Preface for the Third Edition - Read

576 C. State of Practice
tions and the handling of types of contents as well as the funding of KM (independent
variables). As mentioned above 147 , there is not much knowledge about these
relationships yet. Thus, the relationships will be explored in order to generate some
propositions which can be tested in subsequent studies.
Table C-54 shows a summary of correlation analysis of the variables describing
a KM initiative with the estimation of success, measured as the estimated general
support of business goals. The correlation coefficient, the significance and the
number of cases included in the statistical test (n) are shown for every variable. All
in all, 24 correlation tests were performed. The adjusted significance level using a
Bonferroni type correction was 0.0042 148 .
Generally, none of the relationships between variables assessing the organizational
design of a KM initiative or the organizational culture were found significant
on the adjusted significance level. This can be at least partly attributed to the
small set of organizations that had responded to all the questions involved. However,
the correlation coefficients were quite high, especially in the case of the rate
of KM activity, and suggest that the influences of the organizational design on the
success of a KM initiative should be tested in a bigger sample of organizations. In
the following, the tendencies suggested by the signs of the correlation analysis will
be discussed. These tendencies are limited to the sample of organizations tested
here and thus cannot be generalized.
Organizations with a formal organizational design for KM showed the expected
tendency to estimate the general support of business goals by KM higher than organizations
with an informal design. The results concerning the relationship between
the reporting level of the head of KM and the support of business goals in the sample
contradict the suggestion that the higher the head of KM is institutionalized in
the organization’s hierarchy, the more business goals are supported.
One explanation for this tendency in the sample might be that the higher-ranked
heads of KM were closer to the process of developing business goals in their organizations.
Thus, they might have been more critical in their judgements of the
impact of KM on business goals. Once again, it has to be noted, though, that the
results only show tendencies, but are not statistically significant.
Organizations with a higher level of decentrality of KM 149 estimated on average
a higher positive impact of KM on business goals. Thus, those responding organizations
with a decentral design of their KM function seemed to profit more directly
with respect to business goals. One explanation might be that a decentral assignment
of responsibility leads to KM activities that are closely tied to serve real business
needs.
147. See section 8.5 - “Résumé” on page 428.
148. See section ‘Statistical analysis.” on page 455 for an explanation of the Bonferroni type
correction. Correlations were limited to the general support of business goals because a
correlation of all individual goals would have given a matrix of 24 X 11. The number of
cases would have been much too low to provide for any statistically significant results.
149. For a definition see section 13.1.3 - “Knowledge management tasks and roles” on
page 498.