Critical Success Factors For Implementing Knowledge Management in Small and Medium Enterprises 02635570510590101

Industrial Management & Data Systems
Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and medium
enterprises
Kuan Yew Wong
Downloaded by International Islamic University Malaysia At 15:51 09 February 2015 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kuan Yew Wong, (2005),"Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and
medium enterprises", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 Iss 3 pp. 261 - 279
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570510590101
Downloaded on: 09 February 2015, At: 15:51 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 72 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 15420 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Kuan Yew Wong, Elaine Aspinwall, (2005),"An empirical study of the important factors for knowledgemanagement adoption in the SME sector", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 64-82 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270510602773
Ganesh D. Bhatt, (2001),"Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between
technologies, techniques, and people", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 68-75 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270110384419
Peyman Akhavan, Mostafa Jafari, Mohammad Fathian, (2006),"Critical success factors of knowledge
management systems: a multi-case analysis", European Business Review, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 97-113 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340610651820
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 316947 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm
Critical success factors for

implementing knowledge
management in small and medium
enterprises
Critical success
factors
261
Kuan Yew Wong

Department of Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM), Johor, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose To date, critical success factors (CSFs) for implementing knowledge management (KM) in
small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have not been systematically investigated. Existing studies
have derived their CSFs from large companies perspectives and have not considered the needs of
smaller businesses. This paper is aimed to bridge this gap.
Design/methodology/approach Existing studies on CSFs were reviewed and their limitations
were identified. By integrating insights drawn from these studies as well as adding some new factors,
the author proposed a set of 11 CSFs which is believed to be more suitable for SMEs. The importance
of the proposed CSFs was theoretically discussed and justified. In addition, an empirical assessment
was conducted to evaluate the extent of success of this proposition.
Findings The overall results from the empirical assessment were positive, thus reflecting the
appropriateness of the proposed CSFs.
Practical implications The set of CSFs can act as a list of items for SMEs to address when
adopting KM. This helps to ensure that the essential issues and factors are covered during
implementation. For academics, it provides a common language for them to discuss and study the
factors crucial for the success of KM in SMEs.
Originality/value This study is probably the first to provide an integrative perspective of CSFs
for implementing KM in the SME sector. It gives valuable information, which hopefully will help this
business sector to accomplish KM.
Keywords Critical success factors, Knowledge management, Small to medium-sized enterprises
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Knowledge has become one of the critical driving forces for business success.
Organisations are becoming more knowledge intensive, they are hiring minds more
than hands, and the needs for leveraging the value of knowledge are increasing. As a
result, knowledge has been treated systematically much like other tangible resources
and many organisations are exploring the field of knowledge management (KM) in
order to improve and sustain their competitiveness. The need for a more systematic
and deliberate study on the critical success factors (CSFs) for implementing KM is
crucial. Organisations need to be cognizant and aware of the factors that will influence
the success of a KM initiative. Ignorance and oversight of the necessary important
factors will likely hinder an organisations effort to realise its full benefit.
Initially, KM appeared to be adopted only in large, multinational and international
companies and hence, research work on CSFs has been largely centred on them. Most
Industrial Management & Data

Systems
Vol. 105 No. 3, 2005
pp. 261-279
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-5577
DOI 10.1108/02635570510590101
IMDS
105,3
262
of these studies have not considered the differences of company size as well as the
specific features of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that could affect KM.
However, as it has now become a widely spread business discipline, it is no longer the
concern of just large organisations. As asserted by Frey (2001), although major
corporations have led the way in introducing and implementing KM, it is increasingly
important for small businesses to manage their collective intellect. Okunoye and
Karsten (2002) stated that KM has indeed become the underlying sources for successful
organisations regardless of their size and geographical locations. Therefore, a better
understanding of the CSFs for implementing it in SMEs is needed in order to ensure the
success of their efforts.
This paper compares and reviews the existing CSFs proposed by various authors in
the literature. An analysis is conducted to identify their possible weaknesses and
deficiencies, which could be further improved. By combining these factors, the author
then proposes a set of CSFs for KM implementation, which is believed to be more
suitable for SMEs. Each of the proposed CSFs is discussed and the results of an
empirical assessment employed to evaluate them are then reported.
Review of critical factors for KM implementation

A broad range of factors that can influence the success of KM implementation has been
mentioned in the literature. For example, much has been stated about culture,
information technology (IT) and leadership as important considerations for its
accomplishment. However, no systematic work exists on characterising a collective set
of CSFs for implementing KM in the SME sector. An appropriate set of CSFs which are
relevant for SMEs will help them to keep in mind the important issues that should be
dealt with when designing and implementing a KM initiative.
CSFs can be defined as areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure
successful competitive performance for the organisation (Rockart, 1979). Saraph et al.
(1989) viewed them as those critical areas of managerial planning and action that must
be practised in order to achieve effectiveness. In terms of KM, they can be viewed as
those activities and practices that should be addressed in order to ensure its successful
implementation. These practices would either need to be nurtured if they already
existed or be developed if they were still not in place. Based on the above definition,
CSFs in this study are treated as those internal factors which are controllable by an
organisation. External factors such as environmental influences are not taken into
account since organisations have little control over them when implementing KM.
Some of the pertinent studies on CSFs for KM will now be reviewed and their possible
weaknesses highlighted.
Based on the insights gleaned from the study of practices and experiences of leading
companies in the KM field, Skyrme and Amidon (1997) highlighted seven key success
factors. These include a strong link to a business imperative, a compelling vision and
architecture, knowledge leadership, a knowledge creating and sharing culture,
continuous learning, a well-developed technology infrastructure and systematic
organisational knowledge processes. It was stated that not all of these factors would be
important for small scale pilot projects. However, they would certainly need to be
considered for those organisations that were formalising KM or transforming
themselves into true knowledge-based enterprises.
A study to investigate the factors which can influence the management of

knowledge in organisations was carried out by Holsapple and Joshi (2000). First, they
derived a set of factors from various literature sources. Then, they conducted a Delphi
study, comprising an international panel of KM academics and practitioners to further
explore and evaluate the factors that they had developed earlier. They proposed three
major classes of influences (managerial, resource and environmental), with different
factors in each. Managerial influences comprised four main factors, coordination,
control, measurement and leadership; resource influences consisted of knowledge,
human, material and financial resources; whereas environmental influences included
factors such as competition, markets, time pressure, governmental and economic
climates, etc.
From the evaluation of their Delphi study (final round), it was reported that there
was a lack of detailed inclusion of technology and culture as critical factors. For
example, culture was not explicitly presented but was only included as a sub-concept
under the knowledge resource factor. This representation is somewhat insignificant.
In the authors opinion, culture is a very important consideration for KM and it should
be represented as a factor, rather than as a sub-element of another. Certain factors were
also perceived to be missing such as knowledge infrastructure, communication,
training, education, organisational planning, strategy setting, and reward issues. In
addition, it was argued by one of the panels that the process of implementing KM
would entail the need for sponsorship, support and understanding, not merely
leadership as proposed by them. Nevertheless, all these concerns should be considered
in an effort to further develop and refine the critical factors.
Davenport et al. (1998) conducted an exploratory study on 31 KM projects in 24
companies, one of the aims being to determine the factors associated with their
effectiveness. Before doing so, they evaluated the performance of the projects using
indicators analogous to those for assessing the success of other business change
initiatives. As a result, 18 projects were classified as successful, from which eight
common success factors were identified. They were linking KM to economic
performance or industry value, a clear purpose and language, a standard and flexible
knowledge structure, multiple channels for knowledge transfer, a knowledge-friendly
culture, a technical and organisational infrastructure, change in motivational practices,
and senior management support. It was further stated that while the last four factors
were the hardest to develop, they were also the ones that mattered most. However,
since this was an exploratory study, it was agreed by Davenport et al. (1998) that
linking the identified factors to the success of KM should be viewed as hypothesised,
not proven.
Chourides et al. (2003) identified various critical factors for successful KM
implementation in five organisational functional areas: strategy, human resource
management (HRM), IT, quality and marketing. Their work was built upon an earlier
questionnaire survey of the financial times stock exchange (FTSE) 100 companies as
well as a review of existing literature to identify key practices and factors for adopting
KM. Subsequently, they conducted a longitudinal study in eight case organisations,
which were at various stages of implementing KM programmes to further compare and
assess their critical factors. In particular, interviews with key staff of these
organisations were conducted for this purpose.
Critical success
factors
263
IMDS
105,3
264
The way in which their critical factors are presented are like a list of things to do
rather than a set of CSFs as suggested by other authors such as Skyrme and Amidon
(1997) and Davenport et al. (1998). An in-depth scrutiny of their critical factors unveil
some emerging concerns and issues. The author feels that some of their factors are too
specific which might be hard to generalise across organisations. For example, they
suggested monitoring the KM people portfolio matrix as a critical factor for KM in
the HRM area. This matrix is merely one of the many techniques that can be utilised to
facilitate the conduct of a people audit. Arguably, organisations can also employ other
alternatives to monitor their people in order to be successful in KM.
Besides this, certain critical factors such as improve time to market skills and
improve organisation velocity to respond to customer needs are less appropriate. It
can be argued that these are the things that organisations should do to improve their
efficiency and customer satisfaction. They can be interpreted as the objectives or
purposes of KM, not those that are vital for making KM a success. Clearly, they are not
in line with the definition of CSFs as provided earlier in the paper. Another factor,
which is innovation through research is also less relevant for SMEs. This is because
not all of them are involved in a research activity and thus, calling for a critical need to
conduct this activity can be misleading.
Liebowitz (1999) proposed six key ingredients in order to make KM successful in
organisations. He suggested the need for a KM strategy with support from senior
leadership, a chief knowledge officer (CKO) or equivalent and a KM infrastructure,
knowledge ontologies and repositories, KM systems and tools, incentives to encourage
knowledge sharing and a supportive culture. Specifically, important lessons learnt
from firms who were early adopters of KM were used to support his propositions. In the
first ingredient, he advocated the creation of a centre of expertise for every knowledge
discipline or subject matter, as a KM strategy which could be undertaken by
organisations. The resource requirement for such an activity could be tremendous and
this reflects a focus towards those organisations that have the necessary expertise,
human and financial resources.
According to Hasanali (2002), the success of a KM effort depends on many factors.
He highlighted five categories of factors namely leadership, culture, structure, roles
and responsibilities, IT infrastructures, and measurement. Likewise, the APQC (1999)
included strategy and leadership, culture, technology and measurement in their
framework as enablers which can support the operation of KM. Although these factors
are eminently sensible, it is believed that the success of KM is dependent on more
aspects. A comprehensive set of factors is needed to give a more complete view of those
that are necessary. Table I provides a comparative summary of some of the main
issues of these studies.
Analysis of the critical factors
Previous studies of CSFs for KM implementation have been heavily focused on large
companies. This is because most of the early adopters and superior performers of KM
were in fact large and multinational corporations. As such, existing factors are mainly
large companies oriented, thereby reflecting their situations and needs. Directly
applying these factors into the SMEs environment may not be sufficient without an
understanding of their very own and specific conditions. Previous studies fall short of
studying and identifying the CSFs from the SMEs perspective. They have not
To present the key success

factors for KM
To identify the factors that
contribute to the success of KM projects
To develop and assess a descriptive
framework for characterising
the factors that influence KM
To derive best practices and
performance measures for KM
To describe the key ingredients
for successful KM
To present the CSFs for KM
To use the enablers as a
basis for structuring their
benchmarking studies
Skyrme and Amidon (1997)
Holsapple and Joshi (2000)
Liebowitz (1999)
Hasanali (2002)
APQC (1999)
Chourides et al. (2003)
Davenport et al. (1998)
Objective
Author(s)
Exploratory study of 18 successful

KM projects in organisations which
were early adopters of KM
Various literature sources, an initial
framework and a Delphi study
comprising KM academics and practitioners
Review of existing theories, a
survey of FTSE 100 companies and
longitudinal studies of eight case organisations
Synthesis of important lessons
learnt from early adopters of KM
Consulting experience
Consulting experience. Co-developed
with Arthur Andersen.
Study of leading companies in KM
Origin of factors
Five categories of factors

Four enablers
Six ingredients
Three main categories

of influences with different
factors in each category
A range of factors in five
functional areas
Eight factors
Seven factors
Outcome
Critical success
factors
265
Table I.
Comparisons of studies
on critical factors for KM
IMDS
105,3
266
considered the features, characteristics and situations of smaller firms. Nor have they
explored other factors, which could potentially be more important for SMEs when
accomplishing KM.
The availability of resources in an organisation is crucial because it can govern the
quantity and quality of efforts which can be expended on KM. If there is an obstacle to
achieving effective KM in SMEs, it is very probably due to their resources. SMEs are
not like little large businesses. In general, they have a scarcity of resources (Welsh
and White, 1981; Lee and Oakes, 1995; Motwani et al., 1998; OECD, 2002; Jun and Cai,
2003) i.e. lack of time, financial and human resources, which differentiates them from
their larger counterparts. Resource is therefore inevitably an important factor to be
considered when implementing KM in the SME sector. However, this is an aspect
which has been overlooked by most of the studies reviewed. Aside from Holsapple and
Joshi (2000), no other authors have included it as an essential factor.
No mention is made of the need to provide training to employees when embarking
on a KM journey. While large organisations may have long grasped the underlying
concept of KM and have advanced knowledge on various related technologies, this is
not necessarily true for SMEs. Jeffcoate et al. (2000) stated that SMEs have limited
knowledge on technology and lack technical expertise. Similarly, Lim and Klobas
(2000) pointed out that small businesses lack an understanding of KM processes. Thus,
it appears that there is a greater need for SMEs to provide appropriate training
associated with KM, to their employees.
Another central KM issue in SMEs is the occurrence of knowledge loss, through key
employees leaving the companies (Wong and Radcliffe, 2000; Wickert and Herschel,
2001; Finn and Phillips, 2002). SMEs are prone to this phenomenon, since individuals
are constantly seeking better careers and job prospects, and higher salaries in larger
organisations. Without doubt, when employees leave a company, they will take with
them all the knowledge that is embedded in their mind. Retaining employees in an
organisation is highly dependent on effective people management strategies. In fact,
people management plays a much wider role and it lies at the heart of KM. Based on the
above review, it has not been explicitly addressed as a critical factor for KM.
Proposed critical factors for SMEs
As is evident, different sets of CSFs have been put forward by different authors. In
spite of this, they can possibly be grouped into a number of generic factors such as
management leadership and support, culture, technology, strategy, measurement, roles
and responsibilities, etc. These are common in KM efforts and therefore, they are also
believed to be applicable to SMEs.
However, one should also consider the needs and situations of SMEs when
developing CSFs for them. As mentioned earlier, there are some distinctive issues that
require considerable attention in the SME sector. In order to address these issues and to
compensate for the drawbacks of previous studies, new factors should be introduced.
By integrating the common factors and introducing some new ones, the author
proposes a more comprehensive model of 11 factors for implementing KM in SMEs.
They are:
.
management leadership and support;
.
culture;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IT;
strategy and purpose;
measurement;
organisational infrastructure;
processes and activities;
motivational aids;
resources;
training and education; and
HRM.
This proposition is the result of a systematic effort that identifies the factors in a
holistic, integrative and comprehensive manner. Although there are some similarities
with previous studies, two new factors have been added. A comparison between the
authors proposed factors with those of other authors is given in Table II. Having
proposed the CSFs for implementing KM in SMEs, the next section will discuss each of
them in detail.
Discussion
Management leadership and support
Management leadership plays a key role in influencing the success of KM (Horak, 2001;
Pan and Scarbrough, 1998; Holsapple and Joshi, 2000; Ribiere and Sitar, 2003). Leaders
are important in acting as role models to exemplify the desired behaviour for KM. They
should for example, exhibit a willingness to share and offer their knowledge freely with
others in the organisation, to continuously learn, and to search for new knowledge and
ideas. It is vital that they model their behaviours and actions through deeds, not just
words. By doing so, they can further influence other employees to imitate them and
increase the propensity of employees to participate in KM. Other leadership
competencies that would be important include steering the change effort, conveying
the importance of KM to employees, maintaining their morale, and creating a culture
that promotes knowledge sharing and creation. In essence, leaders establish the
necessary conditions for effective KM (Holsapple and Joshi, 2000).
As with all change and improvement programmes, support and commitment from
senior management is critical to a KM initiative (Martensson, 2000; Manasco, 1996;
Truch, 2001; Jarrar, 2002; Sharp, 2003; Davenport et al., 1998). Storey and Barnett
(2000) added that support from top management should be ongoing and be delivered in
a practical manner. Such support could then be transformed into concerted efforts that
would contribute to the success of KM.
Culture
Organisational culture is another imperative factor for successful KM (Davenport et al.,
1998; Pan and Scarbrough, 1998; Martensson, 2000). It defines the core beliefs, values,
norms and social customs that govern the way individuals act and behave in an
organisation. In general, a culture supportive of KM is one that highly values
knowledge and encourages its creation, sharing and application. The biggest challenge
for most KM efforts actually lies in developing such a culture. A survey result reported
Critical success
factors
267
Other
Rewards and
recognition
Processes
Roles and
responsibilities
Measurement
Strategy
Technology
Systematic
organisational
knowledge processes
Continuous learning
Strong link to a
business imperative
A compelling vision
and architecture
Clear purpose and

language
Knowledge-friendly
culture
Technical
infrastructure
Standard and flexible
knowledge structure
Senior management
support
Davenport et al.
(1998)
Resources
Leadership
Hasanali
(2002)
Measurement
IT
infrastructure
A CKO or equivalent Structure, roles

and
and a KM
responsibilities
infrastructure
Knowledge
ontologies and
repositories
KM systems and
tools
A KM strategy
A supportive culture Culture
Senior leadership
support
Liebowitz
(1999)
Change in
Incentives to
motivational practices encourage
knowledge sharing
Control
Multiple channels for
Coordination knowledge transfer
Measurement Link to economic

performance or
industry value
Organisation
infrastructure
Leadership
Knowledge
leadership
A knowledge creating
and sharing culture
A well-developed
technology
infrastructure
Holsapple
and Joshi
(2000)
Strategy and
purpose
IT
Management
leadership and
support
Culture
Authors
proposition
Resources
Training and
education
Human resource
management
Motivational
aids
Processes and
activities
Organisational
infrastructure
Measurement Measurement
Strategy
Technology
Culture
Leadership
APQC
(1999)
268
Management
leadership and
support
Culture
General factors
Table II.
Comparisons between the
authors proposed CSFs
and those of other studies
Skyrme
and Amidon
(1997)
IMDS
105,3
by Chase (1997) affirmed that culture was the largest obstacle faced by organisations in
creating a successful knowledge-based enterprise.
Since culture is a wide concept, it comprises many facets. One cultural aspect which
is crucial for KM is collaboration. Goh (2002) asserted that a collaborative culture is an
important condition for knowledge transfer to happen between individuals and groups.
This is because knowledge transfer requires individuals to come together to interact,
exchange ideas and share knowledge with one another. Not only this, collaboration has
been empirically shown to be a significant contributor to knowledge creation (Lee and
Choi, 2003). Trust is also another fundamental aspect of a knowledge friendly culture
(Stonehouse and Pemberton, 1999; DeTienne and Jackson, 2001; Lee and Choi, 2003).
Without a high degree of mutual trust, people will be sceptical about the intentions and
behaviours of others and thus, they will likely withhold their knowledge. Building a
relationship of trust between individuals and groups will help to facilitate a more
proactive and open knowledge sharing process.
Besides this, there is a need to foster an innovative culture in which individuals are
constantly encouraged to generate new ideas, knowledge and solutions. Likewise, Goh
(2002) suggested a culture which emphasises problem seeking and solving. Individuals
should also be permitted to query existing practice and to take actions through
empowerment (Stonehouse and Pemberton, 1999). By empowering individuals, they
will have more freedom and opportunities to explore new possibilities and approaches.
Equally important is the element of openness whereby mistakes are openly shared
without the fear of punishment. In this respect, reasonable mistakes and failures are
not only tolerated but allowed and forgiven. Making mistakes should be viewed as an
investment process in individuals because it can be a key source of learning.
Owing to the highly influential nature of a culture to the success of KM, Davenport
et al. (1998) asserted that companies should ensure that their KM initiatives fit into
their organisational culture, or else they should be prepared to change it. The
importance of matching a KM initiative with the culture, style and core value of an
organisation was also highlighted by McDermott and ODell (2001).
Information technology
It is indisputable that one of the key enablers for implementing KM is IT. Its capability
has evolved from merely being a static archive of information to being a connector of a
human to information and of one human to another. IT can enable rapid search, access
and retrieval of information, and can support collaboration and communication
between organisational members. In essence, it can certainly play a variety of roles to
support an organisations KM processes (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Lee and Hong, 2002).
However, it is noteworthy to recognise that IT is only a tool not an ultimate solution
(Wong and Aspinwall, 2003).
There is a broad collection of information technologies that supports KM which can
be applied and integrated into an organisations technological platform. According to
Luan and Serban (2002) they can be grouped into one or more of the following
categories: business intelligence, knowledge base, collaboration, content and document
management, portals, customer relationship management, data mining, workflow,
search, and e-learning. Important factors that need to be considered in the development
of a KM system include simplicity of technology, ease of use, suitability to users needs,
Critical success
factors
269
IMDS
105,3
270
relevancy of knowledge content, and standardisation of a knowledge structure or

ontology.
Strategy and purpose
One of the means for driving the success of KM is to have a clear and well-planned
strategy (Liebowitz, 1999). This provides the foundation for how an organisation can
deploy its capabilities and resources to achieve its KM goals. While several strategies
for implementing KM have been suggested in the literature (ODell et al., 1999;
Liebowitz, 1999; Soliman and Spooner, 2000), a suitable one should be well adjusted to
the situation and context of the organisation in hand. In order to attach more
significance to a KM strategy, it should support an imperative business issue of an
organisation. There seems to be common agreement in the literature that it has to be
linked or integrated with the enterprise business strategy (Zack, 1999; Cook, 1999;
Maier and Remus, 2002).
Closely related to the notion of strategy, is the development of a compelling and
shared vision for pursuing KM. It is essential that employees support this vision and
believe that it will work. In addition, clear objectives, purposes and goals need to be set
and understood by everyone involved. To further expand this, the value proposition of
KM has to be clearly laid down in order to create a passion among management and
employees to accomplish it. In short, all the above elements need to be carefully
developed before a substantial investment is made to initiate a KM effort.
Measurement
Measurement acts like a data collection system that gives useful information about a
particular situation or activity. An initiative like KM will suffer the risk of becoming
just another management fad, if it is left unmeasured. Sayings like you cannot
manage what you cannot measure and what is measured is what gets done certainly
hold true for KM. According to Arora (2002) and Ahmed et al. (1999), measuring KM is
necessary in order to ensure that its envisioned objectives are being attained.
Measurement enables organisations to track the progress of KM and to determine its
benefits and effectiveness. Essentially, it provides a basis for organisations to evaluate,
compare, control and improve upon the performance of KM (Ahmed et al., 1999).
Measurement is also needed to demonstrate the value and worthiness of a KM
initiative to management and stakeholders. Without such evidence, support and
confidence from top management to sustain it will diminish. Since it is difficult, if not
impossible to quantify the benefits of KM in the short term, providing narrative
indicators to reflect its success at its early stage is important. Another key aspect of
measurement is to evaluate the impact that KM has on bottom line financial results.
However, linking KM activities directly to financial results can be tough, since many
intertwining variables can affect the financial performance of a company at the same
time. While it is important to correlate them, care must be taken not to claim a pure
causal relationship (Hasanali, 2002).
It is important that traditional hard measures are supplemented by soft,
nonfinancial measures in order to provide a more holistic approach to measuring
KM (Ahmed et al., 1999). Some of the methods being used include intellectual capital
metrics (Sveiby, 1997; Liebowitz and Suen, 2000; Bontis, 2001) and the balanced
scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992; Arora, 2002). Nevertheless, there is still no
absolute method for measuring KM in an organisation (Gupta et al., 2000), and this is
an area which is still being explored by academics and practitioners (de Gooijer, 2000).
Organisational infrastructure
Another central aspect for implementing KM is the development of an appropriate
organisational infrastructure. This implies establishing a set of roles and teams to
perform knowledge-related tasks (Davenport et al., 1998). Despite the fact that some
existing functions within an organisation such as HRM and IT have already been
working with knowledge issues, establishing a group of people with specific and
formal responsibilities for KM is crucial. Roles within this team can either be devolved
to existing positions or to new ones.
One of the more commonly mentioned roles in the literature is the CKO or
equivalent. He/she takes the leading role to coordinate, manage and set the course for
KM (Earl and Scott (1999), Abell and Oxbrow (1999), Herschel and Nemati (2000),
Davenport and Volpel (2001), and Grover and Davenport (2001) for a more detailed
elaboration of a CKO). While large companies may have the resources to establish a
team with multiple layers of roles for KM, SMEs will need to take a smaller scale
approach.
Processes and activities
A KM process refers to something that can be done with knowledge in the organisation
( Johannsen, 2000). Processes that can possibly characterise the KM discipline are
numerous. Many authors have suggested a number of activities or processes
associated with KM (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Nissen et al., 2000; Wong and Aspinwall,
2003; Bhatt, 2000; Despres and Chauvel, 1999; Marshall et al., 1997; Demarest, 1997).
For example, four main processes were discerned by Alavi and Leidner (2001): creation,
storage/retrieval, transfer and application. The execution of KM processes lies at the
heart of creating a successful knowledge-based enterprise. Thus, it is important that
organisations adopt a process-based view to KM.
Appropriate interventions and mechanisms need to be in place in order to ensure
that KM processes are addressed in a systematic and structured manner. For instance,
in knowledge sharing, technological networking tools should be supplemented with
face-to-face discussion because the latter can provide a richer medium for transferring
knowledge. Coordination of the KM processes to be performed is also crucial
(Holsapple and Joshi, 2000). In addition, they can be incorporated into employees daily
work activities so that they become common practices in an organisation.
Motivational aids
There is a saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
Successful KM requires the development of a grass root desire among employees to
tap into their companys intellectual resources (Hauschild et al., 2001). If individuals
are not motivated to practise KM, no amount of investment, infrastructure and
technological intervention will make it effective. Hence, one of the important factors is
to establish the right incentives, rewards or motivational aids to encourage people to
share and apply knowledge. Giving incentives to employees helps to stimulate and
reinforce the positive behaviours and culture needed for effective KM.
Critical success
factors
271
IMDS
105,3
272
In order to build a knowledge-based enterprise, incentive systems should be focused

on criteria such as knowledge sharing and contribution, teamwork, creativity and
innovative solutions. Yahya and Goh (2002) stated that such systems should reward
risk-taking attitudes and emphasise group-based compensation. In particular,
rewarding employees with a focus on group performance will instigate a higher
level of knowledge exchange between them. Hauschild et al. (2001) extended this notion
by stating that employees will be more inclined to seek and contribute knowledge, if
their incentives are based on goals that they can influence, but not achieve on their
own. Linking rewards solely to individual performance or outcome which can result in
competition will certainly be detrimental to a knowledge sharing culture.
The provision of both monetary and nonmonetary benefits could be incorporated
into a reward system that supports KM. In addition, approaches to motivate employees
and recognise their contributions could also be tied to their annual job performance
review. This implies treating KM practices as important criteria in an employees
performance evaluation and assessment system (Trussler, 1998; Buckman, 1998).
Resources
Successful KM implementation is dependent upon resources. Financial support is
inevitably required if an investment in a technological system is to be made. Human
resources are needed to coordinate and manage the implementation process as well as
to take up knowledge-related roles. Time is also a consideration; organisations have to
free up time for their employees to perform KM activities such as knowledge sharing.
Similarly, providing time and opportunities for people to learn is important
(Martensson, 2000). Besides this, attention, according to Davenport and Volpel (2001) is
one of the scarcest resources in many companies. They called for a need to focus on
attention management as a key to successful KM.
Since resources availability is a primary concern in SMEs, it has to be properly
considered when implementing a KM initiative. For example, the programme scope
must not be too substantial for their available resources. Investment decisions in KM
should be based on a sound consideration of resources, and not on the belief that it is a
nice to have business programme. In addition, proper budgeting of resources is crucial
for KM. Arguably, one of the key issues for SMEs in achieving effective KM is to deal
with their resources. This implies understanding how they can be better acquired,
allocated and managed for its success.
Training and education
Training and education is another important consideration for successful KM. In a
basic sense, organisational members need to be aware of the needs to manage
knowledge and to recognise it as a key resource for the viability of a company. This
issue can be addressed if proper basic training is provided to the employees. Through
such training, they will have a better understanding of the concept of KM. It also helps
to frame a common language and perception of how they define and think about
knowledge.
Besides this, employees could be trained and educated in using the KM system and
other technological tools for managing knowledge. This helps to ensure that they can
utilise the full potential and capabilities offered by these tools. In addition, training for
individuals to understand their new roles for performing knowledge-oriented tasks
might be needed. Equally important is to equip them with the skills to foster creativity,
innovation, and knowledge sharing. Horak (2001) suggested that for effective KM,
skills development should occur in the following areas: communication, soft
networking, peer learning, team building, collaboration and creative thinking.
Likewise, Yahya and Goh (2002) showed that training related to creativity, team
building, documentation skills and problem solving had a positive impact on the
overall KM process.
Human resource management
Certainly, KM practitioners cannot afford to ignore the value that can be gained from
HRM. After all, people are the sole originators of knowledge. As stated by Davenport
and Volpel (2001), managing knowledge is managing people; managing people is
managing knowledge. The significance and roles of HRM in KM have been discussed
by a number of authors (e.g. Soliman and Spooner, 2000; Garavan et al., 2000; Brelade
and Harman, 2000; Robertson and Hammersley, 2000). While it is vital to KM for many
reasons, the main focus here is on the issues of employee recruitment, development and
retention.
Effective recruitment of employees is crucial because it is through this process that
knowledge and competences are brought into the organisation. Employees with the
required knowledge and desired skills to fill knowledge gaps should be recruited.
Furthermore, it is essential that companies enlist those who have the tendency and
inclination for creating and sharing knowledge. Additionally, Robertson and
Hammersley (2000) highlighted the significance of recruitment to focus on the
ability of candidates to fit into the firms culture or distinctive way of working rather
than just matching them to a job specification.
Employee development is seen as a way to improve and enhance the personal value
of individuals. The skills and competences of knowledge workers need to be
continuously developed in order for them to produce valuable contributions to a
company. If not, as with other tangible assets, their value will depreciate. Hence,
companies have to provide appropriate professional development activities to their
employees.
Another central issue in KM is how to retain knowledge from being lost. This is
where the function of employee retention gains its significance in KM, particularly for
the SME sector. In order to retain employees to work for a company, it is important to
provide opportunities for them to grow and to advance their career. HR policies and
practices need to be designed to allow them to meet their personal aspirations (Brelade
and Harman, 2000). Equally important is to offer a conducive working environment in
which employees feel comfortable and to foster job satisfaction among them.
Empirical assessment of the CSFs
Aside from the theoretical justification of the proposed CSFs, an empirical evaluation
provided further support. Based on the comprehensive discussion above, all the factors
and their underlying issues and elements were carefully shaped into a survey
instrument. This was then used to empirically investigate the importance of the CSFs.
A group of academics, consultants and practitioners who had contributed to the KM
literature was randomly selected from pertinent KM journals to participate in the
survey. It is worth pointing out that all of the participants did not have a close
Critical success
factors
273
IMDS
105,3
274
connection with the author. As part of the survey, they were asked to assess the extent
of the instruments success in characterising those factors crucial for implementing KM
in the SME sector. Their perceptions were captured using a six-point Likert scale,
ranging from not successful at all to extremely successful. This scale was then
grouped into three levels poor, satisfactory, good. Poor comprised the not successful
at all and slightly successful scales; moderately successful and successful were
denoted satisfactory; and very successful and extremely successful were taken as
good.
The survey instruments were administered to 100 addressees, with follow-up letters
forwarded to those who had not replied within the given deadline. In total, 18 useable
replies were received (18 percent response rate), which was considered to be normal
and reasonable (Antony et al., 2002). Ten of the respondents identified themselves as
academics, six as consultants and five as practitioners (the total exceeds 18 because
some of them fitted into more than one category). All the respondents have been very
active in the KM discipline, for instance, writing articles for journals (100 percent),
giving presentations at conferences (88.9 percent), giving lectures on related topics
(83.3 percent), providing consultancy services (72.2 percent), conducting research (66.7
percent) and writing books (66.7 percent). As can be seen in Table III, all of them have
at least five years experience in the field and 50 percent of them have been involved for
at least 16 years. With these backgrounds and experience, it was felt that this group of
respondents certainly had the capability to assess the CSFs.
The distribution of responses from the participants is shown in Figure 1. Forty four
percent of the respondents rated the extent to which the proposed CSFs were
successful, as satisfactory. The corresponding result for good was 33 percent. Hence,
more than three quarters of the respondents endorsed the proposed CSFs as being at
least satisfactory for their intended purpose. The mean of the ratings revealed a value
close to the successful domain. This shows that on the average, the respondents
regarded the CSFs to have been successfully developed to reflect those aspects crucial
for adopting KM in the SME sector.
Conclusions
The effective implementation of KM is governed and facilitated by certain factors.
Organisations can certainly benefit from a more thorough understanding of the factors
that are critical to the success of KM. However, the adoption of factors which are not
suitable can impede the achievement of the desired performance. As such, considerable
care must be exerted in the development of CSFs for KM.
Range
Table III.
Years of involvement
in KM
5 or less
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26 or more
Total
Number of respondents
Percent
6
3
4
4
1
18
33.3
16.7
22.2
22.2
5.6
100.0
Critical success
factors
275
Figure 1.
Extent of success of the
CSFs
To date, CSFs for implementing KM in the SME sector have not been systematically
examined and investigated. Many of the existing studies have derived their set from a
large company perspective. Thus, they have not really been designed to meet the needs
of smaller companies. This study has proposed a set of 11 CSFs which is believed to be
more appropriate for SMEs. It has improved on initial studies by integrating insights
and ideas drawn from them as well as adding some new factors. In addition, an
empirical assessment was conducted to evaluate the extent of success of this
proposition. On the whole, the results were supportive, thus providing a preliminary
indication of the appropriateness of the proposed CSFs. In essence, this study is
probably the first to provide an integrative perspective of CSFs for implementing KM
in the SME sector.
The set of CSFs proposed is in itself important because it can act as a list of items for
SMEs to address and deal with when accomplishing KM. This helps to ensure that
essential issues and factors are covered when they are planning and developing KM.
At a later stage, it can also provide a basis for them to evaluate their KM practices. For
academics, it provides a common language for the discussion and study of the factors
underpinning the success of KM in SMEs. Essentially, this study can be employed as a
springboard for further empirical research. A survey which involved the group of
academics, consultants and practitioners as mentioned earlier, and a sample of SMEs,
was already conducted to further investigate and validate the CSFs. The findings and
results of this survey will be the subject of discussion in a future paper.
References
Abell, A. and Oxbrow, N. (1999), People who make knowledge management work: CKO, CKT, or
KT?, in Liebowitz, J. (Ed.), Knowledge Management Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Ahmed, P.K., Lim, K.K. and Zairi, M. (1999), Measurement practice for knowledge
management, Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, Vol. 11
No. 8, pp. 304-11.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), Review: knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 107-36.
IMDS
105,3
276
Antony, J., Leung, K., Knowles, G. and Gosh, S. (2002), Critical success factors of TQM
implementation in Hong Kong industries, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 551-66.
APQC (1999), Knowledge Management: Executive Summary, Consortium Benchmarking
Study Best-Practice Report, American Productivity & Quality Center, available at: www.
apqc.org (accessed 10 October 2003).
Arora, R. (2002), Implementing KM a balanced score card approach, Journal of Knowledge
Bhatt, G.D. (2000), Organizing knowledge in the knowledge development cycle, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 15-26.
Bontis, N. (2001), Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure
intellectual capital, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 41-60.
Brelade, S. and Harman, C. (2000), Using human resources to put knowledge to work,
Knowledge Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 26-9.
Buckman, R.H. (1998), Knowledge sharing at Buckman Labs, Journal of Business Strategy,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 11-15.
Chase, R.L. (1997), The knowledge-based organization: an international survey, Journal of
Chourides, P., Longbottom, D. and Murphy, W. (2003), Excellence in knowledge management:
an empirical study to identify critical factors and performance measures, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 29-45.
Cook, P. (1999), I heard it through the grapevine: making knowledge management work by
learning to share knowledge, skills and experience, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 101-5.
Davenport, T.H. and Volpel, S.C. (2001), The rise of knowledge towards attention management,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 212-21.
Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), Successful knowledge management
projects, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
de Gooijer, J. (2000), Designing a knowledge management performance framework, Journal of
Demarest, M. (1997), Understanding knowledge management, Journal of Long Range Planning,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 374-84.
Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (1999), Knowledge management(s), Journal of Knowledge
DeTienne, K.B. and Jackson, L.A. (2001), Knowledge management: understanding theory and
developing strategy, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Earl, M.J. and Scott, I.A. (1999), What is a chief knowledge officer?, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 29-38.
Finn, W. and Phillips, T. (2002), Know your assets, Director, Vol. 55 No. 11, pp. 80-4.
Frey, R.S. (2001), Knowledge management, proposal development, and small businesses, The
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 38-54.
Garavan, T.N., Gunnigle, P. and Morley, M. (2000), Contemporary HRD research: a triarchy of
theoretical perspectives and their prescriptions for HRD, Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 24 Nos. 2/3/4, pp. 65-93.
Goh, S.C. (2002), Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some
practice implications, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 23-30.
Grover, V. and Davenport, T.H. (2001), General perspectives on knowledge management:

fostering a research agenda, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 5-21.
Gupta, B., Iyer, L.S. and Aronson, J.E. (2000), Knowledge management: practices and
challenges, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 17-21.
Hasanali, F. (2002), Critical success factors of knowledge management, available at: www.
kmadvantage.com/docs/km_articles/Critical_Success_Factors_of_KM.pdf (accessed 20
November 2003).
Hauschild, S., Licht, T. and Stein, W. (2001), Creating a knowledge culture, The McKinsey
Quarterly, No. 1, pp. 74-81.
Herschel, R.T. and Nemati, H.R. (2000), Chief knowledge officer: critical success factors for
knowledge management, Information Strategy: The Executives Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 37-45.
Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. (2000), An investigation of factors that influence the
management of knowledge in organizations, Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
Vol. 9 Nos. 2/3, pp. 235-61.
Horak, B.J. (2001), Dealing with human factors and managing change in knowledge
management: a phased approach, Topics in Health Information Management, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 8-17.
Jarrar, Y.F. (2002), Knowledge management: learning for organisational experience,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 322-8.
Jeffcoate, J., Chappell, C. and Feindt, S. (2000), Attitudes towards process improvement among
SMEs involved in e-commerce, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 187-95.
Johannsen, C.G. (2000), Total quality management in a knowledge management perspective,
Journal of Documentation, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 42-54.
Jun, M. and Cai, S. (2003), Key obstacles to EDI success: from the US small manufacturing
companies perspective, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 192-203.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-9.
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: an integrative view and empirical examination, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-228.
Lee, S.M. and Hong, S. (2002), An enterprise-wide knowledge management system
infrastructure, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Lee, G.L. and Oakes, I. (1995), The pros and cons of total quality management for small firms
in manufacturing: aome experiences down the supply chain, Total Quality Management,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 413-26.
Liebowitz, J. (1999), Key ingredients to the success of an organizations knowledge management
strategy, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 37-40.
Liebowitz, J. and Suen, C.Y. (2000), Developing knowledge management metrics for measuring
intellectual capital, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Lim, D. and Klobas, J. (2000), Knowledge management in small enterprises, The Electronic
Library, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 420-33.
Luan, J. and Serban, A.M. (2002), Technologies, products, and models supporting knowledge
management, New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 113, pp. 85-104.
Critical success
factors
277
IMDS
105,3
278
McDermott, R. and ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge,

Maier, R. and Remus, U. (2002), Defining process-oriented knowledge management strategies,
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 103-18.
Manasco, B. (1996), Leading firms develop knowledge strategies, Knowledge Inc., Vol. 1 No. 6,
pp. 26-9.
Marshall, C., Prusak, L. and Shpillberg, D. (1997), Financial risk and the need for superior
knowledge management, in Prusak, L. (Ed.), Knowledge in Organizations,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
Martensson, M. (2000), A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool,
Motwani, J.G., Jiang, J.J. and Kumar, A. (1998), A comparative analysis of manufacturing
practices of small vs large West Michigan organizations, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 8-11.
Nissen, M., Kamel, M. and Sengupta, K. (2000), Integrated analysis and design of knowledge
systems and processes, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 24-43.
ODell, C., Wiig, K. and Odem, P. (1999), Benchmarking unveils emerging knowledge
management strategies, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 202-11.
OECD (2002), OECD Small and Medium Enterprise Outlook, Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, Paris.
Okunoye, A. and Karsten, H. (2002), Where the global needs the local: variation in enablers in
the knowledge management process, Journal of Global Information Technology
Pan, S.L. and Scarbrough, H. (1998), A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
Laboratories, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Ribiere, V.M. and Sitar, A.S. (2003), Critical role of leadership in nurturing a
knowledge-supporting culture, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Robertson, M. and Hammersley, G.O. (2000), Knowledge management practices within a
knowledge-intensive firm: the significance of the people management dimension, Journal
of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 Nos. 2/3/4, pp. 241-53.
Rockart, J.F. (1979), Chief executives define their own data needs, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality management, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-29.
Sharp, D. (2003), Knowledge management today: challenges and opportunities, Information
Systems Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 32-7.
Skyrme, D. and Amidon, D. (1997), The knowledge agenda, Journal of Knowledge
Soliman, F. and Spooner, K. (2000), Strategies for implementing knowledge management: role of
human resources management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 337-45.
Stonehouse, G.H. and Pemberton, J.D. (1999), Learning and knowledge management in the
intelligent organisation, Participation and Empowerment: An International Journal, Vol. 7
No. 5, pp. 131-44.
Storey, J. and Barnett, E. (2000), Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure,
Sveiby, K. (1997), The New Organization Wealth: Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based
Assets, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Truch, E. (2001), Managing personal knowledge: the key to tomorrows employability, Journal
of Change Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 102-5.
Trussler, S. (1998), The rules of the game, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 16-19.
Welsh, J.A. and White, J.F. (1981), A small business is not a little big business, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 18-33.
Wickert, A. and Herschel, R. (2001), Knowledge-management issues for smaller businesses,
Wong, K.Y. and Aspinwall, E. (2003), Is knowledge management equivalent to information
technology?, Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Knowledge Management,
Oxford University, Oxford, pp. 989-97.
Wong, W.L.P. and Radcliffe, D.F. (2000), The tacit nature of design knowledge, Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 493-512.
Yahya, S. and Goh, W.K. (2002), Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge
management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 457-68.
Zack, M.H. (1999), Developing a knowledge strategy, California Management Review, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 125-45.
Critical success
factors
279
This article has been cited by:

1. Mohamed Syazwan Ab Talib, Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid, Mohd Hafiz Zulfakar, JonathanA. J. Wilson.
2015. Halal supply chain critical success factors: A literature review. Journal of Islamic Marketing 6:1. .
[Abstract] [PDF]
2. Paula Savolainen, Jarmo J. Ahonen. 2015. Knowledge lost: Challenges in changing project manager
between sales and implementation in software projects. International Journal of Project Management 33,
92-102. [CrossRef]
3. Hellen Nanlohy, Azis Nur Bambang, Ambariyanto, Sahala Hutabarat. 2015. Coastal Communities
Knowledge Level on Climate Change as a Consideration in Mangrove Ecosystems Management in the
Kotania Bay, West Seram Regency. Procedia Environmental Sciences 23, 157-163. [CrossRef]
4. Kyeonghee Jang. 2014. Technology Could Be Harmful Rather Than Beneficial: An Empirical
Investigation of Caseworkers Perceptions Using a Knowledge Management Framework. Journal of Social
Service Research 1-23. [CrossRef]
5. Ralf Mller, Sofia Pemsel, Jingting Shao. 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and
governmentality of projects: A literature review. International Journal of Project Management 32,
1309-1320. [CrossRef]
6. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2014. Contextual factors affecting knowledge management diffusion in SMEs. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 114:9, 1415-1437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. I.O. Sanya, E.M. Shehab. 2014. A framework for developing engineering design ontologies within the
aerospace industry. International Journal of Production Research 1-27. [CrossRef]
8. Keng-Boon Ooi. 2014. TQM: A facilitator to enhance knowledge management? A structural analysis.
Expert Systems with Applications 41, 5167-5179. [CrossRef]
9. Peyman Akhavan, Mohammad Reza Zahedi, Seyed Hosein Hosein. 2014. A conceptual framework to
address barriers to knowledge management in project-based organizations. Education, Business and Society:
Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 7:2/3, 98-119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Carlos H. Caldas, Richard W. T. Elkington, James T. OConnor, Jung-Yeol Kim. 2014. Development of
a Method to Retain Experiential Knowledge in Capital Projects Organizations. Journal of Management
in Engineering 04014083. [CrossRef]
11. H.Y. Lam, G.T.S. Ho, C.H. Wu, K.L. Choy. 2014. Customer relationship mining system for effective
strategies formulation. Industrial Management & Data Systems 114:5, 711-733. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
12. Hsin-Pin Fu, Tien-Hsiang Chang, Cheng-Yuan Ku, Tsung-Sheng Chang, Cheng-Hsin Huang. 2014.
The critical success factors affecting the adoption of inter-organization systems by SMEs. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing 29:5, 400-416. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Carlos Ferreira Peralta, Maria Francisca Saldanha. 2014. Knowledge-centered culture and knowledge
sharing: the moderator role of trust propensity. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:3, 538-550.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Himanshu Joshi, Deepak Chawla, Jamal A. Farooquie. 2014. Segmenting knowledge management (KM)
practitioners and its relationship to performance variation some empirical evidence. Journal of Knowledge
Management 18:3, 469-493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Lucio Abimael Medrano Castillo, Edson Walmir Cazarini. 2014. Integrated model for implementation
and development of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 12, 145-160.
[CrossRef]
16. A.W.M.M. Atapattu, J.A.S.K. Jayakody. 2014. The interaction effect of organizational practices and
employee values on knowledge management (KM) success. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:2,
307-328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Mahdavi Mazdeh Mohammad, Hesamamiri Roozbeh. 2014. Knowledge management reliability and its
impact on organizational performance. Program 48:2, 102-126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Usman Ali, Callum Kidd. 2014. Barriers to effective configuration management application in a project
context: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management 32, 508-518. [CrossRef]
19. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2014. A multi-stage analysis of antecedents and consequences of knowledge management
evolution. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:1, 52-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Alain Yee-Loong Chong, Keng-Boon Ooi, Haijun Bao, Binshan Lin. 2014. Can e-business adoption be
influenced by knowledge management? An empirical analysis of Malaysian SMEs. Journal of Knowledge
21. M. Naghavi, A.H. Dastaviz, M. Jamshidy. 2014. The Mediating Role of Knowledge Management
Processes in the Development of Organizational Innovation in the Public Sector. Journal of Applied Sciences
14, 112-120. [CrossRef]
22. Eli Hustad, Thomas Vikstl. 2014. Implementing Intranet 2.0: A Study of Knowledge Requirements for
External Consultants in Enterprise Systems. Procedia Technology 16, 694-703. [CrossRef]
23. Morteza Shokri-Ghasabeh, Nicholas Chileshe. 2013. Knowledge management. Construction Innovation
14:1, 108-134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Norzalita A. Aziz, Nor Asiah Omar. 2013. Exploring the effect of Internet marketing orientation, Learning
Orientation and Market Orientation on innovativeness and performance: SME (exporters) perspectives.
Journal of Business Economics and Management 14, S257-S278. [CrossRef]
25. Fefie Dotsika, Keith Patrick. 2013. Collaborative KM for SMEs: a framework evaluation study. Information
Technology & People 26:4, 368-382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Yingxin Zhao, Yanqiu Lu, Xiangyang Wang. 2013. Organizational unlearning and organizational
relearning: a dynamic process of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management 17:6,
27. Hesamamiri Roozbeh, Mahdavi Mazdeh Mohammad, Jafari Mostafa. 2013. Measuring the reliability of
knowledge management. Aslib Proceedings 65:5, 484-502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Mehdi Shami Zanjani, Hossein Dabbagh, Roshanak Rouzbehani. 2013. Success of Public Knowledge
Management in the Light of the Rossian Ethics. Information Resources Management Journal 24:10.4018/
irmj.20110401, 61-75. [CrossRef]
29. Abdollah Ramezani, Mohammad Fathain, Ali Tajdin. 2013. Investigating critical success factors of
knowledge management in research organizations. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle
Eastern Issues 6:2, 101-115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Chuen Tse Kuah, Kuan Yew Wong, Manoj Kumar Tiwari. 2013. Knowledge sharing assessment: An
Ant Colony System based Data Envelopment Analysis approach. Expert Systems with Applications 40,
3137-3144. [CrossRef]
31. Ravi S. Sharma, Suman Bhattacharya. 2013. Knowledge dilemmas within organizations: Resolutions from
game theory. Knowledge-Based Systems 45, 100-113. [CrossRef]
32. Sharimllah Devi Ramachandran, SiongChoy Chong, KuanYew Wong. 2013. Knowledge management
practices and enablers in public universities: a gap analysis. Campus-Wide Information Systems 30:2, 76-94.
33. Usman Ali, Callum Kidd. 2013. Critical success factors for configuration management implementation.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 113:2, 250-264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. I. Cahyadi, J. Zeleznikow. 2013. Case Studies of Enterprise Resource Planning System Implementation
in Indonesian Small and Medium Enterprises: The Knowledge Transfer Evaluation. Journal of Advanced
Management Science 1:10.12720/joams.1.1, 136-141. [CrossRef]
35. Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj, Isola Ajiferuke. 2013. Knowledge Management Practices in the Nigerian
Telecommunications Industry. Knowledge and Process Management 20, 30-39. [CrossRef]
36. Lisa M. Given, Eric Forcier, Dinesh Rathi. 2013. Social media and community knowledge: An ideal
partnership for non-profit organizations. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 50:10.1002/meet.145.v50:1, 1-11. [CrossRef]
37. A. Anand, R. Kant, D. P. Patel, M. D. Singh. 2012. Knowledge Management Implementation: A
Predictive Model Using an Analytical Hierarchical Process. Journal of the Knowledge Economy . [CrossRef]
38. Hossein Gharehbiglo, Behnam Shadidizaji, Sohrab Yazdani, Roughayeh khandehzamin. 2012. The Survey
of Affecting Factors on Knowledge Management (Case Study: Municipality of the City of Rasht in Iran).
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 62, 1155-1163. [CrossRef]
39. Emad M. Kamhawi. 2012. Knowledge management fishbone: a standard framework of organizational
enablers. Journal of Knowledge Management 16:5, 808-828. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Gian Casimir, Karen Lee, Mark Loon. 2012. Knowledge sharing: influences of trust, commitment and
cost. Journal of Knowledge Management 16:5, 740-753. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Chuen Tse Kuah, Kuan Yew Wong, Wai Peng Wong. 2012. Monte Carlo Data Envelopment Analysis
with Genetic Algorithm for Knowledge Management performance measurement. Expert Systems with
Applications 39, 9348-9358. [CrossRef]
42. Giovanni Schiuma, Tatiana Andreeva, Aino Kianto. 2012. Does knowledge management really matter?
Linking knowledge management practices, competitiveness and economic performance. Journal of
Knowledge Management 16:4, 617-636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Cheng-Wu Chen, Min-Li Chang, Chun-Pin Tseng. 2012. Human factors of knowledge-sharing intention
among taiwanese enterprises: A model of hypotheses. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing
& Service Industries 22:10.1002/hfm.v22.4, 362-371. [CrossRef]
44. Chun-Pin Tseng, Min-Li Chang, Cheng-Wu Chen. 2012. Human factors of knowledge sharing intention
among taiwanese enterprises: a preliminary study. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing &
Service Industries 22:10.1002/hfm.v22.4, 328-339. [CrossRef]
45. Keng-Boon Ooi. 2012. The effectiveness of TQM: A stimulator for knowledge distribution?. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 23, 653-671. [CrossRef]
46. Carlos Macas Gelabert, Allan Aguilera Martinez. 2012. Contribucin de la gestin de recursos humanos
a la gestin del conocimiento. Estudios Gerenciales 28, 133-148. [CrossRef]
47. Leonor Cardoso, Andreia Meireles, Carlos Ferreira Peralta. 2012. Knowledge management and its critical
factors in social economy organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management 16:2, 267-284. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
48. Isabel Pinho, Armnio Rego, Miguel Pina e Cunha. 2012. Improving knowledge management processes: a
hybrid positive approach. Journal of Knowledge Management 16:2, 215-242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Keng-Boon Ooi, Weng-Choong Cheah, Binshan Lin, Pei-Lee Teh. 2012. TQM practices and knowledge
sharing: An empirical study of Malaysias manufacturing organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management
29, 59-78. [CrossRef]
50. Hyun Jung Kwon. 2012. Systems Design and Strategies Development for Knowledge Management
in Non-Governmental Organisations. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 11, 1250004.
[CrossRef]
51. Marco Marabelli, Sue Newell. 2012. Knowledge risks in organizational networks: The practice perspective.
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21, 18-30. [CrossRef]
52. Andreas Schroeder, David Pauleen, Sid Huff. 2012. KM governance: the mechanisms for guiding and
controlling KM programs. Journal of Knowledge Management 16:1, 3-21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Marta Mas Machuca, Carme Martnez Costa. 2012. A study of knowledge culture in the consulting
industry. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:1, 24-41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Simon C. H. Chan, Eric W. T. Ngai. 2012. Electronic Learning Systems in Hong Kong Business
Organizations: A Study of Early and Late Adopters. Journal of Education for Business 87, 170-177.
[CrossRef]
55. Georg von Krogh, Ikujiro Nonaka, Lise Rechsteiner. 2012. Leadership in Organizational Knowledge
Creation: A Review and Framework. Journal of Management Studies 49:10.1111/joms.2012.49.issue-1,
240-277. [CrossRef]
56. Silvia Massa, Stefania Testa. 2011. Knowledge domain and innovation behaviour. VINE 41:4, 483-504.
57. Wai Peng Wong, Kuan Yew Wong. 2011. Supply chain management, knowledge management capability,
and their linkages towards firm performance. Business Process Management Journal 17:6, 940-964.
58. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2011. The effects of employee motivation, social interaction, and knowledge management
strategy on KM implementation level. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9, 263-275. [CrossRef]
59. Asef Karimi, Iraj Malekmohamadi, Mahmoud Ahmadpour Daryani, Ahmad Rezvanfar. 2011. A
conceptual model of intrapreneurship in the Iranian agricultural extension organization. Journal of
European Industrial Training 35:7, 632-657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Chong Chin Wei, Chong Siong Choy, Gan Geok Chew. 2011. The KM processes in Malaysian SMEs:
an empirical validation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9, 185-196. [CrossRef]
61. Jasna Auer Antoncic, Bostjan Antoncic. 2011. Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth:
a model. Industrial Management & Data Systems 111:4, 589-607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. ngeles MontoroSnchez, Domingo Ribeiro Soriano, Anthony K.P. Wensley, Juan Gabriel Cegarra
Navarro, Gabriel CepedaCarrin, Antonio Genaro Leal Milln. 2011. How entrepreneurial actions
transform customer capital through time. International Journal of Manpower 32:1, 132-150. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
63. HsiuFen Lin. 2011. Antecedents of the stagebased knowledge management evolution. Journal of
Knowledge Management 15:1, 136-155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Changiz Valmohamma. 2010. Investigation and Assessment of Critical Success Factors of Knowledge
Management Implementation in Iranian Small-to-Medium Sized Enterprises. Journal of Applied Sciences
10, 2290-2296. [CrossRef]
65. Iftikhar Hussain, Shakeel Ahmed, Steven Si. 2010. Personal Knowledge Abilities and Knowledge
Management Success. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 09, 319-327. [CrossRef]
66. Mostafa Kazemi, Maral Zafar Allahyari. 2010. Defining a knowledge management conceptual model by
using MADM. Journal of Knowledge Management 14:6, 872-890. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Philippus Lodewikus Wessels. 2010. A Critical Learning Outcome Approach in Designing, Delivering
and Assessing the IT Knowledge Syllabus. Accounting Education 19, 439-456. [CrossRef]
68. G.T.S. Ho, K.L. Choy, S.H. Chung, C.H.Y. Lam. 2010. An examination of strategies under the financial
tsunami. Industrial Management & Data Systems 110:9, 1319-1336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. YING LIAO, PAUL HONG, S. SUBBA RAO. 2010. SUPPLY MANAGEMENT, SUPPLY
FLEXIBILITY AND PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF
MANUFACTURING FIRMS. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 6-22. [CrossRef]
70. Emad M. Kamhawi. 2010. The three tiers architecture of knowledge flow and management activities.
Information and Organization 20, 169-186. [CrossRef]
71. Seluk Perin. 2010. Use of analytic network process in selecting knowledge management strategies.
Management Research Review 33:5, 452-471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Elayne Coakes, A.D. Amar, Maria Luisa Granados. 2010. Knowledge management, strategy, and
technology: a global snapshot. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 23:3, 282-304. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
73. Juan Gabriel Cegarra Navarro, Frank W. Dewhurst, Steve Eldridge. 2010. Linking chief knowledge officers
with customer capital through knowledge management practices in the Spanish construction industry.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21, 389-404. [CrossRef]
74. Neda Khatibian, Tahmoores Hasan gholoi pour, Hasan Abedi Jafari. 2010. Measurement of knowledge
management maturity level within organizations. Business Strategy Series 11:1, 54-70. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
75. Marina Trkman, Peter Trkman. 2009. A wiki as intranet: a critical analysis using the Delone and McLean
model. Online Information Review 33:6, 1087-1102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Abbas Monnavarian, Mostafa Ashena. 2009. Intrapreneurship: the role of social capital empirical
evidence and proposal of a new model of intrapreneurship and its relationship with social capital. Business
Strategy Series 10:6, 383-399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Peyman Akhavan, Reza Hosnavi, Mohammad E. Sanjaghi. 2009. Identification of knowledge management
critical success factors in Iranian academic research centers. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary
Middle Eastern Issues 2:4, 276-288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Dr R. Glenn Richey Jr, Stephen Pettit, Anthony Beresford. 2009. Critical success factors in the context
of humanitarian aid supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
79. Mahmoud Migdadi. 2009. Knowledge management enablers and outcomes in the smallandmedium
sized enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems 109:6, 840-858. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
80. Zahid Majeed. 2009. A review of HR practices in knowledgeintensive firms and MNEs: 20002006.
Journal of European Industrial Training 33:5, 439-456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. Chin Wei Chong, Siong Choy Chong. 2009. Knowledge management process effectiveness: measurement
of preliminary knowledge management implementation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice
7, 142-151. [CrossRef]
82. Silvia Massa, Stefania Testa. 2009. A knowledge management approach to organizational competitive
advantage: Evidence from the food sector. European Management Journal 27, 129-141. [CrossRef]
83. KengBoon Ooi, PeiLee Teh, Alain YeeLoong Chong. 2009. Developing an integrated model of TQM
and HRM on KM activities. Management Research News 32:5, 477-490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Chong Chin Wei, Chong Siong Choy, Wong Kuan Yew. 2009. Is the Malaysian telecommunication
industry ready for knowledge management implementation?. Journal of Knowledge Management 13:1,
85. Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Anastasia Papazafeiropoulo, Kostas Metaxiotis. 2009. Exploring the rationales for
ERP and knowledge management integration in SMEs. Journal of Enterprise Information Management
22:1/2, 51-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
86. Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Anastasia Papazafeiropoulo, Kerstin Fink, Christian Ploder. 2009. Balanced system for
knowledge process management in SMEs. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 22:1/2, 36-50.
87. C. Hardcastle, C. S. Thomson, M. A. El-Haram. 2009. Managing knowledge of urban sustainability
assessment. Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering Sustainability 162, 35-43. [CrossRef]
88. M.S. Zanjani, F. Alami. 2009. Critical Success Factors of Communities of Practice in an Asian Leading
Educational Institute. Asian Journal of Information Management 3, 1-6. [CrossRef]
89. Rajesh K Pillania. 2008. Strategic issues in knowledge management in small and medium enterprises.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6, 334-338. [CrossRef]
90. Rajesh K. Pillania. 2008. Information technology strategy for knowledge management in Indian
automotive components SMEs. Knowledge and Process Management 15:10.1002/kpm.v15:3, 203-210.
[CrossRef]
91. Jo Rhodes, Richard Hung, Peter Lok, Bella YaHui Lien, ChiMin Wu. 2008. Factors influencing
organizational knowledge transfer: implication for corporate performance. Journal of Knowledge
92. Oscar M. Rodrguez-Elias, Ana I. Martnez-Garca, Aurora Vizcano, Jess Favela, Mario Piattini. 2008.
A framework to analyze information systems as knowledge flow facilitators. Information and Software
Technology 50, 481-498. [CrossRef]
93. ShuiYee Wong, KwaiSang Chin. 2007. Organizational innovation management. Industrial Management
& Data Systems 107:9, 1290-1315. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Chin Wei Chong, Siong Choy Chong, Kuan Yew Wong. 2007. Implementation of KM strategies in the
Malaysian telecommunication industry. VINE 37:4, 452-470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. ChinYen Lin, TsungHsien Kuo. 2007. The mediate effect of learning and knowledge on organizational
performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems 107:7, 1066-1083. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
96. Mostafa Jafari, Peyman Akhavan, Jalal Rezaee Nour, Mehdi N. Fesharaki. 2007. Knowledge management
in Iran aerospace industries: a study on critical factors. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology 79:4,
97. Harry K.H. Chow, K.L. Choy, W.B. Lee. 2007. Knowledge management approach in buildtoorder
supply chains. Industrial Management & Data Systems 107:6, 882-919. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
98. ABHIJEET K. DIGALWAR, KULDIP SINGH SANGWAN. 2007. DEVELOPMENT AND
VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR WORLD CLASS MANUFACTURING
PRACTICES IN INDIA. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems 06, 21-38. [CrossRef]
99. PingKit Lam, KwaiSang Chin, JianBo Yang, Weitao Liang. 2007. Selfassessment of conflict
management in clientsupplier collaborative new product development. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 107:5, 688-714. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
100. Bostjan Antoncic. 2007. Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation modeling study. Industrial
101. Mel Hudson Smith, Dave Smith. 2007. Implementing strategically aligned performance measurement in
small firms. International Journal of Production Economics 106, 393-408. [CrossRef]
102. Cengiz Kahraman, F. Tunc Bozbura. 2007. Knowledge management practices in Turkish SMEs. Journal
of Enterprise Information Management 20:2, 209-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
103. AbdulRashid AbdulAziz, Kim Zoo Lee. 2007. Knowledge management of foreign subsidiaries of
international oil and gas contracting companies. International Journal of Energy Sector Management 1:1,
104. Craig Standing, Andrew Guilfoyle, Chad Lin, Peter E.D. Love. 2006. The attribution of success and
failure in IT projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106:8, 1148-1165. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
105. Chong Chin Wei, Chong Siong Choy, Paul Heng Ping Yeow. 2006. KM implementation in Malaysian
telecommunication industry. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106:8, 1112-1132. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
106. Alexi Danchev. 2006. Social capital and sustainable behavior of the firm. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 106:7, 953-965. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
107. Chong Siong Choy, Wong Kuan Yew, Binshan Lin. 2006. Criteria for measuring KM performance
outcomes in organisations. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106:7, 917-936. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
108. Teresa L. Ju, ChiaYing Li, TienShiang Lee. 2006. A contingency model for knowledge management
capability and innovation. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106:6, 855-877. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
109. S.C.L. Koh, A. Gunasekaran. 2006. A knowledge management approach for managing uncertainty in
manufacturing. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106:4, 439-459. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
110. Teresa L. Ju, Binshan Lin, Chinho Lin, Hao-jung Kuo. 2006. TQM critical factors and KM value chain
activities. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 17, 373-393. [CrossRef]
111. N. Kathiravan, S.R. Devadasan, M. Muhammed Zakkeer. 2006. Quality improvement oriented training
and education programme and its financial accounting system. Industrial Management & Data Systems
112. S. Wadhwa, K.S. Bhoon, F.T.S. Chan. 2006. Postponement strategies through business process redesign
in automotive manufacturing. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106:3, 307-326. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
113. Vctor J. GarcaMorales, Francisco J. LlorensMontes, Antonio J. VerdJover. 2006. Antecedents and
consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in entrepreneurship. Industrial
114. WenShuan Tseng, Hang Nguyen, Jay Liebowitz, William Agresti. 2005. Distractions and motor vehicle
accidents. Industrial Management & Data Systems 105:9, 1188-1205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
115. Glenn E. Maples, Ronald B. Heady, Zhiwei Zhu. 2005. Parts remanufacturing in the oilfield industry.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 105:8, 1070-1083. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
116. Z.M. Ma. 2005. Engineering information modeling in databases: needs and constructions. Industrial
117. John SparrowKnowledge Management in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises 671-681. [CrossRef]
118. Kerstin FinkProcess Model for Knowledge Potential Measurement in SMEs 91-105. [CrossRef]
119. Kerstin Fink, Christian PloderKnowledge Management Toolkit for SMEs 49-63. [CrossRef]
120. Jamie OBrienLessons from the Private Sector 173-198. [CrossRef]
121. Chin Wei Chong, Siong Choy ChongPreliminary Knowledge Management Implementation in the Telco
Industry 265-280. [CrossRef]
122. Amani Shajera, Yousif Al-BastakiOrganisational Readiness for Knowledge Management 104-117.
[CrossRef]
123. Kerstin FinkProcess Model for Knowledge Potential Measurement in SMEs 553-567. [CrossRef]
124. Kamal Badr Abdalla Badr, Mohammad Nazir AhmadManaging Lessons Learned 224-245. [CrossRef]
125. Mehdi Shami Zanjani, Hossein Dabbagh, Roshanak RouzbehaniSuccess of Public Knowledge
Management in the Light of the Rossian Ethics 124-137. [CrossRef]
126. Salaheldin Ismail Salaheldin, Khurram Sharif, Maysarah Al AlamiUtilization of Project Management
Software in Qatari government Organizations 140-153. [CrossRef]
127. Ayotunde AdebayoKnowledge Management and Reverse Mentoring in the Nigerian Tertiary Institutions
200-215. [CrossRef]

Critical Success Factors For Implementing Knowledge Management in Small and Medium Enterprises 02635570510590101

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Success Factors For Implementing Knowledge Management in Small and Medium Enterprises 02635570510590101

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industrial Management & Data Systems

Downloaded by International Islamic University Malaysia At 15:51 09 February 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at