University of Nigeria Virtual Library

Serial No. ISBN 978-2955-73-6

Author 1 CHIAHA, G.T.U

Author 2 ONWURAH, C.U

Author 3

Title Administration of Knowledge Management in Universities in Nigeria

Keywords

Description Administration of Knowledge Management in Universities in Nigeria

Category Education

Publisher University Trust Publishers: Nsukka Enugu

Publication Date

Signature

ADMINISTRATION OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN UNIVERSITIES IN NIGEFUA

C.U. Onwurah & G.T.U. Chiaha University of Nigeria, Nsukka. ,.

Abstract This srm ?ey study im~estigated the application of Knowledge Martag~.r,rent (KM) in t h

ad~rrinistrarron of universities in Nigeria. KAY is very crucial for all organizalions seeking to & recognized ntrd ncclaimed in this era of globalization. KM applicatiorl becomes exmi- especially wrlr the current international rating of the World Class Uni~wsilies for which now

1 of the Nigoiarr Universities was selected. Apparently, Nigerian universitie.\ are working ~or;d to joi,r rlle ticxf race. It is an important aspect of the overall assessnleut in 111e rating of rnI6 class leliwm~ties and also /relp/ul in solving ,zumerous problems of the universities. figd hundred (800) teaching and non- teaching ser~ior stafof two federal uriiversities co,ntijute t&

4 sarrr/llr size for the study. A 38-item Knowledge Management Ad~ninisfrarion QuestionnairC , (KhfAA} ;) us developed by the researchers. bur research questiorrs arrd three I r j ~ p o t h ~ ~ guided rhe vnrdy. Mearr, standard deviatiorl aud t test were employed irr thc cluta analysb *, findirrgs arrrorrg others showed that KM is applied to a snrall extent in urriversities in Ni Reco~~rrn~enrlarioas irlcluded sharing initiatives, innovations and aclrievcaents with within orid oirrside the university; submission of research worh, articles, irrrrovations etc university ndrrrinistration for internet and intranet activities.

Backgrour~d of the Problem Knowledge is a very powerful tool for survival, growth and developm

organization. Knowledge Management (KM) is essential for all organizations recognized and acclaimed in this era of globalization. As observed by Bleiklie tied to organizational objectives and helps in achieving outcoines like shared improved performance, competitive advantages and higher levels of innovation result of the recent past international rating of world class universities did not recogn without KM. None of the Nigcrian Universities was among the list of ranked has therefore become expedient that all universities especially in Nigeria sh administration of KM. *

KM involves the identification, creation, capture, representation, distributio of knowledge. It is the practice that helps in the sharing of data and information making (Petrides and Nodine 2003). According to them, KM brings together organizational resources, viz, people, processes and technologies.

Friehs (2001) described KM as the coordination and organization of PetsonJ organi?~tion in internal and external ex~hange of knowledge. In other words, KM -1' acquisition of knowledge, the preservation of such knowledge for present and also implies storage of such knowledge in a way to facilitate retiieval, use and others within and outside the organization. It is contrary to hoarding of

287 m d e some university staff initially sceptical about the submission of their cuniculum vitae, research work and publications for on-line publications.

KM is very important in organizations especially in universities for they function as of knowledge and are responsible for managing intellectual capital and assets of

the workforce. Therefore organizations should strive to retain through KM practices, expertise that could be lost when individuals leave the universities. KM is very beneficial in

networking especially for distant education as found by Weber, Vazquez and Romero (2006).

<Edman (2005) found KM to be very helpful in support of studqnts' learning, student- teacher well being and teacher decision making. The three important basic ingredients in every organization as identified by Petrides and Nodine (2003), data, knowledge and information are bound by KM. Therefore universities cannot do without KM since they extensively use knowledge, information and data for research and knowledge improvement.

Some challenges'including lack of trained staff, lack of leadership, distrust database and unclear policies were identified by Narmeyer and Strittrnatte (2001). If unchecked, these could mar the advantages of KM which is relatively new in the field of educational organization. This study therefore focuses on the administration of KM in Nigerian Universities. Put in a question form, to what extent is KM administered in Nigerian Universities? What challenges face the universities in KM administration?

* Statement of the Problem

It is expected that KM administration will have its base in universities (repositories of howledge) where knowledge capture and sfiaring are apt. The problems university administrators face today are numerous including internal and external demands for accountability, high demand for university education leading to various types of examination malpractices, fraud, improper processes in administration, high expectation in programme improvement, research development and dissemination. In addition to these problems, the universities grapple with hindrances such as inadequate funds, inadequate infrastructure, facilities coupled with misappropriation of funds and unmotivated workforce. The lack of recognition in the last international rating of world class universities is now motivating the Nigerian universities to prepare for the next race. There is therefore the need to establish the extent of KM administration in Nigerian Universities more especially in the Federal Universities in the South East zone oreNigeria. Specifically the purposes of the study are investigating the extent to which Nigerian universities apply KM in personnel management, decision making and programme improvement and research and also investigate the challenges facing them in KM administration.

The significance of the study lies in the fact that it will help the universities reposition themselves in appropriate KM administration leading to effective generation, storage, hnsmission and utilization of information for maximum application. Resdarcll Questions I

The study was guided by the following research questions and hkotheses; 1. To what extent do universities apply KM in Personnel Administration? 2. To what extent do universities apply KM in Decision Making? 3. To what extent do universities apply KM in Programme Improvement and Research?

4. What are the challenges facing Administration of KM in universities? Iijpotheses

The following hypotheses were tested at .05 levels of significance. Ho,. There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of teaching ;

senior non-teaching staff with regard to administration of KM in universities. Hoz. There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of middle and d

level staff with regards to challenges to administration of KM in universities.

Method Design The study adopted a descriptive survey design. Population The population of this study consisted of the federal universities of the South East r n ~ Nigeria. The choice was based on the fact that the Federal Govemment is interested in see that federal institutions are ranked among the world class universities. So it is theref expected that the Federal Govemment will bc keen in KM administration in her universities, Sample l'hrough multi-stage sampling, a total of 800 staff were selected for the study. This compri 400 staff from each of the two (50%) of Fedcral universities. The selection was as indicate( tablc I:

Table I: Study Sample

S M ~ -. TypeIClass - of staff A I C'NN I UNIZIK 1' Total I ' , . :

(N)' 1 (N) 1; (N) -; yi '.aching staff ( ~ i d d l e ) CONTISS 6- 1 100 1 100 1 , 200 I '

..

Non Teaching staff (High) C O N T I S S ~ 100 1 100 1 200 ,I' , ' ' 1 &above

3 1 Teaching staff (Middle) CONUASS 1-4 Teaching staff (High) CONUASS 5 & above

5 1 Total No of Subjects (N)

1 100 100 1 . 200 - 1 ' ' I 100 100 I 200 1 1 400 409 1 800 1

Key: CONTISS - Consolidated Tertiary Institutions' Salary Scale CONUASS - Consolidated University Academic Staff Salary Sale , ,

UNI" - University of Nigeria, Nsukka !

UNIZK Nnamdi Azikiwe University /nstnrment 1 The instrubent used for this study a 38-item Knowledge ~ a n a ~ e m $ n t ~drninistd&~y.j Questionnaire (KMAQ), developed by the researchers. This consisted- of 'four main C ~ U S ~ ,.) ; apart from section I which was for demographic data.,'& items for the clusters on ~ppl icadm ', of KM in, I'crsonncl Administration, Decision Making 2nd P rqpmme Improvernnt . ,

Research were placed on 4-point scale of to a very large e x t h (VLE); to a large extent (LEI;.. .. . '

&

@all extent (SE) and very small extent (VSE). The items of the cluster on Challenges in EM Administration were placed on a Cpoint scale of Strongly Agree (SA); Agree (A); Disagree (D); Strongly Disagree (SD). Six (6) research assistants properly trained by the 7 flsearchers administered the KMAQ. All 800 (100%) of the instrument administered were

E ; i Data A~~alysis

me data were analysed using mean, standard deviation and t-test was used in testing the ~ j ~ ~ t h e S e ~ . For clusters one. two and three, the extent of application of KM in Personnel Management, Decision Making and Programme Improvement and Research were analysed as follows.

i

I Grand Mean -.- Decision

3.5 and above VLE

I: !For clustcr four, challenges in KM Administration, the criterion mean of 2.5 was used in ' accepting and rejecting the items that constitute and did not constitutc challenges in Khl I Administration in universities.

1.4 and below I VSE I

b

Table 2: Mean Rating and Standard Deviation of Teaching and Non Teaching University Staff KM Application in Personnel Administration.

Questionnaire Items 1 ~ e a c h i n ~ 1 Non Teaching 1 Grand 1 :i 1 Staff Staff

4 1 Staff Recruitment 2.84 1 0.73 1 3.10 1 0.90 1 2.97 1 0.83 1 LE 1 5 Appraisal of staff 2.96 1 0.92 1 2.88 1 0.89 1 2.92 1 0.90 1 LE I 6 placement of staff 2.98 I 0.95 1 2.72 1 0.94 1 2.85 1 0.95 1 LE 1 7 1 Monitoring s ~ . f f 1 2.34 1 0.91 1 2.58 ( 0.92 1 2.46 1 0.92 1 SE a , Selectionand Admission 1 3.10 1 0.87 1 2.96 1 0.94 1 3.03 1 0.91 I LE 1

exercise

Orientation of New 11.86 1 0 9 2 9 0.96 1 2.72 1 0.95 1 LE 1 students -

10 1 Registration ofstudents 1 3 M 0.84 1 2.98 1 1.09 / 3.02 ( 0.97 1 LE I --- - - -- 1 1 I Students' hostel 13.6'8 1 . 7 9 1 2.58 ) 1.06 / 2.63 1 0.94 1 LE 1 1 arrangements -. -- . .

- 1 2 _ ) - . M o ~ o ~ n g S & ~ n t s 1 2.34 I 1.07 i 2.50 _)1.01 1 2.42 1 1.04 1 SE elease of students 1 2.68J 0.93 1 2.54 1.15 1 2.61 1 1.05 I I F - ' _13J .R - - - ---

14 1 Record keeping 1 2.78 1 0.95 1 2.58 1 1.12 1 2.68 1 1 1 re l.. 1

I CLUSTERX 1178 0.43 1 2.73 1 0.50 1 2-76 1 0.47 1 - ' .+I 1

Decision Level: Items with X 2 2.50 KM is applied to a Large Extent (LE). Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of teaching and non teachina

university staff on application of KM in Personnel Administration. The table reveals Knowledge Management is used to a large extent! for all the items except items 7 and 12 fa which it is used to a small extent having means less than 2.50 each. The cluster means of 2.74 and 2.76 show that the teaching and non teaching staff respectively indicated that KM is used in the universities in Personnel Administration to a large extent.

Table 3: Mean Ruling and Standard Deviation of Teaching and Non Teaching University a@ on KM Application in Decision Making.

Questionnaire Items Teaching Non Teaching Grand Staff

Organization of on-line meetings Giving on-line directives to subordinate Executive of policy decisions Communicating with staff Communicating with students Communicating with other institutions

A CLUSTERX

Decision Level: Items with X L 2.50 KM is applied to a large extent. Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation of teaching and non tcac

university staff on application of KM in Decision Making. The table shows KM is organizatibn of on-line meetings (iteml5) and in giving on-line directives to SU (item 16) to a small extent. The respective means are less than 2.50. Items 17, 18, 1 have means greater than 2.50, hence the respondents considered that KM is applid large extent in execution of policy decision (X=2.55), communicating with staff (Xd

29 1 (X=2.63) and other institutions (X=2.61). However the cluster means of 2.44 and

2.47 show that both teaching and non teaching staff accepted that KM is used to a small &ent in Decision Making.

Table 4: Mean Rating and Standard Deviation of Teaching and Non Teaching University Staff

Grand

,-

1 I

Teachingstudentson-line 1.92 1 1 . 1 1 12.26 ( 1.15 1 2 . 0 9 ' 1 1.14 1 SE 1 Organization of 2.56 1 0.96 1 2.70 1 1.08 1-.2.63 1 1.03 / LE 1 workshops/serninars

Canying out research 2.94 1 0.93 ! 2.66 1 0.95 8 0 1 0.95 1 LE 1 ---. Dissemination of research 2.50 / 0.94 ! 2.36 1 1.00 1 2.43 1 0.97 1 SE I findings

-*

Supenri$ng;tudents 2.68 1 1.09 ( 2.72 1 1.12 1 2.70 1 1.10 1 LE I 1 research pro'ects

Networkingwithstaffof 2.04 1 1.13 ] 2.18 1 1.05 1 2.11 1 1.10 1 SE 1 other institutions

C U T I 2.44 I L I - 2 . 4 8 1 0.66. I 2.46 I 0.65 1 SE 1 Decision Level: Items with X 12.50 KM is applied to a large extent.

Table 4 shows the mean and standard' deviation of teaching and non teaching university staff on application of KM in Programme Improvement. It shows that items 22, 23 and 25 have means greater than 2.50. The respondents therefore considered KM being used to a large extent in organizing workshops/seminars, carrying out research, supervising student's research projects. However items 2 1, 24 and 26 have means less than 2.50. KM is therefore not applied in those areas. The cluster mean of 2.44 and 2.46 which are less than 2.50 indicate that both teaching and non teaching staff consider KM being used to a small extent in Programme Improvement.

I

I

5 I

295

Findings show that both teaching and non teaching university staff accept that KM is rsonnel Administration to a large extent. KM is used only to a large extent in tment, staff appraisal, placement of staff, selection and admission exercise,

I orientation of new students, registration of students, students' hostel arrangements, release of students' results and record keeping. These activities involve coordination and organization of persons in an organization. This is in line with Friehs (2001) who described KM as coordination and organization of persons in an organization In internal and external exchanges of howledge. I

The result has also shown that KM is not applied to monitoring staff and students. This may - - ,not be unconnected to the fact that KM is just bemg newly introduced to the universities.

Nevertheless it is a very important means of monitoring personnel supervision and as universities are still grappling with the new KM innovation, the issue of monitoring could still be applied in a later date.

The findings also reveal that KM is applied to a small extent to Decision Making. The findings show that it is applied to a sniall extent to organization of on-line meetings and giving on-line directives to subordinates. However findings indicate that KM is appl~cd to a large extent in communicating with staff, students and other institutions. The Iattcr agrees with Petrides and Nodine (2003), whose view was that KM is the practice that helps in sharing of data and information in Decision Making. The small extent of use in organization of on-line meetings and giving on-line directives to subordinates is not a surprise because of KM's newness in the education system.

The respondents indicated that KM is applied to a small 'extent in Programme Improvement. It should be noted that Bleiklie (2005) observed that KM is tied to organizational objectives and helps in achieving outcomes. This finding implies that the universities are likely to run the risk of achieving their objectives and programmes only to a small extent. This probably may be because the university staff are still ignorant of KM and consequently still hoard their initiatives, innovations and find it difficult to share their knowledge with others. Hence KM is applied only to a small extent in teaching students on- line, dissemination of research findings, and networking with staff of other institutions.

There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of teaching and senior non- teaching staff with regard to application of KM to University Administration. They &pificZintly differ in their ratings for application of KM in staff recruiFent, staff placement, ponitoring of staff, selection and admission exercise, orientation of new students, record keeping, giving on-line directives to subordinates, execution of policy decisions, communicating with students, teaching students on-line, carrying out research. It should be noted that these are major administrative activities of the universities. Both teaching and senior non-teaching staff are differently involved according to their respective functions and have been rated accordingly. Apparently the middle level staff of every organization con~prises much of its executive workforce. Perhaps they are more practically involved in KM in University Administration.

Findings reveal that there is a significant difference in the mean ratings of middle and high level staff with regard to challenges facing KM application in universities. These findings may be connected with the difference in status of the univcrsity staff. High level staff are likely

Table 5: Mean Rofing and Standard Deviation oJTc=ching and e n Teaching ~ , . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J q ; % i f on KM Administration in Universities. -. . .. 3 . . .

a TL. Questionnaire Items 1 Teahiig / Non H;;hing I Grand I Dee I , .

I N=400 I N=400 I P 8 0 0 I

- -

'

j x

Information Technology

RM is very expensive 1 2.68 - .-

is a hindrance to

KM delays execution/implementation of directives due to

- -

not yet prepared for 1 2.14 1 1.02 1 2.38 1 0.94 1 2.26 1 0.99 33 1 34 1 am interested in KM 1 3.02 1 1.05 1 2.88 1097 2.95 1 1.01

35 I I have no proble: at a11 13 0.98 1 2.26 1 0.85 1 2.44 10.93 with KM -

36 1 Inadequa;trained staff 1 2.84 1 1.05 1 1.04 17 1.05 hinders KM in my universit

37 1 My institution has not 1 2.32 1 1.01 1 2.32 1 0.97 1 2.32 1 0.99 qrovided facilities for KM

38 KM is dangerous 1 1.72 1 0.92 1 1.90 1 0.94 ( 1.81 1 0.94

* A= Agree D= Disagree Decision Level: Items with X 2 2.50 are challenges.

Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations of teaching and non leaching universlry a y on challenges to KM application in universities.

The table indicates that items 30, 3 I , 32, 34 and 36 have means greater than 2 . M d are considered challenges. On the other hand, items 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37 and 38 b?' .,

means less than 2.50 and therefore not considered to be challenges to KM application 01 universities.

Table 6: t-Test Analysis on the Signi/icant Diflerence between the Mean Ratitrgs of teacl and setrior trot? teaching staflwitlr regard to Applicalion of KM to University Arhittistrat

Questionnaire Items

I* I Defsio ! r 4 / Staff'Recruitment / -4.48 1 NS**

. 3 Appraisal of staff 1.25 1 NS I A Placement of staff 3.89 1 S I

i ' 7 I Monltory staff - - 1 -3.71 1 NS I Selection and Admission esercise

. 8 L- 2.18 1 S I

; 9 1 Oriei?ation of New students 4.211 S I

no idea how to applyfuse KM or ICT 1 -4.74 / NS f ---- - I have no access to Information Technology and KM facilities 1 -4.94 1 NS 1

10 1 ?r&ration of students 1 1.17 ] N S ~ --

1 I 1 Studcnts' hostel arrangements 1.511 NS

12 1 Monitoring Students -2.181 NS I 13 1 Release of students results ---- 1.89 1 NS I 14 f Recqrd keeping 2.73 1 S I I5 1 Organization of on-line meetings .OO ,I NS [ 16 1 Giving on-line directives to subordinate -7.02 1 NS I 17 1 Executive of policy decisions -3.58 1 NS I

1 18 1 Communicating with staff -1.36 / S I 19 1 Communicating with students 5.27 1 S I 20 1 Communicating with other institutions .79 1 NS - 21 I Teaching students oe-line 1 -4.26 1 NS I

---

Organization of workshops/seminars -1.931 S I Carrying out research 4.22 1 S 1

24 1 Dissemination of research findings 2.041 S I I Suoenfisinp, students research oroiects 1 -.51 1 NS 1

Ketworking with staff of other institutidns I -1.81 , s i -

I have no hme for KM or ICT ,--..--- _J -.-. . -_ - 1 .83 NS /

__._-A

2% .J

to have less time available to them for KM practices due to pressure of work and higher responsibilities. They are more likely to be more conservative and less innovative than middle level staff that are invariably younger in service and less busy.

This finding agrees with Hameyer and Strittrnate (2001) who among others listed lack of trained staff as a barrier to KM. It is important to observe that both groups considered to be very expensive and agreed that inadequate trained staff hinder KM application. Both of them agree that inadequate trained staff hinder KM application. These findings imply that facilities such as laptop, desktop computers, browsing are not very affordable to both high and middle level staff. In addition as already observed, KM is a relatively new practice in education so bo~h high and middle level staff require training in KM application. ,

Implications for University Administration and Recommendations The finding that KM is used in a large extent only in Personnel Administration implies

that the universities are still grappling with the innovation. The challenges on KM application in University Administration also attest to this. In order to alleviate the cdst problem, University Administration should subsidise or give free access to internet and intranet facilities in the institutions. The staff of universities should be encouraged to go for free browsing during break periods. To solve the problem of inadequate power supply, universities should use the generators or solar energy. Institutions should provide adequate facilities for KM and also engage in capacity building of their staff to acquaint their staff with the new knowled$e. KM. Universities should use KM facilities for e-meetings; e-books, e-publications,,e- ;

lecture, e-supervision etc. University staff on their own should endeavour to move with the ; time by being more open to KM and ready to share their innovations, initiatives and ; knowledge with others. I

i j

Conclusion I In this era of globalization and knowledge explosion, universities being repositorieslbf

'knowledge cannot afford to be left behind in the affairs of things. It is important to note that KM provides universities without walls. This is therefore a big challenge to Nigerian' Universities. Serious efforts must be made to apply KM in all aspects of un ivdty ' , , management especially as it concerns decision making and programme improvement. i References Bleiklie, 1. (2005) Organizing higher education in a knowledge society. Higher Education 49:;.

* r i

3 1-59.

applicarion: Sweden, Springer Berkinmeidelberg. August 19.

. ' d Edman, E. (2005) Meeting the need for Knowledge Managcment in schools with Knowledge' -;

Based System: a case study in Knowledge Representation and its pracf-" "'

Friehs, B. (2003) Klrowledge Ma~iagemenr in Edltcatiorral Sc11ing.7; FrankfuMain; Peter Lang. I

Hameyer, U. and Strittmatter, A. (2001): wisses management - die neue selbstverst and lit, it. Journal fur Schulentwicklung 1,4-5

1 297 r, ' ' plonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company: How Japanees

companies create the dynamics of innovation. New YorW Oxford: Oxford University Press.

i petrides, L. A. and Nodine, T. R. (2003) Knowledge Management in Education: Defining the I Landscape: Canada. Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education:

March. www.iske.org Weber, J. B., Vazquez, J . S. and Romero, R. M. (2006). Application o f a knowledge

management network in distance education: Current Developments in Tecltrtology- assisted Education. Mexico: Formatex.