Is there a correlation between knowledge management maturity and organizational performance?
| Date | 16 August 2011 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/03055721111171618 |
| Published date | 16 August 2011 |
| Pages | 265-295 |
| Author | Cornelius Johannes (Neels) Kruger,Roy D. Johnson |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
Is there a correlation between
knowledge management maturity
and organizational performance?
Cornelius Johannes (Neels) Kruger and Roy D. Johnson
Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
Abstract
Purpose – Beyond critique of current maturity models, the research literature has neglected to
supply empirical evidence of the value knowledge management (KM) holds for organizations. The
majority of studies, in common with other emergent business philosophies, are focused on large
organizations of developed economies, where readily available implementation resources are an
underlying assumption. This paper aims to address this issue and to assess the correlation between
the successful institutionalization of KM and organizational performance (OP) in a developing
economy.
Design/methodology/approach – From a large urban South African university engaged in
numerous collaboration programs with industry, the authors gained insight into KM maturity and
organizational performance (OP) of three industry groups, over a five-year period. The authors apply
an inventory developed by Kruger and Snyman to a set of nine organisations distributed over three
economic sectors in South Africa.
Findings – By evaluating the relationship between KM maturity and OP from within three “time
dependent” perspectives, insight was gained to answer the aim of the research undertaken, “Is there a
correlation between KM maturity and OP in South Africa?” Diagrammatic presentation of OP scores
and KM maturity growth revealed that in five out of the nine organizations there is a clearly
identifiable relationship between KM maturity and OP in South Africa in both entities over the period
under investigation. In certain instances, the correlations were not easily noticeable and/or were
non-existent. From a mathematical perspective, in comparing the correlation between growth in KM
maturity and year-on-year growth in OP, it was revealed that six of the eight companies that recorded
positive growth in KM maturity also recorded positive (year-on-year) growth in OP. In a similar
manner, it was established that the company recording negative growth in KM maturity also recorded
negative (year-on-year) growth in OP.
Research limitations/implications – Because the South African scenario can be considered a
benchmark for developing economies characterized by continued change, diversity and even elements
of silent intolerance and conflict, this study may be viewed as a “pilot study” to provide a baseline and
insight into future research of KM for enabling OP.
Originality/value – This paper is of relevance to strategic managers and KM practitioners
interested in gaining insight into the correlation between KM maturity and organisational
performance.
Keywords Knowledge management, Knowledge managementmaturity, Organizationalperformance,
South Africa, Developingcountries
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm
The authors would like to thank attendees of the Second Annual SIG GlobDev Workshop,
Phoenix, USA, December 14, 2009, for their constructive suggestions to improve this paper.
Combined with the anonymous reviewer’s comments, the lucidity of this paper has been greatly
improved.
Knowledge
management
maturity
265
VINE: The journal of information and
knowledge management systems
Vol. 41 No. 3, 2011
pp. 265-295
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0305-5728
DOI 10.1108/03055721111171618
1. Introduction
The lack of a clear insight into the “reality” of knowledge management (KM) remains
problematic. Statements such as, “If managing knowledge is the solution, then what’s
the problem?” (Zack, 2000), fuelled ignorance regarding contextual nuances to truly
understand and articulate the role KM plays in firms and organizational systems
(Sambamurthy and Subramani, 2005, p. 2). Although literature is swamped wi th theory
regarding best practice vis-a
`-vis KM processes and techniques (Garud and
Kumaraswamy, 2005), and/or the relationship between KM and ICT (Alavi and
Leidner, 2001; Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001; Earl, 2001; Davenport and
Grover, 2001; Ryu et al., 2005), little empirical work has been undertaken with only a
small number of studies focusing on how embedded KM is in organizations (Alavi and
Leidner, 2001; Serenko et al., 2007; Kruger and Johnson, 2010a). There is only a paucity
of research that empirically studies issues such as the effect of KM on organizational
performance.
The majority of studies, in common with other emergent business philosophies, are
focused on large organizations of developed economies, where readily available
implementation resources are an underlying assumption (Moffet and McAdam, 2006).
Much of the seminal work on KM features large multinational companies or are too
general when it comes to describing the organization in which these new efficiencies
have a high probability of success (Davenport, 2008; Serenko et al., 2007). This is likely
due to new management philosophy and technology first being implemented in large,
first world organizations with KM being no exception in this regard (Sanghani , 2008).
For KM to reach acceptance and understanding, more comprehensive studies in
organizations of different sizes and in different economic sectors are drastically needed
(Beijerse, 2000; Lee et al., 2005; Sanghani, 2008).
Discussions at various academic conferences have revealed that there is no
consensus on the definitions of KM and KM’s success ( Jennex et al., 2008). Clarity
regarding KM definitions should be stipulated in the study of this important
phenomena related to individual, organizational, and business partnership network
effectiveness and organizational performance (Sambamurthy and Subramani, 2005, p.
2). Authors such as Hansen et al. (1999, p. 109), warn that, “a company’s KM strategy
should reflect its competitive strategy: how it creates value for customers, how the
value supports an economic model, and how the company’s people deliver on the value
of economics.” Companies struggle to develop appropriate metrics to assess the
effectiveness of KM initiatives, with only a limited number of organizations having any
mechanism to track the cost, and value of KM (Alavi, 1999; Lee et al., 2005). Much work
remains to be done both theoretically and empirically before KM can be regarded with
explanatory power that exceeds other frameworks (Salojarvi et al., 2005).
Unfortunately, perceptions regarding the value perception of KM became disto rted
over time (Dove, 1999; Jennex and Olfman, 2005). As an example, even without
sufficient evidence, KM was often perceived as nothing more than an instrument
leading to innovation (Tang, 1998; Darroch and McNaughton, 2002). This led authors
such as Zack (1999); Tiwana (2000) and Kruger and Snyman (2005), to argue that KM is
wrongly assessed. Zack (1999) negated a shift away from focusing on innovation as a
measure of KM’s success, emphasizing that in order to be of value, endeavors in KM
must influence strategy (i.e. lead to some form of competitive advantage). In agreement,
Ndlela and du Toit (2001) propose that for KM to be of value it should assist in either
VINE
41,3
266
To continue reading
Request your trial