Critical Success Factors for KM: Presented to KM Chicago

TOWARD A FRAMEWORK OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTPresented to KM Chicago

Curtis A. Conley02.07.12

Agenda

Background of Study Overview of the Study Findings Implications

2

Introduction 3

Curtis Conley Ed.D. curtisconley.com

Northern Illinois University

Deloitte Consulting

Introduction

4

Background of study

5

Background

Given limited time and resources, how do you maximize the possibility of success for your knowledge management effort?

6

Background

Given limited time and resources, how do you maximize the possibility of success for your knowledge management effort?

7

“CSFs are the limited number of areas in which satisfactory results will ensure successful competitive performance for the individual, department or organization.” (Bullen & Rockart, 1981)

Background

VS

Top 10 lists are easily digestible, but not always appropriate

Background

Other approaches to CSFs? Lists of CSFs Ranked/Ordered lists of CSFs Grouping of factors (by type, area, etc.) CSFs by implementation stage Interrelationships of CSFs

While CSF approach to KM offers insight, more study needed The study offers a deeper dive into CSFs for KM Final product a framework that re-imagines list approach to CSFs for KM

Background

Issues with a CSF approach to KM Context of study ignored, overgeneralized results Studies often theoretically derived Conclude with a limited list of factors, arbitrary numbers of factors Ignore external environment

The study

11

Research Questions & Hypotheses

1. Based on existing literature, what would a framework of integrated CSFs for KM look like?a. How do KM scholars and practitioners gauge the completeness,

accuracy, clarity, and conciseness of the framework developed by this study?

b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives?

12

Research Questions & Hypotheses

2. What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM identified by participants with varying backgrounds?

H1: Industry Background of the participantsH2: Internal / External focus of participantH3: Organization sizeH4: Participant being either a scholar or practitionerH5: Geographic location of participants

13

Method

Survey research method, correlational design Frequency and descriptive statistics Kruskal-Wallis independent-samples tests Nonparametric independent sample tests Thematic analysis for open-ended questions

One survey instrument, three components

14

Survey Instrument

Identify participant background

Participants rate/rank CSFs for KM

Framework effectiveness

1

2

3 Adapted from Holsapple and Joshi (2000)

Participants

Stratified sampling, two sampling frames established KM scholars & KM practitioners

Accessible population KM scholars: 716 individuals KM practitioners: estimated ~5,000 individuals

Response rate KM scholars: 67 (12.5%) KM practitioners: 187 (4.7%)

15

44 Factors• Effective monitoring, control, and measurement• Training and Education• Clear Goals and Objectives• Knowledge Strategy• Link to Corporate/Business Strategy • Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value• KM Champion• User/Client Acceptance and Commitment• Motivation• Ability to Delegate Authority• Ability to Trade-off• Ability to Coordinate • Perception of his/her role and responsibilities• Effective Leadership• Having Relevant Past Experience• Change Management Skills • Commitment• Trust• Education • Strategy and Objective Setting• Full-time / Dedicated Staff• KM Background

16• Trouble Shooting • Monitoring and Feedback • Commitment • Trust • Knowledge Sharing Processes and Culture• Technology Infrastructure• Top Management Support• Organizational Structure and Culture• Systematic Processes• Knowledge Creation and Innovation• Transfer of Knowledge/Information• Knowledge Infrastructure• Competition• Fashion • Markets • Technology • Time • Governmental Climate • Economic Climate• Political Climate • Social Climate• Educational Climate

Factor groups

Factors related to the KM Initiative: • Effective monitoring, control, and measurement• Training and Education• Clear Goals and Objectives• Knowledge Strategy• Link to Corporate/Business Strategy • Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value• KM Champion• User/Client Acceptance and Commitment• Motivation

Factors related to the KM Manager/Leadership: • Ability to Delegate Authority• Ability to Trade-off• Ability to Coordinate • Perception of his/her role and responsibilities• Effective Leadership• Having Relevant Past Experience• Change Management Skills • Commitment• Trust• Education • Strategy and Objective Setting

17

Factors related to the KM Team Members: • Full-time / Dedicated Staff• KM Background• Trouble Shooting • Monitoring and Feedback • Commitment • Trust

Factors related to the Organization: • Knowledge Sharing Processes and Culture• Technology Infrastructure• Top Management Support• Organizational Structure and Culture• Systematic Processes• Knowledge Creation and Innovation• Transfer of Knowledge/Information• Knowledge Infrastructure

Factors related to the Environment: • Competition• Fashion • Markets • Technology • Time • Governmental Climate • Economic Climate• Political Climate • Social Climate• Educational Climate

Proposed framework

1. Based on existing literature, what would a framework of integrated CSFs for KM look like?

18

Findings

19

Findings 20

1a. How do KM scholars and practitioners gauge the completeness, accuracy, clarity, & conciseness of the framework developed by this study?

No statistically significant difference found between groups Participants identified +87 additional factors (bringing the total to 131 possible

CSFs) Factors characterized as too general, not enough description Mixed results on conciseness, equal number say too complex/simple Clearly presents, but lacks visual for factor interactions

Framework Effectiveness Measures Mean SDKM Scholars Identifies 3.2000 .60506 Accurately Characterizes 3.1833 .59636 Clearly Presents and Describes 3.1695 .62014 Concisely Presents 3.2000 .65871

KM Practitioners Identifies 3.1686 .60268 Accurately Characterizes 3.0706 .63036 Clearly Presents and Describes 3.0899 .62238 Concisely Presents 3.0756 .62134Mean scale ranges from 1 to 4 (1 = Very Unsuccessful, 2 = Unsuccessful, 3 = Successful, 4 = Very Successful)

Findings 21

1b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives?

Critical Success Factors Z Sig. Factors Related to the KM Initiative Link to Corporate / Business Strategy -3.317 .001 KM Champion -2.876 .004 Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader Ability to Trade-off -2.147 .032 Effective Leadership -3.444 .001 Change Management Skills -2.645 .008 Education -2.099 .036 Factors Related to the KM Team Members Full-time / Dedicated Staff -2.161 .031 Factors Related to the External Environment Governmental Climate -2.115 .034 Political Climate -2.106 .035 Educational Climate -3.138 .002

Critical Success Factors Z Sig.Factors Related to the KM Initiative Effective Monitoring, Control, and Measurement -2.268 .023 Link to Corporate / Business Strategy -2.167 .030

Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader Ability to Delegate Authority -2.238 .025 Change Management Skills -2.582 .010 Trust -3.173 .002 Education -2.437 .015 Strategy and Objective Setting -2.520 .012

Factors Related to the KM Team Members KM Background -3.087 .002 Other -2.211 .027

Factors Related to the Organization Top Management Support -2.539 .011

Factors Related to the External Environment Technology -2.592 .010 Time -2.073 .038 Political Climate -2.100 .036 Educational Climate -2.538 .010

Significant Differences of CSFs for KM Ranked by Participants Significant Differences of CSFs for KM Rated by Participants

Findings 22

1b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives?

CSF Categories Rated by Participants

Critical Success Factors Scholars PractitionersMean SD Mean SD

Factors Related to the External Environment 3.6418 1.67605 4.0267 1.57068Factors Related to the KM Initiative 2.9701 1.49717 2.5668 1.19568Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader 2.8955 1.24480 2.6310 1.19033Factors Related to the KM Team Members 2.8358 1.12273 3.3155 .97381Factors Related to the Organization 2.6567 1.30909 2.4599 1.41886

Mean scale ranges from 1 to 4 (1 = Very Unimportant, 2 = Unimportant, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important)

Findings


Results:

23

H1: Industry H2: Internal / External

H3: Org Size H4: Scholar / Practitioner

H5: Geography

Yes

Hypotheses

Supported?

Findings


Results:

24



H5: Geography

Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Hypotheses

Supported?

Findings

H1: Industry Background of the participants

Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level among groups for six different CSFs (Appendix M)

25

Supported

Groups

Academia Construction Consulting Information Systems Legal Manufacturing

Critical Success Factors

Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value Ability to Coordinate Change Management Skills Governmental Climate Social Climate Educational Climate

Findings

H2: Internal / External focus of participant

Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level between groups for three different CSFs

26

Supported

Variable Between Groups Mean Rank Z Sig.Trust (KM Manager / Leader)

Internal KM Initiatives and Combination of Internal & External KM Initiatives

102.20 / 120.46 -2.555 .011

Markets Internal KM Initiatives and Combination of Internal & External KM Initiatives

99.66 / 122.81 -2.857 .004

Social Climate Internal KM Initiatives and Combination of Internal & External KM Initiatives

99.50 / 116.15 -2.086 .037

External KM Initiatives and Combination of Internal & External KM Initiatives

49.88 / 66.96 -2.412 .016

Findings

H3: Organization size

No statistically significant differences identified based on org size

27

Not supported

Findings

H4: Participant being either a scholar or practitioner

As discussed in response to research question 1b Significant differences found between groups for both rating & ranking

28

Supported

Findings

H5: Geographic location of participants

Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level between groups for seven different CSFs

29

Supported

Groups

Asia Combination Central/South America Europe North America Oceania

Critical Success Factors

Effective Monitoring, Control and Measurement Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value KM Champion KM Background Knowledge Infrastructure Technology Social Climate

Findings

Organizational Reality Bias The grass is always greener?

30

Findings

Organizational Reality Bias The grass is always greener? In 3 CSF categories, low perceived org reality group rated CSFs lower

31

KM Team Members

Trouble Shooting Commitment Trust

Organizational

Technology Infrastructure Knowledge Creation & Innovation Transfer of Knowledge/Information Knowledge Infrastructure

External Environment

Competition Fashion

Implications


Lists or “top” CSFs for KM should not be treated as static CSFs for KM are context dependent, support Savary’s (1999) assertion Wong’s (2005) suggestion of org size as influencer not supported Mason’s (2003) assertion of North American bias supported 16 of 27 differences between groups, North America vs. others Key issue, may lead to improper focus for practitioners outside of North America

32



H5: Geography

Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Hypotheses

Supported?

Implications

Organizational Reality Bias Participants who perceive their org as effective at something, likely to view

it as important; vice versa Potential positive bias

33

Implications

Framework of CSFs for KM Initial framework proposed a synthesis of existing literature While well received by participants, updated to reflect study implications New framework of CSFs for KM should:

reflect reality of contextual influence (participant background factors) be capable of producing unique list of factors based on individual

34

Implications

Framework of CSFs for KM

35

Findings

Findings

“I realize that a list of top factors isn’t all that helpful… but… what are the top factors that you found?”

37

Findings 38

KM Initiative

1. Link to corporate/business strategy2. Clear goals and objectives3. KM Champion

KM Team

1. Commitment2. Trust3. Full-time/dedicated staff

Organization

1. Knowledge sharing processes/culture2. Top management support3. Transfer of knowledge/information

KM Manager/Leader

1. Effective leadership2. Change management skills3. Commitment

External Environment

1. Competition2. Technology3. Time

Top 3 factors in each CSF grouping

Contributions

To Research Integrates concepts from other literature bases dealing w/ CSFs Validated components of a framework of CSFs for KM Uncovered contextual differences influencing importance of CSFs Proposed revised framework of CSFs for KM that would overcome

criticisms of CSF approach identified in review of literature Identified potential for org reality to bias participant responses

To Practice Identifying contextual differences will help practitioners focus on factors

that apply more specifically to their background Participants suggested tool could be used as tool for guiding KM

initiative, or used in strategic planning Framework can be used as a benchmark or audit tool, allowing

practitioners to identify CSFs that they could improve

39

Limitations

Sample size While every attempt was made to obtain a large sample size, some

groups not adequately represented in study

Type of initiative This study focused on CSFs for KM as they apply to formal KM initiatives “Stealth” or non-formalized KM initiatives may have different CSFs

North American bias CSFs identified drew heavily from North American publications A North American bias may be present in CSFs identified

40

Future Research

Framework of CSFs for KM Future studies should conduct case studies in organizations that have

implemented a KM initiative, comparing level of success with how KM practitioners perceive they match up against list of CSFs for KM that match their org. background.

Investigate North American bias Future research should study the similarities and differences of CSFs for

KM by geographic region. Gaining a better understanding of KM outside of North America would be valuable to both research and practice.

Move beyond lists Future studies should investigate the interrelationships and interactions

among factors. Understanding what factors are critical is important, but how those factors interact may provide additional insight into successful KM practices.

41

Questions

42