Preface for the Third Edition - Read

574 C. State of Practice
pared with each other e.g., to reveal trends due to the fact that the samples and
questions differed substantially from each other.
Most of the answers seem to suggest the paradox that those organizational variables
are unsuited for KM which should be changed or implemented with the help
of a KM approach: e.g., lack of visibility of existing knowledge and knowledge
needed, lack of skills in KM techniques, lack of reward systems, lack of an information
and communication infrastructure suitable for KM, lack of a supportive
corporate culture or unsuited organizational structures.
TABLE C-53. Summary of empirical results about barriers to KM
barrier Bullinger
et al.
1997
Delphi
1997 KPMG
1998 a
a. strongly/somewhat agree
b. h means highly important; m refers to medium important
Jäger/
Straub
1999
scarcity of time 70.1% 49.0% h b : 47.6%
m: 47.6%
lack of awareness/understanding
of need of KM
organizational culture/
employees do not accept
KM
lack of (senior) management
support
too much effort/lack of
funding
organization’s ICT infrastructure
unsuited
immature ICT/problems
in selecting ICT
employees unable/unwilling
to share knowledge
too much knowledge/too
much specialization
Döring/
Trojan
2000
KPMG
2001
All in all, it seems that there is a definite need for instruments improving the
organizations’ way of handling knowledge. However, many respondents doubt that
KM will be successful in this respect. Reasons for these doubts might be that
there is too much emphasis on technical rather than personal issues in KM initiatives,
substantial benefits can only be expected in the long run,
65%
67.7% 40.0% h: 45.8%
m: 33.3%
53.0% 50.4% 31%
24.0% h: 44.0%
m: 40.0%
9.0% 24.0% h: 29.2%
m: 50.0%
h: 26.1%
m: 52.2%
20.0% 25.1%
16.0% h: 20.0%
m: 56.0%
14.0% h: 4.8%
m: 62.4%
28%
44%
62%