This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]

On: 31 December 2014, At: 10:17

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Total Quality Management & Business

Excellence
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

From P Economy to K Economy: An

empirical study on knowledge-based
quality factors
a b b
Abdulaziz O. Alsadhan , Mohamed Zairi & Kay Hooi Alan Keoy
a
College of Computer and Information Sciences , Saudi Arabia
b
School of Management , University of Bradford , United Kingdom
Published online: 05 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Abdulaziz O. Alsadhan , Mohamed Zairi & Kay Hooi Alan Keoy (2008) From
P Economy to K Economy: An empirical study on knowledge-based quality factors, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 19:7-8, 807-825, DOI: 10.1080/14783360802159469

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783360802159469

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Total Quality Management
Vol. 19, Nos. 7 – 8, July –August 2008, 807– 825

From P Economy to K Economy: An

empirical study on knowledge-based quality
factors
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

Abdulaziz O. Alsadhana , Mohamed Zairib and Kay Hooi Alan Keoyb

a
College of Computer and Information Sciences, Saudi Arabia; bSchool of Management, University of Bradford,
United Kingdom

Knowledge management (KM) initiatives, projects and systems are just beginning to appear in
organisations, there is little research and field data to guide the successful development and
implementation of such systems or to guide the expectations of the potential benefits of such
systems. Therefore, and due to the complex and integrated nature of KM, the investments
involved, and the relatively high implementation failure rates, this paper attempts to fill this
gap by investigating the critical success factors of KM implementation in organisations that
have already implemented it, and learn from their practice. In this paper, an integrated
model for effective implementation of KM projects based on a best practice perspective has
been proposed. This paper aims to identify and empirically assesses the critical success
factors (CSFs) in the KM implementation and the investigation of how the KM processes
and these factors are being addressed and implemented in projects. This paper has identified
a series of critical issues that must be carefully considered to ensure successful
implementation of a KM system project. However, most of these factors are not related to
technology and almost entirely to the people and business processes, and they are highly
interdependent. Although this study has reviewed a large body of relevant literature and
collected a vast set of appropriate data from both primary and secondary sources, it is not
possible to claim that the empirical investigation has come across all issues related to KM
project implementation. The paper shows that by explicitly describing these knowledge
assets, the KM activities within organisations can more effectively leverage knowledge and
improve performance. In essence, adhering to the various levels of application of KM
projects will ensure that organisations can derive maximum benefits from KM and that the
decision-making process and the flow of information happen in a seamless, corporate-wide
perspective. Finally, it is hoped that the theory and research findings presented in this paper
can aid the development of the KM, as well as serving as a consultative tool for
organisations in their KM implementations.

Keywords: knowledge management; critical success factors; leadership; culture


Corresponding author. Email: alsadhan@ccis.ksu.edu.sa
1478-3363 print/1478-3371 online
# 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14783360802159469
http://www.informaworld.com
 808 A.O. Alsadhan et al.

Introduction
A review of current literature reveals numerous definitions of knowledge management (KM) due
to the wide range of interests, perspectives, purposes and issues represented by various people.
Authors working in the field of KM come from a wide range of disciplines, such as information
technology (IT), psychology, philosophy and epistemology, economics, management science,
strategy and sociology (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Wiig, 1997a; Earl, 2001). Thus, KM is a
multidisciplinary area and can be interpreted differently (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997; Wiig,
1997b; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Yahya & Goh, 2002; Hicks et al., 2006). KM is not only
defined in different ways, but there are also various options regarding what to do and how to
do it (Earl, 2001).
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

In the literature, defining KM has proved to be very difficult mainly due to three factors. The
first factor is the intangible nature of knowledge and that knowledge itself is an extremely com-
plicated concept to define and has many types and dimensions. Second, the subjective and eclec-
tic nature of the management field, in which the KM belongs, compounds the difficulty
(McAdam & McCreedy, 1999). Lastly, when the subject is emerging rather than established,
then the problem of definition is even further magnified (Quintas et al., 1997; Hicks et al.,
2006). Accordingly, it is not surprising that there are various positions on what KM is.
This study intends to unravel the critical role of critical success factors in an effective
implement of knowledge management within an organisation. This paper intends to propose
an integrated model for effective implementation of KM projects based on a best practice per-
spective. This requires the identification and empirical assessment of CSFs of KM implemen-
tation and the investigation of how the KM processes and identified factors are being
addressed and implement in projects. The paper analyses the critical role of leadership as one
of the critical success factors within the knowledge management implementation, illustrating
the argument by reviewing the work of several authors (Bixler, 2002; Rumizen, 2002; Davenport
et al., 1998; Chong et al., 2000; Alazmi & Zairi, 2003). The research methodology section pre-
sents the methods of primary data collection, which are then analysed and interpreted using stat-
istical analysis in direct relation to the formulated research hypothesis. The paper concludes with
a summary of the main research, research limitations and implications.

Critical evaluation of knowledge management implementation conceptual framework

As previously stated, KM is a new phenomenon within management systems, and thus
implementation methodologies are still developing with experience (Chong & Choi, 2005).
Also, as KM initiatives, projects and systems are just beginning to appear in organisations,
there is little research and field data to guide the successful development and implementation
of such systems or to guide the expectations of the potential benefits of such systems (Alavi
& Leidner, 1999; Civi, 2000; Cormican & O’Sullivan, 2003; Quaddus & Xu, 2005). Further,
little is known about the diversity of both systems and organisations that have successfully
implemented KM systems (Civi, 2000). Moreover, there exist different views among prac-
titioners and even researchers on how a KM programme can be designed and implemented in
organisations (Fehér, 2004). Consequently, there has not yet been a common comprehensive
approach to KM implementation.
Effective deployment of KM is a difficult task; many organisations have tried and failed to
implement KM (Shankar et al., 2003). Furthermore, typical investment cost of KM initiative
is in the range from 1.5 to 15 million dollars (Chong et al., 2000). Moreover, about 84% of
 Total Quality Management 809

KM programmes failed (or exerted no significant impact on the adopting organisations) world-
wide due to the inability to consider many factors that contribute to the success of KM project
implementation (Chan & Chau, 2005; Lam & Chua, 2005).

Critical success factors (CSF) and implementation in KM

Critical success factors (CSFs) can be defined as ‘areas in which results, if they are satisfactory,
will ensure successful competitive performance for the organisation’ (Rockart, 1979, p. 85).
Saraph et al. (1989) viewed them as those critical areas of managerial planning and action
that must be practised in order to achieve effectiveness. Digman (1990) defined CSFs as the
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

areas where things must go right for the business to flourish. Oakland (2000) defined them as
what the organisation must accomplish to achieve its mission by examination and categorisation
of the impacts. He adds that they are the minimum key factors or sub-goals that the organisation
must have or need, and which together will achieve the mission.
Holsapple & Joshi (2000) investigated factors that influenced the management of knowledge
in organisations through the use of a Delphi panel consisting of 31 recognised KM researchers
and practitioners. Results concluded that leadership and top management support are crucial.
Resource influences such as having sufficient financial support, skill level of employees, and
identified knowledge sources are also important. Similarly, a study conducted by Skyrme and
Amidon (2000) highlighted a strong link of seven CSFs to successful KM implementation
(business imperative, a compelling vision and architecture, knowledge leadership, a knowledge
creating and sharing culture, continuous learning, a well-developed technology infrastructure,
and systematic organisational knowledge processes). Table 1 provides a comparative summary
of some of the main features of these studies.
From the perspective of KM, CSFs can be viewed as activities and practices that should be
addressed in order to ensure its successful implementation. These practices would either need
to be nurtured if they already existed or be developed if they were not in place. Further, aware-
ness and understanding of such factors will help to avoid failures of KM projects in future
implementation. Moreover, organisations must take account of the CSFs in order to exploit
KM-related advantages fully, as well as how people learn, how they implement what they
learn, and how they share their knowledge.

Identification of research gaps

Although a number of authors and practitioners have conducted many studies regarding the criti-
cal factors in KM implementation (Davenport et al., 1998; Holsapple & Joshi, 2000) most of
these studies have not adopted an integrated approach to KM implementation (Alsadhan
et al., 2006). Hence, there is a need for an integrated approach to KM project implementation
based on best practice approach and underpinned by empirical investigation.
Davenport et al. (1998) for example have not covered factors such as KM measurements,
employee involvement, trust, and learning and training that are crucial for KM implementation.
In addition, since the study was exploratory, the linking of the identified factors to the success of
KM should be viewed as hypothesised since it is not empirically tested. Ryan and Prybutok
(2001) on the other hand had focused only on the technology aspects of KM and factors such
as KM measurements, and learning and training were not covered.
Similarly, there was a lack of detailed inclusion of technology and culture as critical factors in
the study conducted by Holsapple and Joshi (2000). For example, culture was not explicitly
 810
Table 1. Summary of literature review identifying critical factors influencing KM implementation.

A.O. Alsadhan et al.

Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

Reference Factors Sector Stage Methodology

Davenport et al. (1998) 1. A knowledge-oriented culture Large companies of All Qualitative

different sectors (case study)
in US and Europe
2. Technical and organisational infrastructure
3. Senior management support
4. A link to economics or industry value
5. Clarity of purpose and language
6. Nontrivial motivational aids
7. Knowledge structure
8. Multiple channels for knowledge transfer
Ryan and Prybutok (2001) Factors classified into three main groups: IT executive in US KM Technology Quantitative
firms Adoption (Survey)
1. Organisational factors
2. Environmental factors
3. Technological factors
Holsapple and Joshi (2000) Factors organised into three categories: 31 KM experts, All Quantitative
researchers and (Survey)
practitioner (Delphi
process)
1. Managerial influences
2. Resource influences
3. Environmental influences
Skyrme and Amidon (2000) 1. Link to a business imperative Companies from All Qualitative
different sectors (case study)
in US and Europe
2. Compelling vision/architecture
3. Knowledge leadership
4. Having a knowledge-creating and sharing culture
5. Continuous learning
6. Well-developed technology infrastructure
7. Systematic organisational knowledge processes
 Total Quality Management 811

presented but was only included as a sub-concept under the knowledge resource factor. In the
researcher’s opinion, culture is a very important consideration for KM and it should be rep-
resented as a factor, rather than as a sub-element of something else. Other factors were also per-
ceived to be missing, such as knowledge map, communication, training, strategy setting and
reward issues.

Proposed CSFs conceptual framework

The success factors proposed in the literature are fragmented and diversified, depending on the
researchers’ background and interests. In addition, little attempt has been made to integrate all
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

the success factors proposed by the KM researchers. As such, there is an absence of unifying
theories on what are the critical factors that influence the success of KM implementation.
Furthermore, a set of variables taken solely from one perspective might explain only a small
proportion of how well the success factors contribute to the successful KM implementation in
organisations.
The following analyses the KM implementation process by reviewing the relevant literature
on both soft and hard factors that are said to contribute to the success of KM efforts. The factors
listed below are distilled from various articles and empirical research on KM implementation.
They were then categorised into a number of subgroups representing various dimensions of
change related to KM implementation. These dimensions were used to build a framework for
KM project implementation (see Figure 1). The dimensions with their factors are listed in
Table 2 and discussed in the following sections.
Sound top management competency ensures that KM efforts will be implemented in the most
effective manner. Continuous top management support and commitment together with the pro-
vision of necessary resources and budget positively influence the KM project implementation.
The types of support that should be provided by top management include sending messages
to the organisation that knowledge management and organisational learning are critical to the
organisation’s success, and clarifying what types of knowledge are most important to the organ-
isation (Davenport et al., 1998). It is essential that board-level members of the management team
are willing to invest in knowledge (Lam & Chua, 2005). However, having support from the top-
level management does not help much if funding is not provided for plan execution (Wong,
2005). It is important to understand that KM is a journey rather than a destination.

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for KM implementation.

 812 A.O. Alsadhan et al.

Table 2. Taxonomy of CSFs in KM implementation.

Dimension Factors

Top management competence Top management support and commitment

Providing necessary resources and budget
Championship and evangelisation KM champions and leaders
Communication
Building a business case
Effective use of consultants
KM strategy and vision
Starting with a pilot project
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

Culture
Organisational infrastructure
HRM
Continuous improvement
KM processes
Content and structure
Technical infrastructure
Trust
Openness
Collaboration
Free time
Acceptance of knowledge sharing and reuse
Establishing KM roles and teams
Having a flat or network structure
Physical configuration
Community of practice (CoP)
Employee empowerment
Employee involvement
Employee learning and development
Employee recruitment and selection
Employee retention
Reward systems
KM performance measurement
Benchmarking
Process-based view to KM
Linking KM activities to business processes
Knowledge structure and map
Current and relevant content
Building effective ICT infrastructure
Integration with current systems
Effective use of software tools

While, in theory, KM should be the responsibility of every employee, there is definitely a need
for a senior member and steering committee within an organisation to champion the knowledge
project (Chong et al., 2000). These champions act as role models of information sharing and
‘interface’ regularly with staff, teams and stakeholders in review sessions and openly talk
about successes and failures (Wong, 2005). It is vital that they model their behaviours and
actions through deeds, not just words. By doing so, they can further influence other employees
to imitate them and increase the propensity of employees to participate in KM (Wong, 2005).
Moreover, they should formulate and implement KM strategy and create KM vision that inspires
others to join in the exploration of how managing knowledge might contribute value to the enter-
prise and its people. Furthermore, they should establish various communication channels to
convey the significance, processes and achievements of KM.
Any organisation implementing a KM project must appreciate that the most critical factor in
the success of KM implementation is cultural acceptance (Davenport et al., 1998; Storey &
Barnett, 2000; Birkinshaw, 2001; Hlupic et al., 2002; Hislop, 2003; Oliver & Kandadi, 2006;
 Total Quality Management 813

Olla & Holm, 2006). Organisational culture is a set of beliefs, values, norms, assumptions and
social customs, which provides an identity for the organisation, which in turn defines how the
organisation runs and shows the way individuals act and behave in an organisation (Wong,
2005). It includes organisational purpose, criteria of performance, the location of authority, legit-
imate base of power, decision-making orientation, leadership style, compliance, evaluation and
motivation (Chong, 2006). Walczak (2005) adds that organisational culture is formed and
reinforced through the interrelated elements of strategy, structure, people and process.
A key aspect of the management of knowledge in organisations is the development of an
organisational infrastructure to perform knowledge-oriented tasks (Davenport et al., 1998;
Liebowitz, 1999; Yahya & Goh, 2002). It involves the establishment of new roles and respon-
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

sibilities, new skills, and new relationships. Creating an organisational infrastructure to manage
knowledge is by no means enough for success at KM, but it is an important ingredient of success
(Davenport & Volpel, 2001).
In addition, it is safe to claim that people are the main drivers of KM since they are the sole
originators of knowledge (Civi, 2000; Robertson & Hammersley, 2000). Moreover, the people
factor is recognised as the key to driving KM from initiation to full implementation (Chan &
Chau, 2005). As stated by Davenport and Volpel (2001, p. 459), ‘managing knowledge is mana-
ging people; managing people is managing knowledge’. According to Yahya and Goh (2002),
KM is actually an evolved form of human resource management (HRM), using IT as the support-
ing mechanism in the human interactions and collaborations process. The main tasks of HRM
are to monitor, measure and intervene in construction, embodiment, transfer and use of knowl-
edge by the employees (Soliman & Spooner, 2000).
Another dimension for KM implementation is continuous improvement. It is important to
understand that KM is a journey rather than a destination. The benefits, outcomes, performance
and impacts of KM implementation should be measured. Based on that, necessary improvement
should then be carried out. Furthermore, there should be a constant benchmarking for best prac-
tices inside and outside the organisation. Organisations are only beginning to look for ways to
manage and measure the intangible or intellectual assets that are now recognised as important
factors for their market value (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997; Bontis et al., 2000). According to
Bontis (2001), the intellectual assets of a firm include not only the employees’ know-how,
but also its business processes and customer knowledge as well.
A critical issue in implementing KM projects is the preliminary preparation of the organisation to
accept, adopt, and utilise new KM processes (Walczak, 2005). A KM process refers to something
that can be done with knowledge in the organisation (Johannsen, 2000). Before it can be managed,
knowledge must first be created and applied in an organisation (Yahya & Goh, 2002). The KM
process demands interaction and involvement of people, technology and information.
Organisational knowledge is continually created and then stored individually, in groups, on an
organisational level and through the inter-organisation with suppliers and customers (Chong,
2006). However, stored knowledge or the knowledge content has to be reliable, useful, accessible,
in understandable format, up-to-date, relevant and timely (Davenport et al., 1998; Trussler, 1998;
Choi, 2000; Hislop, 2003). Otherwise, knowledge content will not be applicable to problem solving
and making appropriate decisions, which in turn render the KM project to be a failure.
Lastly, another central aspect for the KM project is the development of a suitable technical
infrastructure. It is indisputable that one of the key enablers for implementing an effective
and efficient KM project is information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Davenport
et al., 1998; Tiwana, 2000; Chong, 2006). A technical infrastructure is required to support the
knowledge processes.
 814 A.O. Alsadhan et al.

This proposed model is the result of a systematic effort that identifies the CSFs in an integra-
tive and comprehensive manner. This conceptual framework will be tested through an empirical
investigation using quantitative methods to investigate the impact of these factors on KM
implementation.

Research methodology
Sample selection and questionnaire design
This research is exploratory in nature, so non-probability samples are particularly relevant and
suitable (Remenyi et al., 1998). Therefore, the only criteria that will be used for choosing the
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

sample are those organisations that have implemented or are in the process of implementing a
KM project. Moreover, this research is planned to obtain responses from different sectors and
types of organisation worldwide so that generalisation of the findings could be established.
To have a comprehensive list of those organisations that have implemented KM, the
researcher has searched through lists of KM vendors, magazines, newspapers, textbooks and
KM gurus to find their mail addresses. Moreover, the questionnaire was sent to the Singapore
Productivity and Standards Board (PSB), Hong Kong Quality Management Association
(HKQMA), Saudi Arabian Quality Council (SAQC), American Society for Quality (ASQ),
European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) and the Dubai Quality Group (DQG)
because of their relationship with the ECTQM, to distribute it to relevant organisations.
The questions in the questionnaire were closed and generated from the collected CSFs and
different aspects about the KM project implementation. The first questions were about the organ-
isation itself and different KM issues. Then, the main questions were about the CSFs, in which
the respondents were asked to assess the criticality of the CSFs in two different Likert-based
scales (five-point), the first is concerned with the importance of the CSFs and the other is con-
cerned with the implementation effectiveness of CSFs.

Data collection and analysis

The unit of analysis for this survey was the organisation. Hence, only one questionnaire was sent
to each selected organisation, thereby using a simple form approach, rather than a multi-form.
The latter usually suffers from an unequal number of replies from different organisations,
while the former helps to eliminate this bias (Wong, 2005).
To have a good interpretation of the data, it is important that data be organised in such a way
that they may be analysed efficiently. There are a number of computer programs that can be used
to analyse survey research data. Such programs allow users to quickly sort information and look
at the data from different angles. Computer software programs with database spreadsheets are
widely available. The main tool for analysis was the Statistical Package for Social Scientists
(SPSS), which Cramer (1998) describes as one of the most widely used, comprehensive and flex-
ible statistical software tools. In addition, Microsoft Excel 2003 was used in descriptive statisti-
cal data analysis.
As previously stated, one of the main objectives of the questionnaire was to assess the
effectiveness of KM main elements in successful KM project implementation. To determine
the relationship between the main factors of KM implementation (independent variables) and
successful KM project (dependent variable) and to investigate the effects of the independent
variables on the dependent variable, linear regression was used (Remenyi et al., 1998;
 Total Quality Management 815

Kent, 2001; Saunders et al., 2003). The result of linear regression shows the relationship and cor-
relation between dependent variables and independent variables.

Results
Descriptive results
Based on the above recommendation, 330 questionnaires were mailed to sample organisations
across the world. The 96 organisations that responded came from various countries and industry
sectors. The researcher considered 92 questionnaires to be usable and rejected four, so the
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

response rate was 27.9%. This response rate is comparable with other such rates carried out
in the KM field, for example Ryan and Prybutok (2001) – 16%; Moffett et al. (2003) –
14.4%; Wong and Aspinwall (2005) – 24%; and to those in other fields, such as Antony
et al. (2002) – 16.5%. As planned, the reliability of the respondents was checked through
data analysis.

Organisations’ locations
According to the survey results, organisations from 23 countries from different continents par-
ticipated in the present study. Figure 2 shows a geographical breakdown of the responding
organisations. Twenty-eight per cent of respondents were from the Middle East (organisations
in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait), 25% were from
Europe (organisations in England, Germany, France, Finland, Italy and Ireland), 18% from
Asia (organisations in Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore and Taiwan), 17%
from North America (organisations in Canada and the USA), 7% from South America (organ-
isations in Argentina), and only 4% from other countries (Australia and South Africa).

Organisations’ sectors
As can be seen in Figure 3, responses were collected from various sectors. It is obvious that the
majority of respondents were from the manufacturing sector, with 30%; followed by consulting
and law sectors, with 17% and financial services with 13%. The public utilities gave 10%, fol-
lowed by petroleum and other types of sectors (namely non-profit, retailing, government and
education), with 9% each. The figure also shows that the lowest responses came from healthcare
and telecommunications sectors, with 7% and 5%, respectively.

Figure 2. Organisations by locations.

 816 A.O. Alsadhan et al.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

Figure 3. Organisations by sectors.

Respondents’ positions
As can be seen in Figure 4, the majority of respondents are Chief Information Officers (CIO) and
IT directors, representing 25% of all respondents; followed by Chief Executive Officers (CEO)
with 21%. In addition, 16% of the respondents are Chief Knowledge Officers (CKO) and KM
managers, whereas 15% are holding other positions, namely innovation manager, project
manager and consultant. Finally, HRM directors represented 13% of the respondents and only
10% are quality managers. It can be concluded that almost all the respondents were experienced
practitioners at senior and executive levels in their organisations. Therefore, their responses can
be considered as reliable and provide the study with valuable information.

Figure 4. Respondents’ position in organisations surveyed.

Respondents’ involvement in KM implementation

Figure 5 shows that the majority of respondents were involved in KM implementation, repre-
senting 91%, whereas only 7% of respondents were not involved and 2% did not answer this
question. Moreover, Figure 6 shows that 48% of involved respondents had been involved
between 5 – 10 years, whereas 29% had been involved for more than 10 years and 24% involved
for less than 5 years.
 Total Quality Management 817

Figure 5. Respondents’ involvement in KM implementation.

Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

Figure 6. Respondents’ years of involvement.

Statistical analysis
Reliability assessment
The analysis of CSFs of KM implementation was based on the questionnaire-survey of 92 organ-
isations. A total of 32 items were used to measure the CSFs of KM implementation as the inde-
pendent factors in the research framework (Figure 2). All the items used in CSFs of KM
implementation were measured on 5-point scales, where 1 represented not implemented and
5 represented effectively implemented.
The analysis was made on each variable and, as can be seen from Table 3, all of the scales had
very high alpha scores, ranging from 0.682 to 0.878, and were well above the generally accepted

Table 3. Results of Cronbach’s alpha for KM-related CSFs.

Constructs Cronbach’s alpha

Top management competence domain’s CSFs 0.682

Championship and evangelisation domain’s CSFs 0.742
Culture domain’s CSFs 0.844
Organisational infrastructure domain’s CSFs 0.745
HRM domain’s CSFs 0.878
Continuous improvement domain’s CSFs 0.688
KM processes domain’s CSFs 0.741
Content and structure domain’s CSFs 0.723
Technical infrastructure domain’s CSFs 0.815
 818 A.O. Alsadhan et al.

lower limit of 0.6 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Additionally, item – total correlation values for
all items were greater than 0.3 (except for the ‘Effective use of consultants’ CSF that has a very
low value of 0.147, and hence will be excluded from further analysis), a very satisfactory
outcome, as recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). From these findings, it can be con-
cluded that the constructs are deemed to have high internal consistency and adequate reliability
for the next stage of validity analysis.

Construct validity using factor analysis technique

As Table 4 shows in the second column, the KMO value for the measurement of sample ade-
quacy (MSA) gives the computed KMO value for each domain equal or above the acceptable
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

level of 0.5 (Field, 2000). All factor loadings were higher than 0.5 (in the third column), so
each item loaded higher on its associated construct than on any other construct. Moreover, all
eigenvalues for all domains are greater than the acceptable level of one. Furthermore, more
than 50% of the variance of each set of CSFs was explained by its respective domain. In addition,
all the domains are ‘unifactorial’ and therefore, have construct validity.

Table 4. Results of factor analysis.

% Variance
Domains for KM-related CSFs KMO value Factor loading Eigenvalue explained

1. Top management competence 0.500 0.874–0.874 1.527 76.350

2. Championship & evangelisation 0.687 0.521–0.855 2.521 50.416
3. Culture 0.815 0.665–0.882 3.204 64.075
4. Organisational infrastructure 0.615 0.633–0.887 2.270 56.742
5. HRM 0.701 0.683–0.847 3.738 62.299
6. Continuous improvement 0.500 0.882–0.882 1.555 77.754
7. KM processes 0.500 0.895–0.895 1.604 80.186
8. Content & structure 0.500 0.886–0.886 1.569 78.461
9. Technical infrastructure 0.660 0.787–0.913 2.211 73.694

Regression analysis technique using ANOVA

Regression is an extension of bivariate regression in which several independent variables are
combined to predict the dependent variable. Therefore, the objective is to use the independent
variables whose values are known to predict the single dependent variable (Cramer, 1998;
Hair, 1998). To assess the significance of the overall regression model, the results of Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) were used. The linear regression was estimated with results presented
in the subsequent section. The results show that there is a strong significant correlation
between successful KM project implementation and the main elements of the conceptual frame-
work of KM project implementation (significance of F ¼ 0.000).
Moreover, Table 5 shows that these independent factors have explained 97.1% of the success-
ful KM project implementation (R2 ¼ 0.971). In addition, t-test results indicate a significance
effect of most independent factors on successful KM project implementation (most independent
factors have significance of t . 0.05).
The linear regression result (see Table 6) indicates that there is a positive relationship between
successful KM project implementation and the remaining 29 CSF variables. In essence, the
result of linear regression also demonstrates that there is strong evidence that these variables
 Total Quality Management 819

Table 5. R Square test.

ANOVA test
2 2
R R Adjusted R F Sig. of F

0.986 0.971 0.958 72.645 0.000

Table 6. Relationship between CSFs constructs of KM project.

ANOVA test
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

2 2
Independent variable R R Adjusted R F Sig. of F

CFS1 Top management support & commitment 0.685 0.469 0.463 79.57 0.000
Providing necessary resources & budget 0.635 0.403 0.396 60.72 0.000
CFS2 KM champions & leaders 0.638 0.407 0.400 61.76 0.000
Communication 0.308 0.095 0.085 9.449 0.003
Building a business case 0.368 0.135 0.126 14.09 0.000
KM strategy and vision 0.619 0.383 0.376 55.93 0.000
Starting with a pilot project 0.185 0.034 0.024 3.201 0.077
CFS3 Trust 0.656 0.430 0.424 67.91 0.000
Openness 0.459 0.211 0.202 24.00 0.000
Collaboration 0.588 0.345 0.388 40.49 0.000
Free time 0.435 0.189 0.180 20.95 0.000
Acceptance of knowledge sharing & reuse 0.646 0.416 0.410 64.22 0.000
CFS4 Establishing KM roles & teams 0.627 0.394 0.387 58.45 0.000
Having a flat structure 0.640 0.410 0.403 62.44 0.000
Physical configuration 0.195 0.038 0.027 3.566 0.062
Community of practice 0.479 0.229 0.221 26.79 0.000
CFS5 Employee empowerment 0.448 0.201 0.192 22.65 0.000
Employee involvement 0.486 0.237 0.228 27.89 0.000
Employee learning & development 0.545 0.296 0.289 37.93 0.000
Employee recruitment & selection 0.201 0.041 0.030 3.80 0.054
Employee retention 0.595 0.355 0.347 49.45 0.000
Reward systems 0.725 0.526 0.521 99.95 0.000
CFS6 KM performance measurement 0.542 0.294 0.286 37.41 0.000
Benchmarking 0.598 0.358 0.351 50.22 0.000
CFS7 Process-based view to KM 0.677 0.458 0.452 76.16 0.000
Linking KM activities to business processes 0.644 0.415 0.409 63.90 0.000
CFS8 Knowledge structure & map 0.563 0.316 0.309 41.67 0.000
Current & relevant content 0.752 0.565 0.560 116.95 0.000
CFS9 Building effective ICT infrastructure 0.455 0.207 0.198 23.53 0.000
Integration with current systems 0.608 0.369 0.362 52.71 0.000
Effective use of software tools 0.613 0.376 0.369 54.17 0.000
Key:
CFS1 Top management competence
CFS2 Championship & evangelisation
CFS3 Culture
CFS4 Organisational infrastructure
CFS5 HRM
CFS6 Continuous improvement
CFS7 KM processes
CFS8 Content & structure
CFS9 Technical infrastructure
 820 A.O. Alsadhan et al.

have an effect on KM project implementation. Moreover, the ANOVA test and t-test indicate a
significant main effect of this variable on KM project implementation (significance of t and
F ¼ 0.000).
Table 6 shows that out of 32 variables, only three CSFs variables demonstrate insignificant
impact on the success of KM implementation (starting with a pilot project, physical configur-
ation and employee recruitment & selection; F . 0.05).
Although some organisations have started their KM implementation with a pilot project,
Table 6 demonstrates that the relationship between successful KM project implementation
and starting with a pilot project is very low (R ¼ 18.5%). Furthermore, this factor has explained
only 3.4% of successful KM project implementation (R2 ¼ 0.034). Moreover, this independent
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

factor has very little effect on KM project implementation (significance of t and F ¼ 0.077).
The results show that there is a weak relationship between successful KM project implemen-
tation and physical configuration (R ¼ 19.5%). Furthermore, this factor has explained only 3.8%
of successful KM project implementation (R2 ¼ 0.038). Moreover, this independent factor has
very little effect on KM project implementation (significance of t and F ¼ 0.062).
Although some organisations have considered employee recruitment and selection in their
KM implementation, Table 6 demonstrates that the relationship between successful KM
project implementation and employee recruitment and selection is very weak (R ¼ 20.1%).
Furthermore, this factor has explained only 4.1% of successful KM project implementation
(R2 ¼ 0.041). Moreover, this independent factor has very little effect on KM project implemen-
tation (significance of t and F ¼ 0.054).

Discussions
Based on these findings, it can be argued that top management support and commitment posi-
tively influences KM project implementation. However, top management support and commit-
ment should be ongoing and delivered in a practical and public way (Storey & Barnett, 2000). In
addition, it should be continuous and uninterrupted through all implementation stages of KM
projects (Wong, 2005). Providing necessary resources and budget is also an important factor
in KM project implementation and is consistent with previous study findings (Holsapple &
Joshi, 2000; Bixler, 2002; Chong, 2006).
The results of the study reveal that the champions and leaders, communication, building a
business case, KM strategy and vision are critical factors in the KM project. This result is con-
sistent with previous study findings (Davenport et al., 1998; Trussler, 1998; Liebowitz, 1999;
Chong et al., 2000). For example, results demonstrate that successful KM implementation
requires a full and deliberate communication strategy. Many KM strategies fail because the
employees cannot see the benefits when they share knowledge (Lam & Chua, 2005). The KM
champions in this case are responsible for building the trust in the employees regarding how
KM will benefit them.
Culture CFS (trust, openness, collaboration, acceptance of knowledge sharing and reuse and
free time) are important factors in KM project implementation. This result is consistent with pre-
vious study findings (Davenport et al., 1998; Trussler, 1998; Liebowitz, 1999). For example, an
open culture whereby mistakes and past failures are openly shared and discussed without the fear
of punishment is a critical condition for success in implementing a KM project. Hence, making
mistakes should be viewed as an investment process in individuals because it can be a key source
of the creation of a learning organisation (Yang & Wan, 2004).
 Total Quality Management 821

Appropriate organisational infrastructure implies establishing a set of roles and teams to

perform knowledge-related tasks. This is in agreement with previous study findings (Davenport
et al., 1998; Soliman & Spooner, 2000; Ryan & Prybutok, 2001; Yahya & Goh, 2002; Moffett
et al., 2003; Egbu, 2004; Walczak, 2005). It can be argued that having a flat or network structure
(as opposed to a hierarchical or bureaucratic structure) is an important condition for knowledge
sharing among employees. This study revealed that physical configuration is not critical in the
KM project. It could, however, be due to the fact that the organisations under study concentrate
more on sharing and transferring explicit knowledge, which is the codification strategy of KM in
their KM project implementation.
All of the study findings in this research confirm that the factor of employee empowerment is
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

an important factor in KM project implementation. As supported by Jarrar and Zairi (2000),

Skyrme and Amidon (2000) and Armbrecht et al. (2001) this study clearly reveals that an
open culture is a critical factor in the success of the KM project. Findings also support the
importance of effective recruitment, the reward system and that employee retention within
the HRM is an important CSF for a successful KM implementation. Employees with the required
knowledge and desired skills to fill knowledge gaps should be recruited (Davenport & Volpel,
2001). In addition, rewarding employees and giving incentives help to stimulate and reinforce
the positive behaviours and culture needed for effective KM (Cormican & O’Sullivan, 2003;
Oliver & Kandadi, 2006).
Based on these findings, it can be argued that measuring KM performance and outcomes is an
important factor in KM project implementation. According to Ahmed et al. (1999), measuring
KM is necessary in order to ensure that its envisioned objectives are being attained. Further,
measurement enables organisations to track the progress of KM and to determine its benefits
and effectiveness (Yahya & Goh, 2002). The results of the study revealed that the factor of
benchmarking best practices is one of the most important critical factors in KM project
implementation. This result is consistent with previous study findings (O’Dell & Grayson,
1998; Chong, 2006).
As supported by Skyrme and Amidon (2000) and Oliver and Kandadi (2006) this study clearly
reveals that a process-based view to KM is a critical factor in the success of KM project
implementation. Based on these findings, it can be argued that adopting a process-based view
of KM significantly influences KM to be implemented successfully. Based on these findings,
it can be argued that KM processes should be incorporated into employees’ daily work activities
and integrated into business processes and technologies so that they become common practices
in an organisation and allow seamless flow of knowledge in the business life. As a result, this will
lead to the success of the KM project.
The results of the study revealed that having an appropriate knowledge structure and map is an
important critical factor in KM project implementation. This result is in agreement with previous
study findings (Hung et al., 2005; Wong, 2005; Chong, 2006). The results from all study methods
in this research suggest that the factor of the knowledge structure and map and the success of the
KM project are positively linked. Moreover, half of the primary cases studied reveal that this
factor was indispensable to achievement of KM implementation success. Based on these find-
ings, it can be argued that having an appropriate knowledge structure and map significantly influ-
ences KM to be implemented successfully. As supported by Davenport et al. (1998), Trussler
(1998) and Chong (2006) this study clearly reveals that having a current and relevant content
is a critical factor in the success of KM project implementation.
All of the study findings in this research confirm that building an effective ICT infrastructure
is an important factor in KM project implementation. As supported by Davenport et al. (1998),
 822 A.O. Alsadhan et al.

Soliman and Spooner (2000) and Chong (2006), this study clearly reveals that integration with
current systems is a critical factor for KM project implementation. The results from all study
methods in this research suggest that this factor and the success of KM project implementation
are positively linked. The results of the study revealed that the effective use of software tools was
an important factor in KM project implementation.

Limitations
Although this study has reviewed a large body of relevant literature and collected a vast set of
appropriate data from both primary and secondary sources, it is not possible to claim that the
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

empirical investigation has come across all issues related to KM project implementation. The
time frame was one of the main constraints.
Another limitation is the difficulties associated with all survey-based research. There exists no
practical way whereby the researcher can ensure the truthfulness and sincerity of the respondents
when completing the survey questionnaire. In addition, there is no way to ensure that the respon-
dents always understand the heart of each question in the way the researcher wants the respon-
dent to understand it. Given these considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that the
respondents may have provided answers that may have deviated from reality. To overcome
this, this study has cross checked data across the various levels of investigation to reduce the
degree of discrepancies that could creep in.

Conclusions and implications

As has been mentioned previously, KM is a new phenomenon within all industries and thus
implementation methodologies are still developing with experience. As a result, there is no com-
prehensive or integrated approach to KM project implementation. As KM is still relatively new
and the empirical research related to implementation is not extensive, there is much to learn.
Therefore, it is crucial to look at what others have done, their feedback, mistakes, results and
overall approach to KM implementation
This study has sought to contribute to this area of research and be proactive; it adopts the inte-
grative views and has reviewed a large body of literature relevant to KM concerning many issues
that an organisation encounters. Based on this review, factors that constitute the integrated
approach to successful KM implementation were identified. Additionally, looking through
different KM-related literature, it has been identified that there are 32 factors that contribute
to successful KM project implementation. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the KM implemen-
tation succeeds in making significant benefits without taking account of these critical factors.
This paper has identified a series of critical issues that must be carefully considered to ensure
successful implementation of a KM system project. However, most of these factors are not
related to technology and almost entirely to the people and business processes, and they are
highly interdependent. These factors culminate in the proposed model for effective KM
project implementation. Moreover, the proposed model is hypothesised to deliver a comprehen-
sive approach to successful KM project implementation.
The findings of this study are important and relevant to all the different sized organisations in
the different sectors and industries. It has provided an insight into the various principles and
techniques of a successful KM implementation. Despite the increasing reputation of KM, its
implementation is still complex. Consequently, this study has recognised a series of critical
issues that must be carefully considered to ensure successful implementation. These factors
 Total Quality Management 823

culminated in the proposed integrated model. Furthermore, adhering to the various levels of
application of the KM model will ensure an organisation can derive maximum benefits, and
that the decision-making process and the flow of information happen in a seamless, corpor-
ate-wide perspective. Finally, it is hoped that the theory and research findings presenting in
this paper can aid the development of the KM, as well as serving as a consultative tool for organ-
isations in their KM implementations.

References
Ahmed, P.K., Lim, K.K., & Zairi, M. (1999). Measurement practice for knowledge management. Journal of Workplace
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

Learning, 11(8), 304 –311.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge management systems: Issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of
the AIS, 1(2), 1 –37.
Alazmi, M., & Zairi, M. (2003). Knowledge management critical success factors. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 14(2), 199–204.
Alsadhan, A., Zairi, M., & Kamala, M. (2006). Critical Success Factors in knowledge management implementation:
Some research issues. International conference on Software Knowledge Information Management and Applications
(SKIMA) Chiang Mai Thailand.
Antony, J., Leung, K., Knowles, G., & Gosh, S. (2002). Critical success factors of TQM implementation in Hong Kong
industries. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(5), 551–566.
Armbrecht, F.M.R. Jr., Chapas, R.B., Chappelow, C.C., Farris, G.F., Froga, P.N., Hartz, C.A., et al. (2001). Knowledge
management in research and development. Research Technology Management, 44(4), 28–48.
Birkinshaw, J. (2001). Why is Knowledge Management so difficult? Business Strategy Review, 12(1), 11–18.
Bixler, C. (2002). Applying the four pillars of knowledge management. KMWorld Magazine, 11(1).
Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: A review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 41.
Bontis, N., Chua, W., Keow, C., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian
industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 85.
Chan, I., & Chau, P. (2005). Getting Knowledge Management right: Lessons from failure. International Journal of
Knowledge Management, 1(3), 40– 54.
Choi, Y.S. (2000). An empirical study of factors affecting successful implementation of knowledge management,
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 1.
Chong, S. (2006). KM critical success factors: A comparison of perceived importance versus implementation in Malay-
sian ICT companies. The Learning Organization, 13(3), 230 –256.
Chong, C.W., Holden, T., Wilhelmij, P., & Schmidt, R.A. (2000). Where does knowledge management add value?
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4), 366–380.
Chong, S.C., & Choi, Y.S. (2005). Critical factors in the successful implementation of Knowledge Management. Journal
of Knowledge Management Practice, June.
Civi, E (2000). Knowledge management as a competitive asset: A review. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 18(4),
166–174.
Cormican, K., & O’Sullivan, D. (2003). A scorecard for supporting enterprise Knowledge Management. Journal of Infor-
mation and Knowledge Management, 2(3), 191–202.
Cramer, D. (1998). Fundamental statistics for social research: step-by-step calculations and computer techniques using
SPSS for Windows. London: Routledge.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T., & Volpel, S. (2001). The rise of knowledge towards attention management. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5(3), 212–221.
Davenport, T., De Long, D., & Beers, M. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management projects. Sloan Management
Review, 39(2), 43– 57.
Digman, L.A. (1990). Strategic management: Concepts, decisions and cases (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge Management strategies: Toward taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(1), 215.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual capital: The proven way to establish your company’s real value by
measuring its hidden brainpower. London: Piatkus.
 824 A.O. Alsadhan et al.

Egbu, C.O. (2004). Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational innovations in the con-
struction industry: An examination of critical success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Man-
agement, 11(5), 301–315.
Fehér, P. (2004). Combining knowledge and change management at consultancies. Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 2(1), 19–32.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows: Advanced techniques for the beginner. London: Sage.
Hair, J.F. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, London: Prentice Hall International.
Hicks, R.C., Dattero, R., & Galup, S.D. (2006). The five-tier knowledge management hierarchy. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 10(1), 19– 31.
Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment. Employee
Relations, 25(2), 182– 202.
Hlupic, V., Pouloudi, A., & Rzevski, G. (2002). Towards an integrated approach to knowledge management: ‘Hard’,
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

‘soft’ and ‘abstract’ issues. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(2), 90–102.
Holsapple, C.W., & Joshi, K.D. (2000). An investigation of factors that influence the management of knowledge in
organizations. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2/3), 235–261.
Hung, Y.-C., Huang, S.-M., Lin, Q.-P., & Tsai, M.-L. (2005). Critical factors in adopting a knowledge management
system for the pharmaceutical industry. Industrial Management, 105(2), 164–83.
Jarrar, Y.F., & Zairi, M. (2000). Internal transfer of best practice for performance excellence: A global survey. Bench-
marking: An International Journal, 7(4), 239–246.
Johannsen, C. (2000). Total quality management in a knowledge management perspective. Journal of Documentation,
56(1), 42– 54.
Kent, R. (2001). Data construction and data analysis for survey research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lam, W., & Chua, A. (2005). The mismanagement of knowledge management. Aslib Proceedings, 57(5), 424–433.
Liebowitz, J. (1999). Key ingredients to the success of an organization’s knowledge management strategy. Knowledge
and Process Management, 6(1), 37– 40.
McAdam, R., & McCreedy, S. (1999). A critical review of knowledge management models. The Learning Organization,
6(3), 91–101.
Moffett, S., McAdam, R., & Parkinson, S. (2003). Technology and people factors in knowledge management: An empiri-
cal analysis. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 14(2), 215– 224.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, London: McGraw-Hill.
Oakland, J.S. (2000). Total Quality Management: Text with cases. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C.J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices.
California Management Review, 40(3), 154–174.
Oliver, S., & Kandadi, K. (2006). How to develop knowledge culture in organizations? A multiple case study of large
distributed organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 6– 24.
Olla, P., & Holm, J. (2006). The role of knowledge management in the space industry: Important or superfluous? Journal
of Knowledge Management, 10(2), 3– 7.
Quaddus, M., & Xu, J. (2005). From rhetoric towards a model of practical knowledge management systems. Journal of
Management Development, 24(4), 291– 319.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge management: A strategic agenda. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 385.
Remenyi, D., Money, A., Williams, B., & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing research in business and management: An introduc-
tion to process and method. London: Sage.
Robertson, M., & Hammersley, G.M. (2000). Knowledge management practices within a knowledge-intensive firm:
The significance of the people management dimension. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(2/3/4),
241– 253.
Rockart, J. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 81– 93.
Rumizen, M.C. (2002). The complete idiot’s guide to knowledge management. Indianapolis: Alpha.
Ryan, S.D., & Prybutok, V.R. (2001). Factors affecting the adoption of knowledge management technologies: A
discriminative approach. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 41(4), 31–37.
Saraph, J., Benson, P., & Schroeder, R. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management.
Decision Sciences, 20(4), 810– 829.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students. London: Prentice Hall.
Shankar, R., Singh, M.D., Gupta, A., & Narain, R. (2003). Strategic planning for knowledge management implemen-
tation in engineering firms. Work Study, 52(4), 190–200.
 Total Quality Management 825

Skyrme, D., & Amidon, D. (2000). The knowledge agenda. In J. Hermans (Ed.), The knowledge management yearbook
1999– 2000. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Soliman, F., & Spooner, K. (2000). Strategies for implementing knowledge management: Role of human resources
management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(4), 337– 345.
Storey, J., & Barnett, E. (2000). Knowledge management initiatives: Learning from failure. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 4(2), 145–156.
Tiwana, A. (2000). The knowledge management toolkit: Practical techniques for building a knowledge management
system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.
Trussler, S. (1998). The rules of the game. The Journal of Business Strategy, 19(1), 16–19.
Walczak, S. (2005). Organizational knowledge management structure. The Learning Organization, 12(4), 330– 339.
Wiig, K. (1997a). Knowledge Management: An introduction and perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management,
1(1), 6 –14.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 10:17 31 December 2014

Wiig, K. (1997b). Knowledge Management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Appli-
cations, 13(1), 1– 14.
Wong, K.Y. (2005). Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and medium enterprises.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(3), 261–279.
Wong, K.Y., & Aspinwall, E. (2005). An empirical study of the important factors for knowledge-management adoption
in the SME sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 64– 82.
Yahya, S., & Goh, W. (2002). Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge management. Journal of Knowl-
edge Management, 6(5), 457–468.
Yang, J.-T., & Wan, C. (2004). Advancing organisational effectiveness and knowledge management implementation.
Tourism Management, 25(5), 593– 601.