The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

Measuring
Measuring employee readiness employee
for knowledge management using readiness for KM
intention to be involved with KM
777
SECI processes
Nor Shahriza Abdul Karim
International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Mohamed Jalaldeen Mohamed Razi
International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Norshidah Mohamed
International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the concept of knowledge management (KM)
readiness using intention to be involved in the KM processes concept. These processes comprised of
socialisation, externalisation, combination, and internalisation (SECI processes). The research also
attempts to measure and validate the concept using data collected from the Sri Lankan
telecommunication industry.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on the established KM SECI process measures adopted
and adapted, instruments were administered using a survey research methodology approach on 313
executives working in the selected organizations in the Sri Lankan telecommunication industry.
A confirmatory factor analysis technique was performed to verify and validate the measurement
model of the intention to be involved in KM processes model. Based on the revised measurement
model, the level of intention to be involved in the KM SECI processes within the industry was then
reported.
Findings – The research finding provides the revised measurement model for employees’ intention
to be involved in KM SECI processes. All four variables of the intention to be involved in KM SECI
processes emerged as significant and reliable measures for KM readiness. The finding also indicates
the positive level of intention among the employees in the Sri Lankan telecommunication industry to
be involved in KM processes.
Originality/value – The research provides a unique perspective of KM readiness, which is not much
covered in the KM literature. The measurement produced can be used as a research tool for more
exploratory and explanatory research in KM and, as an evaluative tool for employee readiness in
ensuring the success of KM initiatives in organizations. The confirmed and validated set of
measurement items can be used to measure the extent to which employees are ready to be involved
with KM processes. Through the validated tool, more research can be conducted to explore the
antecedents of such readiness perception.
Keywords Knowledge management readiness, Knowledge management acceptance,
Knowledge management process, SECI process, Knowledge management research, Business Process Management
Journal
Knowledge management, Sri Lanka, Organizational behaviour Vol. 18 No. 5, 2012
pp. 777-791
Paper type Research paper q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/14637151211270153
BPMJ 1. Introduction
18,5 The importance of knowledge management (KM) has been well documented
as businesses are beginning to accept the notion that knowledge and innovation as
significant contributors to organizational success and competitiveness (Omerzel, 2010).
As a result, many researchers are found engaging in research in various different areas
of KM involving technological, infrastructural, financial or human perspectives within
778 the organizations. Some research can also be found giving focus on organizational
readiness for KM (KM readiness) (Mamaghani et al., 2011; Shirazi et al., 2011;
Mohammadi et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2007; Siemieniuch and Sinclair, 2004;
Razi and Karim, 2010, 2011) in organizations, as embarking in KM requires intense
preparation and significant amount of resource investment.
Organizations need to understand the degree of acceptance or preparedness among
the employees before making commitment to providing the necessary policy supports
and infrastructures to be involved with KM activities and initiatives. Acceptance from
the user perspective has been long seen as highly crucial in the organizational and
human behavioural perspective (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al.,
2003). Such acceptance would indicate the degree of readiness of the organization
to further embark on various KM initiatives and resource allocations. Though, studies
on KM readiness can be found available in the literature (Mamaghani et al., 2011;
Shirazi et al., 2011; Mohammadi et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2007; Siemieniuch
and Sinclair, 2004; Razi and Karim, 2010, 2011), not much is available in providing good
measurement assessment using the behavioural intention perspective. Such perspective
is commonly applied in the technology acceptance model (TAM) to indicate success
and readiness in technology use and implementation (Davis, 1989).
KM implementation in organizations requires significant amount of change to
its strategies, processes, and initiatives. These changes can take many forms ranging
from organizational strategies, human attitudes, and physical infrastructures.
It is therefore, highly important that an evaluation on organizational readiness to
implement KM can be done prior to any attempt to embark on various KM initiatives
(Holt et al., 2007; Siemieniuch and Sinclair, 2004). Indeed, not many attempts have been
made among researchers to investigate this area of KM, though such knowledge and
understanding could have provided organizations with more effective and efficient
means of implementing various KM initiatives and programmes (Wei et al., 2009).
KM readiness is a concept that has been constantly investigated using various
different means and perspectives. Authors, such as Holt et al. (2007), Keith et al. (2006),
Wei et el. (2009), Siemieniuch and Sinclair (2004), Taylor and Schellenberg (2008) and
Rowley (2000), have made attempts to work on this focus area of KM. Still, the concept of
KM readiness remains indecisive and requires more research works to further
strengthening its concept, methodological, and measurement approaches. Among
research attempts made on KM readiness are those conducted by Wei et al. (2009),
Taylor and Schellenberg (2008), Rowley (2000) and Razi and Karim (2010, 2011).
KM readiness (organizational readiness for KM) has been measured in the past by
measuring gaps between the perceived KM effectiveness and its perceived importance to
the related organizational practices (Taylor and Schellenberg, 2008), and by measuring the
gaps between perceived importance and actual implementation of selected KM related
organizational practices (Wei et al., 2009). Arguably, these existing approaches using gap
analyses may not necessarily reflect the notion of readiness as claimed by the authors.
Indeed, the gaps identified were mere indicators of the status of KM implementation Measuring
success and performance as evaluated from the employees’ perspective. Therefore, the employee
alternative concept of KM readiness as proposed by the authors needs to reflect the notion
of organization being ready through employee acceptance. readiness for KM
Other more prevalent theories in behavioural science such as readiness theory
(Pruitt, 2007), community readiness model (Kelly et al., 2003), readiness for
organizational change (Lehman et al., 2002; Armenakis et al., 1993), and individual 779
acceptance models (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003), are
found relevant in this pursuit. Therefore, KM readiness can be translated into receptive
attitudes of organizational members to be involved in KM process through the
availability of resources and various other organizational internal and external factors.
In an attempt to provide readiness measures from the behavioural intention perspective,
KM readiness has, therefore, been defined in this research as the intention to be involved
in the KM processes by the organizational individuals (executives) within the prevailing
organizational context. The KM processes, which are commonly known as the SECI
processes of socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization are the key
indicators of KM existence in organizations (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). Willingness
to be involved in part or in whole of these KM SECI processes is arguably a good
indicator of KM readiness in the organization.
This research seeks to provide an analysis of KM readiness in organizations from
the proposed behavioural intention measures. In this regards, readiness is perceived
when the employees collectively give high level of intention in getting involved with
the KM SECI processes. The KM processes measures from SECI are comprised of four
variables namely socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization.
This measurement model is expected to contribute significantly in our pursuit to
understand and measure KM readiness, and in our future understanding of a full KM
readiness model that may comprised of other contributors such as KM enablers
(organizational structures, cultures, IT infrastructure) and individual expectation and
acceptance (performance expectancy and effort expectancy).

2. KM process
KM, in a nutshell, has been defined as doing what is needed to get the most out of
knowledge resources (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). In other organizational context,
KM is defined as any intentional and systematic process or practice of acquiring,
capturing, sharing, and using productive knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance
learning and performance in organizations (Bozbura, 2007). Although there are
discrepancies in the literature regarding the processes involved in KM, there are four
basic processes of KM commonly known in the literature. These are creating,
storing/retrieving, transferring, and applying knowledge (Alavi and Leinder, 2001).
However, among the KM processes, the processes of knowledge creation and sharing
have been given much importance (Lee and Choi, 2003). As such, only the process
of knowledge creation and sharing would be considered as KM process in this work.

2.1 Knowledge creation and knowledge sharing

Review of relevant literature shows that there are two different kinds of definitions
for knowledge creation. First, Nonaka and Toyama (2003) conceptualize knowledge
creation as a dialectical process, in which various contradictions are synthesized through
BPMJ dynamic interactions among individuals, the organization, and the environment.
18,5 They believe that knowledge is created through the synthesis of the contradictions
between the organization’s internal resources and the environment. Second, knowledge
creation process has been described based on the SECI process, which is relevant to both
tacit and explicit knowledge. According to Nonaka et al. (1994) organizational knowledge
creation, as distinct from individual knowledge creation, takes place when all four models
780 of knowledge creation (SECI) are organizationally managed to form a continual cycle.
The same argument is emphasized (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003) as knowledge creation
starts with socialization, which is the process of converting new tacit knowledge through
shared experiences in day-to-day social interaction. In addition, the organizational
knowledge creation involves developing new contents or replacing existing contents
within the organization’s tacit and explicit knowledge through SECI processes which are
not pure, but are highly interdependent and intertwined (Alavi and Leinder, 2001).
Knowledge sharing is the process through which explicit or tacit knowledge
is communicated to others (between individuals, to groups, and across groups). In this
backdrop, Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001) explain that the SECI process of
Nonaka et al. (1994) describes the ways in which knowledge is shared through the
interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. The SECI processes are considered as
modes for knowledge creation (discovery and capture) (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004)
and knowledge sharing (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004; Jennex and Zynger, 2007).
From the above discussion, it is clear that the processes of socialization,
externalization, combination, and internalization (SECI processes) are popularly cited
in the KM literature as the basic process for the knowledge creation and sharing. The
importance of SECI process for KM is acknowledged many times in the literature
(Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Toyama,
2003) and there are several empirical studies conducted on KM process using SECI
processes as indicators (Nonaka et al., 1994; Lee and Choi, 2003; Choi and Lee, 2002).
In this backdrop, this study proposes to measure the intention to be involved in KM
process by adopting the indicators of SECI processes for the following reasons: first,
the SECI processes have become widely accepted (Lee and Choi, 2003; Choi and Lee,
2002; Nonaka et al., 1994; Teerajetgul and Charoenngam, 2006; Becerra-Fernandez et al.,
2004; Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001) and used in variety of management fields
(Choi and Lee, 2002); and, second, they include not only knowledge creation but also
knowledge sharing as important dimensions of KM (Lee and Choi, 2003;
Choi and Lee, 2002). There are many empirical studies (Lee and Choi, 2003;
Choi and Lee, 2002; Nonaka et al., 1994; Teerajetgul and Charoenngam, 2006) that show
significant relationship between the SECI processes and knowledge creation. In addition,
Becerra-Fernandez et al. (2004) and Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001) have
shown the strong relationship between the SECI processes and knowledge sharing.
Therefore, the employees’ intention to be involved in the SECI processes can be
considered as their indication to be involved in KM or KM process, and therefore would
indicate the readiness of an organization in embarking on KM initiatives.
In addition, the work of Davis (1989) on TAM, and Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) on
theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and theory of reasoned action (TRA), provide
conceptual and empirical evidence in predicting the actual behaviour from behavioural
intention indicators. Therefore, it is posited that the high degree of intention to be involve
in a particular behaviour or activity is also likely to result in the actual behaviour of the
individual involved. In other words, a person who indicates his/her intention to be Measuring
involved in KM processes is likely to perform the actual KM activities involving the SECI employee
processes.
readiness for KM
2.2 KM SECI processes
Nonaka et al. (1994) propose four different modes of knowledge conversion:
(1) tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge;
781
(2) from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge;
(3) from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge; and
(4) from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge.

These processes are termed as: socialization, combination, externalization, and

internalization, respectively, and called as SECI process (Nonaka et al., 1994; Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995).
Socialization process converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through
social interactions, such as spending time together or living in the same environment
(Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). The socialization process aids both knowledge creation
and sharing (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001). Experience is the key to
acquiring knowledge and it is difficult for people to share the experience without
involving in the socialization process (Nonaka et al., 1994). Similarly, without involving
in the socialization process effective knowledge sharing also cannot be expected to
happen as socialization is considered as one of the key components of effective
knowledge sharing process (Alavi and Leinder, 2001).
Externalization process converts tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge through
codifying process, such as concepts, visuals, metaphors, analogies, etc. (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995). The externalization process assists the knowledge capturing
(Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004) and it is considered as one of the main components of
knowledge creation process. In addition, tacit knowledge is made explicit through
externalization process, so that it can be shared (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003).
Combination process converts explicit knowledge into new explicit knowledge
through systematic exchange mechanisms. Individuals exchange and combine
knowledge through communication and integration (Nonaka et al., 1994).
Furthermore, combination process aids creation of new explicit knowledge through
systematization of explicit knowledge (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). The new explicit
knowledge is then disseminated among the members of organization using computerized
communication networks and large-scale databases (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003).
Internalization process converts explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. This
stage can be understood as praxis, where knowledge is applied and used in practical
situation and becomes the base for new routines (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). Further,
internalization process represents the traditional notion of learning, as the individual
acquiring the knowledge can re-experience what others have gone through
(Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004) that eventually it can really become the knowledge of
one’s own (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003).
Based on this background, it is seen as appropriate that the SECI process is used as
indicators of KM process. The intention to get involved in this process is therefore
reflects the degree of employee readiness in an organization to accept and implement
BPMJ the process. In this regards, KM can be conceptualize through KM processes, which is
18,5 highly observable and measurable in nature. KM readiness, on the other hand, reflects
the degree to which the employees are ready to adopt these processes.

3. Methodology
3.1 Data collection and measurement
782 A questionnaire was developed based on items adopted from Lee and Choi (2003) and
Choi and Lee (2001), in order to measure the intention to be involved in the SECI processes.
Their studies were developed based on the original work of Nonaka et al. (1994). Lee and
Choi (2003) and Choi and Lee (2001) have reported the following Cronbach’s a values for
the measures based on their studies, respectively; socialization 0.84, 0.86; externalization
0.91, 0.88; combination 0.86; 0.85; internalization 0.89, 0.88, respectively. The
questionnaire was comprised of 19 items. See the Appendix for questionnaire items.
Respondents were asked to indicate (on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree”) their level of agreements on the statements.
Data were collected from 313 executives in the Sri Lankan telecommunication
industry. This sector was chosen because it was considered as knowledge intensive
industry (Wei et al., 2009). In addition, the current market hi-tech companies such as
telecommunication firms must implement innovative business strategies, and invest vast
resources in research and development in order to remain competitive in the market
(Reychav and Weisberg, 2010). This makes KM as important concept for these firms to
succeed.

3.2 Analysis
In validating and confirming the measurement used, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was performed using AMOS version 16. This analysis technique was used as a process
of refining the measurement items to achieve reliability and validity for a confirmed
readiness model. Once the results have shown the confirmed model, statistical analysis
was applied to demonstrate the assessment status of KM readiness in the Sri Lankan
telecommunication industry.

4. Findings
4.1 The revised measurement model
The first and second-order CFAs model were performed using AMOS version 16, for
confirming the measurement used. In the first-order CFA, the four constructs were
represented as correlated first-order factors. Convergent validity is established if the
loadings of the measures to their respective constructs are at least 0.60 (Bagozzi and
Yi, 1988). In structural equation models, the reliability of parameters is defined as the
magnitude of the direct effects that the latent variables exert on the indicators. This is
determined by means of the square multiple correlations (also referred to as R 2) of each
indicator and the total coefficient of determination (Bollen, 1989). Further, all squared
multiple correlations (SMCs) must be at least 0.40 (Bollen, 1989). Based on the analysis
result, the observed variables with factor loading less than 0.60 and SMCs less than
0.40 were removed. Accordingly, only ten observed variables (Table I) were considered
for further analysis. Table I provides the summary of the revised measurement items from
the analysis with the reports on mean score, standard deviation, factor loadings, and
SMCs.
 Measuring
Item name Item description M SD Factor loadings SMC
employee
Socialization readiness for KM
SOC_1 I intend to be involved in gathering information and 5.61 0.887 0.73 0.54
experiences from others within my organization
SOC_2 I intend to be involved in sharing information and 5.67 0.833 0.83 0.69
experiences with others within my organization 783
Externalization
EXT_2 I intend to use deductive (top down) and inductive 5.13 1.196 0.70 0.49
(bottom up) thinking for strategy formulation
EXT_3 I intend to use metaphors (images/description) in 5.12 1.194 0.76 0.58
dialogue for concept creation
Combination
COM_1 I intend to use published literature, computer 5.24 1.171 0.69 0.47
simulation and forecasting to formulate strategies
COM_2 I intend to create documents on product and services 5.14 1.253 0.75 0.56
COM_3 I intend to create databases on products and services 5.11 1.297 0.81 0.65
COM_4 I intend to build up materials by gathering literature 5.08 1.283 0.74 0.55
and technical information
Internalization
INT_3 I intend to be involved in searching and sharing new 5.60 0.874 0.76 0.57
values and thoughts with colleagues Table I.
INT_4 I intend to share and try to understand management 5.72 0.882 0.66 0.43 Properties of the SECI
vision through communications with colleagues process measurement

The average variance extracted (AVE) scores, which measure the convergent validity, are
found above the minimum suggested value of 0.5 for all constructs (Hair et al., 2010).
Accordingly, the values are 0.614 for socialization, 0.533 for externalization, 0.56 for
combination, and 0.503 for internalization. Indeed, the AVE value score below 0.5 would
indicate high remaining errors (on average) in the items, which is more likely to result in low
convergent validity of the constructs (Hair et al., 2010). The composite reliability (CR),
another indicator of convergent validity, is also found relatively high for most constructs
with values above 0.7, except for internalization construct (Table II). The high construct
validity is important to indicate that all measures are consistent representation of the
same latent construct (i.e. socialization, externalization, combination, internalization).
However, CR values between 0.6 and 0.7 can be acceptable for internalization since values
for other indicators such as AVE and factor loadings are found considerably high (Hair et al.,
2010). The discriminant and convergent validities are also achieved with AVE scores above
0.5 and correlation values below 0.84 as suggested by Sekaran and Bougie (2009).

SECI M SD CR 1 2 3 4

1. Socialization 5.64 0.086 0.76 0.61 0.48 0.40 0.54

2. Externalization 5.12 1.195 0.70 0.53 0.79 0.56
3. Combination 5.14 1.251 0.84 0.56 0.52
4. Internalization 5.66 0.0878 0.67 0.50
Overall intention to be involved in KM process 5.34 1.087 Table II.
Means, SD, AVE and
Notes: CR – composite reliability; diagonal elements represent the AVE for the construct and the off- correlation of SECI
diagonal elements (in italic) represent the correlation between constructs processes
BPMJ Confirmation through first-order measurement model was used in order to validate the
18,5 measurements. This was achieved through the examination of goodness-of-fit indices.
The result of the first-order CFA has shown the x 2 value of 71.020 ( p , 0.05), and the
normed x 2 of 2.449, which are within the acceptable range (Hair et al., 2010). Although the
model p-value is ,0.05, the x 2 and p-value are not the only indicators for model fit
(Raykov, 2000). The remaining goodness-of-fit indices are also found above the threshold
784 of 0.9 (GFI ¼ 0.957, AGFI ¼ 0.918, NFI ¼ 0.938, RFI ¼ 0.904, IFI ¼ 0.963, TLI ¼ 0.941,
CFI ¼ 0.962). RMSEA is found below 0.08 (RMSEA ¼ 0.068), PCLOSE is greater than
0.05 (0.066), and RMR is less than 0.08 (0.047). Based on these results and consistent with
recommended values (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001;
Byrne, 2010), the measurement model that emerged is considered reliable and acceptable.
In line with the purpose of the study to measure the employee intention to be involved
with the KM process, a second-order model analysis was subsequently conducted.
Figure 1 shows the results of the second-order model analysis. All model fit indices are
good although PCLOSE is approaching 0.05 (0.040). All the structural coefficients
(second-order factor loading) for this study are significant (at p-value 0.01), ranging from
“combination” 0.531 to “externalization” 0.935. Similarly, SMC ranges from
“socialization” 0.282 to “externalization” 0.873. This suggests that the model is fit to
the data. Therefore, the four processes measured can be used to explain the concept of
KM readiness through intention to be involved with KM processes.
As Figure 1 shows, it can be concluded that the use of the four SECI processes, as
measurement constructs, are found relevant and reliable in measuring KM readiness.
Thus, this research also further strengthened the use of KM SECI processes in
understanding Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) knowledge creation concept and the KM
process measurement model as provided by Lee and Choi (2003) and Choi and Lee (2001).
Indeed, the contribution of this study also remains unique due to the use of acceptance
theory and readiness concepts in measuring KM readiness and the application of CFA in
its validation process. The organizations are considered ready in adopting KM when the
employees have the positive intention to be involved in the processes measured. This
concept of intention is supposedly a strong predictor of the actual behaviour based on
the TRA and the TPB (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).

4.2 KM readiness descriptive summary

Analysis using CFA earlier has produced a revised model, which is highly useful in
further understanding the status of KM readiness within the industry measured.
Table III provides a descriptive summary of KM readiness level among the employees
in the Sri Lankan telecommunication industry. All the four components of intention to
adopt the KM SECI processes emerged with the revised items.
A descriptive statistical analysis was performed to obtain the mean score for each
variable and for the overall score (Table III). The analysis was conducted to find out the
extent to which the business executives at the Sri Lankan telecommunication industry
are willing to get involve with KM processes. The high score would indicate the
readiness of the organization and the industry in engaging with various aspects of KM
processes as part of the KM initiatives and activities.
The results of the descriptive statistical analysis shows that the executives in the
Sri Lankan telecommunication industry have been willing to be involved in each of
the process within the revised model. This is illustrated through the reasonably high
 Measuring
employee
readiness for KM

785

Figure 1.
Second-order factor
analysis model

average mean score (which is above 5.0) for each of the KM SECI process construct.
It is therefore, implies that the industry is somewhat ready, with the collectively high
inclination of the employees to adopt the process. This readiness means, the industry can
formulate efforts and strategies to maximize benefits from KM by introducing
new culture, structure, reward system, and infrastructure needed to improve knowledge
sharing and creation within the organization.

5. Discussions and conclusion

This study provides research results through analysis of KM readiness measurement
adopted based on the four SECI processes of socialization, externalization, combination,
and internalization. Findings have indicated the revised model to be reliable and
valid after different phases in the analysis process using CFA were conducted.
The revised model has shown the importance of all four factors namely socialization,
BPMJ
Item name Item description Mean SD
18,5
Socialization
SOC_1 I intend to be involved in gathering information and 5.61 0.887
experiences from others within my organization
SOC_2 I intend to be involved in sharing information and 5.67 0.833
786 experiences with others within my organization
Overall average 5.64 0.086
Externalization
EXT_2 I intend to use deductive (top down) and inductive (bottom 5.13 1.196
up) thinking for strategy formulation
EXT_3 I intend to use metaphors (images/description) in dialogue 5.12 1.194
for concept creation
Overall average 5.12 1.195
Combination
COM_1 I intend to use published literature, computer simulation, 5.24 1.171
and forecasting to formulate strategies
COM_2 I intend to create documents on product and services 5.14 1.253
COM_3 I intend to create databases on products and services 5.11 1.297
COM_4 I intend to build up materials by gathering literature and 5.08 1.283
technical information
Overall average 5.14 1.251
Internalization
INT_3 I intend to be involved in searching and sharing new 5.60 0.874
values and thoughts with colleagues
Table III. INT_4 I intend to share and try to understand management vision 5.72 0.882
Summary of descriptive through communications with colleagues
profile of the combined Overall average 5.66 0.878
constructs from the Overall intention to be 5.34 1.087
revised model involved in KM process

externalization, combination, and internalization variables in measuring behavioural

intention of KM processes. These factors form a reasonably valid model for assessing
KM readiness through intention to be involved in the KM processes among organizational
employees. Based on the revised model developed, analysis of KM readiness in the
Sri Lankan telecommunication industry has also pointed towards a positive direction.
This means, people are ready and willing to adopt the KM processes identified.
KM, being important contributors of success in organizations, has been heavily
misunderstood with the huge investment in information technology infrastructure.
Undeniably, various KM initiatives requires significant amount of cost and commitment
by organizations. Many organizations ended up failed to benefit from its KM investment
due lack of readiness and understanding among their business executives. Therefore, it
is advisable that organizations make an attempt to assess KM readiness before
embarking on actual investment and implementation of various possibly expensive KM
related activities, systems, and technologies. It is the process within KM that is perhaps
matters more than the physical aspect of the concept. This, therefore, should justify the
needs for better understanding and more expansion of research in KM readiness through
intention to be involved in the KM processes.
Though organizations possess good physical infrastructures such as office space and
equipments, IT facilities, etc. main contributions and initiatives of KM must come from
the organizational members who are ready and willing to share information and Measuring
generate new knowledge for the organization. Therefore, the revised and validated employee
instruments developed from the results of this study should be useful in assessing KM
readiness among these members. In addition, being not a well-defined concept, the readiness for KM
research community can consider this attempt as a threshold in KM readiness assessment
and should continue to improve the quality of the measurements through more empirical
research in different settings. Future work needs to focus more on the full model of KM 787
readiness by looking into contributing factors or antecedent of the intention to get involve
in KM process concept. The extent of willingness to be involve in various KM processes
and activities among employees can be attributable to factors such as existing
organizational culture, structure, IT infrastructure, and various other human attributes.
Given the importance of KM in organizations as illustrated earlier, the results are also
expected to provide sound measures of KM readiness from behavioural intention
perspective before organizations can embark on any expensive and costly KM
initiatives. The indicators also allow for organizations to evaluate and understand how
far the employees perceive and understand the concept of KM and willing to be part of
the process. The research provides a new perspective in understanding KM readiness in
organizations from the behavioural intention perspective. The measures acquired from
the research will contribute significantly to future research by linking them with various
other contributing factors of KM readiness such as technological, organizational, and
individual perspectives.

References
Alavi, M. and Leinder, D.E. (2001), “Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-36.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1993), “Creating readiness
for organisational change”, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 681-703.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Sabherwal, R. (2001), “Organizational knowledge management:
a contingency perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 23-55.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., Gonzalez, A. and Sabherwal, R. (2004), Knowledge Management:
Challenge, Solutions, and Technologies, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bozbura, F.T. (2007), “Knowledge management practices in Turkish SMEs”, Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 209-21.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with Amos, Routledge, New York, NY.
Choi, B. and Lee, H. (2002), “Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge creation
process”, Expert Systems with Application, Vol. 23, pp. 173-87.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the Uninitiated,
Sage, London.
Fishbein, N. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction
to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
BPMJ Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Pearson
Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
18,5 Holt, D., Bartczak, S., Clark, S. and Trent, M. (2007), “The development of an instrument
to measure readiness for knowledge management”, Knowledge Management Research and
Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 75-92.
Jennex, M.E. and Zynger, S. (2007), “Security as a contributor to knowledge management
788 success”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 9, pp. 493-504.
Keith, M., Goul, M., Demrican, H., Nichols, J. and Mitchell, M.C. (2006), “Contextualizing
knowledge management readiness to support change management strategies”,
Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Science.
Kelly, K.J., Edwards, R.W., Comello, M.L.G., Plested, B.A., Jumper-Thurman, P. and Slater, M.D.
(2003), “The community readiness model: a complementary approach to social marketing”,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 411-25.
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), “Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organisational
performances: an integrative view and empirical examination”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-228.
Lehman, W.E.K., Greener, J.M. and Simpson, D.D. (2002), “Assessing organisational readiness
for change”, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 197-209.
Mamaghani, N.D., Samizadeh, R. and Saghafi, F. (2011), “Evaluating the readiness of Iranian
research centers in knowledge management”, American Journal of Economics and
Business Administration, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 203-12.
Mohammadi, K., Khanlari, A. and Sohrabi, B. (2009), “Organizational readiness assessment for
knowledge management”, International Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 29-45.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation”, Organisational
Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2003), “The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge
creation as synthesizing process”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 1,
pp. 2-10.
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C.C. and Konno, N. (1994), “Organisational knowledge
creation theory: a first comprehensive test”, International Business Review, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 337-51.
Omerzel, D.G. (2010), “The impact of knowledge management on SME growth and profitability:
a structural equation modelling study”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4
No. 16, pp. 3417-32.
Pruitt, D.G. (2007), “Readiness theory and the Northern Ireland conflict”, American Behavioral
Scientist, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1520-41.
Raykov, T. (2000), A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Razi, M.J.M. and Karim, N.S.A. (2010), “Assessing knowledge management readiness
in organizations”, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information
Technology 2010 (ITSim ‘10), Kuala Lumpur, pp. 1543-8.
Razi, M.J.M. and Karim, N.S.A. (2011), “Investigating individuals’ intentions to be involved
in knowledge management process”, American Journal of Economics and Business
Administration, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 444-9.
Reychav, I. and Weisberg, J. (2010), “Bridging intention and behavior of knowledge sharing”, Measuring
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 285-300.
Rowley, J. (2000), “Is higher education ready for knowledge management?”, International Journal
employee
of Educational Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 325-33. readiness for KM
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, J.R.G. (2009), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach,
5th ed., Wiley, Chichester.
Shirazi, A., Mortazavi, S. and Azad, N.P. (2011), “Factors affecting employees’ readiness 789
for knowledge management”, European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative
Sciences, Vol. 33, pp. 167-77.
Siemieniuch, C.E. and Sinclair, M.A. (2004), “A framework for organizational readiness
for knowledge management”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 79-98.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed., Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Taylor, W.A. and Schellenberg, M.A. (2008), “Measuring organizational readiness for
knowledge management”, in Abou-Zeid, E.S. (Ed.), Knowledge Management and Business
Strategies, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 341-56, Information Science Reference.
Teerajetgul, W. and Charoenngam, C. (2006), “Factors inducing knowledge creation: empirical
evidence from Thai construction projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 584-99.
Venkatesh, W., Mprris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Wei, C., Choy, C. and Yew, W. (2009), “Is the Malaysian telecommunication industry ready
for knowledge management implementation?”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 69-87.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

 18,5

790
BPMJ

Table AI.
Questionnaire items
Appendix

Variable Description

Social_1 I intend to be involved in gathering information and experiences from others within my organization
Social_2 I intend to be involved in sharing information and experiences with others within my organization
Social_3 I intend to be engaged in dialogue with competitors
Social_4 I intend to be involved in finding new strategies and opportunities inside the organization
Social_5 I intend to be involved in creating a work environment that allows colleagues to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Extern_1 I intend to be involved in creative dialogues with colleagues
Extern_2 I intend to use deductive (top down) and inductive (bottom up) thinking for strategy formulation
Extern_3 I intend to use metaphors (images/description) in dialogue for concept creation
Extern_4 I intend to exchange various ideas with colleagues
Extern_5 I intend to provide subjective opinions in dialogues
Comb_1 I intend to use published literature, computer simulation, and forecasting to formulate strategies
Comb_2 I intend to create documents on product and services
Comb_3 I intend to create databases on product and services
Comb_4 I intend to build up materials by gathering literature and technical information
Comb_5 I do not intend to transfer newly created concepts to my colleagues
Intern_1 I intend to be involved in liaisoning activities with other departments by developing cross functional teams
Intern_2 I intend to be involved in setting teams as a model for conducting experiments, and sharing results with entire departments
Intern_3 I intend to be involved in searching and sharing new values and thoughts with colleagues
Intern_4 I intend to share and try to understand management vision through communications with colleagues
About the authors Measuring
Professor Dr Nor Shahriza Abdul Karim obtained her PhD in Information Science and
Technology from Syracuse University School of Information Studies, NY, and is currently employee
a Professor at the International Business School (IBS) Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. readiness for KM
Her areas of research and teaching interest have expanded into the field of information
system, information technology management and knowledge management. Throughout
her career, she has conducted many academic and applied research for both private
and government sectors and published in many international indexed journals such as 791
Computers & Education, Journal of Information Management & Computer Security,
International Journal of Information Management, Campus-Wide Information Systems, etc.
Her current research topics are on knowledge management readiness, electronic health
record implementation impact on performance, and information technology adoption and
appropriation. Nor Shahriza Abdul Karim is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
nshahriza@ic.utm.my
Dr Mohamed Jalaldeen Mohamed Razi is a Lecturer from the University of Colombo and
acquired a PhD degree from the International Islamic University Malaysia. He acquired his MBA
from the University of Colombo and has been a lecturer ever since. He has been an active
researcher in the area of knowledge management and information systems and has published
many research papers in various conferences and refereed journals.
Dr Norshidah Mohamed is an Associate Professor of Management Information Systems at the
International Business School Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Prior to joining academia, she spent
more than ten years in the financial and information technology industries. She has worked in
various consulting engagements in private and public organizations. She holds a Doctor of
Philosophy in Management Information Systems from the International Islamic University
Malaysia, Master of Business Administration from Ohio University (USA), Bachelor of Science in
Mathematics from University of Utah (USA) and Graduate Certificate in Management
Consultancy from the Institute of Management Consultants Singapore. Her research interests
include performance issues and adoption of information systems in organizations and knowledge
management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints