidner (2001)). It should be said that one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> key
enablers for performing KM is IT .Its capability is being a connector <strong>of</strong> a human to information and <strong>of</strong>
one human to ano<strong>the</strong>r. IT can enable speed up search, access and retrieval <strong>of</strong> information, and can
support communication between organizational members. In essence, it can certainly play a variety <strong>of</strong>
roles to support an organization's KM processes (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Lee and Hong, 2002). In
this part we ask <strong>the</strong> respondents to specify whe<strong>the</strong>r exiting technological infrastructure is a supportive
factor for KM or not.
3.5 Measurement
Measurement acts like a data collection system that gives useful information about a particular
situation or activity .KM will fail, if it is left unmeasured.According to Arora (2002) and Ahmed et al.
(1999), measuring KM is necessary in order to ensure that its KM objectives are being attained.
Measurement enables organizations to follow <strong>the</strong> progress <strong>of</strong> KM and to determine its benefits and
effectiveness. Essentially, it provides a basis for organizations to evaluate compare, control and
improve upon <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> KM (Ahmed et al., 1999). Based on this factor we ask <strong>the</strong>
respondents whe<strong>the</strong>r exiting KM measures properly.
803