Ronald D. Freeze

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY: DEFINING KNOWLEDGE ASSETS

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show that separate sources of knowledge are identified, described and clearly defined as organizational intangible knowledge assets. These knowledge assets are referred to as knowledge capabilities (KCs). knowledge management (KM) is utilized to leverage these assets with a view to systematic improvement in the process of achieving increased firm performance.Design/methodology/approach – In this paper knowledge capabilities are described in terms of their knowledge life cycle, tacit/implicit/explicit nature of knowledge, technology and organizational processes that encompass a firms human capital identified as knowledge workers.Findings – The paper finds that five knowledge capability are presented and described as expertise, lessons learned, policies and procedures, data and knowledge documents.Research limitations/implications – The paper shows that knowledge assets can be measured and improved in order to investigate causal relationships with identified measur...

Knowledge Management Capability Assessment: Validating a Knowledge Assets Measurement Instrument

Measurement of organizational knowledge assets is necessary to determine the effectiveness of knowledge management initiatives. A Knowledge Management Capability Assessment instrument has been developed and operationalized to measure knowledge assets identified as Knowledge Capability Areas. A longitudinal field study is initiated in a large microchip manufacturing company to determine the reliability and validity of the KMCA and to assess the success of KM initiatives. In this paper, we provide the initial validation of the KMCA with empirical evidence from two business units of the company. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that four Knowledge Capability Areas can be conceptualized in terms of latent descriptor variables. Each capability area is identified as an overall latent factor influencing a set of latent descriptor variables. Second Order and General-Specific structural equation models of each capability area provide evidence of the validity of measurement of these knowledge assets.

Construct Transportability: A Choice That Matters

Construct Transportability is the conveyance of a latent construct from prior research for reuse in new theoretical models without the loss of meaning or reliance on the nomological network. The basis of construct transportability is fundamental to building upon existing literature. Recent reviews of the IS literature suggest inconsistencies in measurement models of similarly defined latent constructs. Their theoretical meaning appears to be neither inherently reflective nor formative thus creating a dilemma for researchers to determine the measurement model for reuse. This study addresses the construct transportability issue using IT Capabilities, which was represented empirically in the literature as four different latent constructs (1st and 2nd order constructs as both formative and reflective). We empirically evaluate these measurement representations. The tradeoffs of each representation are discussed with insights provided as to how construct selection impacts the research model and the loss of meaning that may accrue.

Group Invariance: Culture, KM & IT Capability Perceptions

Knowledge management (KM) enablers provide the leverage to impact the knowledge creation process. A knowledge sharing (KS) culture, considered a KM enabler, is cited as a significant contributor to the improvement and success of KM initiatives. However, comparisons of how KM capabilities and KS culture perform in similar contexts (same organization) but different goals (separate business units) are limited. Invariance testing is used as a method to assess the similarity between groups. Data collected from knowledge workers at two business units from a large microchip manufacturing company identifies KS cultural differences and yet provides evidence of similar functioning on the KM capability scales. The resulting analysis indicates that emphasizing and promoting KM capabilities and KS culture equally and simultaneously between different business units will result in dissimilar changes to the levels of each dimension