The concept of alignment in the KM field is complex as it addresses both KM and organizational strategies. The complexity of the organizational strategy is related to the market place uncertainty, market share, profit growth, customer retention, and competition (Bawany, 2001). KM is complex as it touches human behaviors, attitudes and capabilities, business philosophies, operations and practices, and complicated technologies (Wiig, 1997). Although some research has made an attempt to provide definitions for the KMSA alignment, Zack, (2002 a, b); Asoh, (2004); Abou-Zeid, (2003); Evans, (2003); Maier and Remus (2002), tended to focus on KMBS-SA as it is discussed in Section 2.7. Most of these definitions however have overlooked the alignment between KM and IS strategy, HR strategy and the organization's environmental elements.
The various perceptive of KM in addition to the fundamental complexity of the KMSA do necessitate the establishment of appropriate definitions for the KMSA alignment. The following points are noted:
- It has been mentioned in section 2.4 that there are three perspectives for the KMSA:
KMBS-SA, KMITIS-SA, and KM-HR management strategy. For each of these facets KMSA could imply different kinds of relationship such as supportive or integrated. The supportive relationship entails that KM strategy considered as a separate strategy that is supporting or is supported by the other strategies. Whereas the integrated
Thus, the definition for KMBS-SA may have a different perspective than that for the alignment between KM strategy and HRM strategy or IS strategy.
- There are numerous definitions which have been proposed for the concept of strategic alignment in the IS and strategic management literature as discussed in section 2.2. The section moreover, identified many terms for the concept alignment, such as "fit", "linkage", "coherent", "harmony", "fusion", and "synthesis". Each of these terms defined different perspectives of the alignment as it has been discussed in section 2.2. Consequently, to locate an appropriate definition for KMSA, there is a need to find which of the above terms best describes KMBS-SA and KMIS-SA.
The primary objective of this study as has mentioned in Chapter One is to investigate the alignment between KM strategy and both business strategy and IS strategy. By considering the above mentioned points, section 2.7 and section 2.8 will identify different definitions for KMBS-SA and KMISIT-SA respectively.
2.7. The alignment between knowledge strategy and business strategy (KMBS- SA)
This alignment has been extensively discussed and emphasized by academics and researchers in the KM and management disciplines (Zack, 1999b, 2002 a, b; Marier and Remus, 2002; Sabherwal and Sabherwal, 2003; Carrillo et al., 2003; Abou-Zeid, 2003; Asoh, 2004; Snyman and Kruger, 2004). The literatures have identified different perspectives for the alignment between KM and business strategy according to the role
played by knowledge and their strategies in formulating the business strategy and which of (business or KM strategies) them are built upon the others.
Asoh (2004) and Snyman and Kruger (2004) for instance, believed that business strategy and KM strategy should feed upon each other and need to work interdependently. Tiwana (2002) states that "Knowledge drives strategy and strategy drives knowledge management", and, "without a clearly articulated link between knowledge management and business strategy, even the world's best KM system will deliver nothing." Civi (2000) contended that the organization's competitive strategy must drive KM strategy, and KM strategy, on the other hand should reflect its competitive strategy. Dunnick (1996), Snyman and Kruger (2004), and Jones (2000) moreover, declare that the knowledge- based strategies begin with strategy, not knowledge. Jones (2000) statedthat knowledge- based strategy requires the organization first understand the business needs, in term of technical, human and structural aspects, as bad choices or decision hurt the organizational productivity. Thus in order to formulate a KM strategy, the Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) needs to be fully conversant with all aspects of the business strategy. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), however, should be able to articulate the organization knowledge-related activities with the organization strategic activities and strategic plan. This perception of KMSA revealed that KM must support business strategy, which means that there are two separate strategies, one for business and the other for KM. In this case, the term linkage and coherent can be used to describe KMBS-SA. Therefore, the alignment can be defined as the degree to which the KM missions, objectives, and plans supported and are supported by business mission, objective and plans.
Alternately, Evans (2003) argued that the management of knowledge becomes an integral part of the organizational strategies. Thus, the organization will have one integrated strategy that is changing according to its internal and external environmental changes. Maier and Remus (2002) stated that KM is either integrated within the overall business strategy or treated as a separate business strategy in parallel with other strategies. Thus, they declared that KM and BS should be one strategy and not separated strategies. In this case, KM needs to be in harmony with business strategy. Fusion or harmony is the suitable terms to describe the relationship between KM and business strategy in which there should be a unity between organizational strategies and KM strategy.
Based on the above discussion and despite the different perspectives of the KMBS-SA, for the purpose of the current study the following definition was identified for KMBS- SA:
The degree to which knowledge resources and capabilities provided by the knowledge strategy, is supporting and supported by the strategic and intellectual requirements of the business strategy in order to manage the strategic and knowledge gap.
The impact of KMBA-SA on the performance and the organization competitive advantage have been revealed by many researchers (Zack, 2002 b; Stewart et al., 2000; Snyman and Kruger, 2004; Tiwana, 2002; Maier and Remus, 2002; Seeley, 2002). Intuitively, it makes sense that the organization that knows more about its customers, products, technologies, markets, and optimizing the synergy between them should
perform better. Nevertheless, in order to gain competitive knowledge, organizations need to be able to enhance what they know and predicate what they must know and to recognize the kind of value it intends to provide and to whom. Thus an organization needs to capitalize on what they know and need to align their strategic goals and the strategies of KM (Snyman and Kruger, 2004). Dunnick (1996) argued that the existing objectives set by the organization for serving customers and beating competitors needs to be linked to the new organizational intellectual capital (intellectual resources and capabilities), otherwise all the organizational learning, technical capabilities and skills, or knowledge-based processes are "mere costly diversions".
Hansen, et al. (1999) however, drew attention to the importance of the alignment between business strategy and the strategies of KM at both the strategic and operational strategic levels. While at the strategic level the alignment between KM and business strategy or KMBS-SA is vital for enhancing the strategic decision making processes, the organization needs to practice effective operational KM to ensure that it brings all the required knowledge to execute their strategies (Hansen, et al., 1999). Furthermore, the organization’s fundamental capabilities relating to its culture, technology and system, and management needs to be supported and leveraged by the knowledge assets (Hasan and Handzic, 2003). An empirical study conducted by Liu et al. (2005) on the correlation between the KM methods and new product development revealed that the integration of the internal and external knowledge in the organization and in maintaining good management will lead to a positive effect on new product development performance. Therefore, it can be concluded that the organization's strategic context is essential for
identifying the KM initiatives that support the organization purpose or mission, strengthen its competitive position and create shareholder value (Zack, 2002; Tiwana, 2002; Hansen et al., 1999, Snyman and Kruger, 2004).
Unfortunately, KMBS-SA, while often talked about, has been widely ignored in practice (Zack, 2002b). Zack (2002c) state that "while many of the organizations recognize the importance of developing a strategic rationale for investing in knowledge creation and exploitation, they continue to be, for the most part, are driven by focus on short-term, first-order outcomes rather than by broader, longer term strategic goals".