Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management

The effects of knowledge management processes on human resource

management: Mediating role of knowledge utilization
Halil Zaim, Yavuz Keceli, Ashraf Jaradat, Selma Kastrati,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Halil Zaim, Yavuz Keceli, Ashraf Jaradat, Selma Kastrati, (2018) "The effects of knowledge
management processes on human resource management: Mediating role of knowledge
utilization", Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/
JSTPM-02-2018-0011
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-02-2018-0011
Downloaded on: 04 May 2018, At: 10:00 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 56 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2018*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:232583 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2053-4620.htm

Effects of
The effects of knowledge knowledge
management processes on human management

resource management
Mediating role of knowledge utilization
Halil Zaim, Yavuz Keceli, Ashraf Jaradat and Selma Kastrati Received 12 February 2018
Revised 27 March 2018
College of Business Administration, The American University of the Middle East, Accepted 27 March 2018
Egalia, Kuwait
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – Managing knowledge effectively and efficiently is considered to be a key success factor to gain
sustainable competitive advantage for organizations. This study aims to analyze the impact of knowledge
management (KM) processes on human resource management (HRM).
Design/methodology/approach – To test the relationship of KM processes on HRM, a case study was
conducted using structural equation modeling based on data collected from employees and managers of a
Telecom company in Turkey. The survey instrument is a self-administered questionnaire composed of 37
questions. Three of them are demographic questions; 20 questions aim to reveal KM processes and 14 for
HRM practices. The questionnaire was distributed via google survey link to employees and managers in
headquarters office and two branches in Istanbul.
Findings – In this paper, the authors tried to investigate the impact of KM practices on the HRM
performance of a company. The results indicate that companies with better KM practices tend to perform
better at HRM. The main contribution of this paper lies in pointing out that, among the dimensions of KM,
knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization have direct impact on HRM, whereas knowledge generation
and knowledge sharing have indirect impacts.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitation of this study lies in the fact that data are
collected from a single company in telecom industry. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize the results.
Although the research findings are aligned with those of the previous studies, further research using data
from numerous companies in various industries is still needed to generalize the research findings.
Practical implications – The paper includes implications for the development of knowledge utilization
generated and stored within the company. The knowledge can create improvements in the company’s HRM
performance if it is shared and used effectively. The paper addresses an important subject and the findings
may be used by human resources and KM practitioners interested in the development of organizational
knowledge through human resource practices.
Originality/value – This paper fulfills an identified need to investigate the impact of KM practices on the
HRM performance of a company.
Keywords Knowledge management, Human resource management,
Knowledge management processes, Knowledge utilization
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Obtaining and using knowledge is considered as the most critical resource of wealth, as well
as the key factor of success for any organization in the current global economic
competencies and transformation (Hongmei et al., 2013; Kumar and Ganesh, 2011). Journal of Science and Technology
Policy Management
Organizations that are able to create and reuse their knowledge save millions of dollars of © Emerald Publishing Limited
2053-4620
costing (Koene, 2006; MacCormack and School, 2002). Nowadays, knowledge is considered DOI 10.1108/JSTPM-02-2018-0011
 JSTPM as the most essential strategic resource for any organization, where acquiring, integrating,
storing, sharing and applying knowledge are the most important elements to build and
sustain competitive advantages (Kogut and Zander, 1996; Zack, 1999, Kalkan, 2008; Daniel
and Raquel, 2012). Briefly, managing knowledge to their full potential gives a crucial power
that provides competitive advantages to organizations (Kalkan, 2008; Daniel and Raquel,
2012).
Several research efforts had already explored the nature of knowledge to give a
possible and working understanding or a pragmatic description of knowledge, yet it
still is a complex and ambiguous concept to elaborate and understand (Davenport and
Prusak, 2000). It is neither data nor information, though it is related to both (Kalkan,
2008). In the literature review, we may find diverse definitions and perspectives on
knowledge; all of them aimed to include the same ingredients of combined data and
information gained from expert opinion, skills and experience to create a valuable
intangible asset that can assist a decision-making and/or to be used in a productive use
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

(Stanciua and Tincaa, 2016).

In this respect, two kinds of knowledge are generally identified and addressed in the
literature (Ganesh et al., 2005). First one deals with managing technology, which
corresponds to the explicit knowledge, as it can be easily codified, stored, distributed
and managed with use of a technology-centered strategy, such as mechanical or highly
technological devices. This form of knowledge is comparably less useful unless it is
shared among community that uses collaborative technology that works together at a
given time and place (Arshad et al., 2016). While the other kind deals with managing
people and corresponds to the tacit knowledge, as it is difficult to capture, codify, adopt
and distribute (Kalkan, 2008). Tacit knowledge can be obtained from internal discrete
processes of organizations that is stored in human beings as a result of their individual
experiences, observations or abilities (Arshad et al., 2016). In fact, this form of
knowledge specifically has been an inimitable competitive advantage that needs to be
codified and shared with others (Kalkan, 2008; Daniel and Raquel, 2012). It therefore
requires a people-centered strategy to be captured and codified and a technology-
centered strategy to be stored and distributed.
Lately, knowledge transformation gained great importance because it drew attention
toward ensuring the transformation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and vice
versa, thus facilitating the knowledge sharing among organizational members and co-
workers, leading to the organization creativity, as well as increasing its productivity (Al-
Hawary and Alwan, 2016; Mishra and Bhaskar, 2011). This establishes the fact that an
organization’s sustainability depends on its individual and group members’ ability to learn
by obtaining and sharing the knowledge from and within its environment. Accordingly, a
successful knowledge management (KM) initiative is highly dependent on involving
competent and motivated people in the process (Kalkan, 2008). Human resources in general
play a major role in making strategic decisions and objectives, monitoring and analysis of
the external environment and supervise internal operations and measuring efficiency
(Bognar and Bansal, 2014).
While an organization is aiming to use knowledge capabilities, focusing on the
human capital resource is also essential. In specific, this merge of attentions is
established because of the fact that great portion of organization knowledge is tacit, i.e.
valuable experiential knowledge that exists only in the memories of individual workers
and which is difficult to extract and share with others (Barros et al., 2015). The creation,
management and utilization of knowledge is directly influenced by several practices
and strategies of human resource management (HRM). The merge of both the
 disciplines, KM and HRM, creates a unique and energetic component for a sustainable Effects of
competitive advantage in knowledge economics (Zaim, 2016). knowledge
The next section reviews the relevant literature on the concepts of KM and HRM and the
emerging link between these two correlated conceptions. A discussion of the methodology
management
used for data collection follows. Sections 4 and 5 analyze and discuss the key results and the
major implications of the study. Finally, the last part draws some conclusions and the
possible avenues for future research.

2. Literature review
This part of the paper is organized in three sub-sections; the first two provide the state of the
art about KM and its process, while the third part covers the relevant literature on HRM and
its link to KM.
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

2.1 The concept of knowledge management

The world is experiencing an era that has been termed the “knowledge age” (Forghani
and Tavasoli, 2017). In this context, knowledge is the primary commodity; the
collective knowledge of human expertise through their abilities, experience and
interaction with the person’s environment has become such a critical resource to
reinvest (Chatzoudes et al., 2015). In this era of global economics, knowledge is
recognized as the only source of wealth production, while creating and applying the
knowledge is the main source for an enterprise in achieving its sustainable competitive
advantages (Hongmei et al., 2013; Kumar and Ganesh, 2011; Hosseingholizadeh, 2014).
Toward this achievement, most organizations attempt to become aware of their
individual and collective knowledge and to apply modern technologies to make the
most effective and efficient use of the obtained knowledge to influence their strategic
goals and organizational excellence (Sathishkumar and Karthikeyan, 2017). Therefore,
KM is the essential solution that every organization tends toward for achieving a
superior organizational performance, as well as competing in the current dynamic
global business environment (Acar et al., 2017).
The notion of knowledge as a valuable asset must be managed and archived carries
organizations and individuals to take brave steps toward the knowledge technology. The
management of knowledge has become more crucial within the business, science and social
communities because of many activities of the organizations and the broader of science and
social life today are knowledge-driven. In recent years, this managerial activity has been
known as KM. Accordingly, KM is fast becoming a commercial necessity for many
organizations or individuals in terms of managing and preserving their accumulated
knowledge to be accessible and reusable later. In fact, KM became a common function in
business organizations (Paez-Logreira et al., 2016; Zaim, 2016). The main aim of this
emerging discipline that provides mechanisms for systematically managing the knowledge
evolves with the enterprise and provides strategies to get the right knowledge to the people
at the right time and in the right format (Abdullah et al., 2002; Milton et al., 1999).
Since the emerging of KM discipline in 1995, researchers proposed varied definitions of
KM with more or less common characteristics (Zaim, 2016). Wielinga et al. (1997) defined
KM as “the collection of those processes that describe and administrate the knowledge
assets of an organization and that guide the conservation and enlargement of those assets”.
Further, Sunassee and Sewry (2002) proposed that KM is “the process of identifying,
growing and effectively applying an organization’s existing knowledge to achieve the
organization’s goals, while creating an organizational culture that permits further
knowledge creation”. While Vanhoenacker et al. (1999) claimed that the important
 JSTPM understanding about KM implied from the three integrated key dimensions (the Formalism,
Organism and Algorithm dimensions), which is KM much more than solely managing
information and data (Formalism). It is about providing a flexible access to information, all
or not supported by a sophisticated information system. Moreover, Malhotra (2000)
emphasizes the importance of merging of human asset in the process of capturing,
processing and utilizing knowledge. According to him, “KM embodies organizational
processes that seek synergetic combination of data and information processing capacity of
information technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings”. He
claimed that KM requires re-consideration of everything in the organization and caters to
the critical issues of organizational adaptation, survival and competence in face of
increasing discontinuous environmental change.
While the existing literature defines KM in a number of ways, they all agree that the
focus of KM is to make an organization become aware of its knowledge, individually and
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

collectively. They also agree on another point, which is making the best use of the
organization knowledge. This helps the organization to achieve the corporate mission, to
provide a systematic process of creating, maintaining and nurturing an organization’s
knowledge and to elevate a culture and environment that stimulates workers to create,
utilize and share their knowledge, empowering them to improve the qualities of
leadership for organizational excellence (Renata, 2016; Sathishkumar and Karthikeyan,
2017).
Accordingly, a tight correlation is present between KM and HRM. This observation is
outlined, as human is the main carrier of knowledge, as well as the formulation of KM
concepts relies on a set of processes and activities, such as knowledge acquisition/collection,
knowledge maintenance, knowledge sharing and knowledge using (Chen and Huang, 2009;
Forghani and Tavasoli, 2017; Renata, 2016).

2.2 Knowledge management process

The literature of KM proposed various KM frameworks and models that explained KM
management activities as a process (Hosseingholizadeh, 2014). As stated in
Hosseingholizadeh (2014) that the proposals of the KM management processes have been
introduced using several concepts, aspects and terms that depend on the researchers
perceptions and study fields. Table I shows the diversity in describing the KM process
stages. For instance, the terms construction, externalization, development and
conceptualization are different terms used by different researchers to refer to the same KM
Activity, which is knowledge creation.
In the above categorization, KM process has been categorized into nine activities,
while in Al-Hawary and Alwan (2016), KM process was categorized into eight activities:
knowledge diagnostic, defining knowledge objectives, knowledge generation, storage,
disseminating of knowledge, the application of knowledge, knowledge retrieval and
maintenance knowledge. Furthermore, Bognar and Bansal (2014) indicated that
knowledge process addresses three stages: generate knowledge, build knowledge and
knowledge efficiency.
Despite the discrepancy in the number of activities stated, the majority of researchers
agree on six main activities that are included in the majority of the proposed KM processes.
These activities are: knowledge identification, knowledge generation, knowledge storing,
knowledge dissemination, knowledge applying and knowledge evaluation (Al-Hawary and
Alwan, 2016).
 Category Core knowledge management activities
Effects of
knowledge
Goal setting Think management
Selection
Identification Mapping
Knowledge ontology design (internal sources)
Creation Construction
Externalization
Development
Conversion
Innovation
Conceptualization
Acquisition Capturing (external sources)
Evaluation Review
Validation
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

Verification
Organization Indexing
Filtering
Formalization
Codification
Combination
Sharing Dissemination
Distribution
Transferring
Socialization
Integration
Assimilation
Storage Embodiment Table I.
Preservation and retention
KM process stages
Updating
Application Utilization and their core
Use activities
Internalization (Hosseingholizadeh,
Act 2014)

2.3 Human resource management

Human resources can be seen as a source of competitive advantage, as they can be
effectively related by having mutual consistent polices, which offer commitment. These
polices influence the employees’ willingness to act in a flexible way for the goal of pursuit of
excellence (Zaim, 2016; Abduli, 2013). Considering the growth of the knowledge-based
economy, HRM practices and procedures are increasingly becoming important (Daniel and
Raquel, 2012). Nowadays, the success of any organization is highly dependent on the of
HRM effectiveness (Daniel and Raquel, 2012; Abduli, 2013).
In fact, HRM concerns with all the aspects of employment and management of people
within organizations. It covers also varied range of activities such as strategic HRM, human
capital management, human resource planning, recruitment and selection, talent
management, organization development, employee relations and learning and development
(Abduli, 2013). Accordingly, it difficult to find a straightforward definition of HRM.
Beardwell and Holden (2001) stated that understanding HRM is highly dependent on the
perspective taken, which can be conceived as traditional personnel management, as a fusion
of personnel management and industrial relations, as a resource-based employment
relationship or as a part of strategic managerial function. In Armstrong’s (2000) definition of
 JSTPM HRM, he emphasized the strategic personal management as human resources acquisition,
organization and motivations.
The science of organization behavior and strategic management, as well as human
capital and theories of industrial relations provide a strong conceptual base to the HRM
practices (Abduli, 2013). Hughes (2002) presented four distinct conceptions of HRM that are
observed based on models distinguishing between personal management and strategic
human resources management (SHRM). These concepts are:
(1) Traditional HRM (THRM)has its roots in personal management, as it focuses on
worker productivity by studying the link between various discrete HR practices,
such as selection and job design and various human behavior and productivity
variables, such as turnover and job satisfaction.
(2) Integrative HRM (IHRM) focuses on the impact of various human resources
practices, but by addressing their congruency, bundling or degree of internal fit.
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

(3) Strategic HRM (SHRM is referred to as a best-fit, external fit or contingency

approach. From the SHRM perspective, the effectiveness of an organization can be
improved when there is a closer external fit between its HRM policies and
practices, and its overall competitive strategy or position.
(4) Universal HRM recognizes that the creation of a high-trust culture and high-
involvement practices will lead to the development of a highly committed,
competent and motivated workforce, and hence, an organization will achieve its
competitive advantage.

Under the universalistic perspective, all organizations disregarding to the size, industry or
business strategy should adopt the best-practice approach. Abduli (2013) identified two
forms of HRM practices; the traditional form that can be seen as a collection of multiple
practices with no clear connection between them while the modern from views HRM as an
integrated and coherent package of practices.
In general, HRM aims to increase the effectiveness and organizational skills of an
organization to achieve its goal using the available resources in the best way possible.
Moreover, the overall goal of HRM is to ensure that the company will be able to achieve
success through people (Abduli, 2013).

2.4 Knowledge management and human resource management linkage

HRM involves managing employees, their interpersonal relations and their relations with
the organization, where people and their interpersonal relations are treated as resources that
are valuable for an organization to become exceptional (Svetlik and Stavrou-Costea, 2007).
While KM ultimately depends upon people, as they are the ones who run processes
connected with identification, creation, obtaining, purifying, protecting and transferring the
knowledge. Consequently, KM and HRM have some correlation. The basic relationship
between them falls in the organizations’ capacity to create new knowledge that is inherited
from the employees’ capabilities to learn and share their knowledge with their colleagues
(Daniel and Raquel, 2012). As HRM practices are a major factor to influence individuals’
skills, attitudes and behavior, they can hence constitute a key element in knowledge creation
and development within the organization (Daniel and Raquel, 2012; Abduli, 2013). HRM can
assist in developing an organizational culture that encourages knowledge acquisition and
transferring. On the other hand, KM can provide the answer of how to manage human
resources to make employees the driving force of the company’s development. Another
correlation where KM provides chances to increase the effectiveness of human resources
 management in the company as it satisfies the staff needs of self-realization (Lendzion, Effects of
2015). knowledge
Despite the recognition of a positive relationship between HRM and KM, several KM and
HR initiatives tend to neglect this emerging merged and research on this field remains in its
management
infancy (Chen et al., 2011; Minbaeva et al., 2009; Zaim, 2016). Theriou and Chatzoglou (2008)
claimed that specific linkages between HRM practices and the KM capability have not been
clearly investigated. Furthermore, most of previous studies partially managed to explore
this emerging merged or linkage between these two disciplines, as focusing on one
particular HRM practice or on one specific KM process without a complete vision of the
issue (Daniel and Raquel, 2012).
Today, more than ever, the societies of HRM and KM are experiencing strong
motivation to acknowledge HR as a key factor in the KM process, which dramatically
could affect the KM initiatives’ outcomes, and to propose new HR researches and
practices consistent with this acknowledgment (Zaim, 2016; Stone and Deadrick, 2015).
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

This motivation has been identified because of several strategic organization and
economy factors such as the transformation from manufacturing to a service or
knowledge based economy, the rise in globalization, the growth of domestic diversity
and the emerging use of information technology (Stone and Deadrick, 2015). As stated
by Stone and Deadrick (2015), addressing these factors in the HRM will modify the
goals of organizations and change the nature of HR and KM processes and practices.
Accordingly, this paper aims to investigate and analyze the impact of KM practices on
the performance of HRM within an organization.

3. Methodology
3.1 Survey instrument
The survey instrument is a self-administered questionnaire composed of 37 questions. Three
of them are demographic questions; 20 questions aim to reveal KM processes and 14 for
HRM practices. KM construct was developed by Zaim et al. (2007), and HRM practices
construct was derived from Pfeffer (1998). According to Zaim et al (2007), the KM processes
comprise knowledge generation, knowledge codification, knowledge sharing and knowledge
utilization. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert Scale anchored at the numeral 1 with
the verbal statement “strongly agree” and at the numeral 5 with the verbal statement
“strongly disagree”.

3.2 Sample
Data were collected from the employees and managers of a Telecom company in Turkey.
Turkey has been considered as one of the most promising emerging economies which
features some important characteristics in terms of its geographical location, cultural and
linguistic proximities to Central Asian, European and Middle Eastern markets and its
pivotal role to link and the buffer between Europe and the Middle East and the southern tier
of the former Soviet Union (Kamasak, 2011). With its dynamism and growth potential,
around 80 million population, $10,000 per capita income and approximately 4 per cent
annual growth rate Turkey has recently attracted a substantial amount of attention (IMF
World Economic Outlook, 2017). However, it shows typical emerging market characteristics
such as:
Higher political risk, a relatively more dominant role of government on the economy and higher
rate of volatility in financial markets and weaker institutional infrastructure compared to the
developed countries such as USA and European Union (EU) countries (Yamak, 2006).
 JSTPM Telecommunications industry on the other has shown a significant growth in the last decade
and became one of the dominant industries in Turkish economy. With $3.5bn revenues and
over 77 million mobile and 67 million broad band subscribers, telecommunications industry
is attracting great attention of national and international investors (Information and
Communications Technologies Authority, statistics, 2017).
The questionnaire was distributed via Google survey link to employees and managers in
headquarters office and two branches in Istanbul. Out of 500 respondents, 252 returned.
Considering that this is a case study, 252 is sufficient to represent the company. Convenient
sampling method was applied for choosing the respondents.

3.3 Demographics
As shown in Figure 1 the majority of the respondents are male. Regarding the managerial
positions, 38 per cent are managers, 38 per cent are experts and remaining 24 per cent are
employees such as operators, administrative personnel or employees working in clerical
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

positions (Figure 2). On the other hand, 26 per cent are high school graduates, 61 per cent of
the respondents have degree (UG) whereas 13 per cent have master’s or PhD diploma
(Figure 3).

3.4 Hypothesis
The main purpose of this research is to reveal the direct and indirect effects of KM processes
on HRM. Accordingly, it is assumed that knowledge utilization is mediating the effects of
KM processes on HRM. It is also assumed that knowledge sharing has direct and positive
relationship with HRM. Knowledge generation and knowledge storage are not expected to
affect HRM directly. The main assumption here is that generated and stored knowledge will

Figure 1.
Gender distribution
of the respondents

Figure 2.
Managerial position
of the respondents
 enhance HRM if only it is shared and utilized. Hence, the research is assuming that Effects of
knowledge utilization plays a central role in KM and HRM relationship. Figure 4 shows the knowledge
research model.
management
4. Analysis results
We analyzed the collected data using the “lavaan” and “psych” packages in R, using R
version 3.4.2 and RStudio Version 1.0.153. First, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis
to confirm the construct validity of the measurement variables. To confirm that the total
number of factors in each variable is 1, we performed parallel analyses (PA). PA is an
accurate way to determine the number of factors to be extracted in explanatory factor
analysis. (Watkins, 2006). The purpose of the parallel analysis is to confirm that the number
of factors to retain from factor analysis is only 1. Using the “psych” package, the parallel
analysis can be performed as follows:
parallel<- fa.parallel(dataset, fm=“ml”, fa=“both”)
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

parallel$fa.values
sum(parallel$fa.values >1)
sum(parallel$fa.values >0.7)

Where dataset refers to the data frame that contains the raw data, “ml” indicates that
maximum likelihood method is the used factor method, “both” indicates that both principal
components and principal factors are calculated. Last two lines refer to the number of
factors to be extracted. According to the literature, factors that have eigenvalues greater
than one are commonly selected (Ledesma and Valero-Mora, 2007), but retaining factors
whose eigenvalue values exceed 0.7 is also recommended (Cangelosi and Goriely, 2007). We

Figure 3.
Education level of the
respondents

Figure 4.
Research model
 JSTPM checked both criteria and confirmed that all the variables used in this study can be extracted
as a single factor. The parallel analysis scree plots as the results of the PA for each factor is
given in Figure 5.
After confirming the total number of factors to be extracted from each factor is 1, we
performed the actual factor analysis to calculate the factor loadings. Factor loading can be
calculated using fa() function in the “psych” package, as follows:
cfa_Results<- fa(dataset,
nfactors = 1,
rotate = “varimax”,
m=“ml”)

Where dataset refers to the data frame that contains the raw data, “ml” indicates that
maximum likelihood method is the used factor method, and the results are rotated using
Varimax rotation. We also calculated the Cronbach’s alpha values to check the reliability of
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

each construct, using the alpha() function in the “psych” package. Table II two shows the
factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha values for each construct.
As the last step of the analysis, we constructed the structural equation model using the
“lavaan” package, as follows:
model1<-’
GEN=
GEN1 þ GEN2 þ GEN3 þ GEN4 þ GEN5 þ GEN6 þ GEN7 þ GEN8 þ GEN9
STORE=
ST1 þ ST2 þ ST3 þ ST4 þ ST5 þ ST6 þ ST7 þ ST8
SHARE=
SH1 þ SH2 þ SH3 þ SH4 þ SH5 þ SH6 þ SH7 þ SH8
UTIL=
U1 þ U2 þ U3 þ U4 þ U5 þ U6 þ U7 þ U8
HRP=
HR1 þ HR2 þ HR3 þ HR4 þ HR5 þ HR6 þ HR7 þ HR8 þ HR9

HRP
h6* UTIL þ h5*SHARE

UTIL
h2*GEN þ h3*STORE þh4*SHARE
SHARE
h1*GEN

IND1:= h1*h5
IND2:= h1*h4*h6
IND3:= h2*h6
IND4:= h3*h6
’

Figure 5.
PA scree plots
 Factor Measures Factor loadings Alpha
Effects of
knowledge
Knowledge generation (GEN) GEN1 0.72 0.92 management
GEN2 0.75
GEN3 0.59
GEN4 0.73
GEN5 0.79
GEN6 0.79
GEN7 0.81
GEN8 0.79
GEN9 0.84
Knowledge storage (STORE) ST1 0.69 0.9
ST2 0.74
ST3 0.79
ST4 0.8
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

ST5 0.7
ST6 0.71
ST7 0.66
ST8 0.67
Knowledge sharing (SHARE) SH1 0.58 0.84
SH2 0.62
SH3 0.63
SH4 0.73
SH5 0.71
SH6 0.62
SH7 0.55
SH8 0.61
Knowledge utilization (UTIL) U1 0.6 0.89
U2 0.7
U3 0.79
U4 0.8
U5 0.7
U6 0.73
U7 0.66
U8 0.76
Human resources performance HR1 0.77 0.93
(HR) HR2 0.7
HR3 0.85
HR4 0.82
Table II.
HR5 0.79
HR6 0.73 Confirmatory factor
HR7 0.71 analysis and
HR8 0.73 reliability analysis
HR9 0.81 results

Where “=
” is used for identifying the relationships between the observed variables
and the latent variables, whereas “
” is used for identifying the relationships between
the latent variables, and “:=“is used to indicate user defined indirect relationships
between the model parameters. After constructing the model, we estimated the
regression parameters using:
modelfit<- sem(model1, data = dataset)
summary(modelfit, rsquare = TRUE, standardized = TRUE,
fit.measures = TRUE)
 JSTPM
Estimate Std.Err z-value P(>|z|) Std.lv Std.all

Latent variables
GEN =
GEN1 1.000 – – – 0.753 0.716
GEN2 1.056 0.090 11.683 0.000 0.795 0.756
GEN3 0.764 0.082 9.368 0.000 0.576 0.608
GEN4 1.081 0.096 11.285 0.000 0.814 0.731
GEN5 1.090 0.091 11.975 0.000 0.821 0.775
GEN6 1.064 0.088 12.041 0.000 0.801 0.779
GEN7 1.200 0.095 12.694 0.000 0.904 0.821
GEN8 1.063 0.088 12.116 0.000 0.801 0.784
GEN9 1.180 0.091 12.906 0.000 0.889 0.835
STORE =
ST1 1.000 – – – 0.537 0.686
ST2 1.244 0.115 10.780 0.000 0.668 0.749
ST3 1.264 0.112 11.290 0.000 0.679 0.789
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

ST4 1.287 0.114 11.320 0.000 0.691 0.791

ST5 1.172 0.116 10.088 0.000 0.629 0.697
ST6 1.244 0.120 10.406 0.000 0.668 0.721
ST7 1.066 0.111 9.626 0.000 0.573 0.662
ST8 1.299 0.130 9.966 0.000 0.698 0.687
SHARE =
SH1 1.000 – – – 0.420 0.560
SH2 1.024 0.145 7.061 0.000 0.431 0.563
SH3 1.259 0.175 7.194 0.000 0.529 0.578
SH4 1.500 0.184 8.164 0.000 0.630 0.701
SH5 1.767 0.208 8.503 0.000 0.743 0.752
SH6 1.679 0.215 7.826 0.000 0.706 0.656
SH7 1.490 0.212 7.035 0.000 0.626 0.560
SH8 1.811 0.232 7.803 0.000 0.761 0.653
UTIL =
U1 1.000 – – – 0.497 0.606
U2 1.337 0.146 9.187 0.000 0.665 0.709
U3 1.470 0.148 9.902 0.000 0.731 0.789
U4 1.509 0.152 9.916 0.000 0.750 0.791
U5 1.356 0.149 9.122 0.000 0.674 0.702
U6 1.303 0.138 9.410 0.000 0.648 0.733
U7 1.144 0.133 8.610 0.000 0.569 0.650
U8 1.529 0.157 9.763 0.000 0.760 0.773
HRP =
HR1 1.000 – – – 0.967 0.780
HR2 0.809 0.068 11.954 0.000 0.782 0.712
HR3 1.104 0.074 14.941 0.000 1.067 0.851
HR4 1.075 0.076 14.136 0.000 1.039 0.815
HR5 1.067 0.080 13.323 0.000 1.031 0.778
HR6 0.846 0.068 12.492 0.000 0.817 0.738
HR7 0.813 0.067 12.086 0.000 0.786 0.718
HR8 0.848 0.069 12.252 0.000 0.820 0.726
HR9 1.075 0.077 14.033 0.000 1.039 0.810

Regressions
HRP
UTIL 1.682 0.269 6.247 0.000 0.865 0.865
SHARE 0.472 0.262 1.802 0.072 0.205 0.205
UTIL
GEN 0.263 0.063 4.152 0.000 0.399 0.399
STORE 0.099 0.062 1.613 0.107 0.107 0.107
SHARE 0.672 0.123 5.457 0.000 0.568 0.568
Table III. SHARE
GEN 0.394 0.055 7.210 0.000 0.707 0.707
Model estimates (continued)
 Effects of
Estimate Std.Err z-value P(>|z|) Std.lv Std.all knowledge
Covariances
management
GEN

STORE 0.274 0.041 6.637 0.000 0.678 0.678

Indirect impacts
GEN
SHARE
HRP 0.186 0.103 1.802 0.072 0.145 0.145
GEN
SHARE
UTIL
HRP 0.446 0.099 4.486 0.000 0.347 0.347
GEN
UTIL
HRP 0.443 0.111 3.98 0.000 0.345 0.345
STORE
UTIL
HRP 0.167 0.104 1.599 0.110 0.093 0.093 Table III.

where sem() function runs the model “model1” using the data presented in “dataset”.
The summary() function displays the model output, including the estimation
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

parameters and model fit indicators. Table II summarizes the estimation results,

and Table III shows the model fit indicators. semPaths() function plots the path
diagram for the model, therefore the relationships within the entire model can be
visualized using. Figure 2 shows the path diagram plotted by the following code
(Figure 6) (Table IV):
semPaths(modelfit, whatLabels = “std”, layout = “tree2”, sizeMan =
2.5, sizeLat = 4)

5. Discussion, conclusion and future recommendation

The research findings have two main contributions. First, it provides empirical
evidence regarding the positive effect of KM on HRM, and second, it shows that
knowledge utilization plays a central role and mediates the relationship between KM
processes and HRM.
The first finding of the research discloses the positive impact of KM on HRM
practices which is consistent with the existing literature. There is sufficient theoretical

Figure 6.
Structural equation
model
 JSTPM Estimator ML

Minimum function test statistic 1794.072

Degrees of freedom 812
p-value ( x 2) 0.000

Model test baseline model

Minimum function test statistic 7489.526
Degrees of freedom 861
p-value 0.000

User model versus baseline model

Comparative fit index (CFI 0.852
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) 0.843
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

Loglikelihood and Information Criteria

Loglikelihood user model (H0) 12025.644
Loglikelihood unrestricted model (H1) 11128.608
Number of free parameters 91
Akaike (AIC) 24233.288
Bayesian (BIC) 24553.741
Sample-size adjusted Bayesian (BIC) 24265.264

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

RMSEA 0.070
p-value RMSEA <= 0.05 0.065-0.074
p-value RMSEA <= 0.05 0.000

Table IV. Standardized Root Mean Square Residual

Model fit indicators SRMR 0.083

and empirical evidence regarding the positive relationship between KM and HRM. For
example, Soliman and Spooner (2000) propose a theoretical model suggesting that HRM
plays a central role in effective implementation of KM activities, whereas Svetlik and
Stavrou-Costea (2007) claim that HRM and KM share common activities and goals.
Yahya and Goh (2002) and Zaim (2016) provide empirical evidences regarding the
relationship between HRM and KM. On the other hand, Chen and Huang (2009) disclose
the mediating role of KM between HRM and innovation performance. However,
the direct link between the KM processes and HRM is needed further research.
Therefore, one of the major contributions of this study is to provide strong evidences
regarding the impact of KM processes on HRM.
The second finding of the study is the mediating role of knowledge utilization. It appears
that the impact of knowledge sharing and knowledge generation on HRM increases if they
are mediated by utilization. In other words, the study implies that knowledge is useful and
positively affects HRM practices only if it is used. For this reason, according to our research
findings, knowledge utilization plays a central role in connecting KM practices to HRM.
On the contrary, the research findings reveal that knowledge storage has no direct effect
neither on utilization nor HRM. Knowledge storage is positively correlated with HRM
through generation and utilization. As commonly cited in KM literature (Zaim et al., 2007;
Mills and Smith, 2011; Hsiao, et al., 2011), storing knowledge is valuable only if the
organization is able to generate knowledge out of this knowledge base and utilize it in their
decisions, products, services or behaviors.
 In this paper, we tried to investigate the impact of KM practices on the HRM performance of Effects of
a company. The results indicate that companies with better KM practices tend to perform knowledge
better at HRM. The main contribution of this paper lies in pointing out that, among the
dimensions of KM, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization have direct impact on HRM,
management
whereas knowledge generation and knowledge sharing have indirect impacts. Based on these
results, we concluded that knowledge generated and stored within the company cannot create
any improvements in the company’s HRM performance, unless it is shared and used
effectively.
This study is not without limitations. The study collected data from a single company in
telecom industry. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize the results. Although the research
findings are aligned with those of the previous studies, further research using data from
numerous companies in various industries is still needed to generalize the research findings.
This study reveals the impact of KM on HRM. However, for future research, it would be
useful to analyze which dimensions of HRM is more aligned with KM and how tacit
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

knowledge will be more used with respect to HRM practices. Moreover, implementing
qualitative research can give more insightful information regarding how knowledge
utilization will mediate the relationship between KM and HRM practices and helps to
discover how to enhance the practical outcomes of HRM using KM more efficiently.

References
Abduli, S. (2013), “Effective human resource management in small and medium size enterprises in the
Republic of Macedonia”, International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and
Management Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 169-183.
Abdullah, M.S., Benest, I., Evans, A. and Kimble, C. (2002), “Knowledge modelling techniques for
developing knowledge management systems”, Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on
Knowledge Management Systems, Dublin, pp. 15-25.
Acar, M., Tarim, M., Zaim, H., Zaim, S. and Delen, D. (2017), “Knowledge management and ERP:
Complementary or contradictory?”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37
No. 6, pp. 703-712.
Al-Hawary, S. and Alwan, A. (2016), “Knowledge management and its effect on strategic decisions of
Jordanian Public Universities”, Journal of Accounting – Business & Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 24-44.
Armstrong, M. (2000), “The name has changed but has the game remained the same?”, Employee
Relations, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 576-593.
Arshad, A., Noordin, M. and Othman, R. (2016), “A comprehensive knowledge management process
framework for healthcare information systems in healthcare industry of Pakistan”, The 6th
International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for The Muslim
World, Jakarta, pp. 30-35.
Barros, V., Ramos, I. and Perez, G. (2015), “Information systems and organizational memory: a literature
review”, Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Beardwell, I. and Holden, L. (2001), Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Approach,
Pearson Education, London.
Bognar, W.C. and Bansal, P. (2014), “Knowledge management as the basis of sustained high performance”.
Cangelosi, R. and Goriely, A. (2007), “Component retention in principal component analysis with
application to cDNA microarray data”, Biology Direct, Vol. 2 No. 2.
Chatzoudes, D., Chatzoglou, P. and Vraimaki, E. (2015), “The central role of knowledge management in
business operations: developing a new conceptual framework”, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1117-1139.
 JSTPM Chen, C.J. and Huang, J.W. (2009), “Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance- the
mediating role of knowledge management capacity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 1,
pp. 104-114.
Chen, W.Y., Hsu, B.F., Wang, M.L. and Lin, Y.Y. (2011), “Fostering knowledge sharing through human
resource management in R & D teams”, International Journal of Technology Management,
Vol. 53 Nos 2/3/4, p. 309-330.
Daniel, J.-J. and Raquel, S.-V. (2012), “Studying the effect of HRM practices on the knowledge
management process”, Personnel Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 28-49.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000), “Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they
know”, Ubiquity an ACM IT Magazine and Forum, Vol. 1 No. 24, pp. 1-17.
Forghani, M.A. and Tavasoli, A. (2017), “Investigating the relationship between knowledge
management dimensions and organizational performance in lean manufacturing”, International
Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, Vol. 4 No. 3, March, pp. 218-225.
Ganesh, B., Jatinder N.D., G. and Fred, K. (2005), “An exploratory study of groupware use in the
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

knowledge management process”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 1,

pp. 28-46.
Hongmei, L., Chai, K.H. and James, F.N. (2013), “Balancing codification and personalization for
knowledge reuse: a Markov decision process approach”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 755-772.
Hosseingholizadeh, R. (2014), “Managing the knowledge lifecycle: an integrated knowledge
management process model”, The 4th International Conference on Computer and Knowledge
Engineering (ICCKE), pp. 102-110.
Hsiao, Y.C., Chen, C.J. and Chang, S.C. (2011), “Knowledge management capacity and organizational
performance: the social interaction view”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6,
pp. 645-660.
Hughes, J.C. (2002), “HRM and universalism: is there one best way?”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 221-228.
IMF World Economic Outlook (2017), “World economic outlook database”, available at: www.imf.org/en/
Publications/WEO/Issues/2017/09/19/
/media/Files/Publications/WEO/2017/October/pdf/main-
chapter/c1.ashx
Information and Communications Technologies Authority, statistics (2017), available at: www.btk.gov.
tr/File/?path=ROOT/1/Documents/Sayfalar/Resmi_Istatistikler/2017_3.pdf
Kalkan, V.D. (2008), “An overall view of knowledge management challenges for global business”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 390-400.
Kamasak, R. (2011), “Firm-specific versus industry structure factors in explaining performance
variation: empirical evidence from Turkey”, Management Research Review, Vol. 34 No. 10,
pp. 1125-1146.
Koene, R. (2006), “Case study-fluor corporation”, Journal of Inside Knowledge, Vol. 3 No. 2.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996), “What firms do: coordination, identity and learning”, Journal of
Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 502-518.
Kumar, A. and Ganesh, L. (2011), “Balancing knowledge strategy: codification and personalization during
product development”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 118-135.
Lendzion, J.P. (2015), “Human resources management in the system of organizational knowledge
management”, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and
Ergonomics (AHFE), Vol. 3, pp. 674-680.
Ledesma, R.D. and Valero-Mora, P. (2007), “Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: an
easy-to use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis”, Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, Vol. 12 No. 2, available at: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=2
 MacCormack, A.D. and School, H.B. (2002), Siemens ShareNet: Building a Knowledge Network, Harvard Effects of
Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
knowledge
Malhotra, Y. (2000), “Knowledge management for e-business performance: advancing information
strategy to internet time”, Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 5-16.
management
Mills, A.M. and Smith, T.A. (2011), “Knowledge management and organizational performance: a
decomposed view”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 156-171.
Milton, N., Shadbolt, N., Cottam, H. and Hammersley, M. (1999), “Towards a knowledge technology for
knowledge management”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 51 No. 3,
pp. 615-641.
Minbaeva, D., Foss, N. and Snell, S. (2009), “Bringing the knowledge perspective into HRM”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 477-483.
Mishra, B. and Bhaskar, A.U. (2011), “Knowledge management process in two learning organisations”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 344-359.
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

Paez-Logreira, H., Zamora-Musa, R. and Velez-Zapata, J. (2016), “Relation analysis of knowledge

management, research, and innovation in university research groups”, Journal of Technology
Management & Innovation, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 5-11.
Pfeffer, J. (1998), “Seven practices of successful organizations”, California Management Review, Vol. 40
No. 2, pp. 96-124.
Renata, B.M. (2016), “Elements of knowledge management in the improvement of business processes”,
Journal of University of Zielona Gora (De Gruyter), Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 242-260.
Sathishkumar, A.S. and Karthikeyan, P. (2017), “A study on effective organizational learning through
knowledge management model”, International Journal of Research in Commerce &
Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 34-36.
Soliman, F. and Spooner, K. (2000), “Strategies for implementing knowledge management: role of
human resources management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 337-345.
Stanciua, V. and Tincaa, A. (2016), “Solid knowledge management – the ingredient companies need for
performance: a romanian insight”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information
Systems, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 147-163.
Stone, D.L. and Deadrick, D.L. (2015), “Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of human resource
management”, Journal of Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-145.
Sunassee, N. and Sewry, D.A. (2002), “A theoretical framework for knowledge management
implementation”, Proceedings of SAICSIT: 235-245, South Africa.
Svetlik, I. and Stavrou-Costea, E. (2007), “Connecting human resources management and knowledge
management”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 197-206.
Theriou, G.N. and Chatzoglou, P.D. (2008), “Enhancing performance through best HRM practices,
organizational learning and knowledge management: a conceptual framework”, European
Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 185-207.
Vanhoenacker, J., Bryant, A. and Dedene, G. (1999), “Creating a knowledge management architecture
for business process change”, Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer
Personnel Research: 231-240, New York, NY.
Watkins, M.W. (2006), “Determining parallel analysis criteria”, Journal of Modern Applied Statistical
Methods, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 344-346.
Wielinga, B., Sandberg, J. and Schreiber, G. (1997), “Method and techniques for knowledge
management: what has knowledge engineering to offer?”, Pergamon-Expert System with
Applications, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 73-84.
Yahya, S. and Goh, W.K. (2002), “Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge
management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 457-468.
 JSTPM Yamak, S. (2006), “Changing institutional environment and business elites in Turkey”, Society and
Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 206-219.
Zaim, H. (2016), “Analysing the effects of knowledge management processes on human resource
management practices: a case study on an oil company in the Gulf region”, Middle East Journal
of Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 230-243.
Zaim, H., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2007), “Performance of knowledge management practices: a causal
analysis”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 54-67.
Zack, M.H. (1999), “Developing a knowledge strategy”, California Management Review Journal, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 125-145.

Further reading
Bhatt, G., Gupta, J.N.D. and Fred, K. (2005), “An exploratory study of groupware use in the knowledge
management process”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 28-46.
Jimenez-Jimenez, D. and Sanz-Valle, R. (2012), “Studying the effect of HRM practices on the knowledge
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 10:00 04 May 2018 (PT)

management process”, Personnel Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 28-49.

About the authors

Halil Zaim obtained his Bachelor degree in Economics from Istanbul University. He obtained his
master’s degree and PhD in Labor Economics from the same university. He became Associate
Professor in 2009 and Professor in 2014. He is currently working as a Professor of Human Resource
Management in American University of the Middle East, College of Business Administration. He has
published four books, numerous national and international journal papers and congress proceedings.
His current scholarly interest is in human resource management, knowledge management and
business ethics.
Yavuz Keceli is an Associate Professor of Management Information Systems in the College of
Business Administration, American University of the Middle East, Kuwait. He earned his PhD in
Management Information Systems from the Dong-A University, Busan, South Korea. His research
area of interest is port management information systems, business intelligence, data analytics and
simulations.
Ashraf Jaradat currently is an Assistant Professor in the department of Management Information
Systems at American University of the Middle East, Kuwait. He received his PhD in Information
System from The National University of Malaysia. After obtaining his Doctoral degree, he was an
Assistant Professor in the department of Management Information Systems at Yarmouk University.
He also worked in Spring Hill group as advisor business development. His research interest includes
data integration, uncertainty management, information system modelling, E-learning and knowledge
management.
Selma Kastrati is an Assistant Professor at College of Business Administration, American
University of the Middle East, Kuwait, where she currently teaches Business Organization and
Management, Leadership, Career Planning and Organisational Behaviour. She holds a PhD in
Foreign Direct Investments from SEE University, Tetovo Macedonia and MA degree in International
Business from Webster University, London, UK. She has a BA in Business and International
Management from Oxford Brookes University - Oxford, UK. During her PhD studies she worked as a
teaching assistant and taught International Business, International Marketing and International
Economics. Her research includes FDI, business ethics, corporate social responsibility, female
entrepreneurship and small business management. Selma Kastrati is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: selma.kurtishi-kastrati@aum.edu.kw

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com