Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
TOWARD A FRAMEWORK OF CRITICAL SUCCESS
FACTORS FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Presented to KM Chicago

Curtis A. Conley
02.07.12
Agenda
Background of Study
 Overview of the Study
 Findings
 Implications


2
Introduction

3

Northern Illinois University

Curtis Conley Ed.D.

curtisconley.com

Deloitte Consulting
4

Introduction
5

Background of study
Background

6

Given limited time and resources, how do you maximize the
possibility of success for your knowledge managem...
Background

7

Given limited time and resources, how do you maximize the
possibility of success for your knowledge managem...
Background


Top 10 lists are easily digestible, but not always appropriate

VS
Background


Other approaches to CSFs?
Lists of CSFs
 Ranked/Ordered lists of CSFs
 Grouping of factors (by type, area,...
Background


Issues with a CSF approach to KM
Context of study ignored, overgeneralized results
 Studies often theoretic...
11

The study
Research Questions & Hypotheses
1.

12

Based on existing literature, what would a framework of
integrated CSFs for KM loo...
Research Questions & Hypotheses
2.

13

What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM
identified by participant...
Method


Survey research method, correlational design
Frequency and descriptive statistics
 Kruskal-Wallis independent-s...
Participants


Stratified sampling, two sampling frames established




KM scholars & KM practitioners

Accessible popu...
44 Factors
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Effective monitoring, control, and measurement
Training and Ed...
Factor groups
Factors related to the KM Initiative:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Effective monitoring, control, and measurement
Trai...
Proposed framework
1.

18

Based on existing literature, what would a framework of
integrated CSFs for KM look like?
19

Findings
Findings

20

1a. How do KM scholars and practitioners gauge the completeness, accuracy,
clarity, & conciseness of the fra...
Findings

21

1b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and
practitioners identify as having an impact ...
Findings

22

1b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and
practitioners identify as having an impact ...
Findings
2.

23

What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM
identified by participants with varying backgrou...
Findings
2.

24

What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM
identified by participants with varying backgrou...
Findings

25

H1: Industry Background of the participants
Supported

Statistically significant differences between the mea...
Findings

26

H2: Internal / External focus of participant
Supported

Statistically significant differences between the me...
Findings
H3: Organization size
Not supported



No statistically significant differences identified based on org size

27
Findings

28

H4: Participant being either a scholar or practitioner
Supported

As discussed in response to research quest...
Findings

29

H5: Geographic location of participants
Supported

Statistically significant differences between the mean ra...
Findings
Organizational Reality Bias


The grass is always greener?

30
Findings

31

Organizational Reality Bias
The grass is always greener?
 In 3 CSF categories, low perceived org reality gr...
Implications
2.

32

What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM
identified by participants with varying back...
Implications

33

Organizational Reality Bias
Participants who perceive their org as effective at something, likely to vie...
Implications

34

Framework of CSFs for KM
Initial framework proposed a synthesis of existing literature
 While well rece...
Implications
Framework of CSFs for KM

35
Findings
Findings

37

“I realize that a list of top factors isn’t all that helpful… but…
what are the top factors that you found?”
Findings


38

Top 3 factors in each CSF grouping
KM Initiative

Organization

1. Link to corporate/business strategy
2. ...
Contributions


39

To Research
Integrates concepts from other literature bases dealing w/ CSFs
 Validated components of...
Limitations


40

Sample size
While every attempt was made to obtain a large sample size, some
groups not adequately repr...
Future Research


41

Framework of CSFs for KM
Future studies should conduct case studies in organizations that have
impl...
42

Questions
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Critical Success Factors for KM: Presented to KM Chicago

861 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Critical Success Factors for KM: Presented to KM Chicago

  1. 1. TOWARD A FRAMEWORK OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Presented to KM Chicago Curtis A. Conley 02.07.12
  2. 2. Agenda Background of Study  Overview of the Study  Findings  Implications  2
  3. 3. Introduction 3 Northern Illinois University Curtis Conley Ed.D. curtisconley.com Deloitte Consulting
  4. 4. 4 Introduction
  5. 5. 5 Background of study
  6. 6. Background 6 Given limited time and resources, how do you maximize the possibility of success for your knowledge management effort?
  7. 7. Background 7 Given limited time and resources, how do you maximize the possibility of success for your knowledge management effort? “CSFs are the limited number of areas in which satisfactory results will ensure successful competitive performance for the individual, department or organization.” (Bullen & Rockart, 1981)
  8. 8. Background  Top 10 lists are easily digestible, but not always appropriate VS
  9. 9. Background  Other approaches to CSFs? Lists of CSFs  Ranked/Ordered lists of CSFs  Grouping of factors (by type, area, etc.)  CSFs by implementation stage  Interrelationships of CSFs   While CSF approach to KM offers insight, more study needed The study offers a deeper dive into CSFs for KM  Final product a framework that re-imagines list approach to CSFs for KM 
  10. 10. Background  Issues with a CSF approach to KM Context of study ignored, overgeneralized results  Studies often theoretically derived  Conclude with a limited list of factors, arbitrary numbers of factors  Ignore external environment 
  11. 11. 11 The study
  12. 12. Research Questions & Hypotheses 1. 12 Based on existing literature, what would a framework of integrated CSFs for KM look like? a. b. How do KM scholars and practitioners gauge the completeness, accuracy, clarity, and conciseness of the framework developed by this study? What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives?
  13. 13. Research Questions & Hypotheses 2. 13 What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM identified by participants with varying backgrounds? H1: H2: H3: H4: H5: Industry Background of the participants Internal / External focus of participant Organization size Participant being either a scholar or practitioner Geographic location of participants
  14. 14. Method  Survey research method, correlational design Frequency and descriptive statistics  Kruskal-Wallis independent-samples tests  Nonparametric independent sample tests  Thematic analysis for open-ended questions   One survey instrument, three components Survey Instrument 1 2 3 Identify participant background Participants rate/rank CSFs for KM Framework effectiveness Adapted from Holsapple and Joshi (2000) 14
  15. 15. Participants  Stratified sampling, two sampling frames established   KM scholars & KM practitioners Accessible population KM scholars: 716 individuals  KM practitioners: estimated ~5,000 individuals   Response rate KM scholars: 67 (12.5%)  KM practitioners: 187 (4.7%)  15
  16. 16. 44 Factors • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Effective monitoring, control, and measurement Training and Education Clear Goals and Objectives Knowledge Strategy Link to Corporate/Business Strategy Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value KM Champion User/Client Acceptance and Commitment Motivation Ability to Delegate Authority Ability to Trade-off Ability to Coordinate Perception of his/her role and responsibilities Effective Leadership Having Relevant Past Experience Change Management Skills Commitment Trust Education Strategy and Objective Setting Full-time / Dedicated Staff KM Background • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Trouble Shooting Monitoring and Feedback Commitment Trust Knowledge Sharing Processes and Culture Technology Infrastructure Top Management Support Organizational Structure and Culture Systematic Processes Knowledge Creation and Innovation Transfer of Knowledge/Information Knowledge Infrastructure Competition Fashion Markets Technology Time Governmental Climate Economic Climate Political Climate Social Climate Educational Climate 16
  17. 17. Factor groups Factors related to the KM Initiative: • • • • • • • • • Effective monitoring, control, and measurement Training and Education Clear Goals and Objectives Knowledge Strategy Link to Corporate/Business Strategy Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value KM Champion User/Client Acceptance and Commitment Motivation Factors related to the KM Team Members: • • • • • • Factors related to the Organization: • • • • • • • • • • • • Ability to Delegate Authority Ability to Trade-off Ability to Coordinate Perception of his/her role and responsibilities Effective Leadership Having Relevant Past Experience Change Management Skills Commitment Trust Education Strategy and Objective Setting Factors related to the Environment: • • • • • • • • • Factors related to the KM Manager/Leadership: Full-time / Dedicated Staff KM Background Trouble Shooting Monitoring and Feedback Commitment Trust • • • • • • Knowledge Sharing Processes and Culture Technology Infrastructure Top Management Support Organizational Structure and Culture Systematic Processes Knowledge Creation and Innovation Transfer of Knowledge/Information Knowledge Infrastructure 17 • • Competition Fashion Markets Technology Time Governmental Climate Economic Climate Political Climate Social Climate Educational Climate
  18. 18. Proposed framework 1. 18 Based on existing literature, what would a framework of integrated CSFs for KM look like?
  19. 19. 19 Findings
  20. 20. Findings 20 1a. How do KM scholars and practitioners gauge the completeness, accuracy, clarity, & conciseness of the framework developed by this study? Framework Effectiveness Measures KM Scholars Identifies Accurately Characterizes Clearly Presents and Describes Concisely Presents Mean SD 3.2000 3.1833 3.1695 3.2000 .60506 .59636 .62014 .65871 KM Practitioners Identifies Accurately Characterizes Clearly Presents and Describes Concisely Presents 3.1686 3.0706 3.0899 3.0756 .60268 .63036 .62238 .62134 Mean scale ranges from 1 to 4 (1 = Very Unsuccessful, 2 = Unsuccessful, 3 = Successful, 4 = Very Successful) No statistically significant difference found between groups  Participants identified +87 additional factors (bringing the total to 131 possible CSFs)  Factors characterized as too general, not enough description  Mixed results on conciseness, equal number say too complex/simple  Clearly presents, but lacks visual for factor interactions 
  21. 21. Findings 21 1b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives? Significant Differences of CSFs for KM Rated by Participants Critical Success Factors Factors Related to the KM Initiative Link to Corporate / Business Strategy KM Champion Z Sig. Significant Differences of CSFs for KM Ranked by Participants Z Sig. -3.317 .001 -2.876 .004 Critical Success Factors Factors Related to the KM Initiative Effective Monitoring, Control, and Measurement Link to Corporate / Business Strategy -2.268 -2.167 .023 .030 Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader Ability to Trade-off Effective Leadership Change Management Skills Education -2.147 -3.444 -2.645 -2.099 Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader Ability to Delegate Authority Change Management Skills Trust Education Strategy and Objective Setting -2.238 -2.582 -3.173 -2.437 -2.520 .025 .010 .002 .015 .012 Factors Related to the KM Team Members Full-time / Dedicated Staff -2.161 .031 Factors Related to the KM Team Members KM Background Other -3.087 -2.211 .002 .027 Factors Related to the External Environment Governmental Climate Political Climate Educational Climate -2.115 .034 -2.106 .035 -3.138 .002 Factors Related to the Organization Top Management Support -2.539 .011 Factors Related to the External Environment Technology Time Political Climate Educational Climate -2.592 -2.073 -2.100 -2.538 .010 .038 .036 .010 .032 .001 .008 .036
  22. 22. Findings 22 1b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives? CSF Categories Rated by Participants Critical Success Factors Factors Related to the External Environment Factors Related to the KM Initiative Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader Factors Related to the KM Team Members Factors Related to the Organization Scholars Mean SD 3.6418 1.67605 2.9701 1.49717 2.8955 1.24480 2.8358 1.12273 2.6567 1.30909 Practitioners Mean SD 4.0267 1.57068 2.5668 1.19568 2.6310 1.19033 3.3155 .97381 2.4599 1.41886 Mean scale ranges from 1 to 4 (1 = Very Unimportant, 2 = Unimportant, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important)
  23. 23. Findings 2. 23 What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM identified by participants with varying backgrounds? Results: Hypotheses Supported? H1: Industry H2: Internal / External H3: Org Size H4: Scholar / Practitioner Yes H5: Geography
  24. 24. Findings 2. 24 What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM identified by participants with varying backgrounds? Results: Hypotheses Supported? H1: Industry Yes H2: Internal / External Yes H3: Org Size No H4: Scholar / Practitioner Yes H5: Geography Yes
  25. 25. Findings 25 H1: Industry Background of the participants Supported Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level among groups for six different CSFs (Appendix M)  Groups Critical Success Factors  Academia  Construction  Consulting  Information Systems  Legal  Manufacturing  Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value  Ability to Coordinate  Change Management Skills  Governmental Climate  Social Climate  Educational Climate
  26. 26. Findings 26 H2: Internal / External focus of participant Supported Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level between groups for three different CSFs  Variable Trust (KM Manager / Leader) Between Groups Internal KM Initiatives and Combination of Internal & External KM Initiatives Mean Rank 102.20 / 120.46 Z -2.555 Sig. .011 Markets Internal KM Initiatives and Combination of Internal & External KM Initiatives 99.66 / 122.81 -2.857 .004 Social Climate Internal KM Initiatives and Combination of Internal & External KM Initiatives External KM Initiatives and Combination of Internal & External KM Initiatives 99.50 / 116.15 -2.086 .037 49.88 / 66.96 -2.412 .016
  27. 27. Findings H3: Organization size Not supported  No statistically significant differences identified based on org size 27
  28. 28. Findings 28 H4: Participant being either a scholar or practitioner Supported As discussed in response to research question 1b  Significant differences found between groups for both rating & ranking 
  29. 29. Findings 29 H5: Geographic location of participants Supported Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level between groups for seven different CSFs  Groups Critical Success Factors  Asia  Combination  Central/South America  Europe  North America  Oceania  Effective Monitoring, Control and Measurement  Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value  KM Champion  KM Background  Knowledge Infrastructure  Technology  Social Climate
  30. 30. Findings Organizational Reality Bias  The grass is always greener? 30
  31. 31. Findings 31 Organizational Reality Bias The grass is always greener?  In 3 CSF categories, low perceived org reality group rated CSFs lower  KM Team Members Organizational External Environment  Trouble Shooting  Commitment  Trust  Technology Infrastructure  Knowledge Creation & Innovation  Transfer of Knowledge/Information  Knowledge Infrastructure  Competition  Fashion
  32. 32. Implications 2. 32 What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM identified by participants with varying backgrounds? Hypotheses Supported? H1: Industry Yes H2: Internal / External Yes H3: Org Size No H4: Scholar / Practitioner H5: Geography Yes Lists or “top” CSFs for KM should not be treated as static  CSFs for KM are context dependent, support Savary’s (1999) assertion  Wong’s (2005) suggestion of org size as influencer not supported  Mason’s (2003) assertion of North American bias supported  16 of 27 differences between groups, North America vs. others  Key issue, may lead to improper focus for practitioners outside of North America  Yes
  33. 33. Implications 33 Organizational Reality Bias Participants who perceive their org as effective at something, likely to view it as important; vice versa  Potential positive bias 
  34. 34. Implications 34 Framework of CSFs for KM Initial framework proposed a synthesis of existing literature  While well received by participants, updated to reflect study implications  New framework of CSFs for KM should:  reflect reality of contextual influence (participant background factors)  be capable of producing unique list of factors based on individual 
  35. 35. Implications Framework of CSFs for KM 35
  36. 36. Findings
  37. 37. Findings 37 “I realize that a list of top factors isn’t all that helpful… but… what are the top factors that you found?”
  38. 38. Findings  38 Top 3 factors in each CSF grouping KM Initiative Organization 1. Link to corporate/business strategy 2. Clear goals and objectives 3. KM Champion 1. Knowledge sharing processes/culture 2. Top management support 3. Transfer of knowledge/information KM Manager/Leader KM Team External Environment 1. Effective leadership 2. Change management skills 3. Commitment 1. Commitment 2. Trust 3. Full-time/dedicated staff 1. Competition 2. Technology 3. Time
  39. 39. Contributions  39 To Research Integrates concepts from other literature bases dealing w/ CSFs  Validated components of a framework of CSFs for KM  Uncovered contextual differences influencing importance of CSFs  Proposed revised framework of CSFs for KM that would overcome criticisms of CSF approach identified in review of literature  Identified potential for org reality to bias participant responses   To Practice Identifying contextual differences will help practitioners focus on factors that apply more specifically to their background  Participants suggested tool could be used as tool for guiding KM initiative, or used in strategic planning  Framework can be used as a benchmark or audit tool, allowing practitioners to identify CSFs that they could improve 
  40. 40. Limitations  40 Sample size While every attempt was made to obtain a large sample size, some groups not adequately represented in study   Type of initiative This study focused on CSFs for KM as they apply to formal KM initiatives  “Stealth” or non-formalized KM initiatives may have different CSFs   North American bias CSFs identified drew heavily from North American publications  A North American bias may be present in CSFs identified 
  41. 41. Future Research  41 Framework of CSFs for KM Future studies should conduct case studies in organizations that have implemented a KM initiative, comparing level of success with how KM practitioners perceive they match up against list of CSFs for KM that match their org. background.   Investigate North American bias Future research should study the similarities and differences of CSFs for KM by geographic region. Gaining a better understanding of KM outside of North America would be valuable to both research and practice.   Move beyond lists Future studies should investigate the interrelationships and interactions among factors. Understanding what factors are critical is important, but how those factors interact may provide additional insight into successful KM practices. 
  42. 42. 42 Questions

×