Knowledge management process effectiveness: measurement of preliminary knowledge management implementation Chin Wei Chong1 and Siong Choy Chong2 1 Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia 2 Putra International College, Melaka, Malaysia Correspondence: Chin Wei Chong, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Persiaran Multimedia, 63100 Cyberjaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. Tel: �� 603 83125653 Fax: �� 603 83125590 E-mails: cwchong@mmu.edu.my, scchong@iputra.edu.my Received: 11 November 2008 Accepted: 25 February 2009 Abstract While knowledge management (KM) has been widely discussed by many academics and practitioners, measurement is undoubtedly the least developed aspect of KM due to the intangibility of knowledge assets. It is of paramount importance to establish performance measures at different stages of KM implementation even from the beginning so that its effectiveness can be identified. This paper thus serves to explore KM performance measurement from the angle of KM process effectiveness. Through the data collected from 289 managers in the Malaysian telecommunication industry, where KM implementation is just beginning to take place, significant interactions were found between four of the five proposed KM preliminary success factors (i.e. business strategy, K audit, K map, KM team) and all four KM elements of strategies (i.e. technology, culture, leadership, measurement) with KM process effectiveness. The findings of this study serve as a guide for organizations in driving their KM journey and reaching their destinations even at the beginning stage of their KM implementation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2009) 7, 142���151. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2009.5 Keywords: measurement knowledge management preliminary KM implementation telecommunication industry middle managers Malaysia Introduction Knowledge management (KM) may be regarded as a mature and established theoretical concept today as a result of the overwhelming research carried out in organizations of different sizes and geographical locations, be they public or private (e.g., McAdam & Reid, 2001 Moffet et al., 2003 Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004a Egbu et al., 2005 Hung et al., 2005 Wong, 2005 Chong, 2006a, 2006b Chong et al., 2006a, 2006b Edvardsson, 2006 Kalsom & Syed Noh, 2006 Elsa et al., 2007 Curado, 2008 Gorry, 2008 Matzkin, 2008 Pathirage et al., 2008 Sharmillah Devi et al., 2008 Yi, 2008). While many researchers have arrived at the same conclusion that KM is a core competency that determines the success of any organization in this knowledge-based economy (k-economy) (Okunoye & Karsten, 2002 Droge et al., 2003 Johannessen & Olsen, 2003 Grant & Baden-Fuller, 2004 Kess et al., 2008), many organizations are still struggling with its implementation. The empirical evidences provided by Chong (2006a, b), Chong et al. (2006b) and Sharmillah Devi et al. (2008) are enough to substantiate this notion. The studies pointed towards the same conclusion where KM is perceived to be more important than to the extent that it was implemented in organizations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2009) 7, 142���151 & 2009 Operational Research Society. All rights reserved 1477���8238/09 www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp/

The significant gap is not difficult to understand. From a practical perspective, Malhotra (1998) has right- fully remarked that the current KM solutions are still ad hoc ��� constrained by basic rigid and limited views of knowledge ��� and lack the necessary zeal and dynamics to meet the knowledge requirements of organizations in today���s competitive environment. This is probably attributed to the absence of a universally accepted definition of KM (Earl, 1999 Salleh & Goh, 2002). Furthermore, the economic development of KM has not stabilized and filtered into the industry (Stankosky & Baldanza, 2001), where organizations usually implement well-established practices (Levette & Guenov, 2000). As many organizations have a narrow focus on KM, their KM practices and expected outcomes will thus have a narrow focus. More important is the issue of KM paradox, that is, failure of organizations to refine their performance measures to consider the impact of KM activities even though these activities increase the cost of doing business (Hallett & Stephens, 2003). While KM has been widely discussed by many academics and practitioners, measure- ment is undoubtedly the least developed aspect of KM (Boumarafi & Jabnoun, 2008). This is not surprising given the difficulties in defining it, let alone measuring it. This problem is found to be more prevalent, especially among organizations that have just started to implement KM, as they are yet to see the effectiveness of their KM initiatives in a longer time period. Some practitioners feel that measurement is premature at the early stage, and that trying to measure knowledge before an organization fully understands how knowledge is created, shared, and used is likely to lead them to focus on the wrong things (Chong et al., 2006b). However, it can be argued that as KM requires an investment decision and should therefore demand results from its implementation, it is of para- mount importance to establish performance measures at different stages of KM implementation even from the beginning so that its effectiveness can be identified. Thus far, there has been a dearth of studies that propose a comprehensive measurement of KM initiatives, parti- cularly during the early stage of KM implementation. A cursory look at the literature shows that Bohn (1994) is among the first who proposed a progress of growth of knowledge in an organization, which can be described in eight stages: complete ignorance, awareness, measure- ment, control of the mean, process capability, process characterization, knowing why, and complete knowl- edge. His framework provided an alternative way of figuring out where the firm stands relative to the firm���s knowledge. Specifically, Holt et al. (2007) proposed an instrument to measure readiness for KM in the early stage of KM implementation. Based upon an extended framework developed by Chong et al. (2006a, 2009), this paper attempts to investigate the association between the proposed five KM preliminary success factors and four KM elements of strategies and KM process effectiveness. Coukos��� (2001) index of KM process effectiveness is adopted for the KM preliminary success factors and elements of strategies. Data were collected from 289 middle managers from the telecommunication industry in Malaysia through a cross- sectional survey. This industry has been noted to play a prominent role in Malaysia���s efforts towards becoming a k-economy nation (Chong & Yeow, 2005 Chong et al., 2006a, 2009). The findings provide understanding of KM implementation from among organizations that have just started to undertake such initiatives, so as to inform decisions regarding proper focus on the pre- requisites needed to deploy a full-range and well- organized KM implementation from a measurement perspective. This will allow organizations to reap max- imum benefit from their KM efforts (Chong, 2006c). This is the main objective of this paper. In addition, it also contributes to the KM body of knowledge by summariz- ing what has been achieved and identifying new areas that need to be explored in future research. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews relevant literature. This is followed by the methodology used. The empirical results and analysis are presented next, followed by the discussion and implications of the findings. The key findings are then summarized to conclude the paper, along with research limitations and suggestions for future research. Literature KM preliminary success factors Chong & Yeow (2005) and Chong et al. (2009) are perhaps among the earliest researchers who attempted to comprehensively propose and provide empirical evidence on the KM preliminary success factors. They proposed five factors based on a myriad of KM literature in this area (Barney, 1995 Tiwana, 2000 Nesbitt, 2002): (1) business strategy (2) organizational structure (3) KM team (4) K-audit and (5) K-map. In both the studies, Chong et al. found that there are significant differences between the preliminary success factors perceived as important and the actual level of KM implementation, with business strategy significantly predicting organizational perfor- mance. They attributed the results to the relative newness of KM in the telecommunication industry surveyed. Many organizations were at their early stages of KM implementation, and therefore were not aware of the full spectrum of KM activities. KM elements of strategies KM strategies work in concert to streamline and enhance the capture, flow, and transfer of an organization���s data, information, and knowledge for the purpose of delivering it to individuals and groups engaged in accomplishing specific tasks (Dove, 1998 O���Dell & Grayson, 1999 Sveiby, 2000). Based on the findings from leading KM researchers (Davenport & Prusak, 1998 O���Dell & Grayson, 1999 Sveiby, 2000 Coukos, 2001), culture, leadership, technology, and measurement have been identified as KM process effectiveness Chin Wei Chong and Siong Choy Chong 143 Knowledge Management Research & Practice