TOWARD A FRAMEWORK OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTPresented to KM Chicago
Curtis A. Conley02.07.12
Agenda
Background of Study Overview of the Study Findings Implications
2
Introduction 3
Curtis Conley Ed.D. curtisconley.com
Northern Illinois University
Deloitte Consulting
Introduction
4
Background of study
5
Background
Given limited time and resources, how do you maximize the possibility of success for your knowledge management effort?
6
Background
Given limited time and resources, how do you maximize the possibility of success for your knowledge management effort?
7
“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)
Background
VS
Top 10 lists are easily digestible, but not always appropriate
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
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
The study
11
Research Questions & Hypotheses
1. Based on existing literature, what would a framework of integrated CSFs for KM look like?a. How do KM scholars and practitioners gauge the completeness,
accuracy, clarity, and conciseness of the framework developed by this study?
b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives?
12
Research Questions & Hypotheses
2. What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM identified by participants with varying backgrounds?
H1: Industry Background of the participantsH2: Internal / External focus of participantH3: Organization sizeH4: Participant being either a scholar or practitionerH5: Geographic location of participants
13
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
14
Survey Instrument
Identify participant background
Participants rate/rank CSFs for KM
Framework effectiveness
1
2
3 Adapted from Holsapple and Joshi (2000)
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
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
16• 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
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 Manager/Leadership: • 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
17
Factors related to the KM Team Members: • Full-time / Dedicated Staff• KM Background• Trouble Shooting • Monitoring and Feedback • Commitment • Trust
Factors related to the Organization: • 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
Factors related to the Environment: • Competition• Fashion • Markets • Technology • Time • Governmental Climate • Economic Climate• Political Climate • Social Climate• Educational Climate
Proposed framework
1. Based on existing literature, what would a framework of integrated CSFs for KM look like?
18
Findings
19
Findings 20
1a. How do KM scholars and practitioners gauge the completeness, accuracy, clarity, & conciseness of the framework developed by this study?
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
Framework Effectiveness Measures Mean SDKM Scholars Identifies 3.2000 .60506 Accurately Characterizes 3.1833 .59636 Clearly Presents and Describes 3.1695 .62014 Concisely Presents 3.2000 .65871
KM Practitioners Identifies 3.1686 .60268 Accurately Characterizes 3.0706 .63036 Clearly Presents and Describes 3.0899 .62238 Concisely Presents 3.0756 .62134Mean scale ranges from 1 to 4 (1 = Very Unsuccessful, 2 = Unsuccessful, 3 = Successful, 4 = Very Successful)
Findings 21
1b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives?
Critical Success Factors Z Sig. Factors Related to the KM Initiative Link to Corporate / Business Strategy -3.317 .001 KM Champion -2.876 .004 Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader Ability to Trade-off -2.147 .032 Effective Leadership -3.444 .001 Change Management Skills -2.645 .008 Education -2.099 .036 Factors Related to the KM Team Members Full-time / Dedicated Staff -2.161 .031 Factors Related to the External Environment Governmental Climate -2.115 .034 Political Climate -2.106 .035 Educational Climate -3.138 .002
Critical Success Factors Z Sig.Factors Related to the KM Initiative Effective Monitoring, Control, and Measurement -2.268 .023 Link to Corporate / Business Strategy -2.167 .030
Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader Ability to Delegate Authority -2.238 .025 Change Management Skills -2.582 .010 Trust -3.173 .002 Education -2.437 .015 Strategy and Objective Setting -2.520 .012
Factors Related to the KM Team Members KM Background -3.087 .002 Other -2.211 .027
Factors Related to the Organization Top Management Support -2.539 .011
Factors Related to the External Environment Technology -2.592 .010 Time -2.073 .038 Political Climate -2.100 .036 Educational Climate -2.538 .010
Significant Differences of CSFs for KM Ranked by Participants Significant Differences of CSFs for KM Rated by Participants
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 Scholars PractitionersMean SD Mean SD
Factors Related to the External Environment 3.6418 1.67605 4.0267 1.57068Factors Related to the KM Initiative 2.9701 1.49717 2.5668 1.19568Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader 2.8955 1.24480 2.6310 1.19033Factors Related to the KM Team Members 2.8358 1.12273 3.3155 .97381Factors Related to the Organization 2.6567 1.30909 2.4599 1.41886
Mean scale ranges from 1 to 4 (1 = Very Unimportant, 2 = Unimportant, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important)
Findings
2. What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM identified by participants with varying backgrounds?
Results:
23
H1: Industry H2: Internal / External
H3: Org Size H4: Scholar / Practitioner
H5: Geography
Yes
Hypotheses
Supported?
Findings
2. What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM identified by participants with varying backgrounds?
Results:
24
H1: Industry H2: Internal / External
H3: Org Size H4: Scholar / Practitioner
H5: Geography
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Hypotheses
Supported?
Findings
H1: Industry Background of the participants
Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level among groups for six different CSFs (Appendix M)
25
Supported
Groups
Academia Construction Consulting Information Systems Legal Manufacturing
Critical Success Factors
Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value Ability to Coordinate Change Management Skills Governmental Climate Social Climate Educational Climate
Findings
H2: Internal / External focus of participant
Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level between groups for three different CSFs
26
Supported
Variable Between Groups Mean Rank Z Sig.Trust (KM Manager / Leader)
Internal KM Initiatives and Combination of Internal & External KM Initiatives
102.20 / 120.46 -2.555 .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
99.50 / 116.15 -2.086 .037
External KM Initiatives and Combination of Internal & External KM Initiatives
49.88 / 66.96 -2.412 .016
Findings
H3: Organization size
No statistically significant differences identified based on org size
27
Not supported
Findings
H4: Participant being either a scholar or practitioner
As discussed in response to research question 1b Significant differences found between groups for both rating & ranking
28
Supported
Findings
H5: Geographic location of participants
Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level between groups for seven different CSFs
29
Supported
Groups
Asia Combination Central/South America Europe North America Oceania
Critical Success Factors
Effective Monitoring, Control and Measurement Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value KM Champion KM Background Knowledge Infrastructure Technology Social Climate
Findings
Organizational Reality Bias The grass is always greener?
30
Findings
Organizational Reality Bias The grass is always greener? In 3 CSF categories, low perceived org reality group rated CSFs lower
31
KM Team Members
Trouble Shooting Commitment Trust
Organizational
Technology Infrastructure Knowledge Creation & Innovation Transfer of Knowledge/Information Knowledge Infrastructure
External Environment
Competition Fashion
Implications
2. What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM identified by participants with varying backgrounds?
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
32
H1: Industry H2: Internal / External
H3: Org Size H4: Scholar / Practitioner
H5: Geography
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Hypotheses
Supported?
Implications
Organizational Reality Bias Participants who perceive their org as effective at something, likely to view
it as important; vice versa Potential positive bias
33
Implications
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
34
Implications
Framework of CSFs for KM
35
Findings
Findings
“I realize that a list of top factors isn’t all that helpful… but… what are the top factors that you found?”
37
Findings 38
KM Initiative
1. Link to corporate/business strategy2. Clear goals and objectives3. KM Champion
KM Team
1. Commitment2. Trust3. Full-time/dedicated staff
Organization
1. Knowledge sharing processes/culture2. Top management support3. Transfer of knowledge/information
KM Manager/Leader
1. Effective leadership2. Change management skills3. Commitment
External Environment
1. Competition2. Technology3. Time
Top 3 factors in each CSF grouping
Contributions
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
39
Limitations
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
40
Future Research
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.
41
Questions
42