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

Leila Beig et al
based on collective learning and sharing knowledge, a climate <strong>of</strong> cooperation, learning and innovation
will be created and positive behaviors and attitudes required for KM will be encouraged.
From this perspective, when an organization transferring into a LO is on a high level <strong>of</strong> readiness for
KM that <strong>the</strong>re are suitable mechanisms and systems <strong>of</strong> performance appraisal and mutually a proper
rewarding system. The performance monitoring and evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> employees should be based on
learning, knowledge sharing, <strong>the</strong> pace <strong>of</strong> learning; learning acquired and also distributed, innovation
and etc. The incentives and rewarding system <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization should be designed in a way that
encourages <strong>the</strong> mentioned performance indicators.
3.9 Continuous evaluation <strong>of</strong> KM benefits towards performance upgrading
Jennex and Zakharova (2005) believe that KM should be linked to <strong>the</strong> economic performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
organization. They also believe that KM impact has to be measured to enable tracking <strong>of</strong> successes
and failures (Plessis 2007). Since KM is not a static activity and grows with <strong>the</strong> organization changes,
its impact should be continuously assessed to ensure that KM is keeping up with current needs in <strong>the</strong>
organization and results in <strong>the</strong> expected performance.
An organization with a continuous evaluation <strong>of</strong> KM benefits and rewarding culture based on <strong>the</strong>
results, shows more readiness for KM implementation, whe<strong>the</strong>r it is a learning organization or moving
towards it. The difference is on <strong>the</strong> selected performance indicators in each organization. In a LO, <strong>the</strong>
evaluation mostly is based on learning rate, knowledge creation, innovation and etc.
3.10 Leadership supports
Leadership support is regarded to have an important influence on readiness for any change in
organizations whe<strong>the</strong>r it is moving towards a LO or implementing KM. The only difference is in <strong>the</strong>
area <strong>of</strong> support. In <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> KM in an organization transferring into a LO, since leaders
have undeniable influence on <strong>the</strong> employees’ opinions and acceptance, <strong>the</strong>y should give complete
participation and guidance to <strong>the</strong> entire processes.
In a better word, <strong>the</strong>y should provide a motivation toward organizational culture for KM, show
willingness to share information and knowledge freely and to learn from o<strong>the</strong>rs in organization. Their
positive attitude reflects this fact that knowledge and learning solve organizational problems and
improve <strong>the</strong> organizations effectiveness. The more <strong>the</strong> leadership support, <strong>the</strong> more ready for KM
implementation is an organization transferring into LO.
As mentioned above, <strong>the</strong> proposed framework for <strong>the</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> KM readiness <strong>of</strong> a learning
organization in this paper is based on <strong>the</strong> analytical reasoning <strong>of</strong> elements and issues in current well-
known organizational readiness models (see table 3). In this analysis, <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> awareness about
<strong>the</strong> current KM status in each model, is covered by <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r model and <strong>the</strong> dimensions
<strong>of</strong> proposed framework contain all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> required issues. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> claim <strong>of</strong> proposing a holistic
framework seems reasonable.
4. Conclusion and future work
In this paper, a novel framework was proposed to connect two well-known concepts <strong>of</strong> KM and LO by
explaining <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> readiness that should be assessed in an organization when it is going to be
transferred to a higher state from <strong>the</strong> viewpoint <strong>of</strong> learning from past experiences. It has been
discussed that for assessing <strong>the</strong> KM readiness <strong>of</strong> an organization while transferring into a LO, <strong>the</strong>
following dimensions should be considered and assessed: 1) Knowledge and learning strategy, 2)
Learning dynamics, 3) Organizational culture, 4) Technological infrastructure, 5) Organizational
structure, 6) Customers, partners and suppliers (external sources <strong>of</strong> knowledge), 7) Tacit and explicit
knowledge process, 8) Incentives based on collective learning , performance and sharing knowledge,
9) Continuous evaluation <strong>of</strong> KM benefits towards performance upgrading and 10) Leadership
supports.
The superiority <strong>of</strong> this framework is mainly in its integrated view in considering various dimensions
from both KM and LO perspectives when it makes a tight connection between <strong>the</strong>m.
One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main issues to continue <strong>the</strong> current research that focused on "what should be assessed in
an organization before transforming into LO form <strong>the</strong> KM point <strong>of</strong> view?" is to answer <strong>the</strong> question
86