You are on page 1of 18


Emerald Article: An Online Knowledge-Centred Framework for Faculty Support and Service Innovation Wu He, M'Hammed Abdous

Article information:
This is an EarlyCite pre-publication article: Wu He, M'Hammed Abdous, (2013),"An Online Knowledge-Centred Framework for Faculty Support and Service Innovation", VINE, Vol. 43 Iss: 1 (Date online 8/1/2013) Downloaded on: 14-01-2013 To copy this document:

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by GHEORGHE ASACHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit for more information. About Emerald With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

where he provides leadership and assistance to the Provost’s Office and to the Distance Learning office to (1) conceive. and faculty development to faculty members. this paper aims to help other faculty support organizations to improve their current knowledge management and support practices. cased-based Please check this box if you do not wish your email address to be published Acknowledgments (if applicable): n/a Biographical Details (if applicable): Wu He is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Information Technology and Decision Sciences at Old Dominion University. learning technologies integration. implement. Findings – This paper develops a knowledge-centred support (KCS) framework for faculty support and service innovation. Practical concerns and insights are provided to help other faculty support organizations adopt and .edu Corresponding author: Wu He Corresponding Author’s Email: whe@odu. and (2) manage and produce quality online programs and courses. As it proposes a knowledge-centred support (KCS) framework for faculty support and service innovation. The paper uses our experience to introduce the proposed framework. His research interests include knowledge management.An Online Knowledge-Centred Framework for Faculty Support and Service Innovation Author Details Author 1 Name: Wu He Role: Assistant Professor Department: Information Systems University/Institution: Old Dominion University Town/City: Norfolk State (US only): VA Country: USA Email: whe@odu. M’hammed Abdous is the Assistant Vice-President for Teaching and Learning with Technology and the Director of the Center for Learning and Teaching at Old Dominion University in Norfolk. Virginia. Design/methodology/approach – This paper shares our practical experience in implementing a knowledge-centred support approach for both faculty support and service innovation. multimedia production. and information technology education. at the University of Missouri. data mining. and evaluate processes for effectively integrating technology into teaching and learning practices. Structured Abstract: Purpose – This paper aims to share our experience gained while implementing a systematic knowledge-centred support approach to providing both support and service innovation within an organization whose mission is the offering of instructional design.D. Wu He received his Author 2 Name: M’Hammed Abdous Role: Assistant Vice-President for Teaching and Learning with Technology and the Director of the Center for Learning and Teaching Department: Center for Learning and Teaching University/Institution: Old Dominion University Town/City: Norfolk State (US only): VA Country: USA Email: mabdous@odu.

This paper shares our experience in this area and has the potential to inspire other faculty support organizations to examine. and improve their current practices. Originality/value – Few articles discuss how faculty support organizations can use knowledge management approaches to increase service quality and innovation. the framework may lack generalizability. Keywords: Knowledge management. rethink. This paper identifies such a shortage in the literature and can be used as a starting point to motivate other faculty support organizations to share their knowledge management experience for improving service quality and innovation. other faculty support organizations are encouraged to revise or to adapt our framework to suit their specific organizations’ cultures and goals.implement the framework. However. service quality. Practical implications – Increasing service quality and innovation are major concerns for many faculty support organizations. service innovation. faculty support. Research limitations/implications – Because the framework has been developed based on our organizational environment. We hope that our sharing of best practices can increase discussion about using knowledge management approaches to improve service quality and innovation among other faculty support organizations. knowledge-centred support. faculty development Article Classification: Conceptual Paper For internal production use only . Many faculty support organizations are exploring ways to provide a better service experience to faculty. using a knowledge management perspective.

An Online Knowledge-Centred Framework for Faculty Support and Service Innovation 1. and the need to avoid providing different answers to the same question. knowledge management is key to help companies to create and maintain a competitive advantage over time. and various other services (DarlingHammond. including the need to respond to faculty requests quickly. In addition. Ubon and Kimble. In response to these challenges. efficiency. Even though they are faced with budget pressures and growing demands for performance improvement and accountability in education. and increasing demand for services” (Custy. nearly 700 adjuncts. including “decreasing budgets. the need to answer the same questions over and over. As a support organization. research. educational institutions are seeking to understand how they can improve their management and administrative practices and procedures. to increase service innovation. and faculty development to a wide audience. As a result. teaching. Sohail and Daud. CLT encounters the same traditional issues faced by faculty support organizations. 2002. including nearly 800 faculty members (and their teaching assistants). 2003). learning. However. the teaching of the use of learning technologies. 2009). faculty members are being asked to become more involved in teaching. As a result. faculty are seeking more support from their universities in terms of faculty development and on-going support. 2001. the need to lower support costs. and to achieve competitive advantage (Lubit. and research. various KM initiatives and service innovation approaches have been implemented to help support organizations to improve their service performance. To this end. To succeed in this endeavour. Adams and Lamont. rising costs. and research purposes. some educational organizations have attempted to incorporate knowledge management practices to support their traditional triumvirate: education. multimedia production. and project managers. and accountability. 2009). Our review shows that few articles discuss the ways in which educational organizations have applied knowledge management practices within the faculty service support area. As these organizations realize that knowledge is a strategic resource capable of giving them a competitive advantage and helping them achieve long-term organizational goals. Chong. Ramachandran. Vander Linde. 2009. Introduction Today’s support organizations are facing a number of challenges. Facing similar external and internal pressures for effectiveness. The Center for Learning and Teaching (CLT) at our large US university is a faculty support service organization which houses a pool of experts including designers. an extensive review of the literature reveals that the majority of knowledge management articles in education are focused on learning. increasing complexity. technologists. As Lubit (2001) suggests. 2000. as . Knowledge is regarded as a vital asset and is the main source for the services provided to faculty by CLT. and Johnson. and more than 450 faculty administrators at this university for more than ten years. 2007). and Ismail. programmers. 2002. CLT has been providing a variety of services including instructional design. Kidwell. many educational organizations are seeking better ways to manage knowledge systematically and effectively. services. knowledge management practices have gained acceptance in the field of education over the past decade (Sallis and Jones. many forward-looking organizations are embracing knowledge management (KM) and service innovation.

1996). Malhotra. 2010. such as Ford and Texas Instruments. Nantapanuwat. 2004. this paper shares our experience of implementing a KMS to improve organizational performance and service innovation in a campus-level faculty support and service organization. 2011). only a small number of studies focus on the value and the effect of KM on organizations and organizational performance (Alavi and Leidner. In an effort to enrich the body of knowledge in this area. and Kaewkittipong. There is also a large gap in the literature regarding the interrelationship of knowledge management and service innovation (Hassan and Al-Hakim. Section 5 presents our conclusion and makes suggestions for future research. Hassan and Al-Hakim. 2003). 2010). Ractham. According to Thomas (2006) corporations that have implemented KMS have seen a wide range of outcomes ranging from enormous savings to significant losses. 2. innovation. as faculty need better support services to help them succeed in an environment of burgeoning competition in teaching and research. corporations. Thus. To meet these challenges. innovation is increasingly a requirement. Nantapanuwat. Ractham. occasionally a key staff member leaves and takes his/her knowledge with him/her. In particular. resolving issues and meeting faculty requests often becomes complicated and time-consuming. and organizational performance. In Section 3. and streamline knowledge while improving and ensuring quality service. and Kaewkittipong. which can threaten the maintenance of projects and the overall quality of service. Furthermore. knowledge management systems implementation has yielded mixed results. In contrast. many factors have been recognized to have an effect on organizational performance (Kaplan and Norton. The complexity and diversity of technology can increase the stress level/burnout of the staff providing the service support. the Center has invested heavily in developing a systematic approach to knowledge management by designing several web-based systems intended to create. These benefits include cost savings and improved efficiency (Bose. share. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a review of the literature in order to explore and identify the interrelationships between knowledge management. other researchers have reported that almost 70% of the surveyed knowledge management systems did not achieve the expected outcomes (Bose. Alavi and Leidner (2001) point out that limited empirical work has been done regarding knowledge management. update. Currently. As far as organizational performance is concerned. Case studies and empirical research that discuss the relationship between knowledge management and service innovation are rather limited. Literature Review . the paper describes a knowledge-centred support framework that has transformed faculty support and has enhanced service innovation. Therefore. Kruger and Johnson. have reaped the benefits of knowledge management systems (KMS). 2005. 2011). 2011). Among the first group. 2001. Outside of academia. it is difficult to measure the contributions of a factor such as KM in improving organizational performance. empirical evidence remains sparse regarding the implications for value creation through IT-supported knowledge management systems (Kautz and Mahnke. 2004. Section 4 describes the practical concerns and insights of implementing the framework for faculty support organizations.Page 2 of 14 technologies become increasingly complex and diverse.

and improving. transfer. the knowledge-centred support (KCS) methodology has received much attention in recent years. and Lee. and application (Alavi and Leidner. integrating. Successful implementation of knowledge management must fully understand the work processes or activities that create and leverage organizational knowledge. store. and 4) Reward learning. the KCS has evolved into a rich methodology which provides a set of practices for creating and maintaining knowledge and for implementing KM in a support environment (Service Innovation. many organizations have struggled with the implementation of KCS or KM. Morse. a non-profit industry alliance which comprises a number of support organizations. The word “innovation”. Innovation Innovation is very important to the survival and growth of any organization (Geroski and Machin. Over the course of five revisions. build a technology infrastructure to support knowledge capture. An innovation may also be perceived as “an interrelated bundle of new ideas” (Rogers.Page 3 of 14 Our literature review will give a brief overview about the concepts of knowledge management. A KMS is a system which captures knowledge and allows the knowledge to be applied at a variety of levels in organizations (Gallupe. 2) Evolve content based on demand and usage. and organizational culture” (Hassan and AlHakim. one of the . transfer. managing. These factors include “human resource management. organizational strategy. 2011) However. information technology. A KMS is typically used to manage organizational knowledge and to support the organizational process in terms of knowledge creation. has many definitions. 1997). and organizational performance. and apply knowledge” (Alavi and Leidner. and use. 2001). 2010). and about the interrelationships among the three concepts. Gilbert. leadership. creating. In addition. organizational structure. many factors also affect the success of KM implementation. innovation is concerned with the process of commercialising or extracting value from ideas. 2001). 2011). As a knowledge management framework. retrieve. 3) Develop a knowledge base of collective experience to date. An organization’s ability to learn and to acquire knowledge quickly in an ever-changing technical environment is believed to be its major source of competitive advantage (Winter. Long. 1995). organizational learning. the KCS has “four basic concepts: 1) Integrate the creation and maintenance of knowledge into the problem solving process. sharing. though. 2003). According to Rogers (1998). As knowledge is the key asset of support organizations. and maintaining knowledge is considered to be critical to the survival and success of support organizations. The KCS is a powerful method developed by the Consortium for Service Innovation™. and develop an organizational culture to support effective knowledge use (Alavi and Leidner. The adoption of one idea may trigger the adoption of others. 1999). According to Service Innovation™. 2001. Knowledge Management (KM) Knowledge Management (KM) is “a process used to create. 2011. According to Thomas Edison. In practice. many organizational KM initiatives have not realized the goals that they had set out to achieve (Bagchi. innovation. 1992). collaboration. storage/retrieval. 2007). transfer.” (Service Innovation.

2008. and allocating of resources and rewards” (Lin. and administrative innovation. an offering not previously available to a firm's customers). process. Uden and Naaranoja.” Hassan and Al-Hakim (2011) define organizational performance as the “integration between organizational knowledge and innovation competence to achieve positive goals that have been identified previously. van der Aa and Elfring. structuring of tasks. 2007). technological innovation. components. Innovation. 2011). internal business process perspective metrics.Page 4 of 14 greatest innovators in history. in terms of a new service potential. According to the balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton. Gloet and Terziovski (2004) distinguish between radical and incremental innovation. Chen.” Service innovation is defined as “a company's new service offering beyond its usual service (i. and performance measurements of business organizations. it is the process of growing that idea into practical use” (Tidd and Bessant. 2008). For service organizations. in order to measure organizational performance. and techniques with processes in order to create a product or service” (Popadiuk and Choo.e. Incremental innovation is defined as “the small technological changes in an organization which extend or modify existing products or services” (Darroch and McNaughton. innovation processes. “innovation is more than simply coming up with a good idea. 1996. For example. and/or result” (Burrill and Ledolter. Roberts. 3) have visible innovation champions at all levels. 2) have developed an innovation culture. customer perspective metrics. aimed at improving internal business processes and structures and to create market driven products and services. and learning and growth perspective metrics” (Kaplan and Norton. and organizational sectors (Hassan and Al-Hakim. 2007. based on environmental conditions. (2009) have identified three types of innovations: “service innovation. Technological innovation is “the knowledge that links methods.” Innovation can be classified into many types. and Organizational Performance . including the authority.” To compare the expected results with the actual results. and Chiu. Successfully innovative organizations usually: 1) have solid innovation processes. organizational factors. strategy.. 2011). and 4) use a mix of internal and external knowledge sources (Andersen and Queck. showing how well activities within a process or the outputs of a process achieve a specific goal. 1996) which is used extensively to align business activities to the vision. 2011). 2002). organizational performance is “a vital sign of the organization. du Plessis. Interrelationship of Knowledge Management. 2006). du Plessis (2007) has defined innovation as “the creation of new knowledge and ideas to facilitate new business outcomes. Radical innovation is “a major change that represents a new technological pattern” (Pedersen and Dalum. Administrative innovation refers to “changes in organizational structure and processes. Organizational Performance According to Pitt and Tucker (2008). 2004). 2010). Damanpour et al. 2003. Visser and Sluiter. a number of metrics have been developed. 1998. Recently. recruiting of personnel. these metrics can be generally grouped into four major sections: “financial perspective metrics.

The success of Apple Inc. Egbu et al. Generally. Previous studies have shown that there is a strong relationship between critical success factors of KM (such as human resource management. 1996) also indicates that an organization's ability to innovate. and information technology (some of the critical success factors of KM) have positive effects on organizational performance. 2002. and Singh (2009) found that “KM practices showed a direct relationship with the intermediate measures of organizational performance. A recent survey study by Rahimi. Uden and Naaranoja (2011) conclude that innovation and knowledge management are closely related. Magnusson. and Kristensson. organizational learning. a number of previous studies have agreed that innovation has a positive effect on performance (Akgün. They found that KM helps to promote creativity for innovation. Keskin. where knowledge is created) (Levinthal and March 1993). which is used for faculty support and service innovation. Hassan and Al-Hakim.e. and Brand. 2011). and Eng. and organizational performance showed a significant and direct relationship to financial performance. Uden and Naaranoja (2011) indicate that the use of knowledge management can enhance exploitation (i. Allameh. and Aghababaei (2011) also found that there is a positive and significant relationship between KM and creativity.e. where existing knowledge is captured. the authors examined the practices and systems used by CLT during . structure. Byrne. knowledge and innovation are inseparable. Matthing. leadership. information technology.. Furthermore. in the past several years demonstrates that innovation is central to organizational performance. Innovation depends intensively on the availability of knowledge. Carmen. and learn ties directly to its performance. Thus. Exploration through knowledge sharing supports the development of new ideas and solutions and is critical to any organization’s ability to innovate. 2008). improve. McKeen. Figure 1 depicts our knowledge-centred support (KCS) framework. A Knowledge-centred Support Framework for Faculty Support and Service Innovation Since service quality and service innovation are considered by service organizations to be important factors both in creating a positive user experience and in improving user satisfaction (Brady.. and deployed in other similar situations) and exploration (i. organizational structure and organizational culture) and organizational performance (Asoh et al. (1999) found that KM can promote innovation and improve business performance in the construction industry. Arbabisarjou. CLT works hard to study and absorb best practices in order to improve the quality of its service and to enhance service innovation for continued success. to develop this framework. Specifically. 2009. (2009) found that culture.” As for the relationship between innovation and organizational performance. The balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton. Zack. 2007. The framework was developed based on KCS methodology and on our many years of authentic experience in providing support services to faculty. 2003). Exploitation can help reduce the problem of reinventing the wheel by reusing existing knowledge more effectively. and José. it can be noted that knowledge management competencies and capacities are essential to any organization that aspires to be innovative. For example. organizational strategy. Yang et al. knowledge management (KM) is important to innovation.Page 5 of 14 According to Uden and Naaranoja (2011). Cronin. transferred. 3.

The research process involves creating new knowledge. and empowers all staff members to create. All of the support requests from faculty by email. and reuse knowledge. 2009). in a self-service format. Faculty submit their project requests to CLT for review. we have developed a knowledge base to store our collective support knowledge earned while addressing faculty needs to date. designated CLT staff members also conduct data mining and content analysis on the support requests and the project information stored in the web-based faculty request tracking system and in the project management system on a regular basis to discover patterns. a team of CLT staff members is assigned to the project and is responsible for its execution and completion. During this process. In general. he or she can check the knowledge base to see if there is an article or solution about this type of request or situation. And lastly. share. staff members are actively engaged in knowledge creation and application. In essence. Feedback is being collected to continuously refine the framework. INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE To better meet the variety of requests from faculty and to ensure continuous service improvement. CLT has implemented and integrated the KCS into its day-to-day operations. and a web-based knowledge base have been developed and deployed to capture. then the staff member does research to resolve the problem independently or by collaborating with others. large-scale projects. The content in the knowledge base has been evolving and growing and provides an effective means of solving problems and offering self-service. The newly created knowledge is also recorded into the knowledge base. and face-to-face talk have been recorded by CLT staff using a web-based faculty request tracking system. CLT is involved in a variety of efforts. If the staff member cannot find anything pertinent to the support request within the knowledge base. Meanwhile. and verifying knowledge. sharing knowledge. As a result. share. Once a project is approved. A number of tools including a web-based faculty contact tracking system. a web-based project management system. then the staff member can easily address the support request. modify. depending on the demand and usage. This new knowledge can be stored in the knowledge base and shared with other staff members (Abdous and He. When a staff member receives a support request. new knowledge can be created or discovered. A description of the framework is offered below.Page 6 of 14 the past six years. and reuse support knowledge. small-scale projects to complex. we capture all of the support requests as well as relevant knowledge or solutions for answering faculty requests at all times through the faculty request tracking system. maintain. who can now look for answers at their convenience. If a relevant article or solution is found in the knowledge base. insights. the knowledge base has also made support knowledge available to faculty members. the framework summarizes the way CLT creates and shares knowledge. These requests are also categorized and organized by staff to facilitate online retrieval and reporting. and has worked well at CLT. telephone. This framework is the key to effective problem solving and service innovation in support organizations. The self- . and issues. All of the knowledge in the knowledge base has been verified and is regularly updated to ensure the quality of the content. ranging from simple. Within the framework. continuously creates new services.

The development of such an open culture needs multi-level support. the framework must be implemented in an . the organizational structure. Based on our experience. in an organization that supports innovation. “satisfaction with the quality of the project” received a 4. Barriers that prevent successful implementation of KM must be identified. The performance of an organization depends upon how effectively its people can create and share knowledge around the organization. This web-based self-service offering provides a valuable support channel to faculty. including leadership commitment. and how effectively they can use that knowledge. 2008b). and Aghababaei. These results show that the implementation of the knowledge-centred support framework at CLT has achieved good outcomes. 2006). and innovation (Kamath.Page 7 of 14 service element of the knowledge base has also lowered the cost of support and has saved staff time in supporting faculty requests. to increase service innovation capability. use. the main barrier for the successful implementation of KM is related to knowledge sharing and creation (He. in order to make knowledge sharing a reality (Uden and Naaranoja. it is critical to have an open culture that encourages knowledge sharing. 2001). reviewed. and addressed (Alavi and Leidner. The knowledge-centred support framework provides distinct benefits to CLT as it offers support to the faculty. To enable and to accelerate service innovation. 2011). 2007). and Lin. and to offer new services to faculty. 2011). and the technologies used are related to the success of KM implementation in organizations. not many of them are considered to have been successful in their KM effort (Rahimi. Allameh. including the teachBANK (its teaching and learning repository). Thus. 2008a). supervisor and co-worker support. Means. promotes dialogue in the workplace. The implementation of a knowledge-centred support framework such as the one described above is not easy and requires a supportive environment and a culture that explicitly supports and recognizes knowledge sharing. In March 2011. an online course development system (Abdous and He. and incentives (Kulkarni. Overall. and a syllabus generator (Abdous and He. employees who share specialized knowledge and bring new ideas and experiences should be recognized and rewarded. CLT polled faculty members about their overall satisfaction with CLT services. 4. processes. and supports innovation. in a controlled and managed way.70 rating. the values and actions of top management. and technologies are aligned to effectively support the management of organizational knowledge. creation. on a rising Likert scale of 1 to 5. it is important to ensure that people. Faculty members are able to obtain immediate assistance. 2011). As KM implementation is an investment that needs extensive resources and effort. Particularly. from the content in the knowledge base. and the “effort and willingness of the CLT staff to understand and solve problems” earned a 4. Arbabisarjou.75 rating. CLT is able to leverage its newly available knowledge capacity. Rodrigues and Desai. Practical Concerns and Insights of Implementing the Framework Although many organizations have implemented KM. strategic approaches. It enables CLT to increase its support capacity and to improve the faculty’s satisfaction. Ravindran and Freeze. Martins (2000) found that certain environmental circumstances. With the implementation of the knowledge-centred support framework. at all times.

Both a summary of best practices and an analysis of current practices need to be provided to the staff so that they can understand any gaps and the targeted goal. 5. we recommend using a request tracking system to document faculty needs and to manage dialogue with faculty at all times. Thus. As knowledge sharing is important to innovation. To that end. Conclusions and Future Research The importance of managing organizational knowledge and innovation processes has long been recognized (Paiva and Fensterseifer. To sustain long-term service innovation. 2006. Uden and Naaranoja. During the planning phase. the Director of the CLT has been committed to the encouragement of knowledge sharing. Policies such as accountability. 2002. For example. and Lin. The sessions are usually facilitated by staff members who want to share specialized knowledge. an instructional technology specialist recently offered an idea for interactive informational kiosk. In addition.Page 8 of 14 environment conducive for innovation to take place. To offer a practical roadmap for other faculty support organizations. top management must encourage individual learning and personal growth. responsibilities. . On the other hand. 1. we suggest the following steps for implementing the framework presented in Figure 1. solutions. Magnusson (2003) found that the service innovations suggested by users were more creative and useful than those suggested by professionals. performance review. techniques. His idea received support from CLT and the kiosk. The Director of CLT continues to encourage innovative thinking on the part of staff members. it is important to engage both faculty and support staff in continuous dialogue in order to co-develop solutions through a knowledge exchange of needs and ideas (Uden & Naaranoja. the key is to find an effective balance between exploiting their organizational capability and exploring new technologies. and is now widely used. oftentimes it is not easy to implement what the users demand. the suggestions of the professionals were deemed easier to produce (Magnusson. CLT offers 5-10 faculty innovation grants each year to encourage faculty members to work with CLT to develop new ideas. and products for teaching and learning. Means. Staff members are asked to provide topics for knowledge sharing and professional development sessions on a regular basis. For example. was developed and deployed. During the implementation phase. and innovative ideas. However. 2011). the top management of faculty support organizations must clarify expectations with the staff in order to gain their buy-in and participation (He. 2. 2006. roles. The recorded requests from faculty can be integrated with other faculty-related systems to provide a rich data set for data analysis and data-driven decision making. 2006). Nonaka. Staff members who come up with new ideas often receive support with resources and time release to further develop their ideas. workload. a knowledge sharing culture needs to be created to promote close collaboration among staff members and between staff members and faculty. and they are also recognized and rewarded. 2003). Some of these grant ideas and products have been implemented and disseminated across the entire campus. Kangas. rewards. and recognition should be discussed and established with the involvement of the staff.

M. In the paper. Journal of Knowledge Management. The literature concludes that knowledge-centred support and service innovation are critical to the success of support organizations. H. Future work will focus on the further identification of obstacles to service innovations and will explore the role of informal knowledge sharing in service innovation as well as the effect of service innovation on service performance. (2009). “Knowledge management systems and developing sustainable competitive advantage". G. A.. CLT also plans to expand its effort in using social media to encourage and enable multiple-level interaction and collaboration aimed at developing ideas. “Using text mining to support learning in live video streaming”. and He. This paper describes the real-time experiences of a campus faculty support organization that has successfully implemented and integrated knowledge-centred support in its day-to-day operations. an extensive search on the Internet and across academic databases shows that few articles discuss the ways in which faculty support organizations have used knowledge management approaches to increase their service quality and innovation. Akgün. 40(5). and Lamont. sharing knowledge. pp. 40-49. pp. solving problems. (2003). 9(2). W. References Abdous. Keskin. and Byrne. pp. 7(2). “Streamlining Online Course Development Process by Using Project Management Tools”. fine-tune. 541-550. M. a knowledge-centred support framework for faculty support and service innovation is validated with evidence from a faculty support organization and is presented in order to provide guidance and inspiration to other similar support organizations. (2009). W. “A Design Framework for Syllabus Generator”. Journal of .. Abdous. In particular. Abdous. British Journal of Educational Technology. And CLT would also like to find ways to further enrich its knowledge base and thus improve the rate at which faculty use self-service before they request person-to-person assistance. (2008b). W. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. E. Adams. This paper notes this shortage in the literature and as attempts to provide a starting point that will motivate other faculty support organizations to share their knowledge management experiences regarding the improvement of service quality and innovation. (2008a). “Organizational emotional capability. It is important for service organizations to improve the quality of existing services and to develop new services constantly in order to gain a competitive advantage.. 19(4). pp. and improving responsiveness and innovation productivity. J. and He.142154.Page 9 of 14 2011).. M. 2011). product and process innovation. Few empirical studies are conducted to determine the effects of KM and innovation on improving organizational performance (Hassan and Al-Hakim. and firm performance: An empirical analysis”. in the hope that it will stimulate them to follow. Journal of Interactive Learning Research.. . and expand this framework. B.181-188. and He.

413-434. Belardo. (2004). 46. Bagchi. L. 2.F. S. challenges and benefits”. pp. and José. 27 (Sept-Oct). R. (2007). D. “President Obama and education: The possibility for dramatic improvements in teaching and learning”. Custy. No. 103-130. 28-38. Industrial Management & Data Systems. Vol. (2002). 25(1) 107-136. N. Issue 4.. "Service innovation in the Facility Management industry".. Journal of Management Studies. (2009). pp. “The role of technological and organizational innovation in the relation between market orientation and performance in cultural organizations. 3..W. “Performance-only measurement of service quality: a replication and extension”.pdf (accessed 12 December 2011). 104(6). M. P. D.pdf (accessed 12 April 2012) Asoh. (2009). Communication of AIS. C. 79(2). New York. M. Harvard Educational Review. and Ledolter. J..hdine.” European Journal of Innovation Management. M. available at http://www. Darling-Hammond. 55(1). D. pp. NY. 11.” International Journal of Knowledge Management.aspector. No. 2008. Wiley. pp. No. Achieving Quality Through Continual Improvement. Journal of Business Research. Bose. _Services_Aspector.J. . J. and Leidner. Vol.nsf/787fcab204c2c5f0852572a900569257/$FILE/Jo hnCustyHDI. and Crnkovic. “Knowledge Management Metrics”. 650-675. “Knowledge management System: Issues.K. (2008).A. “Assessing Knowledge management: Refining and Cross Validating the Knowledge management Index Using SEM Techniques. 26. Vol. Andersen. “Combinative Effects of Innovation Types and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Service Organizations”. J. J. Carmen. Alavi. 210223. and Queck. 2009. 3. (2001). pp. Burrill. C. Brady. 3. In Asia Pacific Tech Monitor. R. and Brand. M. and Avellaneda. F. (2010). “Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues”. pp. “Innovation and Knowledge Framework for SME Competitiveness: Case Study of SMEs in a Pharmaceutical Industry Cluster”. MIS Quarterly. Cronin.. (1999). G. (2007). Vol. (2011). 1-30. available at http://www. and Leidner.R. 1(7). Damanpour.K.N.Page 10 of 14 Engineering and Technology Management. 2007. pp. ISS White paper. Alavi. “Knowledge Centred Support & ITIL”. C. 17-31. (1998).

“Do innovating firms outperform non innovators?”. “Exploring the Relationship Between Knowledge Management Practices and Innovation Performance”. pp. Vol. 61-77. J. (2006).6. (2006). 95-103. Educational Technology & Society. (2011). Business Strategy Review. Innovation and Organizational Performance: A Conceptual Framework”. 402-409.” International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning. 3/4. Means. B. Gan. Gloet. pp. pp. Vol I. pp. Summer. 2(2). W. M. “Learning From Knowledge Management and Trans-organisational Innovations in Project Management Environments”.K. 137-151. Egbu C. .. S. and Machin. P. vol. P.. pp. 11(4). and Terziovski. Y. J. Z. (Ed. Indonesia. and Desai. P. 15(5). T. 2011.). Hassan. (2003). Kangas. and McNaughton. available at http://www. and Al-Hakim. and Lin. Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM). in Proceedings of 2011 International Conference on Management and Artificial Intelligence. & Bates. “The Role of Top Management in Using Knowledge Management as a Tool for Innovation – A System Dynamics Perspective”. “Beyond market orientation – Knowledge management and the innovativeness of New Zealand firms”. London. A. European Journal of Marketing. He. Bali. Gilbert. du Plessis. M. G. 2003. Journal of Knowledge Management. pp. IACSIT Press. Geroski. (2007). U. V. Kamath. “A Learning Framework for Knowledge Building and Collective Wisdom Advancement in Virtual Learning Communities”.P. Gallupe.Page 11 of 14 Darroch. M. Liverpool. R.techrepublic. “The relationship between organizational culture and innovations in KM”. in Hughes. WCE 2011. (accessed 21 December 2011). UK. (1999). (2007). (2011). 572-593. (2001). M. “Enhancing IT Support with Knowledge Management”. A. 79-90. 20-29. 206-226. (1992). in Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering. L. 15-17 September. W. July 6-8.. S. “Knowledge Management Systems: Surveying the Landscape”. (2007).. L. John Moore’s University. pp. 3(1). pp. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.. R. Morse. (2004). 10 (1). “The role of knowledge management in innovation”. “Tracking and Managing Field Experiences in Teacher Development Programs. Rodrigues. B.. and Lee. & Zhu. 37. International Journal of Management Reviews. Sturgesand.. “The Relationships among Critical success factors of Knowledge Management.

Kautz. R.. pp. Lin.J.D. MA. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. J. Long. D. EDUCAUSE Leadership Series #3. R. 1. “Benefits of involving users in service innovation". 48(2). 12(3). 6 Iss: 4. Organizational Dynamics. 265-295.’’ Journal of Service Research. R. L. K.228 – 238. (2007). P. No. Matthing. H. Leila.. P. Information Alchemy: The Art and Science of Knowledge Management. D. Vol. J. and March.R. Levinthal. K.R. pp.providersedge. 309-347. McCarthy. Vol.D. and Johnson. “Customer relationship management and innovation capability: an empirical study. The Journal of Computer Information Systems.110.. Chen. "Building the Knowledge-Based Organization: How Culture Drives Knowledge Behavior". pp.. Ravindran. 121-136. 75-88. and Aronson. pp. pp. Jossey-Bass. pp. Strategic Management Journal. K. K. pp.A. . Kruger.R. “An empirical investigation of knowledge management systems success”. “A Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Development and Empirical Validation”. 14. Informing Science. R.C. S.Page 12 of 14 International Journal of Educational Management.. “The keys to sustainable competitive advantage: Tacit knowledge and knowledge management”. R.M. H. Magnusson. Kulkarni. 1-24. 23(3). (Ed).W. Journal of Management Information Systems. Kidwell.. 6 (11). S. and Chiu. Vander Linde. and Freeze.. R. “Applying Corporate Knowledge Management Practices in Higher Education”.‘‘Managing User Involvement in Service Innovation. (2003). (2001). Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation. Kaplan. Boston. San Francisco.. 29(4).. V. and Norton. (2003). D. available at http://www. (2001). "Is there a correlation between knowledge management maturity and organizational performance?". Harvard Business School Press. P.. G. U.” Industrial Management and Data Systems. 41(3). 95-112. “Value creation through IT-supported knowledge management? The utilisation of a knowledge management system in a global consulting company”. R.. (1996). and Mahnke. (2011). 111-133. 212-220. Working Paper.111-24.pdf (accessed 22 December 2011) Lubit. European Journal of Innovation Management. J. (2010). (2007). “The myopia of learning”. The Balanced Scorecard. Magnusson. 6. (1993). (2003). J. S. and Johnson. and Kristensson. (1997).. pp. in Bernbom.

and Aghababaei. (2008).. Knowledge.M. pp.. A. 9-12. P. 31-39. 2006. "The practice of knowledge management processes: A comparative study of public and private higher education institutions in Malaysia". N. “Relationship between organizational culture and creativity”. Y. H. E. US. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. R. (2011). Popadiuk... and Ismail. “Integrating Knowledge Management Technologies in Organizational Business Processes: Getting Real Time Enterprises to Deliver Real Business Performance”. Pedersen. Paiva. and Tucker. Journal of Knowledge Management. “The Integration of Service Innovation Into an Existing Model for Volume and Variety. “An Investigation of the Determinants of Knowledge Management Systems Success in Banking Industry”.” Working Paper. (2006). No.M. and Management. S. S. (2005). 6. Diffusion of Innovations. S. “The Definition and Measurement of Innovation. M. (2003). E. “Focusing information in manufacturing: KM perspective”. 5th ed. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information. 9(1). VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. L..” Property Management. (2006).. W. pp. 71. M. Ramachandran. M. and Choo. (2002). M. C. 102(7). Vol. Pretoria. (2009). Bocconi University. Pitt. Industrial Management & Data Systems. London. “Performance measurement in facilities management: driving innovation?. International Journal of Information Management. MLNF dissertation. University of South Africa. In Proceeding of the 10th International Schumpeter Society Conference. Vol. The University of Melbourne. and Kaewkittipong L.Page 13 of 14 Malhotra. 302-312. 26. I. J. 2008. pp. (2004). E. D. S.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rogers. C. Nantapanuwat. 26. Milan. Ractham. C. 2004. “Relationship between Knowledge Management Process and Creativity among Faculty Members in the University”. H. (2000). New York. (2010). 588-595. Engineering and Technology. Arbabisarjou.. Martins. Roberts. B. World Academy of Science. “Innovation and knowledge creation: how are these concepts related?”. Free Press. (2008). Rogers. Chong. and Dalum. pp.C. pp. pp. E.203-222. 17-33. (1998). 4. Vol. Oxford University Press. and Fensterseifer. pp. The knowledge creating company. 7-28. Rahimi. pp. Vol. 2008. D. Allameh. 39 Iss: 3.. . Nonaka. “Incremental Versus Radical Change – The Case of the Digital North Denmark Programme”. Vol. UK. 241-254. October 1998.

(Ed. Tidd.pdf (accessed at 21 April 2012) Ubon. in Montgomery. pp. Vol. “Four Rs of Profitability: Rents. Norwell. (2006).serviceinnovation. and Uden. (Eds. E. S. "Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions: Perspectives from Malaysia". S. “Knowledge management enablers in liner shipping. No. K. Kluwer. Service Innovation (2011). . McKeen. Vol. Zack. M.pdf (accessed 15 December 2011) Sohail. P. In IEEE Africon 2007 Proceedings.Page 14 of 14 Sallis. Uden. A. and Jones. G.392-409.125 – 142. Resources. (2011). (2009). Vol. E. 465-473. Managing Innovation. (2002).(2008). Marlow. Kogan Page. “Knowledge Management in Online Distance Education”. 13 Iss: 6. 147-178. Journal of Knowledge Management. and Elfring. in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference Networked Learning 2002. (2009). Vol. L. 18 No.. S. C. Resource-Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis. and Sluiter. and Daud.155-71. C.. (2002). C. L. J. University of Sheffield. Knowledge Management in Education. pp. and Replications”. "Knowledge management and organizational performance: an exploratory analysis". and Bessant. (2009). (1995). Scandinavian Journal of Management.2. UK. C. Innovative Knowledge Management: Concepts for Organizational Creativity and Collaborative Design. "Innovation – what it is and why it matters". (2007).. pp. T. 2009. Routines.). B. and Singh. van der Aa.J. available at http://media. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. W. pp. 39 Iss: 2. Visser. A. pp.A. available at http://www. B. “Performance Measures for a Telecommunications Company”. and Naaranoja. (2002). Thomas. J. Yang. S. Unpublished dissertation. and Lu. Winter.” Transportation Research Part E.). in Eardley.D. 45. March 2002. “Knowledge Management and Innovation”. G. C. N. J. pp. “Realizing innovation in services”. 2. Texas Tech University. "Knowledge-Centered Support PRACTICES GUIDE". and Kimble. 893-903.. MA. 300-318.. “An Empirical Investigation Of Factors Promoting Knowledge Management System Success”. S. London.

A knowledge-centred support framework for faculty support and service innovation .Figure 1.