1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Information Studies & Technology (JIS&T)
  4. Volume 2018, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2018, Issue 1
  • EISSN: 2616-4930

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to propose a reliable and valid knowledge management performance measurement (KMPM) model for enterprises. Accordingly, this study draws on the knowledge management (KM) and factors affecting the flow of knowledge and its sharing in organizations, particularly the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Oman. The study explored the current status of knowledge management (KM) in the MOE in general and knowledge sharing (KS) in particular; it also explored the factors affecting (KS). Therefore, it was divided into two sections: demographics and multiple choice questions comprising five factors: KMP, KS, Attitude, Commitment, and Shared Trust. The dimensional structure of the questionnaire was investigated with a sample of 136 employees holding various positions from the 9 Directorate General at the MEO in Oman (61.8% males and 38.2% females). Based on the factor analysis results, the questionnaire emphasized five factors: KMP, KS, Attitude, Commitment, and Shared Trust. The internal consistency and concurrent validity of KMPM were verified (Cronbach's alpha = 0.944). KMPM and its factors were significantly correlated with Socio-Technical Enablers (STE) scale. The validity of KMPM was tested using concurrent validity method and revealed a significant correlation of (0.847) between the two scales. This questionnaire was proved to be relatively reliable and valid. The researchers developed a questionnaire to measure the reality of KM initiatives in the MOE by assessing whether the work environment: (1) nurtures and accelerates the sharing of knowledge, (2) identifies enablers and obstacles affecting the flow of knowledge and (3) trains staff to capture the proper knowledge to be able to share it with the right people at the right time in the right form and at the right cost. The employees were classified according to job title into three levels: strategic, executive, and operational. This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of the reality of knowledge management performance (KMP) capability assessment instrument in the MOE in Oman. No such measurement instrument currently exists in Oman. The instrument not only demonstrated consistent reliability, but also provided insights into organizational readiness for KMP with regard to three main individual factors, namely Commitment, Attitude, and Shared Trust.

© 2018 Aziz, Bouazza, Jabur, Hassan, Al Aufi, licensee HBKU Press.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/jist.2018.2
2018-03-05
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jist/2018/1/jist.2018.2.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/jist.2018.2&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Teichler (1999)
  2. Hayes and Allinson (2000)
  3. Bas (2015)
  4. Kulkarni U, Freeze R. Development and validation of a knowledge management capability assessment model. Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information Systems; 2004:657–669.
  5. Grant (1996)
  6. Ithia (2003)
  7. Murphy and Hackbush (2008)
  8. Mostafa (2013)
  9. Storey and Barnett (2000)
  10. Gold et al. (2001)
  11. Massingham P. An evaluation of knowledge management tools: Part 2 – managing knowledge flows and enablers. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2014; 18:6:1101–1126.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Schulman (1996)
  13. Hesamamiri (2013)
  14. Redman (1998)
  15. Lee CS, Wong KY. Development and validation of knowledge management performance measurement constructs for small and medium enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2015; 19:4:711–734.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ramayah (2014)
  17. Shaw and Tuggle (2003)
  18. Holt DT, Bartczak SE, Clark SW, Trent MR. The development of an instrument to measure readiness for knowledge management., Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2004:1–6. Retrieved from: https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/08/205680238b.pdf .
     [Google Scholar]
  19. McAdam and Reid (2001)
  20. Desouza and Awazu (2006)
  21. Hutchinson and Quintas (2008)
  22. Janet and Alton (2013)
  23. Lin (2014)
  24. Heijke et al. (2010)
  25. Lin KY, Huang YH, Ching SC. Development and validation of the knowledge-building environment scale. Learning and Individual Differences. 2014; 30::124–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Bryant (2005)
  27. Chen and Huang (2007)
  28. Kamhawi (2010)
  29. Singh RM, Gupta M. Knowledge management in teams: Empirical integration and development of a scale. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2014; 18:4:777–794.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Davenport et al (1998)
  31. O'Dell et al (1999)
  32. Ahmed (2001)
  33. Wanga CL, Ahmed PK. Development of a measure for knowledge management: An empirical test and validation of the knowledge management orientation construct. University of Wolverhampton Business School, Session A-8; n.d. Retrieved from: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc5/papers/a-8_wangca.pdf
  34. Polyani (1958)
  35. Polyani (1966)
  36. Blackmore (2004)
  37. Ngai EWT, Chan EWC. Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP. Expert Systems with Applications. 2005; 29::889–899.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Nonaka (1994)
  39. Nonaka (1991)
  40. Hedlund (1994)
  41. Boland and Tenkasi (1995)
  42. Wickramasinghe N. Do we practice what we preach? Are knowledge management systems in practice truly reflective of knowledge management systems in theory. Business Process Management Journal. 2003; 9:3:295–316.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Davenport and Prusak (1998)
  44. Sorensen (2015)
  45. Ramayah T, Yeap JAL, Joshua I. Assessing knowledge sharing among academics: A validation of the knowledge sharing behavior scale (KSBS). SAGE Journals. 2014; 38:2:160–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Jafari et al. (2008)
  47. Wang and Chang (2009)
  48. Ajmal et al. (2010)
  49. Goh and Sandhu (2013)
  50. King et al. (2008)
  51. Wong (2005)
  52. Casimir et al. (2012)
  53. Bock and Kim (2002)
  54. Holtshouse (1998)
  55. Schulz (2001)
  56. Popper and Lipshitz (1998)
  57. Behnke (2010)
  58. Choi SY, Kang YS, Lee H. The effects of socio-technical enablers on knowledge sharing: An exploratory examination. Journal of Information Science. 2008; 34:5:742–754.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Freeze R, Kulkarni U. Knowledge management capability assessment: Validating a knowledge assets measurement instrument. 2005;:1–10, Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Nonaka et al. (1994)
  61. Sabherwal and Becerra-fernandez (2003)
  62. Nikolova I, Ruysseveldta JV, Witteb HD, Syroit CJ. Work-based learning: Development and validation of a scale measuring the learning potential of the workplace (LPW). Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2014; 8::1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Chaub (2014)
  64. Freeze (2004)
  65. Ahmed PK, Lim KK, Zairi M. Measurement practice for knowledge management. Journal of Workplace Learning. 1999; 11:8:304–311.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Liu Y-S, Arendt SW. Development and validation of a work motive measurement scale. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2016; 28:4:1–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Azhdari G, Mousaviadani F, ZareBahramabadi M. A conceptual framework for concurrent implementation of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) and KM (Knowledge Management): A fuzzy TOPSIS method. African Journal of Business Management. 2013; 7:41:4271–4279.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Bakar HA, Walters T, Halim H. Measuring communication styles in the Malaysian workplace: Instrument development and validation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research. 2014; 43:2:87–112.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Behnke, T.M. (2010). Knowledge Sharing at Work: an Examination of Organizational Antecedents. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Ambrose University). Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No.: 3407448).
  70. Berr HL, Rodgers B, Dear KBG. Preliminary development and validation of an Australian community participation questionnaire: Types of participation and associations with distress in a coastal community. Social Science & Medicine. 2007; 64::1719–1737.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Carbonell KB, Könings KD, Segers M, van Merriënboer JJG. Measuring adaptive expertise: Development and validation of an instrument. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2015; 25:2:167–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Casimir G, Lee K, Loon M. Knowledge sharing: influences of trust, commitment and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2012; 16:5:740–753, doi: 10.1108/13673271211262781.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Chu AMY, Chaub PYK. Development and validation of instruments of information security deviant behavior. Decision Support Systems. 2014; 66::93–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Conchado A, Carot JM, Bas MC. Competencies for knowledge management: Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2015; 19:4:836–855.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Darroch J. Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviors and practices. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2003; 7:5:41–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Hesamamiri R, Mazdeh MM, Mostafa J. Measuring the reliability of knowledge management: Instrument development and validation. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives. 2013; 65:5:484–502.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Holden RB. Face validity. In: Weiner IBEdward Craighead W, eds. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. 4th Ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley 2010;:637–638. ISBN 978-0-470-17024-3.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Huang MJ, Chen MY, Yieh K. Comparing with your main competitor: The single most important task of knowledge management performance measurement. Journal of Information Science. 2007; 33:4:416–434.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Huang YY, Hsia YH. Development and validation of online knowledge-sharing motivation (KSM) questionnaire. The 14th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education (GCCCE). 2010;:704–705, Retrieved from: http://140.118.59.33/GCJCE/GCCCE/conf_papers/conference139.pdf .
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Kintner E, Hull L, Meeder L. Development and evaluation of an instrument to measure reasoning about managing asthma in older school-age children and adolescents. Journal of Nursing Measurement. 2013; 21:3:360–377.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Kolodziejczyk JK. Validation of the strategies for weight management questionnaire for overweight or obese adults. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California). Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No.: 3614154); 2014.
  82. Kuo FY, Young ML. Predicting knowledge sharing practices through intention: A test of competing models. Computers in Human Behavior. 2008; 24::2697–2722.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Liang SY, Wu WW, Kuo CY. Development and preliminary evaluation of psychometric properties of symptom-management self-efficacy scale for breast cancer related to chemotherapy. Asian Nursing Research. 2015; 9::312–317.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Lin HF. A stage model of knowledge management: An empirical investigation of process and effectiveness. Journal of Information Science. 2007; 33:6:643–659.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Martinez MR, Iborra LL, Casbas TM, Torres MM. Development and validation of the competence in evidence based practice questionnaire (EBP-COQ) among nursing students. BMC Medical Education. 2013; 13:1:19. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/13/19 .
     [Google Scholar]
  86. McIntire SA, Miller LA. Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach 2nd edition. Personnel Psychology. 2007; 60:3:796–800.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. McMahon JM, Good DJ. The moral metacognition scale: Development and validation. Ethics & Behavior. 2015; 26::357–394.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Patil K. Knowledge management – an empirical study with special reference to business schools of Pune region. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016; 9:21, DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i21/86985.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Pearce N, Beinart H, Clohessy S, Cooper M. Development and validation of the supervisory relationship measure: A self-report questionnaire for use with supervisors. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2013; 52::249–268.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Pennington D. Essential Personality. London: Arnold 2003;. ISBN 0-340-76118-0.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Putz D, Schilling J, Kluge A, Stangenberg C. Measuring organizational learning from errors: Development and validation of an integrated model and questionnaire. Management Learning. 2012; 44:5:511–536.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Robinson HS, Carrillo PM, Anumba CJ, Al-Ghassani AM. Developing a business case for knowledge management: The IMPaKT approach. Construction Management and Economics. 2004; 22:7:733–743.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Savelsbergh CMJH, Heijden BIJM, Poell RF. The development and empirical validation of a multidimensional measurement instrument for team learning behaviors. Small Group Research. 2009; 40:5:578–607.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Theriou N, Maditinos D, Theriou G. Knowledge management enabler factors and firm performance: An empirical research of the Greek medium and large firms. European Research Studies. 2011; 14:2:97–134.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Souchon AL, Diamantopoulos A. Export information acquisition modes: Measure development and validation. International Marketing Review. 1999; 16:2:143–168.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/jist.2018.2
Loading
Development and Validation of a Knowledge Management Questionnaire
Journal of Information Studies & Technology (JIS&T) 2018, 2 (2018); https://doi.org/10.5339/jist.2018.2
/content/journals/10.5339/jist.2018.2
/content/journals/10.5339/jist.2018.2
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Knowledge, knowledge management, Ministry of Education, Oman, questionnaire and validation

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error