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

Harold Harlow
The independent variable, knowledge strategy, was operationalized and a summation developed
based on <strong>the</strong> following four main areas: (1) Capability <strong>of</strong> sharing both internal and external
knowledge; (2) Ability to measure <strong>the</strong> sharing <strong>of</strong> that knowledge electronically; (3) Rewards for
sharing knowledge; (4) Use <strong>of</strong> information systems that provide a competitive advantage in sharing
knowledge.
The research was based on <strong>the</strong> assumptions that <strong>the</strong> firm knowledge management strategy deployed
a system <strong>of</strong> both explicit and tacit knowledge management methods to positively affect firm innovation
and financial performance. This includes various methods <strong>of</strong> KM that are tacit and not technology
based, such as teaming, master craftsman, communities <strong>of</strong> practice, experting, and collaboration.
The explicit methods in <strong>the</strong> research includes <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> technology-based methods such as e-mail
data-mining, digital databases, capturing lessons learned digitally, use <strong>of</strong> groupware, technology for
Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing/Computer Aided Engineering, content
capture, expertise capture and written processes and procedures. The main hypo<strong>the</strong>sis <strong>of</strong> this
research is as follows:
Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis 1-There is a positive relationship between firms that have a knowledge
strategy and innovation and financial outcomes.
Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis 2-There is a positive association between <strong>the</strong> Tacit Knowledge Index (TKI)
and Firm Outcomes.
Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis 3-There is a positive relationship between firms that have a knowledge
strategy and innovation and financial outcomes.
The following Table 2 presents <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> prior research on <strong>the</strong> tacitness <strong>of</strong> various knowledge
management methods based on an experts test (Harlow 2008):
Table 2: Industry Experts Tacit Scoring <strong>of</strong> KM Methods-Group 1 vs. Group 2
Group Group Mean Means Std Dev Std Dev Std Dev
KM Method 1 2 1&2 Difference Difference Group 1 Group 2
Collaboration 4.83 4.67 4.75 -0.17 -0.07 0.52 0.44
Communities 4.83 4.67 4.75 -0.17 -0.07 0.52 0.44
Experting 4.67 4.33 4.50 -0.33 -0.15 0.82 0.67
Teaming
Master
4.17 3.83 4.00 -0.33 -0.20 0.75 0.56
Craftsman 4.33 4.67 4.50 0.33 -0.07 0.52 0.44
CRM 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 -0.23 0.89 0.67
Lessons 3.83 4.00 3.92 0.17 -0.23 0.89 0.67
Data-mining
Digital
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 -0.23 0.89 0.67
Databases 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.00 -0.05 0.55 0.50
Groupware
Written
1.33 1.50 1.42 0.17 -0.05 0.55 0.50
Procedures 1.83 1.83 1.83 0.00 -0.20 0.75 0.56
Technology Use 1.67 1.67 1.67 0.00 -0.15 0.82 0.67
Content Capture
Written
1.50 2.17 1.83 0.67 -0.15 0.98 0.83
Processes
Capture
2.83 3.17 3.00 0.33 -0.20 0.75 0.56
Expertise 4.00 4.17 4.08 0.17 -0.20 0.75 0.56
These tacit ratings were used in <strong>the</strong> prior research (Harlow 2008) to develop a tacit knowledge index
score based on use. The highest tacit rated methods were collaboration (4.8), master craftsman (4.8)
and communities <strong>of</strong> practice (4.7). Teaming was rated lower (4.3) which was unexpected. The
resultant TKI variable was one that combined <strong>the</strong> expert’s tacitness (TK) measurement with <strong>the</strong> usage
at each firm to arrive at <strong>the</strong> TKI for <strong>the</strong> firm.
419