See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258529084

Knowledge management practices in a manufacturing company - a case study

Conference Paper · November 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 1,679

1 author:

Uma Mageswari
RMK Engineering College
15 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

refractory cordierites View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Uma Mageswari on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 1

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN

MANUFACTURING COMPANIES

– A CASE STUDY

S.D. Uma Mageswari*, Research Scholar,

Department of Management Studies, Pondicherry University

Mail id: sdu.mba@rmkc.ac.in

Ph: 98407 20454

Dr. Chitra Sivasubramanian, Associate Professor,

Department of Management Studies, Pondicherry University

*Corresponding author

Keywords : Knowledge management, Knowledge capture, knowledge creation, knowledge

storage, knowledge transfer, knowledge application, organizational culture, leadership,
management
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 2

Abstract
Purpose –For several decades the world's best-known forecasters of societal change have
predicted the emergence of a new economy in which brain power, not machine power, is the
critical resource. But the future has already turned into the present, and the era of knowledge
has arrived.--"The Learning Organization," Economist Intelligence Unit. This new world of
business which is characterized by globalization, heightened level of competition, uncertainty
about future makes knowledge as the only source for sustainable competitive advantage.
Research Methodology – An empirical study was conducted by collecting primary data
through questionnaire from employees of varied departments of the company. Statistical
tools used for analysis in the study are Cronbach‟s alpha for Reliability, Confirmatory factor
analysis, correlation and simple research model is done using AMOS.
Research limitations–There is a few limitations which may affect the scope of the study.
First, the study was conducted in only one manufacturing firm. Hence, blanket generalization
of the findings of the study to each and every manufacturing firm in India should be done
with caution. Second, the study focuses only on three Critical success factors, organizational
culture, leadership style and management commitment and their impact on knowledge
management processes and practices.
Findings – The extent to which KM dimensions are practiced in the company are studied. It
is found that KM is practiced significantly.
Originality/value – The main discussion of this paper brings together a large range of
knowledge management practices in a manufacturing firm and the impact of organizational
culture, leadership and management commitment on knowledge management practices.
Keywords : Knowledge management, KM dimensions, organizational culture, leadership,
management
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 3

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN

MANUFACTURING COMPANIES – A CASE STUDY

Even though, the concept of knowledge has been there for ages as generations have
used it for achieving prosperity, it has started gaining its momentum only in early 1990s.
Knowledge management gurus, Karl Wiig, Alavi, Leidner, Davenport and Prusak, Nonaka
and Takuchi paved way for its accelerated growth. Value creation and competitive advantage
in any organization depends on its potential to leverage intangible assets of firms and
knowledge is one such asset. The ability to marshal and deploy this organizational
knowledge is crucial. The way in which tangible resources are combined and applied is
directly affected by knowledge. This knowledge is embedded in and carried through
organizational culture, policies, systems and individuals. In addition, transition into
information age fuelled the organisations to focus more on knowledge and knowledge
management systems(Alavi & Leidener, 2001). As a result, knowledge audits,
benchmarking, networks of practice, communities of practice, best practice transfer etc. have
become common to the organistions. KPMG (1998) reports that one in ten firms have
benefitted from knowledge management practices and at least 43% of the firms are in the
process of knowledge management implementation.
Literature Review

Knowledge is the potential for action based upon data, information, insights, intuition
and experience. It is the critical link that connects all the human, technological and
organisational resources available at the disposal of the firm, and represents its ongoing
survival, performance and competitive advantage. APQC defines knowledge as information
in action.
The important characteristics of knowledge, for ex., knowledge is intangible and
difficult to measure, volatile, not „consumed‟ in a process, it sometimes increases through
use, cannot be bought on the market at any time, „non-rival‟ i.e. it can be used by different
processes at the same time (Karl M. Wiig et al., 1995). Hence knowledge is considered as a
useful organizational resource (Alavi & Leidner, 2001) and is significant for innovative
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 4

capacity of firms (Yannis Caloghirous et al., 2004). Kuan Yew Wong and Elaine Aspinwall,
2005 conducted a survey in UK SMEs enumerated few success factors for KM
implementation viz. Management leadership and support , Culture, Information technology ,
Strategy and purpose , Measurement , Organisational infrastructure , Processes and activities,
Motivational aids , Resources , Training and education , Human resource management . In
addition to the above critical success factors, benchmarking is also reported as a key factor
responsible for KM implementation (Changiz Valmohammadi, 2010).
Michael Zack et al. (2009) found from their study that effective knowledge
management practices are directly related to organizational performance which in turn is
related to financial performance, while Pang-Lo Liua(2005) and Davenport and
Grover(2001) concluded that long term benefits like revenue growth, enhancing competitive
advantage, employee development, product innovation and short term benefits like reducing
costs, improving marketing strategies, enhancing customer focus and facilitating profit
growth may be achieved by KM practices. Vic Gilgeous et al. (2001) reported that KM
provided core competency for achieving manufacturing effectiveness and high
performance(Pillania K. Rajesh, 2008), facilitates tackling the increasingly fierce
competition(Arnaldo Camuffo and Anna Comacchio, 2005) and is a prerequisite for success
in the production environment(Pang-Lo Liu et al.)
Knowledge management (KM) is defined as the process of applying a systematic
approach to the capture, structure, management, and dissemination of knowledge throughout
an organization in order to work faster, reuse best practices, and reduce costly rework from
project to project (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a
range of strategies and practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent,
distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences. Such insights and experiences
comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes
or practice. All advanced economies are technologically knowledge based economy.
Creation and exploitation of knowledge management (KM) has become key resource in the
new economy.

To gain a competitive edge in today's marketplace, an organization must embrace

new ideas and processes and requires constant improvement. Manufacturing Excellence is
an imperative tool that leads an organization to the path of competitiveness. The underlying
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 5

objective of these initiatives is building the organizational internal competitiveness through

enhancing & upgrading the skills of the employees via proper training and on-job
implementation of concepts. All these initiatives eventually lead to customer delight and
sustainable cultural change in the organization.(CII, 2011, www.cii.in).

World Competitiveness Report 2010 has ranked India at 51 among 139 countries, 17th rank
globally in terms of its financial markets, and 44th in business sophistication and 39th in
innovation, which clearly indicates that India lags behind in terms of competitiveness.
Competitiveness & innovation activities are expected to need large amounts of new
knowledge. Knowledge is inextricably linked to core competence. Knowledge plays a unique
role in building and conserving core competences. (Prof. Shailja Dixit, SME world, Special
reports, www.smeworld.org.)

Organisational culture and knowledge management

Ribiere (2001) examined the relationship between knowledge management initiative
success and organizational culture orientation in primarily service-oriented organizations
from the information technology, government, and consulting sectors located in the
Washington, DC area. He reported that organizations with a communal (high trust, high
solidarity) culture achieved success with knowledge management initiatives that focused on
both codification and personalization.
Lawson (2003) examined the relationship between organizational culture and
knowledge management in various businesses in the finance, government, health, and
education sectors and found a significant correlation between all of the culture types and
knowledge management.
Roman, Ribiere, and Stankosky (2004) examined the relationship between
organizational culture and knowledge management systems (KMS) success in the federaland
state governments, universities, and other nonprofit institutions and reported
thatorganizations with stronger cultural values at the organizational and work unit levels had
greater success with knowledge management efforts. Similarly the relationship between
organizational culture and knowledge management are studied in various organization in
various countries (Kangas,2005; Lai and Lee,2007l;Chang and Lee, 2007;Palanisamy, 2007,
Ciganek, Mao, and Srite ,2008; Nayir and Uzuncarsili, 2008). The extent research presented
reveals that organizational culture is an important aspect of knowledge management.
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 6

Leadership and knowledge Management:

Building knowledge in an organization is a challenge that begins at the very top who
is tasked with seeing a company through all sorts of changes, ranging from exponential
growth and sudden market changes to mergers and layoffs. To maintain a firm‟s performance
and set an example for employees, leaders need to be flexible, willing learners who
understand that their own knowledge development begins with an accurate assessment of
their leadership style and a clear understanding of how their skills match the company‟s
needs. They should also be aware of the messages their strategies convey about the
importance of institutional knowledge, especially in times of upheaval
(Knowledge@Wharton,2007).
Sherry D. Ryan et al.,(2012) conducted a survey in a medium-sized city government
in the United States to investigate the relationship between leadership triad components,
leadership strategic planning, and customer/market focus, with knowledge management and
reported a significant relationship between these components and knowledge management.
Ferenc Farkas(2003) examined the relationship between role of leadership and knowledge
management in professional service organizations in Germany and Hungary and reported a
strong influence of leadership on external and internal knowledge transfer.
Sajay kumar Singh(2008) analysed the role of leadership in knowledge management
in a software company. He reported that a directive style of leadership is found to be
negatively and significantly related to knowledge management dimensions whereas
delegating style of leadership has a positive and significant relationship. Although
management scholars and practitioners are increasingly aware of the importance of KM
practice, there are still many unanswered questions like the actual KM practices adopted by
the organisations and the relationships between the various components.
Management commitment and Knowledge management
To have a successful Knowledge Management System implemented, the most critical aspect
is Top Management commitment. Top management commitment includes activities such as
communicating company‟s quality value, reinforcing quality messages meeting with the work
force and the customers giving formal and informal recognition, receiving training and
training others. Top managers develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and
vision, develop values required for long term success and implement these via appropriate
action and behaviors, and are personally involved in ensuring that the organizations
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 7

management system is developed and implemented. Another important responsibility of top

management is establishment of an environment in with performance is rewarded
(www.pgmm.org/berif_guides.htm).( A. Keramati,2007).
Andreas Riege (2005) reported the barriers for successful implementation of Knowledge
sharing in organisations. Under the potential organizational barriers, top management‟s role
predominates:
1. Unclear or missing integration of KM strategy and sharing initiatives into the company‟s
goals and strategic approach
2. Lack of leadership and managerial direction in terms of clearly communicating the
benefits and values of knowledge sharing practices;
3. Shortage of formal and informal spaces to share, reflect and generate (new) knowledge;
4. Lack of a transparent rewards and recognition systems that would motivate people to share
more of their knowledge;
5. Shortage of appropriate infrastructure supporting sharing practices;
6. Deficiency of company resources that would provide adequate sharing opportunities;
7. Communication and knowledge flows are restricted into certain directions (e.g. top-down).
For an effective and efficient KM, excellent information system infrastructure is
necessary. To create Knowledge Assets and Culture, we need Databases, Processes, Manuals,
Procedures, Strategies, Organization harts etc. Usage of network technology infrastructure
such as Internet, Intranet, Lotus Notes, Global communication systems add effectiveness of
transfer and sharing of knowledge. Hence Information Systems and Processes are extremely
critical components.
Creation of knowledge repository/assets, classification, codifying the knowledge, making it
available for all in the organization, ensuring reuse for artifacts for optimization, knowledge
sharing seminars, web casts/pod casts, discussion groups, bulletin boards, etc help in
leveraging the expertise within organization. This is only possible if there is senior
management support, and commitment. (http://knowmgt.blogspot.in/2007/08/importance-of-
senior-management.html,2007)
The objective of this paper is to understand the KM practices in an Indian manufacturing
organization, Madras cements Ltd.. This paper reports the findings of a survey carried out to
assess the status of KM practices in manufacturing firm.
Company overview
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 8

This investigation took place in Madras Cements Ltd. Which is the flagship company of the
Ramco Group, a well-known business group of South India. The company was incorporated
in the year 1957. MCL is the sixth largest cement producer in the country and the second
largest in South India. It is headquartered at Chennai and has five manufacturing plants in
Tamilnadu, AndraPradesh and Karnataka. The main product of the company is Portland
cement, manufactured in five state-of-the art production facilities spread over South India,
with a current total production capacity of 13.0 MTPA. The company is the fifth largest
cement producer in the country. Ramco Supergrade is the most popular cement brand in
South India. The company also produces Ready Mix Concrete and Dry Mortar products, and
operates one of the largest wind farms in the country. The company also has State-of-the-art
research center, Ramco Research Development Centre, Chennai. The company has
approximately 2000 employees,60% of which are directly involved with product
manufacturing. Another 20% are involved with sales, marketing, and customer service, and
15% are in research and development and engineering. The remaining are responsible for
other administrative functions, such as finance, IT, purchasing, etc.
Objectives of the Study:
To identify the major knowledge management practices that are adopted in Madras
Cements Ltd.
To know the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management
practices.
To know the relationship between leadership and knowledge management practices.
To know the relationship between management commitment and knowledge
management practices
Research hypotheses
1. There exists a relationship between organizational culture and knowledge
management practices
2. There exists a relationship between leadership and knowledge management
practices
3. There exists a relationship between management commitment and knowledge
management practices
Sampling
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 9

The sample in this investigation was drawn from the Madras Cements plant and includes
representatives of a diverse group of professionals. 138 respondents (N = 138) completed the
survey, representing engineering, manufacturing, projects, information technology (IT),
packaging, and finance. The respondents' years of service ranged from two to more than 15
years. The Bachelors degree concentrations are broken down as follows: 36 are information
and computer technology-related, 8 chemistry, 66 engineering and 28 business-related.

Measurement and data collection

Data concerning Knowledge Management practices are collected by adopting

quantitative method. The instrument used for data collection is based on the questionnaire
used by Khalil et al. (2006) which was adopted from Filius et al (2000). The questionnaire
comprised of 2 sections , the first section representing the five KM dimensions: Knowledge
capture(KC), Knowledge Creation(KCR), Knowledge Storage(KS), Knowledge
Transfer(KT), and Knowledge application(KAP). Responses were measured on a 5 point
Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Appendix A
includes the 23 statements on the five dimensions of knowledge management practices. The
second section comprises 13 questions on the key factors considered in the study such as
organizational culture, leadership and management commitment.

For this research, the five KM dimensions are defined as follows:

1) KC--the extent to which an individual or organization learns or attains external

knowledge or skills.

2) KCR--the extent to which an individual or organization uses the knowledge to create

new ideas internally

3) KS--the extent to which an individual or organization codes or records the acquired

knowledge.

4) KT--the extent to which an individual or organization shares knowledge.

5) KAP--the extent to which an individual or organization uses knowledge to improve

processes, performance or products and services.

A simple research model is proposed and is given in Figure 1.

KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 10

Figure 1 Simple research model:

Analysis and interpretation

An examination had been made from the reliability of the data to check whether
random error causing inconsistency and in turn lower reliability is at a manageable level or
not, by running reliability test. Coefficient alpha (Cronbach‟s Alpha) obtained is 0.823. This
shows data has satisfactory internal consistency reliability.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Results of CFA for individual constructs of KM and that of critical success factors and
corresponding fit indices are as given below:

Figure 2 :CFA of individual dimensions of knowledge management(KM)

Chi square = 3.948 ; Df = 2; P=0.139; GFI = 0.986 ; Chi square =4.323; Df = 5; P=0.504; ; CFI = 0.998;
CFI = 0.942; RMSEA = 0.084; RMR = 0.015 GFI = 0.988; MSEA = 0.00; RMR = 0.011

Chi square =0.345; Df = 2; P= 0.842; Chi square =1.014; Df = 2; P=0.602;

GFI = 0.999; CFI = 0.99; GFI = 0.996 ; CFI = 0.99;
RMSEA = 0.00; RMR = 0.004 RMSEA = 0.00; RMR = 0.008
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 11

Chi square = 8.151; Df = 7; P=0.319; GFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99;RMSEA = 0.035;RMR = 0.014

Confirmatory factor analysis confirms that the statements used under the KM constructs
better conform to the KM dimensions.

Figure 3:CFA of critical success factors of knowledge management(KM)

Chi square = 5.517; Df = 2; =0.062; GFI = 0.98;

CFI = 0.953; RMSEA = 0.076; RMR = 0.021

Chi square = 0.295; Df = 1; =0.587; GFI = 0.999;

CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.00; RMR = 0.003

Chi square = 9.182; Df =5; p =0.102;

GFI = 0.972; CFI = 0.924; RMSEA = 0.07;
RMR = 0.022

Figure 2 and Figure 3 presents the results of the confirmatory analysis(CFA) of five
constructs of knowledge management viz. knowledge capture, knowledge creation,
knowledge storage, knowledge transfer and knowledge application individually is presented.
CFA was also done for the knowledge management enablers / critical success factors
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 12

considered in the study, organizational culture, leadership and management commitment. The
fit indices indicate the fit of the data under the each construct.
Correlation:

Mean values of the data for knowledge dimensions, organizational culture leadership style
and management commitment are computed individually and then using SPSS, bivariate
correlation was done. The correlation between the variables KC, KCr, KS, KT and KAP and
also the correlation between key factors under study viz. organizational culture, leadership
and management commitment are significant. Closer analysis of the relationship between the
variables reveal that organization culture has more significant
effect on the other variables. The values are given in Table 1.
The values show that KM dimensions are significantly related to oganizational culture,
leadership and management commitment. Similarly, each of the KM dimensions are also
related to each other except knowledge transfer(kt).

Table 1 : Correlation
kc kcr ks kt kap culture leadership mgt

Kc 1 .469** .438** .146 .209* .591** .212* .195*

Kcr .469** 1 .413** .124 .198* .403** .154 .396**

Ks .438** .413** 1 -.012 .130 .567** .131 .177*

Kt .146 .124 -.012 1 .320** .128 .207* .248**

Kap .209* .198* .130 .320** 1 .188* .002 .057

culture .591** .403** .567** .128 .188* 1 .119 .143

* *
leadership .212 .154 .131 .207 .002 .119 1 .027
* ** * **
mgt .195 .396 .177 .248 .057 .143 .027 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).; *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Confirmatory factor Analysis(CFA) of Knowledge management and its dimensions

CFA seeks to determine if the number of factors and the loadings of

measured (indicator) variables on them conform to what is expected on the basis of pre–
established theory. A CFA for knowledge management with its dimensions viz. knowledge
capture, knowledge creation, knowledge storage, knowledge transfer and knowledge
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 13

application was conducted with AMOS to test the fit between the five–factor model and the
data. Figure 4 represents the model fit. The maximum likelihood estimation method was
used. Multiple criteria were used to assess the goodness–of–fit between the model and the
data as recommended in the literature. Figure 4 illustrate the model specification and the
parameter estimates. A multitude of measures exist that assist the researcher in deciding
whether to reject or tentatively retain a priori specified over–identified model. In general,
multiple goodness–of–fit tests were used to evaluate the fit between the hypothesized model
and the data to determine if the model being tested should be accepted or rejected.
The model fit is explained as follows:

The Chi-Square value is the traditional measure for evaluating overall model fit and,
„assesses the magnitude of discrepancy between the sample and fitted covariances
matrices‟ (Hu and Bentler, 1999: 2). A good model fit would provide an insignificant
result at a 0.05 threshold (Barrett, 2007).
Ratio of Chi-square to degrees of freedom (CMIN / df) (James B. Schreiber et al.
,2006) should be between 2 or 3, useful for nested models/model trimming.
The RMSEA tells us how well the model, with unknown but optimally chosen
parameter estimates would fit the populations covariance matrix (Byrne, 1998). In
recent years it has become regarded as „one of the most informative fit indices‟
(Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000: 85) due to its sensitivity to the number of
estimated parameters in the model. It is generally reported in conjunction with the
RMSEA and in a well-fitting model the lower limit is close to 0 while the upper limit
should be less than 0.08.
Cut-off point of 0.90 has been recommended for the GFI (Goodness of Fit
index)(Miles and Shevlin, 1998).
Root mean square residual value is 0.029 for a best fit model the value should be less
than 0.08. Values for the SRMR range from zero to 1.0 with well fitting models
obtaining values less than .05 (Byrne, 1998; Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000),
however values as high as 0.08 are deemed acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
Normed Fit Index value recommendations as low as 0.80 is preferred however Bentler
and Hu (1999) have suggested NNFI ≥ 0.95 as the threshold.
The Comparative Fit Index (CFI: Bentler, 1990) is a revised form of the NFI which
takes into account sample size (Byrne, 1998) that performs well even when sample
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 14

size is small (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). A cut-off criterion of CFI ≥ 0.90 is
presently recognised as indicative of good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
AMOS path diagram and the model fit indices are as given under in Figure 4:

Figure 4 CFA of KM with its dimensions

Chi square = 455.2; Df = 216 ; CMIN / df = 2.108; p =0.032; GFI = 0.81; CFI = 0.739; NFI: 0.706;
RMSEA = 0.078; RMR = 0.033
Structural Equation model
Simple correlation calculations reveal that organizational culture and leadership and
management commitment has an impact on knowledge management practices and hence the
proposed simple research model was tested with the data. AMOS was used for testing the
conceptual model and was proved significant. The SEM diagram and the fit indices are
shown in Figure 5.
Mean values of knowledge capture (k1), knowledge creation (k2), knowledge storage (k3),
knowledge transfer (k4), knowledge application (k5), organizational culture (cul1), leadership
(lead) and management (mgt) are used in the model.

Structural equation model is used to determine the strength of the relationship between
unobserved variables (Latent variables) and measured variables and figure 3 depicts the SEM
of the proposed research model. The above figure displays the path diagram resulting from
the structural modeling analysis from AMOS. The diagram shows that there is a positive
relationship between the variables.
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 15

Figure 5 SEM of the research model

Chi square = 10.648; Df =7;CMIN / df =1.52; p =0.155;NFI = 0.955; GFI = 0.98;

CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.062; RMR = 0.005

The AMOS analysis confirms that the research hypotheses, viz. there is a significant
relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management practices and there
is a significant relationship between leadership style and knowledge management practices
hold good for the given set of data.

Findings:
The study reveals that knowledge management practices are significantly adopted by the case
study company. The mean values of the KM dimensions lie between 1 and 2. Likert scale
used in the questionnaire is as follows:
1 = Strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = disagree and 5 = strongly
disagree. Since the mean values are between 1.3 to 1.68, implies that most of the respondents
agree that KM practices are adopted significantly. But it is to be observed that a formal
Knowledge management policy or Knowledge management officer do not exist in the
company. The mean values are given in Appendix 2.
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 16

Similarly, organizational culture studies reveal that when formal procedures govern the
everyday activities and the organization is result oriented they agree that the organization is
like an extended family. Another important aspect of organizational culture is that the flow of
information. Again, majority of the respondents agree that the information flow is fast and
without barriers.
Similarly, leadership style assessment reveals that managers give priority to high
achievement and at the same time work well with the employees and communicate the goals
of the organization.
When probed on the top management commitment towards Knowledge management, reveals
that the management is committed in creating an atmosphere in the organization for
knowledge management practices.
Correlation between the exogeneous variables, in this case organizational culture, leadership
and management commitment and endogenorus variables viz. KM dimensions proved to be
significant and is further confirmed by SEM. Structural equation modeling(SEM) for the
given set of data presented a good fit for the proposed simple research model.
Conclusion:
The new world of knowledge economy, organistions distinguish themselves from throse of
the last millennium in recognizing KM as core competency and adopting knowledge
managemet practices as essential for achieving the organistion‟s goals. The objective of this
paper is to understand the KM practices in a manufacturing organization which by far less
explored. The findings suggest that manufacturing firms also have realized the importance of
knowledge management practices and have adopted them even though not explicitly in the
name of knowledge management strategy.
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 17

References

1. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). “Review: Knowledge Management and

Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol.25, No.1, pp 107-136.
2. Andreas Riege (2005), “Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must
consider”, Journal Of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35,
3. APQC. (2000), “Building and sustaining communities of practice: Final report”,
American Productivity and Quality Center Report.
4. Chang, S., & Lee, M. (2007). “The effects of organizational culture and knowledge
management mechanisms on organizational innovation”, The Business Review,
Cambridge, Vol.7, No.1, pp 295-301.
5. Changiz Valmohammadi,2010, “Investigation and Assessment of Critical Success
factors of KM implementation in Iranian SMEs”, Journal of Applied Sciences,
Vol.10, No.19, pp.2290-2296
6. Daire Hooper, Joseph Coughlan, Michael R. Mullen(2008),”Structural Equation
Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit”, Electronic Journal of Business
Research Methods ,Volume 6 Issue 1,pp 53-60
7. Francisco, J.F. and Guadamillas, F. (2002), “A case study on the implementation of
knowledge management strategy oriented to innovation”, Knowledge and Process
Management, Vol9, No.3,pp. 162-71.
8. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance
Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives", Structural
Equation Modeling, Vol.6 , No.1, pp.1-55.

9. James B. Schreiber, Frances K. Stage, Jamie King, Amaury Nora, Elizabeth A.

Barlow (2006), “Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor
Analysis Results: A Review”, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 99, No. 6,
pp 323 -337
10. Khalil, Omah,Claudio, Allison,Seliem, Ahmed (2006) ,” Knowledge Management:
the case of the Acushnet Company”, SAM Advanced Management Journal
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 18

11. Kuan Yew Wong and Elaine Aspinwall(2005), “An empirical study of the important
factors for knowledge-management adoption in the SME sector”, Journal Of
Knowledge Management , Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 64-82
12. Lapr M.A and Wassenhove L.N.V.2001. 'Creating and transferring knowledge for
productivity improvement in factories', Management Science, Vol.47,No. 10,
pp.1311-1325.
13. Lee, S. K., & Yu, K. (2004),”Corporate culture and organizational performance”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 19, No.4, pp.340-359.
14. Mukherjee, A.S., Lapre, M.A. & Wassenhore, L.N.V. (1998), “Knowledge driven
quality improvement”, Management Science, Vol.44, No.1, pp 35-49.
15. O'Dell, C., and C. Grayson. 1998,”If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification
And Transfer Of Internal Best Practices”, California Management Review,Vol 40,
No.3, pp. 154-174.
16. Palanisamy, R. (2007),”Organizational culture and knowledge management in ERP
implementation: An empirical study”, The Journal of Computer Information Systems,
Vol 48, No.2, pp 100-120.
17. Stoica, M., Liao, J., & Welsch, H. (2004),”Organizational culture and patterns of
information processing: The case of small and medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol.9, No.3, pp 251-266.
18. Tanriverdi, H. and Venkatraman, N. (2005), “Knowledge relatedness and the
performance of multibusiness firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 26, pp 97–
119.

Dissertations:

1. Michael Brandt Jones(2009), “Organizational Culture And Knowledge Management:

An Empirical Investigation Of U.S. Manufacturing Firms”,A Dissertation Submitted
to Nova Southeastern University
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 19

APPENDIX 1
QUESTIONNAIRE
1 = strongly agree ; 2 = agree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree ; 4 = disagree;
5 = strongly disagree
K1 KNOWLEDGE CAPTURE 1 2 3 4 5
Kc1 We actively participate in an outside professional
network like attending courses, seminars and other
training
Kc2 We encourage workers to continue their education by
reimbursing tuition fee for successful completion of
work related courses
Kc3 We regularly collect information about the needs of the
customer
Kc4 We hire consultants when important skills/information
are not available in-house
K2 KNOWLEDGE CREATION 1 2 3 4 5
Kcr1 We do research to explore future possibilities
Kcr2 Our competitors are a source of inspiration for
developing new methods
Kcr3 Brainstorming sessions are frequently used for problem
solving
Kcr4 We collaborate with Research institutes, Educational
institutions
Kcr5 We use existing skills/knowledge in creative ways to
generate new ideas
K3 KNOWLEDGE ORGANISING / STORING 1 2 3 4 5
Ks1 Failures and successes are evaluated and results are
documented
Ks2 We have up-to-date handbooks throughout the
organization and frequently use them
Ks3 The knowledge and skills of individual associates is
documented
Ks5 We create working manuals and standard operating
procedures
K4 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 1 2 3 4 5
Kt1 New associates are assigned a monitor
Kt2 Much information is transferred via "the grape vine" (
alk/discuss with colleagues)
Kt3 Business update meetings are held on a regular basis
Kt4 Associates regularly inform each other about successful
projects and methods of working
K5 KNOWLEDGE APPLICATION 1 2 3 4 5
Kap1 New ideas lead to re-design of work methods and
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 20

processes
Kap2 New projects are assigned based on skills and
availability
Kap3 Associates are rewarded for developing new ideas
Kap4 New ideas are tested using simulation
Kap5 Customer feedback is used to improve
products/services
Kap6 Associates promote new ideas internally
Key factors for KM practices

Organisational culture 1 2 3 4 5
Oc1 Information is passed around the organization without
barriers
Oc2 Our organization is like an extended family
Oc3 Our organization is result oriented and people are
competitive and achievement oriented
Oc4 In our organization, formal procedures govern the daily
activities
Lead Leadership
L1 Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with
employees of different backgrounds.
Managers review and evaluate the organization‟s
L2
progress toward meeting its goals and objectives.
L3 Managers gives priority to high achievement and
competitiveness
L4 Managers openly shares knowledge with me
Mgt. Management Commitment
M1 Management facilitates percolation of information to
all the levels
Management generate high levels of motivation and
M2 commitment in the workforce.
M3 Management encourages teamwork and participation
M4 Management is committed towards providing the
infrastructure needed for documenting, retrieving and
sharing information
Management encourages new ideas, innovation by
M5
rewards
KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 21

APPENDIX 2

Descriptive statistics of the data

Std. Mean Std.

Mean Deviation Deviation

kap1 1.52 .557 L1 1.20 .404

kap2 1.46 .556 L2 1.39 .490

kap3 1.59 .600 L3 1.54 .556

kap4 1.42 .577 L4 1.51 .583

kap5 1.48 .530 oc1 1.71 .664

kap6 1.45 .555 oc2 1.45 .629

kcr1 1.42 .524 oc3 1.45 .580

kcr2 1.61 .667 oc4 1.59 .549

kcr3 1.48 .607 m1 1.61 .597

kcr4 1.45 .605 m2 1.58 .626

kcr5 1.49 .583 m3 1.43 .694

kt1 1.64 .661 m4 1.62 .543

kt2 1.48 .582 m5 1.57 .553

kt3 1.39 .572

kt4 1.45 .605

kc1 1.45 .605

kc2 1.54 .529

kc3 1.68 .579

kc4 1.67 .632

ks1 1.64 .591

ks2 1.38 .515

ks3 1.55 .555

KM PRACTICES IN MANUFACTURIN COMPANIES 22

ks4 1.55 .555

ks5 1.52 .607

View publication stats