CHAPTER 5 PROCESS OF THE QUANTITATIVE STUDY
5.3 Formulating questions for the instrument
This process is the most crucial stage taking plaee before design of an actual questionnaire can he started. To achieve the objeetives (section 5.2), the developed questionnaire needs the ability to attain all relevant and useful information. This demands a set of questions that are precise and oriented to the context. Methods such as a literature review and exploring other successful questionnaires in related fields are generally used at this stage to gather topics and items for inelusion (Gillham, 2007).
According to Bryman and Bell (2007), there are various types of questions which could be classified into two main types: factual and attitudinal. Factual questions are those requesting a response eoncerning objective fact such as age, education and revenue. This type of question needs to be direct or specific to elicit an accurately measurable answer. In contrast, the attitudinal questions ask about respondents’ attitudes, beliefs or feelings. To allow relevant information to he exposed, a question should be posed appropriately with a
Chapter 5 - P rocess o f the quantitative study
suitable scale with regard to the nature of the variables concerned (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010). Looking at the eoneeptual framework proposed (Figure 5.2), it ean be noted that the framework relies on the four major constructs of KM process, KM enablers, KM system and innovation performance. The researcher intended to measure attitudinal responses, such as practice, implementation and utilisation, of a eompany in relation to these four main constructs. This might be due to the fact that, in an organisational context, the existence of these elements cannot be apart from awareness of actors in the eontext. Additionally, the level of its existence may vary from person to person. Therefore a self- rating scale was deployed to examine how strongly respondents agree or disagree with question items. In summary, the questionnaire was divided into two key parts. The first part comprises faetual questions aimed at obtaining factual data on characteristics of respondents and their companies, including, working position, working experience, business structure, number of employees and registered eapital, whereas the seeond part comprises attitudinal questions intended to measure respondents’ views about relevant aspects of the eonstructs being measured.
There are a number o f reflective measures that were reported in the literature on knowledge management (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Darroeh, 2003; Zack et a l, 2009). As this researeh was not intended to develop a new measurement scale, the questionnaire was established on the basis of related studies, henee the measuring items were developed from several previous studies. The following provides information about the measuring items of eaeh eonstruct and their sourees.
K M process
KM process is considered to be a set of knowledge relevant proeesses. As various models of KM process were introduced (Demarest, 1997; Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Bose 2004; Xu
et a l, 2010; Andreeva and Kianto, 2011), some knowledge processes have been eommonly
accepted and integrated into the models. In this researeh, the KM process was divided into three knowledge processes: creating, organising and applying. To measure these knowledge processes, Lawson’s knowledge management assessment instrument (KMAI) was adopted for use in this researeh for two main reasons. Firstly, it is a creditable measure as it has been appraised in terms of its reliability and validity and has been adopted by
C hapter 5 - P rocess o f the quantitative study
Mujtaba, 2007; Kangas, 2009; Ramachandran, 2009; Allameh et a l, 2011). Secondly, since the KMAI categorises KM process into 6 different processes (knowledge creation, capture, organisation, storage, dissemination and application), it seems to largely overlap with the proposed framework of this research. Therefore, some items were directly adopted from the KMAI, in particular 3 question items from the knowledge creation eategory and 3 question items from the knowledge application category. Furthermore, 3 question items were selected from the other categories to measure the proeess of organising knowledge. In summary, for this research the KM process is measured with one seale that relates to all 9 question items (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1: Measuring items of KM process and their sources o f origin
Creating knowledge |
1 My company encourages staff to create and acquire knowledge from various sources, e.g. employees, customers, business partners and competitors.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba (2007], Ramachandran (2009], Donate and Guadamillas (2011] 2 My company encourages staff to use the company’s existing knowledge or
lessons learned from previous projects.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba (2007], Ramachandran (2009] 3 My company encourages the exchange o f ideas and knowledge amongst staff
or groups.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba (2007], Ramachandran (2009]
I Organising knowledge |
4 My company responds to ideas/knowledge from employees and external sources, and documents them for further developm ent
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba (2007], Ramachandran (2009], OECD (2003] 5 My company has knowledge in a form that is readily accessible to staff who
need it.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba (2007], Ramachandran (2 0 0 9 ], OECD (2003] 6 My company regular holds internal lectures, conferences and training sessions
to share knowledge.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba (2007], Ramachandran (2 0 0 9 ], OECD (2003]
1 Applying knowledge |
7 My company applies knowledge to critical competitive needs and quickly links sources of knowledge in problem solving.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba (2007], Ramachandran (2009] 8 My company bas different methods for employees to apply their knowledge to
new situations.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba (2007], Ramachandran (2009] 9 My company has methods to analyse and critically evaluate knowledge for
future use.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba (2007], Ramachandran (2009]
KM enablers
In this research, measuring items regarding KM enablers were developed from a list of KM enablers revealed through the systematie review. Based on 23 distinct articles on KM enablers, various key enablers were identified within four influential dimensions. Building upon the literature, amendment in wording may be required as it can help to express the
Chapter 5 - P rocess o f the quantitative study
true meaning of each enahler and decrease possibilities of confusion in respondents. Finally, a set of 15 question items were included in this construct by grouping them into the four dimensions of managerial, corporate environment, process and infrastructure influences.
Table 5.2: Measuring items of KM enablers and their sources of origin
Managerial influence
1 Continuous support and encouragement from top management is clearly expressed.
McDonough III (2000), Hung et a/. (2005], Wong and Aspinwall (2005]
Managerial support
2 Commitment and determination in adoption of KM is clearly expressed.
Hung eta/. (2005], Chong (2006],
Commitment
3 Innovation/KM strategy has been aligned with core competencies and knowledge base.
Rehm aneta/. (2010] Strategic alignment
4 Impact o f KM on strategic goals is measured and evaluated. Wong and Aspinwall (2005] Benchmarking 5 The right incentives are provided to motivate employees to
participate in KM process.
Hung et a/. (2005], Wong and Aspinwall (2005]
Reward system
Corporate environment influence
6 A culture to support KM activities, such as openness, trust and transparency, is widely promoted.
McDonough III (2000], Hung et a/. (2005], Wong and Aspinwall (2005]
Supportive culture
7 Mechanisms to encourage knowledge workers, such as employee empowerment, open discussion, social interaction, collaboration and opportunities for networking, clearly exist.
McDonough III (2000], Hung et o/. (2005], Wong and Aspinwall (2005]
Supportive mechanism
8 An environment to support KM activities, such as place for sharing knowledge, physical events and collaboration infrastructure, is fully provided.
Hung eta/. (2005] Supportive activities
9 Supporting teams and specialist networks are established. Wong and Aspinwall (2005] Supporting team Process influence
10 Various knowledge practices, e.g. networking, community of practice (CoP), storytelling and mentoring, are used to support KM process.
du Plessis (2007], Alsadhan (2007]
Knowledge practices
11 Various knowledge channels, e.g. work groups, suppliers and customers, are used in KM process.
Davenport et a/. (1998], Chong (2006]
Knowledge channels
1 Infrastructure influence
12 Enabling technologies, such as information and communication technologies, are provided.
Hung et a/. (2005], Wong and Aspinwall (2005]
Technological resources 13 The usability of the information system, such as usefulness,
user-friendliness and enjoyment, is satisfactory.
Hung eta/. (2005], Wong and Aspinwall (2005]
Usability of technologies 14 Recruitment and training programmes are deployed
appropriately.
McDonough III (2000], Wong and Aspinwall (2005], Hung et a/. (2005]
Human resources
15 Sufficient budget and financial support is allocated for running KM activities.
C hapter 5 - P rocess o f the quantitative study
K M system
This construct aims to measure the level of KM system utilisation currently deployed in organisations. Two main aspects are generally adopted to classify the tools: theoretical and
practical. From the theoretical aspect, the tools will be analysed and their role in
supporting KM activities identified, whereas the practical aspect highlights the tools by focusing on their designed functions or the types of technology involved. In fact, various types of information technologies already possessed in a company are potential facilitating tools for KM process and KM enablers; however companies often do not recognise their supportive contribution (Rodriguez-Elias et al., 2008). This might be because they were initially developed for other purposes, such as enhancing business processes or decision making. For this reason, the practical aspect was used to devise measuring items for KM system. Principally, the question items in this construct were developed based on the KM tools classification of Alberghini et al. (2010) and further refined by reviewing other related literature, i.e. Rao (2005), Tyndale (2002), and Sher and Lee (2004). Then 5 question items were used for measuring the level of KM system utilisation by considering the following categories:
• IT infrastructure: referring to hardware tools that enable people to access knowledge whenever and wherever they need, such as Internet, intranet, video conferencing;
• Data storage and organising tools: referring to software tools that manage and assure the accessibility and availability of stored information;
• Collaboration tools: referring to hardware and software tools that satisfy the requirement of sharing information and knowledge, as well as working together; • Business-process _ support tools: referring to tools used for supporting specific
business functions, for example, human resources, procurements and customer relationship management; and
• Knowledge organising tools: referring to tools for knowledge workers that support business processes and human-centric processes, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP), directory of experts and decision support system.
Chapter 5 - Process o f the quantitative study
Table 5.3: Measuring items of KM system and their sources of origin
1 My company provides IT infrastructure for enabling people to access knowledge whenever and wherever they need.
Alberghini etal. (2010], Lopez e ta l (2009], Lee and Choi (2003]
IT infrastructure
2 My company provides data storage and organising tools for storage to assure the accessibility and availability o f stored information.
Alberghini e ta l (2010], Prieto e ta l (2007], Lee and Choi (2003]
Data storage and organising tools
3 My company provides collaboration tools that support information and knowledge sharing, and collaborative work, as well as communication among staff.
Alberghini etal. (2010], Prieto e ta l (2007], Lee and Choi (2003]
Collaboration tools
4 My company provides supportive tools for specific business functions, such as accounting system, supply chain management and customer relationship management
Alberghini e ta l (2010], Lopez e t a l(2009]
Business-process support tools
5 My company provides supportive tools for the use of an organisation’s knowledge bases, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP] and decision support systems.
Alberghini e ta l (2010] Knowledge organising tools
Innovation performance
Innovation is generally considered to be a process but is mostly measured on its outcomes as a proxy (Quintane et a l, 2011). For example, quantifiable information, sueh as the number of patents, the number of new products, the percentage of R&D expenditure or the growth of sales, are typieally used for acquiring measurable numerieal information. However, in some cases this might not be an appropriate way to express innovation performance of organisations, especially when incremental or process/service innovation dominates the organisational context. In addition to measuring KM process, Lawson’s instrument, the KMAI, also provides items for indicating the success of KM implementation (Chin-Loy and Mujtaba, 2007). The instrument is intended to assess organisational benefits from KM process in the aspects of competitive advantage, innovation and growth. Therefore the level of agreement on these aspects is inspected instead of other numerical outcomes, and 4 question items were used for measuring innovation performance (as presented in Table 5.4).
Chapter 5 - Process o f the quantitative study
Table 5.4: Measuring items of innovation performance and their sources of origin
1 My company has created many new business opportunities and adapted quickly to changes in the marketplace.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba [2007), Lee and Choi [2003)
2 My company is constantly using new knowledge to create new products and services to increase its competitive advantage.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba [2007), Donate and Guadamillas [2011) 3 My company has seen significant growth and usage in knowledge resources
[repositories, patents, publications).
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba [2007)
4 My company has increased revenues from products and services that were inspired by new knowledge.
Chin-Loy and Mujtaba [2007)