You are on page 1of 11

World appl. programming, Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014. pp.

161-171

TI Journals

World Applied Programming


www.tijournals.com

ISSN:
2222-2510
Copyright 2014. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Applying Logarithmic Fuzzy Preference Programming and


VIKOR for Ranking the Solutions of Knowledge
Management Based on Critical Success Factors
Elham Ebrahimi *1, Reza Avazpour 2, Mohammad Reza Fathi 3
1

PhD Candidate of Human Resource Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


M.S of Management, Faculty of Human Sciences, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
3
PhD Candidate of Industrial Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding author: elhebrahimi@ut.ac.ir
2

ARTICLE IN FO

ABSTRACT

Keywords:

The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework based on the Fuzzy Multiple
Criteria Decision Making (FMCDM) approach for ranking Knowledge
Management (KM) solutions to gain Critical Success Factors (CSFs) of a KM
project implementation. For achieving this goal, first the CSFs in the KM field are
recognized through the comprehensive survey of the relevant literature. The LFPP
method is then applied to determine weights of the CSFs as criteria. Finally
VIKOR method is used in order to rank the solutions of KM adoption as
alternatives. Implementing this framework is demonstrated in a real case
involving an Iranian company in the field of electric power and energy industry.
The proposed framework helps the company to focus on high rank solutions and
develop strategies to implement them on priority.

Knowledge Management
Critical Success Factors
LFPP
VIKOR

1. Introduction
In today's globally competitive environment, organizations need to manage their resources in order to gain
competitive advantage. An important role of knowledge management is creating sustainable competitive advantage
for organizations (Tseng, 2011). After appearance of knowledge economy, knowledge has become not only a strategic
asset but also the main source of organizational competitive advantage (Wang & Chang, 2007). In fact knowledge is
the intangible resource which enables organizations to learn things, reserve their valuable heritage, and solve their
problems and the most important, to create core competitive advantage (Liao, 2002). KM considers knowledge as the
main asset and manages it in a systematic way in order to achieve the goal of increasing company's performance and
competitiveness (Patil & Kant, 2013). Defining knowledge management is not easy because includes several
different activities, such as collecting, analyzing, storing, disseminating and utilizing data in the organization
(Lancioni & Chandran, 2009). Quintas, Lefrere and Jones (1997) expressed that KM is to discover, develop, utilize,
deliver, and absorb knowledge from inside and outside the organization by an effective management process to meet
organization's current and future needs. Kazemi and Zafar Allahyari (2010) defined KM as a process through which
organizations extract value from their intellectual assets. In order to successfully KM implementation, a wide range of
studies have provided several critical factors involving top management and executive management support,
continues improvement, technology, culture, human resource management, time, measurement, cost and so on.
However these critical success factors are all significant, a same CSF may be differently important to different firms
due to their varied priorities; purposes, strategies resources, and capabilities in KM implementation. Therefore, firms
should determine the relative importance of these CSFs. Since specifying the weights of CSFs is a qualitative decision
making problem, it involves the vagueness of human judgments. Thus it is better to apply an effective method which
can deal with the vague judgments of individuals. The fuzzy set theory is a mathematical way which can handle the
vagueness in decision-making (Wu, 2012). After determining the relative weights of CSFs, organizations can
prioritize the solutions to achieve effective KM implementing. It is important to prioritize these solutions so that
organizations could develop appropriate strategies to implement these solutions in a stepwise manner. Ranking KM
solutions based on CSFs is also an MCDM problem with human judgments. Thus in this case we apply a fuzzy
MCDM method too. This study utilizes LFPP method to determine relative weights of CSFs as criteria and VIKOR
method to rank the KM feasible solutions. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on CSFs
and solutions of KM adoption. In Section 3 the proposed framework for prioritize the solutions of KM adoption is

Elham Ebrahimi *, Reza Avazpour, Mohammad Reza Fathi

162

World Applied Programming Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014.

described. The LFPP and VIKOR methods are also presented. The empirical case study is described in Section 4 and
finally, the conclusion is presented in Section 5.
2. Literature Review
2.1. CSFs of KM Adoption
A wide range of studies have identified critical success factors which play an important role in successful KM
implementing in organizations. CSFs are necessary and sufficient factors for success. Each factor is necessary and the
set of factors are sufficient. (Williams and Ramaprasad, 1996). Although a lot of researchers have attempted to
develop a comprehensive list of CSFs for KM implementation, these factors differ because of the multidisciplinary
nature of KM. the main CSFs of KM implementation which are used as criteria in this study, are shown in Table 1.
These CFSs are also described briefly as follows.
Table 1. Proposed Critical Success Factors for KM Implementing
CSFs for KM implementation
Top management support (C1)

Davenport, De long and Beers (1998); Kazemi and Zafar


Allahyari (2010); Wu (2012); Patil and Kant (2013);
Wang and Chang (2007)

Culture (C2)

Davenport et al. (1998); Kazemi and Zafar Allahyari


(2010); Wu (2012); Patil and Kant (2013); Wang and
Chang (2007); Chang and Wang (2009); Tseng (2011);
Fan, Feng, Sun and Ou (2009)

Organizational infrastructure (C3)

Kazemi and Zafar Allahyari (2010); Tseng (2011); Fan


et al. (2009)

Human resource management (C4)

Davenport et al. (1998); Kazemi and Zafar Allahyari


(2010); Liang, Ding and Wang (2012)

Time (C5)

Patil and Kant (2013); Wu (2012)

Cost (C6)

Wu (2012)

Information technology (C7)

Patil and Kant (2013);Davenport et al. (1998); Kazemi


and Zafar Allahyari (2010); Wu (2012); Fan et al.
(2009); Wang and Chang (2007); Chang and Wang
(2009);

Communication (C8)

Kazemi and Zafar Allahyari (2010); Patil and Kant


(2013); Wu (2012)
Wang and Chang (2007); Chang and Wang (2009); Patil
and Kant (2013); Wu (2012)

Employees (C9)

1.

References

Security (C10)

Patil and Kant (2013); Wu (2012); Fan et al. (2009);


Tseng (2011)

Strategy (C11)

Chang and Wang (2009); Patil and Kant (2013)

Top management support (C1): Like almost every types of change program, KM projects benefited from
senior management support (Davenport et al., 1998). The CEO is completely aware of the goals and visions
of KM implementation and can encourage the staff to effectively create knowledge via KM (Wang & Chang,
2007).

163

Applying Logarithmic Fuzzy Preference Programming and VIKOR for Ranking the Solutions of Knowledge Management Based on Critical Success Factors
World Applied Programming Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014.

2.

Culture (C2): Culture is the most difficult constraint that knowledge managers must deal with (Davenport et
al., 1998). As Kazemi and Zafar Allahyari (2010) pointed out, existing a culture of confidence and trust is
required to encourage the application and development of knowledge in an organization. This aspect
contains factors such as direct participation and trust relationships among staff, learning atmosphere of an
organization and invigorate employee to share knowledge with others (Chang & Wang, 2009).
3. Organizational infrastructure (C3): Building an organizational infrastructure for KM includes establishing a
set of roles and groups to serve as resources for individual projects (Davenport et al., 1998). It integrates
fragmented flows of environmental information/knowledge in organization. The Infrastructure capability of
an organization is Important in leveraging environmental technological architecture (Tseng, 2011).
4. Human resource management (HRM) (C4): as People are the main driver of KM projects, all of the functions
of HRM including Employee empowerment, employee involvement, employee learning and development,
employee recruitment and selection and reward system is crucial for effectively implementing KM (Kazemi
& Zafar Allahyari, 2010).
5. Time (C5): according Wu (2012) and Patil and Kant (2013) lack of time is one of the main obstacles to KM
implementation. Therefor considering this criterion is vital for to successfully create and implement a
knowledge management strategy.
6. Cost (C6): according to Wu (2012), since KM implementation is extremely costly in terms of money and
time, cost is an important criterion in deciding to choose among different KM solutions.
7. Information technology (C7): The explicit knowledge is easier to be digitalized and transferred, so that it
can be captured and shared with others by the use of information technology (Wu, 2012). According to the
related literature, this factor includes sub-criteria such as IT personnel ability, the budget available for
establishing the IT infrastructure, the ability to apply IT management, the use of Internet and Intranet, and
human sources of information technology (Wang & Chang, 2007).
8. Communication (C8): It has been recognized by organizations that communication would play a significant
role in implementing KM as a strategic area. Some communication channels used in an organization to
convey achievements of KM projects are internal magazines, journals and meetings (Kazemi & Zafar
Allahyari, 2010).
9. Employees (C9): This factor refers to criteria such as staff specialty, experience, ability to create knowledge,
recognition of knowledge management, widespread practice of personnel, training, participation, learning
aspiration, learning opportunities and acceptance of information technology (Wang & Chang, 2007).
10. Security (C10): This factor includes protecting the knowledge from inappropriate or illegal use or theft
(Tseng, 2011). If one organization spends a vast investment on IT but represents badly in knowledge
security, namely, it has week process capability, then the utilization efficiency of IT equipment may be not
high and the KM of organizations may be not strong Fan et al. (2009).
11. Strategy (C11): This factor includes sub-criteria such as strategic planning regarding KM adoption, and
integrating with business process (Patil & Kant, 2013). Chang and Wang (2009) have also implies subfactors such as clear objective for initiating KM project, and integrating organizational development and
KM.
2.2. Solutions of KM Adoption
In this section some solutions to overcome the barriers of KM adoption and successfully implementing it are
presented. These solutions are suggested by Patil and Kant (2013) and Liang et al (2012) and verified by the expert
team of the case study (Iranian company). Table shows these KM solutions.

Table 2. Proposed solutions for KM implementing


KM Solutions

Description

Using IT system for knowledge dissemination


(A1)

Application of computers and telecommunications


equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data.

Using customer relation management (CRM)


system to faster exploitation of knowledge
learning (A2)

CRM is a process designed to collect data associated with


customers to enhance the relationship between the
company and its customers.

Elham Ebrahimi *, Reza Avazpour, Mohammad Reza Fathi

164

World Applied Programming Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014.

Establishing adequate incentives and reward


systems to promote employees to share
knowledge (A3)
Strengthening the cultural cohesions and cooperation (A4)

Adopt Supplier Development (SD) program


(A5)

Establishment of Knowledge based Decision


support system (KB-DSS) (A6)

Establish a transparent work flow or open


door policy (A7)

Use of groupware and other software (A8)

Promotion of employees awareness of KM


(A9)
Establishment of a clear future vision and
common values (A10)

Incentives and reward systems is a formal scheme used to


promote or encourage specific actions or behavior by a
specific group of people during a defined period of time
Cultural cohesion means having employees at every level
support the core values and understands what the company
needs from them as individuals and from the wider team of
which they are part.
SD programs are long-term cooperative efforts between a
buying firm and its suppliers to upgrade the suppliers
technical, quality, delivery, and cost capabilities to foster
ongoing improvements.
A KB-DSS can undertake intelligent tasks in a specific
domain that is normally performed by a highly skilled
employee. It helps decision makers use data to solve semistructured and unstructured decision-making problems
Workflow concepts are closely related to other concepts
used to describe organizational structure. Transparent
work flow helps to eliminate difficulty of information
flows from level to level and ensures agility, adaptability,
and alignment.
An open knowledge-sharing environment can facilitate
cooperation between groups in an organization; e.g. the
use of software like online bulletin boards, project
management systems, and distance video conferencing.
on-the-job training is used to increase awareness of KM
among personnel and reduce cognitive bias and
psychological resistance
The promotion of KM requires the setting of specific
goals, clear future vision, common values, and team spirit.

3. Research Methodology
The main purpose of this study is to propose a framework based on the Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making
(FMCDM) approach for ranking KM solutions in order to achieve CSFs of a KM project implementation. According
to this goal, first by studying the literature related to KM the CSFs were recognized. Semi-structural interviews with
scholars and managers of the case study company which was going to implement KM project, validated the
framework of the study, the CSFs chosen as our criteria and the solutions which are our alternatives. Then the weight
of each criterion was analyzed by the LFPP method. Finally, according to these weights, the VIKOR method was
applied for the purpose of ranking KM solutions. The overall framework of the study is shown in Figure 1.

Litreture reveiw and Semistructural interviews

LFPP Method

VIKOR Method

step 1: Recognition of KM CSFs and solutions

step 2: Calculating the weights of KM CSFs as


criteria

step 3: Ranking KM solutions

165

Applying Logarithmic Fuzzy Preference Programming and VIKOR for Ranking the Solutions of Knowledge Management Based on Critical Success Factors
World Applied Programming Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014.

Figure 1. Research framework

Decision hierarchy for prioritizing solutions of KM is illustrated in Figure 2.

Goal

Criteria

Alternatives

Top management support


(C1)

Using IT system for


knowledge dissemination
(A1)

Culture (C2)

Using CRM system to


faster exploitation of
knowledge learning (A2)

Organizational
infrastructure (C3)
Human resource
management (C4)

Establishing incentives
and reward systems (A3)
Strengthening the
cultural cohesions and
co-operation (A4)

Time (C5)

Prioritizing the
solutions of KM
implementation

Adopt SD program (A5)


Cost (C6)
Information technology
(C7)

Establishment of KBDSS (A6)

Communication (C8)

Establish a transparent
work flow or open door
policy (A7)

Employees (C9)

Use of groupware and


other software (A8)

Security (C10)

Promotion of employees
awareness of KM (A9)

Strategy (C11)

Establishment of a clear
future vision and
common values (A10)

Figure 2. Decision hierarchy for prioritizing solutions of KM

Elham Ebrahimi *, Reza Avazpour, Mohammad Reza Fathi

166

World Applied Programming Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014.

3.1. The Fuzzy Logic and Linguistic Variables


Fuzzy set theory was first developed in 1965 by Zadeh; he was attempting to solve fuzzy phenomenon problems,
including problems with uncertain, incomplete, unspecific, or fuzzy situations. Fuzzy set theory is more
advantageous than traditional set theory when describing set concepts in human language. It allows us to address
unspecific and fuzzy characteristics by using a membership function that partitions a fuzzy set into subsets of
members that incompletely belong to or incompletely do not belong to a given subset.
3.1.1. Fuzzy Numbers
We order the Universe of Discourse such that U is a collection of targets, where each target in the Universe of
Discourse is called an element. Fuzzy number is mapped onto U such that a random
is appointed a real
[ ]. If another element in U is greater than x, we call that element under A.
number,
[ ], and
The universe of real numbers R is a triangular fuzzy number (TFN) , which means that for

Note that
, where L and U represent fuzzy probability between the lower and upper boundaries,
respectively, as in Figure 3. Assume two fuzzy numbers
, and
; then,

1

Figure 3. Triangular fuzzy number

(
(

3.1.2. Fuzzy Linguistic Variables


The fuzzy linguistic variable is a variable that reflects different aspects of human language. Its value represents the
range from natural to artificial language. When the values or meanings of a linguistic factor are being reflected, the
resulting variable must also reflect appropriate modes of change for that linguistic factor. Moreover, variables
describing a human word or sentence can be divided into numerous linguistic criteria, such as equally important,
moderately important, strongly important, very strongly important, and extremely important. For the purposes of the
present study, the 5-point scale (equally important, moderately important, strongly important, very strongly important
and extremely important) is used.

167

Applying Logarithmic Fuzzy Preference Programming and VIKOR for Ranking the Solutions of Knowledge Management Based on Critical Success Factors
World Applied Programming Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014.

3.2. The LFPP-based nonlinear Priority Method


In this method for the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix, Wang et al (2011) took its logarithm by the following
approximate equation:
=(

), i,j = 1.,n

(1)

That is, the logarithm of a triangular fuzzy judgment a ij can still be seen as an approximate triangular fuzzy number,
whose membership function can accordingly be defined as
(

( )

( ( )) =

(2)
(

( )

( ( )) is the membership degree of

Where
=(

( ) belonging to the approximate triangular fuzzy judgment

). It is very natural that we hope to find a crisp priority vector to maximize the minimum

membership degree = min {

( ( )) i=1,,n-1 ; j=i+1,, n} . The resultant model can be constructed (Wang

et al, 2011) as
Maximize

Subject to {

( ( ))

(3)

Or as
Maximize 1-
(
Subject to {

)
(

(4)

It is seen that the normalization constraint


= 1 is not included in the above two equivalent models. This is
because the models will become computationally complicated if the normalization constraint is included. Before
normalization, without loss of generality, we can assume
for all
such that
for
. Note that the nonnegative assumption for
(i = 1,. . . ,n) is not essential. The reason for
producing a negative value for is that there are no weights that can meet all the fuzzy judgments in within their
support intervals. That is to say, not all the inequalities
(

or

can hold at the same time. To avoid k from taking a negative value, Wang et al (2011)

introduced nonnegative deviation variables


following inequalities:
(
(

and

for

such that they meet the

)
)

(5)

It is the most desirable that the values of the deviation variables are the smaller the better. Wang et al (2011) thus
proposed the following LFPP-based nonlinear priority model for fuzzy AHP weight derivation:
Minimize

J= (1-)2 + M.

Elham Ebrahimi *, Reza Avazpour, Mohammad Reza Fathi

168

World Applied Programming Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014.

Subject to

(6)

Where =
for i = 1,, n and M is a specified sufficiently large constant such as M = 103. The main purpose of
introducing a big constant M into the above model is to find the weights within the support intervals of fuzzy
judgments without violations or with as little violations as possible.
3.3. The VIKOR
3.3.1. Introduction to VIKOR
The VIKOR method is a compromise MADM method, developed by Opricovic .S and Tzeng (Opricovic, 1998;
Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G. H., 2002) started from the form of Lp-metric:

{[

) (

)] }

The VIKOR method can provide a maximum group utility for the majority and a minimum of an individual
regret for the opponent (Opricovic, 1998; Opricovic, S; Tzeng, G. H., 2002).
3.3.2. Working Steps of VIKOR Method
1) Calculate the normalized value
Assuming that there are m alternatives, and n attributes. The various i alternatives are denoted as xi. For alternative xj,
the rating of the jth aspect is denoted as xij, i.e. xij is the value of jth attribute. For the process of normalized value,
when xij is the original value of the ith option and the jth dimension, the formula is as follows:

(7)

2) Determine the best and worst values


For all the attribute functions the best value was
formulas (8) and (9)

and the worst value was

, that is, for attribute J=1-n, we get

(8)

(9)
Where the positive ideal solution for the jth criteria is,
is the negative ideal solution for the jth criteria. If one
associates all , one will have the optimal combination, which gets the highest scores, the same as .
3) Determine the weights of attributes
The weights of attribute should be calculated to express their relative importance.
4) Compute the distance of alternatives to ideal solution

169

Applying Logarithmic Fuzzy Preference Programming and VIKOR for Ranking the Solutions of Knowledge Management Based on Critical Success Factors
World Applied Programming Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014.

This step is to calculate the distance from each alternative to the positive ideal solution and then get the sum to obtain
the final value according to formula (10) and (11).

(10)
[

(11)

Where Si represents the distance rate of the ith alternative to the positive ideal solution (best combination),
represents the distance rate of the ith alternative to the negative ideal solution (worst combination). The excellence
ranking will be based on values and the worst rankings will be based on
values. In other words, ,
indicate
and
of -metric respectively.
for i=1, 2, ,m, which are defined as

5) Calculate the VIKOR values


[

(12)

Where
,
, and v is the weight of the strategy of the
] represents the distance rate from the
majority of criteria (or the maximum group utility). [
positive ideal solution of the ith alternatives achievements In other words, the majority agrees to use the rate of the
] represents the distance rate from the negative ideal solution of the ith alternative; this means
ith.[
the majority disagree with the rate of the ith alternative. Thus, when the v is larger (> 0.5), the index of
will tend to
majority agreement; when v is less (< 0.5), the index
will indicate majority negative attitude; in general, v = 0.5,
i.e. compromise attitude of evaluation experts.
6) Rank the alternatives by
According to the

values

values calculated by step (4), we can rank the alternatives and to make-decision.

4. Empirical Analysis
The case of this study is an Iranian company which is active in the field of electric power and energy. Its mission is
managing the assets of the company in the electric power industry, leading activities for the purpose of supplying
reliable and economical electricity for all sectors of consumption, management and supervision on installation and
operation of facilities and entering into transactions of electricity. In this paper, the weights of criteria are calculated
using LFPP, and these calculated weight values are used as VIKOR inputs. Then, after VIKOR calculations,
evaluation of the alternatives and selection of best Knowledge Management solution is realized.
Logarithmic Fuzzy Preference Programming:
In LFPP, firstly, we should determine the weights of each criterion by utilizing pair-wise comparison matrices. We
compare each criterion with respect to other criteria. You can see the pair-wise comparison matrix for selection best
Knowledge Management solution criteria in Table 3.

Table 3.Inter-criteria comparison matrix


C2

C9

C1

C10

C11

C1

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.73

0.87

0.93

0.37

0.50

0.63

0.77

0.93

0.97

C2

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.77

0.93

0.97

0.57

0.72

0.80

0.73

0.87

0.93

..

C9

1.07

1.17

1.37

1.04

1.08

1.31

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.80

1.00

1.00

0.73

0.87

0.93

C10

1.04

1.08

1.31

1.17

1.36

1.75

1.00

1.00

1.25

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.63

0.77

0.83

Elham Ebrahimi *, Reza Avazpour, Mohammad Reza Fathi

170

World Applied Programming Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014.

C11

1.04

1.08

1.31

1.07

1.17

1.37

1.07

1.17

1.37

1.26

1.42

1.73

1.00

1.00

1.00

After forming the model (6) for the comparison matrix and solving this model using Genetic algorithms, the weight
vector is obtained as follow:
= (0.0443, 0.0320, 0.0874, 0.1014, 0.110, 0.1090, 0.1026, 0.0683, 0.0631, 0.1029, 0.179) T
VIKOR:
The weights of criteria are calculated by LFPP up to now, and then these values can be used in VIKOR. So, the
VIKOR methodology must be started at the second step. Thus, weighted normalized decision matrix can be prepared.
This matrix can be seen from Table 4.

Table 4. Weighted normalized decision matrix


C1
C2

C9
C10

C11

A1

0.058

0.091

0.932

0.162

0.004

A2

0.032

0.112

0.753

0.212

0.005

A9

0.055

0.083

0.862

0.149

0.003

A10

0.075

0.109

0.859

0.215

0.007

By following VIKOR procedure steps and calculations, the ranking of Knowledge Management solutions are gained.
The results and final ranking are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Final evaluation of the alternatives
i
Fi=Max(ei)
Pi
Ei=ei
A1

0.6470

0.2634

0.534369

A2

0.8308

0.3068

A9

0.316

0.235

0.21726

A10

0.605

0.173

0.34829

According to Table 5, A7 is the best Knowledge Management solution among other solutions. Other solutions are
ranked as follow:

12345678-

Establish a transparent work flow or open door policy


Promotion of employees awareness of KM
Establishment of a clear future vision and common values
Establishment of Knowledge based Decision support system (KB-DSS)
Strengthening the cultural cohesions and co-operation
Adopt Supplier Development (SD) program
Use of groupware and other software
Using IT system for knowledge dissemination

171

Applying Logarithmic Fuzzy Preference Programming and VIKOR for Ranking the Solutions of Knowledge Management Based on Critical Success Factors
World Applied Programming Vol(4), No (7), July, 2014.

9- Establishing adequate incentives and reward systems to promote employees to share knowledge
10- Using customer relation management (CRM) system to faster exploitation of knowledge learning
5. Conclusions
In today's globally competitive environment, organizations need to manage their resources in order to gain
competitive advantage. An important role of knowledge management is creating sustainable competitive advantage
for organizations. The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework based on the Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision
Making approach for ranking Knowledge Management solutions to gain Critical Success Factors (CSFs) of a KM
project implementation. First the CSFs in the KM field are recognized. The LFPP method is then applied to determine
weights of the CSFs as criteria. Finally VIKOR method is used in order to rank the solutions of KM adoption as
alternatives. According to result, A7 (Establish a transparent work flow or open door policy) is the best Knowledge
Management solution among other solutions.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank an anonymous referee for the valuable suggestions which considerably improve the quality
of the paper.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]

Chang, T., & Wang, T. (2009). Using the fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for measuring the
possibility of successful knowledge management. Information Sciences, 179, 355370.
Davenport, T., De long, D., & Beers, M. (1998). Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan
Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.
Fan, Z., Feng, B., Sun, Y., & Ou, W. (2009). Evaluating knowledge management capability of organizations: a
fuzzy linguistic method. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 33463354.
Kazemi, M., & Zafar Allahyari, M. (2010). Defining a knowledge management conceptual model by using
MADM. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(6), 872-890.
Lancioni, R., & Chandran, R. (2009). Professional guilds, tension and knowledge management. Research Policy,
38(5), 736-745.
Liang, G., Ding, J., & Wang, C. (2012). Applying fuzzy quality function deployment to prioritize solutions of
knowledge management for an international port in Taiwan. Knowledge-Based Systems, article in press,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.03.012.
Liao, S. (2002). Knowledge management technologies and applications: literature review from 1995 to 2002.
Expert Systems with Applications, 25, 155164.
Opricovic. (1998). Multi-criteria optimization of civil engineering systems, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Belgrade.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2002). Multi criteria planning of post earthquake sustainable reconstruction,
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, no.17, pp. 211220.
Patil, S., & Kant, R. (2013). A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge
Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Systems with Applications, Article in
press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.093.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge management: a strategic agenda. Long Range Planning,
30(3), 385-391.
Tseng, M. (2011). Using a hybrid MCDM model to evaluate firm environmental knowledge management in
uncertainty. Applied Soft Computing, 11, 13401352.
Wang, T., & Chang, T. (2007). Forecasting the probability of successful knowledge management by consistent
fuzzy preference relations. Expert Systems with Applications, 32, 801813.
Wang, Y., Chin.,K. (2011). Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A logarithmic fuzzy preference Programming
methodology, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52, 541553.
Williams, J., & Ramaprasad, A. (1996). A taxonomy of critical success factors. European Journal of
Information Systems, 5(5), 250-260.
Wu, W. (2012). Segmenting critical factors for successful knowledge management implementation using the
fuzzy DEMATEL method. Applied Soft Computing, 12, 527535.