Organizational
Factors and Knowledge Management Process
Several
researchers have explored the relationship between organizational factors and
knowledge management processes (Brewer & Brewer, 2010; Donate & Guadamillas, 2011; Rosmaini
&Woods, 2007; Schulte &Wang, 2004; Singh, 2008; Thomas, 2006). Positive
interactions were found between human resources activities and knowledge
management activities (Brewer & Brewer, 2010; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005).
Brewer and Brewer identified the human resources activities as teamwork,
promotion of positive attitudes, socialization programmes, team performance
appraisal, and reward system. Thomas’s study revealed positive and significant
relationships between organizational factors and knowledge management activities.
Thomas found these factors to consist of management support, human resources
policy, collaboration, and reward system. Donate and Guadamillas
(2011) provided empirical evidence on the relationship between knowledge
management and organizational elements such as culture, leadership, human
resources practices, and innovation. Other factors that have been found to
correlate positively with knowledge management activities include leadership
(Singh, 2008), communication flows (Rosmaini
&Woods, 2007), and collaboration and training (Schulte &Wang, 2004).
Some authors have also found that reward systems are very effective in
motivating knowledge workers to partake in knowledge management activities (Al-Adaileh & Al-Atawi, 2011;
Chua, 2009; Hansen, Nohria, & Tiemy,
1999). Ajiferuke (2003) and Bouthillier
and Shearer (2002) have advocated that similar studies should be carried out in
a university library environment. Based on these studies, the following
hypotheses were formulated:
H1:
There will be a significant joint relationship between organizational factors
and knowledge management practices in university libraries in Nigeria.
H2:
There will be a significant relative relationship between organizational
factors and knowledge management practices in university libraries in
Nigeria.
Methods
Research
Type
A
quantitative research approach was adopted in this study. Leedy
and Ormrod (2005) stated that quantitative
methodology is used to answer questions about relationships among measured
variables with the purpose of explaining, predicting, and controlling phenomena
and further added that it may be distinguished as being a traditional,
experimental, or positivist approach. Thus, quantitative methodology is
suitable for this study as it establishes the relationships between variables
or helps to test hypotheses or to determine the predictive values of variables.
Further, the most suitable design for this study based on this approach is a
correlational research design. Correlational research is used to determine the
relationships between two or more variables, ordinarily through the use of
correlation coefficients (Joyner, Rouse, & Glatthorn,
2013). Kumar (2014) stated that the main purpose of a correlational study is to
discover or establish the existence of a relationship or association or
interdependence between two or more aspects of a situation. This design was
chosen because it would help to determine the relationship between the
organizational factors as independent variables and knowledge management
practices in university libraries as the dependent variable.
Measures
Scales
for the measurement of knowledge management processes and organizational
factors were drawn from prior literature. To measure these elements, the
researcher used a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The organizational factors identified by Thomas
(2006) were utilized in this paper: management support, human resources policy,
reward systems, and collaboration. Measures assessing management support were
developed from prior studies (Thomas, 2006; Von Krogh et al., 2011) that
encompassed two functional dimensions, namely, stating organizational goals and
building trust among staff. The second factor, human resources policy, was
measured through job placement and staff training. The measurement items of
these organizational elements were drawn from studies by Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland (2004) and Thomas (2006). Further, item
measures relating to reward systems were developed from previous studies on
extrinsic and intrinsic reward systems (Hasanali,
2000; Thomas, 2006). Measures for collaboration were also developed from
previous studies (Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004;
Thomas, 2006) that dealt with two of its aspects, namely learning activities
and communication flows. The measures of the dependent variable, knowledge
management practices or knowledge management process, were based on the
International Labour Organization’s (2004) study on knowledge management
process. Four categories of knowledge management process were adapted from this
study, namely knowledge identification, knowledge acquisition, knowledge
creation, and knowledge dissemination. Further, item measures for each of the
categories of knowledge management process were developed from previous
research literature (Balague et al., 2015; Maponya, 2004).
Research
Participants and Data Collection
A
survey questionnaire entitled “Organizational Factors as Predictors of KM
Questionnaire” (see Appendix 1) was used to collect data for hypotheses
testing. Before implementing the survey, the instrument was reviewed by four
experts—three of whom were senior lecturers in the field of library and
information science and the fourth was a professor of educational measurement
and evaluation all from the University of Nigeria, Nsukka—in
order to identify problems with wording, content, and question ambiguity. After
some changes were made based on their suggestions, the modified questionnaire
was piloted on 10 management staff of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka library system so as to determine the internal
consistency of the research instrument using Cronbach’s alpha procedures.
Cronbach’s alpha is one numerical coefficient used to measure the reliability
of summated scales such as Likert scales. It estimates the internal consistency
of scales (Gliem & Gliem,
2003). Since a 5-point Likert scale was used to measure the responses of the
participants, the researcher found Cronbach’s alpha the most appropriate
procedure for establishing internal consistency of the research instrument for
this study. The scales used in this study were found to be reliable as their
Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.78 and 0.86 for knowledge management process and
organizational factors, respectively.
The copies of
the questionnaire were sent via email to all the university librarians at the
federal university libraries in Nigeria. These libraries were chosen because
they were supposed to have established library and information services with
fully developed library operations. There are presently 33 federal university
libraries corresponding to the number of federal universities in Nigeria. The
university librarians were chosen because of their experience in library
operations and services. Introductory letters and the survey were emailed to 29
university librarians whose email addresses were obtained from the attendance
list of 33 university librarians from the federal university libraries who
attended the 2015 meeting of the Committee of University Librarians of Nigerian
Universities. Attendance at this meeting consisted of university librarians
from federal, state, and private universities in Nigeria. No ethical clearance
was required for this study. However, the researcher assured the participants
of their safety and anonymity. In order to protect the identity of the
subjects, no names, email addresses, or library names were gathered.
Furthermore, each participant was asked to voluntarily participate in this
study, spend 10 to 15 minutes responding to the questionnaire, and return the
survey within 10 days. In total, 20 (67%) of the subjects completed and
returned the survey.
Data Analysis
To summarize the
data collected on knowledge management practices and organizational factors,
means and standard deviations were used and the mean scores were ranked. The
Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to determine the
relationships between organizational factors and knowledge management
practices. The two hypotheses (H1 and H2) were tested at 0.05 probability
levels using multiple regressions and ANOVA. All the statistical tests used in
this study were computed with the aid of Statistical Packages in Social
Sciences (SPSS).
Results
What knowledge
management practices are in use in university libraries in Nigeria?
The
knowledge management practices in federal university libraries in Nigeria are
as described and presented in Table 3. To describe the responses on the
knowledge management practices, the mean and standard deviation were estimated
for each item. Table 3 shows that the highest responses in knowledge management
activities were in the area of knowledge acquisition, which involves using
library resources (Mean = 3.49, SD = 0.61), online resources (Mean = 3.22, SD =
0.72), and consultation with colleagues (Mean = 3.03, SD = 0.77). The next
highest knowledge management activity was participation of librarians in the
teaching and research activities in the university (Mean = 3.16, SD = 0.92),
which falls in the knowledge identification domain. In the area of knowledge
dissemination, the highest knowledge management activity was library
presentations and demonstrations (Mean = 2.94; SD = 0.98).
What
organizational factors for knowledge management are in use in university
libraries in Nigeria?
The purpose of
Table 4 is to describe the organizational factors for knowledge management
practices in federal university libraries in Nigeria. The analysis of data
depicted in Table 4 shows that there are factors in the university library
environment in Nigeria that are likely to promote knowledge management
activities. The most important among these factors include mentoring of staff (Mean
= 3.57, SD = 0.77), interest in the job (Mean = 3.48, SD = 0.72), recording of
staff achievements (Mean = 3.36, SD= 0.63), enhancing job satisfaction (Mean =
3.28, SD = 0.66), and rotating staff on the job (Mean = 3.27, SD = 0.77). From
these major factors, mentoring of staff is concerned with the nature of
collaboration in the library. Interest in the job as well as recording staff
achievements and enhancing staff job satisfaction refers to the nature of
reward systems, whereas rotation of staff on the job and emphasizing the
importance of knowledge management relate to human resources policy and
management support, respectively.
Table
3
Means,
Standard Deviations, and Ranks of Responses on Knowledge Management Processes
|
KM process
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Rank
|
|
Knowledge identification
Participating
in the teaching and research activities in the university
|
3.16
|
0.92
|
1
|
|
Contact
with users
|
2.83
|
0.75
|
2
|
|
Survey
results and academic programmes
|
2.82
|
0.73
|
3
|
|
Overall mean for knowledge
identification
|
2.95
|
0.80
|
|
|
Knowledge acquisition
Library
collections as source of knowledge
|
3.49
|
0.61
|
1
|
|
Internet
as source of knowledge
|
3.22
|
0.72
|
2
|
|
Consultations
with colleagues, interviews and experience
|
3.03
|
0.77
|
3
|
|
Overall mean for knowledge
acquisition
|
3.25
|
0.70
|
|
|
Knowledge creation
Creating
databases
|
2.66
|
1.05
|
1
|
|
Cataloguing
of online resources
|
2.62
|
0.82
|
2
|
|
Indexing
of knowledge generated in the university
|
2.52
|
0.79
|
3
|
|
Overall mean for knowledge creation
|
2.60
|
0.87
|
|
|
Knowledge dissemination
Library
presentations and demonstrations
|
2.94
|
0.98
|
1
|
|
Use
of library notices, phones, email,
library alert system and fax
|
2.92
|
0.97
|
2
|
|
Use
of university newsletters
|
2.55
|
1.15
|
3
|
|
Overall mean for knowledge
dissemination
|
2.80
|
1.03
|
|
Table
4
Means,
Standard Deviations, and Ranks of Responses on Organizational Factors
|
Organizational factors
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Rank
|
|
Management support
Emphasizing the importance of knowledge management
|
3.36
|
0.72
|
1
|
|
Welcoming contributions from staff
|
3.21
|
0.79
|
2
|
|
Identifying knowledge gaps and updating library policies
regularly
|
3.20
|
0.72
|
3
|
|
Aligning knowledge management policy with the library’s vision
|
3.13
|
0.67
|
4
|
|
Maintaining an open door policy
|
3.08
|
0.87
|
5
|
|
Making knowledge management policy available to staff
|
2.91
|
0.78
|
6
|
|
Having a written knowledge management policy
|
2.86
|
0.74
|
7
|
|
Overall mean for
management support
|
3.11
|
0.76
|
|
|
Human resources policy
Recording of staff achievement
|
3.36
|
0.63
|
1
|
|
Rotating staff on the job
|
3.27
|
0.77
|
2
|
|
Allowing staff to undertake formal training
|
3.20
|
0.66
|
3
|
|
Sponsoring staff to conferences and workshops
|
3.11
|
0.68
|
4
|
|
Identifying staff with valuable tacit knowledge
|
2.99
|
0.67
|
5
|
|
Encouraging self-improvement of staff
|
2.95
|
0.85
|
6
|
|
Short courses on knowledge management for staff
|
2.80
|
0.73
|
7
|
|
Overall mean for human
resources policy
|
3.05
|
0.73
|
|
|
Reward system
Increasing interest in the job
|
3.48
|
0.72
|
1
|
|
Enhancing job satisfaction
|
3.28
|
0.66
|
2
|
|
Providing
positive feedback on the job
|
3.12
|
0.63
|
3
|
|
Conducting staff annual performance appraisals
|
2.76
|
0.76
|
4
|
|
Providing other incentives and benefits to staff
|
2.66
|
0.70
|
5
|
|
Overall mean for reward
system
|
3.11
|
0.68
|
|
|
Collaboration
Mentoring of staff
|
3.57
|
0.77
|
1
|
|
Support for both top-down and bottom-up communication
|
2.89
|
0.94
|
2
|
|
Formulation of communities of practice or research groups
|
2.80
|
0.87
|
3
|
|
Encouraging staff to help one another
|
2.56
|
0.75
|
4
|
|
Support for top-down communication only
|
2.47
|
0.79
|
5
|
|
Support for bottom-up communication only
|
2.42
|
0.72
|
6
|
|
Overall mean for
collaboration
|
2.79
|
0.81
|
|
Table
5
Means,
Standard Deviations, and Correlations between Organizational Factors and KM
Practices
|
|
Variables
|
M
|
SD
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
1
|
Knowledge
identification
|
2.95
|
0.80
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Knowledge
acquisition
|
3.25
|
0.70
|
.431
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Knowledge
organization
|
2.60
|
0.87
|
.362
|
.432
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Knowledge
dissemination
|
2.80
|
1.03
|
.503
|
.376
|
.467
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Management
support
|
3.11
|
0.76
|
.627
|
.347
|
.455
|
.540
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Human
resources dev.
|
3.05
|
0.73
|
.583
|
.243
|
.331
|
.386
|
.666
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
7
|
Reward
systems
|
3.11
|
0.68
|
.581
|
.297
|
.231
|
.401
|
.652
|
.636
|
1.00
|
|
|
8
|
Collaboration
|
2.79
|
0.81
|
.497
|
.413
|
.355
|
.565
|
.384
|
.424
|
.533
|
1.00
|
Table 6
Summary of One-Way ANOVA of the
Relationship between Organizational Factors and KM Practices
|
Model
|
Sum of squares
|
Df
|
Mean square
|
F
|
Sig
|
|
Regression
Residual
Total
|
9,626.081
18,392.408
28,018.489
|
3
16
19
|
3,208.694
1,149.526
|
2.79
|
0.021
|
Table
7
Regression
Analysis of the Relative Contributions of Organizational Factors to Knowledge
Management Practices
|
|
Unstandardized coefficient
|
Standardized
coefficient
|
T
|
Sig.
|
|
Model
|
B
|
Std Error
|
Beta
|
|
|
|
Constant
Management
support
Human
resources Dev.
Reward
system
Collaboration
|
14.671
.254
.177
.128
.245
|
2.693
.090
.109
.104
.074
|
-
.337
.178
.138
.218
|
5.522
3.122
1.634
1.237
2.440
|
0.000
.002
.106
.219
.017
|
Adj.
R = .5648; Adj. R2 = .319; Standard Error of Estimate = 9.708
What
are the correlates of knowledge management practices?
In
this study, the organizational factors are the independent variables whereas
the dependent variables are the knowledge management practices. Table 5 shows a
correlation matrix demonstrating the relationship between organizational
factors and knowledge management practices.
1. The mean
scores on the knowledge management variables ranged from 2.60 to 3.25,
indicating that in the federal university libraries in Nigeria there is some
level of knowledge management practices with supportive organizational factors,
but that these are not strongly present.
2. The high
standard deviation scores on knowledge organization and knowledge dissemination
showed that the opinions of the respondents were polarized, or rather that the
respondents were having issues with knowledge organization and dissemination.
This might have influenced the mean scores, or such a situation might be
responsible for the reporting of some level of knowledge management activities
in the university libraries.
3. The mean
scores on the organizational elements ranged from 2.79 to 3.11, indicating that
these elements were not strongly utilized to provide support for knowledge
management activities in the university libraries.
4. The
respondents’ opinions on the organizational factors did not show wide
variability. The coefficient of variation was as low as 16%.
5. The
correlation matrix depicted in Table 5 revealed a positive correlation between
organizational factors and knowledge management practices.
6. Knowledge
identification had the strongest positive correlation with organizational
factors. The correlation coefficient between these variables ranged from 0.50
to 0.63.
7. Management
support had the strongest positive correlation with knowledge management
practices. The correlation coefficient between management support and knowledge
management variables ranged from 0.35 to 0.63.
8. Knowledge
acquisition had the weakest positive correlation with organizational factors.
The correlation coefficient between these variables ranged from 0.24 to 0.41.
9.
Reward
system had the weakest positive correlation with knowledge management
variables. The correlation coefficient between reward systems and knowledge
management variables ranged from 0.23 to 0.58.
Hypotheses
Testing (HI and H2)
Joint Relationship between
Organizational Factors and Knowledge Management Practices (H1)
H1
was formulated to test at 0.05 probability level the joint relationship between
organizational factors and knowledge management practices. The analysis was
done using One-Way ANOVA. Table 6 shows a joint relationship between
organizational factors and knowledge management practices. The result of the One-Way
ANOVA revealed that the F-test was significant at 0.05 probability levels. This
implies that at least one of the organizational factors was a significant
predictor. This provides support for H1. Therefore, the combined effect of the
organizational factors on knowledge management practices was significant.
Relative Relationship between
Organizational Factors and Knowledge Management Practices (H2)
H2
was formulated to test at 0.05 probability level the relative relationship
between organizational factors and knowledge management practices. This
hypothesis was formulated to provide answers to the fourth research question:
what are the predictors of knowledge management practices? Regression analysis
was employed in the analysis. Table 7 shows the results of the regression
analysis on the individual contributions, or the predictive values of the
organizational factors in relation to knowledge management practices in
university libraries in Nigeria. The knowledge management process was regressed
on the organizational factors. The factors, as shown in Table 7, with the most
significant contributions are management support (Beta = 0.337, t = 3.122, p
< 0.05) and collaboration (Beta = 0.218, t = 2.440, p < 0.05). Other
factors like human resources policy and reward systems showed no significant
contributions to knowledge management practices. These factors accounted for
32% of the variance in knowledge management practices in federal university
libraries in Nigeria. This evidence shows that H2 is not fully supported
because reward systems and human resources policy were not significant
predictors.
Discussion
The
results of the study showed the important measures of knowledge management
practices and those of organizational factors as well as the correlates and
predictors of knowledge management practices in federal university libraries in
Nigeria.
Knowledge
Management Practices
The
findings of this study revealed that knowledge identification, knowledge
acquisition, knowledge creation, and knowledge dissemination are important
measures of knowledge management activities in federal university libraries in
Nigeria. The responses of the university librarians on each of these measures
indicate that university libraries are gradually engaging in knowledge
management activities. The greatest areas of knowledge management activities
were knowledge acquisition and knowledge dissemination. The specific activities
carried out in the area of knowledge acquisition consist mainly of using
library resources and online resources for knowledge services. The libraries
were equally engaged in library presentation and demonstrations as a knowledge dissemination
activity. However, emphasis on knowledge management process appears to be more
on manual operations than automated systems. These results are not surprising
because technological infrastructures have not been fully developed in
university libraries in Nigeria. Second, many librarians in these libraries
have yet to come to terms with the use of web 2.0 and web 3.0 in providing
library and information services. The findings support the KM process in
academic libraries identified by Maponya (2004) and Balague et al. (2015). According to Maponya,
the knowledge management process in academic libraries involves the capturing,
sharing, or dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Maponya
further identified specific knowledge management activities in academic
libraries as participation in the teaching and research activities of the
university (knowledge identification), collating internal profiles of academic
librarians (knowledge creation), establishing knowledge link or contacts
(knowledge acquisition), and using both internal and external media to
disseminate knowledge.
Organizational
Factors
The
findings also revealed that management support, human resources policy, reward
system, and collaboration constituted the organizational dimensions of the knowledge
management implementation process in university libraries in Nigeria. The mean
scores obtained on the organizational elements show that university librarians
have neutral responses about their roles in knowledge management. However, the
highest responses of the librarians on the organizational factors used for
knowledge management practices are in the areas of providing management support
and having a structured reward system that defines specific intrinsic and
extrinsic reward activities to encourage staff participate in knowledge
management. These findings support Mosoti and Masheka’s (2010) study that maintained that knowledge
management should be implemented as part of organizational leadership. The
findings are also in conformity with the studies by King (2000), Thomas (2006),
Gold, Malhotra, and Segars (2001), Holowetzki (2002), Holsapple and
Joshi (2000), and Yassin, Salim, and Salari (2013)
that laid the foundation for the empirical investigations of the organizational
related factors for knowledge management success and identified such factors as
leadership, organizational culture, human resources activities, communication
flows, and non-hierarchical organizational structure.
Correlates
and Predictors of Knowledge Management Practices
The
positive relationship between organizational factors and knowledge management
practices is in conformity with the results of similar studies in other public
organizations (Thomas, 2006). This finding is not unexpected because LIS
professionals have accepted knowledge management as either a re-branding of
librarianship and information management or a new dimension of both disciplines
(Husain & Nazim, 2013).The factors with the most
significant contributions are management support and collaboration. This finding
is not consistent with those of Thomas (2006) that showed a significant
correlation between organizational factors and knowledge management systems.
The possible explanations for these contradictory results may be that the
respondents could not distinguish between management support and such factors
like human resources policy and reward systems since both might be included in
the management tools needed to facilitate knowledge management. Second, the
respondents might have felt that knowledge management issues revolved around
management support and collaboration. These findings show that management
support and collaboration are two critical success factors for knowledge
management practices in federal university libraries in Nigeria. This means
that university librarians are expected to provide management support and
foster collaboration among staff for the success of knowledge management
practices.
Practical
Implications of the Findings
This
study has three implications for university libraries in Nigeria. First, the
study reveals that knowledge identification has the most positive correlation
with organizational factors. This implies that university libraries should pay
more attention to identifying the needs of users in their knowledge management
initiatives. More knowledge activities in this area should be intensified to
ensure that user needs are not only identified but also met. To identify user
needs, librarians should be encouraged to participate in teaching and research
in the university and to maintain regular contact with users. Second, the study
reveals that management support is the most significant predictor of knowledge
management practices. This means that the success of knowledge management
depends largely on the extent of support provided by the library leadership.
Providing knowledge management leadership has been supported in the literature
as a necessary condition for knowledge management success (Singh, 2008). The
present study reveals that this support takes several forms of commitments from
the library leadership such as welcoming contributions from staff, updating
library policies and procedures, and maintaining an open door policy. These
leadership activities or commitments will help to build trust among the library
staff. Further, library leadership must try to explain the importance of
knowledge management to staff and ensure that knowledge management policy is
aligned with the library’s vision. Explaining the importance of knowledge
management to staff is crucial because its understanding will help in the
formulation of knowledge management policies or goals for the purpose of
integrating them into the libraries’ vision. Finally, the study also reveals a
significant correlation between collaboration and knowledge management practices.
This implies that learning and communication are required for the success of
knowledge management in the university libraries. This learning should take the
form of group learning where staff are allowed to engage in mentoring and
encouraged to help one another, or where staff are helped to form research
groups as well as communities of practice. An effective communication system is
equally important; a system that encourages top-down and bottom-up
communication is supported by this study.
The
study also has implications for researchers interested in knowledge management
and managing university libraries in the era of change. The information
environment is changing rapidly, and it is threatening the survival of academic
libraries the world over. Research has been ongoing in this regard from total
quality management through learning organizations to knowledge management now.
More research is therefore needed in the area of knowledge management in
libraries to update current practice and provide enhanced services to library
users.
Limitations of
the Study
The
following may be considered as the limitations of this paper. First, the number
of university librarians studied was small, and this may have affected the
findings. As a result, the findings are not generalizable. Future research
could benefit from using larger samples by involving all the university
librarians in Nigerian universities. Second, common organizational elements for
knowledge management process have been analyzed, but specific conditions may be
necessary for clearer understanding of the relationships between these elements
and the knowledge management process. As has been obtained from this study,
human resources policy or practices and reward systems did not interact
significantly with the knowledge management process. Future studies could look
in greater depth at the relationships between specific human resources
practices and the knowledge management process, or specific compensation
schemes and the knowledge management process.
Third,
a quantitative technique was used as the main data collection method.
Self-reported data collection techniques such as questionnaires are associated
with quantitative techniques and may create a response bias. Studies have shown
that self-reported measures also create methods effects (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). Methods effects have the potential to bias correlations and regression
weights and, as such, correlated errors often affect the significance of
statistical tests (Sharma, Yetton, & Crawford,
2009). To this effect, it is possible that the support for all the hypotheses,
which were tested at 0.05 significance levels, could be inflated. Though it is
unlikely that respondents would be able to anticipate the patterns of relationships
among the variables studied, the researcher tried to minimize methods bias by
ensuring the anonymity of the respondents and by withholding any forms of
incentives during data collection. However, it is suggested that future
research in this area should apply Harman’s (1960) single factor and marker
variable to statistically test common methods bias. It is also suggested that
future research could consider using multiple methods of data collection, which
should include more qualitative techniques.
Fourth,
the dimensions of the knowledge management process chosen in this study might
have affected the findings as several dimensions of the knowledge management
process can be found in the knowledge management literature. This study may
have overlooked other important dimensions that could have correlated
significantly with the identified organizational elements or factors. Future
studies could eliminate this kind of method effect by enhancing the validity of
the measurement scale through convergent and discriminant validity tests. The
essence of these tests is to enable the researcher to obtain good measures of
what he or she wishes to measure. Finally, further information was not provided
as explanations to some of the item measures of the knowledge management categories
and those of organizational factors. Though the item measures were validated
and their internal reliabilities determined, wrong interpretations of these
measures by the participants could have some influence on the findings. Future
studies could address this issue by providing additional information to help
the participants respond with less difficulty to the questionnaire items.
Conclusion and
Recommendations
Based
on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made:
1.
A
knowledge management strategy should be formulated for knowledge management
practices in federal university libraries in Nigeria.
2.
The
strategies for knowledge management practices should consist of knowledge
identification, acquisition, organization, and dissemination.
3.
Organizational
commitment for knowledge management practices in university libraries should
include management support and collaboration.
4.
Research
should be intensified on knowledge management in libraries to uncover more
contextual factors needed for knowledge management success.
Furthermore,
though both management support and collaboration have significant correlations
with knowledge management practices, the percentage contribution of these
factors to knowledge management (32%) was not strong enough. This means that
more activities or efforts are still needed in the two organizational
dimensions for efficient knowledge management practices in university libraries
in Nigeria.
References
Ajiferuke,
I. (2003). Role of information professionals in knowledge management programs:
Empirical evidence from Canada. Informing
Science, 6, 247–257. Retrieved from
https://www.informingscience.org/Journals/InformingSciJ/Overview
Al-Adaileh, R. M., & Al-Atawi,
M. S. (2011). Organizational culture impact on knowledge exchange: Saudi
Telecom context. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 15(2), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119664
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review:
Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations
and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1),
107–136. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/
Balague,
N., Duren, P., & Saarti, J. (2015).
Benchmarking the knowledge management practices in selected European higher
education libraries. Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 4, 331–341. Retrieved from http://www.qqml-journal.net/index.php/qqml/index
Baruchson-Arbib,
S., & Bronstein, J. (2002). A review to the future of the
library and information science profession. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(5),
397–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10051
Bouthillier,
F., & Shearer, K. (2002). Understanding knowledge
management: The need for an empirical perspective. Information Research, 8(1),
251–267. Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/
Brewer,
P. D., & Brewer, K. K. (2010). Knowledge
management, human resource management, and higher education: A theoretical
model. Journal of Education for Business,
85, 330–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832321003604938
Brun,
C. (2005). ABC of knowledge management. Retrieved from
http://www.Fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/knowledge/docs/ABC_of_KM.pdf
Cabrera, E.
F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people
management practices. International
Journal of Human Resources Management, 16(5),
720-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500083020
Chua, A. Y. K.
(2009). The dark side of successful knowledge management activities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910971806
Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process
innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Boston: Harvard Business School.
DeTienne,
K. B., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C., & Harris, S. (2004).
Toward a model of effective knowledge and directions for future research,
culture, leadership and CKOs. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10, 26–43.
Donate, M. J.,
& Guadamillas, F. (2011). Organizational factors
to support knowledge management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 890–914.
Galagan,
P. (1997). Smart companies. Training and development, 51(12), 20–25.
Gliem,
J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting and reporting
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Paper
presented at the Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing
and Community Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Gupta,
A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000).
Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21,
473–496.
Gold, A. H.,
Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. (2001). Knowledge
management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information System, 18(1), 185–214.
Harman, H. H.
(1960). Modern factor analysis.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Handzic,
M. (2001). Knowledge management: A research framework. In Proceedings of the 2nd European
Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM) (pp. 35–42). Bled,
Slovenia.
Hansen,
M.T., Nohria, N., & Tiemy,
T. (1999). What is your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.
Hasanali,
F. (2002). Critical success factors of knowledge management.
Retrieved from http://www.apgc.org/free/articles
Holowetzki,
A. (2002). The relationship between knowledge management and organizational
culture: An examination of cultural factors that support the flow and
management of knowledge within an organization. Retrieved from http://aim.uoregon.edu/research/pdfs/
Holowetzki2002.pdf
Holsapple,
C, W., & Joshi, K. D. (2000). An
investigation of factors that influence the management of knowledge in
organizations. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 9(2–3),
253–261.
Husain,
S., & Nazim, M. (2013).
Concepts of knowledge management among library & information science
professionals. International Journal of
Information Dissemination and Technology, 3(4), 264–269.
Igbo,
H. U., & Imo, N. T. (2011). Challenges of accessibility of
information resources by the postgraduate users of a Nigerian university. The Information Technologist, 7(2), 1–5.
Inkinen, H. I., Kianto, A., & Vanhala, M. (2015). Knowledge
management practices and innovation performance in Finland. Baltic Knowledge Management, 10(4),
432–455.
International
Labour Organization (2004). Knowledge management at the
International Labour Organization. Joint Inspection Unit. Geneva: International
Labour Organization.
Islam,
M. A., Agarwal, N. K. & Ikeda, M. (2017). Effect of
knowledge management on service innovation in academic libraries. IFLA Journal, 43(3), 266–281.
Joyner, R. L.,
Rouse, W. A., & Glatthorn, A. A. (2013). Writing a winning thesis or dissertation: A
step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
King, W. R.
(2000). Playing an integral role in knowledge management. Information System Management, 17(4), 59–61.
Kumar, R. (2014). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (4th
ed.). London: Sage.
Leedy,
P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005).
Practical research: Planning and design (8th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Mabawonku,
I. (2004). Library use in distance learning: A survey of undergraduates in
three Nigerian universities. African
Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science, 14 (2), 61–72.
Maponya,
P. N., (2004). Knowledge management practices in academic libraries: A case
study of the University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg libraries. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.137.8283&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Martin, B.
(2000). Knowledge management within the context of
management: An evolving relationship.
Singapore Management Review, 22(2), 17–36.
Mosoti,
Z., & Masheka, B. (2010).
Knowledge management: The case for Kenya. The
Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa, 2(1),
35–56.
Nonaka,
I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Obeidat,
B.Y., Al-Suradi, M. M., Masa’deh,
R., & Tarhini, A. (2016).
The impact of knowledge management on innovation: an empirical study of
Jordanian consulting firms. Management
Research Review, 39(10), 1214–1238.
Okunoye,
A. O. (2003). Knowledge management and global diversity: A framework to support
organization in developing countries. Finland: University of Turku.
Plessis,
M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(4),
20–29.
Podsakoff,
P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 879–898.
Rosmaini
T., & Woods, P. C. (2007). Relationship between corporate
knowledge management and firm’s innovation capability. International Journal of Technology and Management, 8(1), 62–79.
Rufai,
R., & Seliaman, M. E. (2004).
Towards a knowledge management model for universities. Retrieved from http://ickm.upm.edu.
my/parallel%20session%202/Raimi%20&%20SeliamanTowards%20a%20km%20model%20for%20Universitiesdoc
Schulte, W. D., & Wang, P. O. J. (2004). Perceptions of
organizational factors of successful knowledge management: An exploratory study
of knowledge workers in Taiwan. Retrieved from http://www.aibse.org/
proceedings/proceeding%2004/%20of20organization%20factors%20of%20successful.doc
Shang, S.,
Lin, S., & Wu, Y. (2009). Service innovation through dynamic knowledge
management. Industrial Management &
Data System, 109(3), 322–337.
Sharma, R., Yetton, P., & Crawford, J. (2009). Estimating the
effect of common method variance: The method – method pair technique with an
illustration from TAM research. MIS
Quarterly, 33(3), 473–712.
Singh, S. K.
(2008). Role of leadership in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 3–15.
Sveiby,
K. (1996).What is knowledge management? Retrieved from http://
sveiby.com.au/knowledge management.html
Syed-Ikhsan, S. O. S., & Rowland, T. (2004).
Knowledge management in a public organization: a study on the relationship
between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer. Journal Knowledge Management, 8(2), 95–111.
Thomas, T. D.
(2006). An empirical investigation of factors providing knowledge management
system success (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://sedonaweb.com/attach/schools/MWSfaculty/attach/diss-bt1234MWS.pdf
Ugwu,
C. I., Idoko, N. A., and Enem,
F. N. (2013). University
libraries, knowledge management and higher education in digital environment:
The synergistic relationship. Paper presented at the 12th Annual
Conference, Annual General Meeting of the Nigerian Library Association, Enugu
State Chapter, Enugu.
Von Krogh, G.,
Nonaka, I & Rechsteiner, L. (2011). Leadership in
organizational knowledge creation: A review and framework, Journal of knowledge Management Studies, 12(2), 16–26.
Yang, J. T.
(2007). Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and
collaborative culture. Tourism Management,
28, 530–543.
Yassin,
F., Salim, J. & Salari, N. (2013).
The influence of organizational factors on knowledge sharing using ICT among
teachers. Procedia Technology, 11, 272–280.
Yusuf, M. M.,
& Wanjau, K. (2014). Factors affecting
implementation of knowledge management practices in state
corporation in the National Treasury in Kenya, International Journal of Management Technology, 2(2), 9–18.
Wang, S.
(2002). Knowledge maps for managing web-based business. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 102(7), 357–364.
Appendix
Questionnaire
Instruction:
Choose as appropriate in the boxes provided in sections A and B as shown below:
1.
Strongly agree = 5
2.
Agree = 4
3.
Neutral = 3
4.
Disagree = 2
5.
Strongly disagree =1
Section A:
Knowledge Management (KM) process
|
s/n
|
Indicate your level of agreement on KM activities in your library
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
Identifies knowledge through:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Contact with users
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Participating in the teaching and research activities in the
university
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Survey results and academic programmes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquires knowledge through:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Consultation with colleagues, interviews and personal experience
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Library collection
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Internet resources
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creates knowledge by:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Creating different databases to add value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Indexing knowledge generated in the university
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Cataloguing of online resources to enhance access
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disseminates knowledge through:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
Library presentation and demonstrations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
Use of library notice, phones, email, library alert system and fax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
University newsletter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (specify)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section B:
Organizational factors for Knowledge Management (KM)
|
s/n
|
Indicate your level of agreement on the
following organizational activities
are ongoing in your library for KM
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
Management support
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
My library has a written KM policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Aligns KM policy with the library’s vision
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Makes KM policy available to staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Emphasizes the importance of KM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Maintains open door policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Welcomes contributions from staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Identifies knowledge gaps and updating library policies regularly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Human resources policy or practices
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Sponsors staff to conferences/workshops
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Encourages self-improvement of staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
Approves formal training of staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
Approves short courses in knowledge management for staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
Rotates staff on the job
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
Identifies staff with valuable tacit knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reward systems
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
Records staff achievements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
Increases staff interest in the job
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
Enhances job satisfaction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
Provides positive feedback
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
Holds annual performance appraisals of staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
Provides incentives to staff from time to time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collaboration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
My library has communities of practice or research groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
Mentoring of staff is encouraged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
Encourages staff to help one another
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
Supports top-down communication only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
Supports bottom –up communication only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
Supports both top-down and bottom- up communication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (specify)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018 Ugwu. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.