Decision Making in Choosing Knowledge Management Systems: an

Empirical Study in Jordan

Cricelli, L., Grimaldi, M., Hanandi, M. (2014) "Decision making in choosing information systems: An empirical study in Jordan", VINE, 44(2), 162 – 184.

Structured Abstract

Purpose: The paper aims at proposing a framework to support decision makers in the choice of a Knowledge Management System, by taking into consideration the factors and perspectives which influence the choice.

Design/methodology/approach: The framework has been built on a hierarchical structure, where selection criteria sub-criteria are defined and compared, and where alternatives are established and evaluated according to the software market trends. The application of the framework to an empirical study in two leading organizations in Jordan is provided as a validation of the proposed framework.

Findings: The paper presents and applies a methodological framework, based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process approach, to support decision makers in the choice and in the implementation of a Knowledge Management System.

Research limitations/implications: Future research could address the implementation of the framework within a selected industry, by identifying some organizations. In this way, the framework could be useful to make a comparison among the choices of more organizations.

Originality/value: This innovative framework can be practicably implemented in every business context, since criteria and sub-criteria cover most of the needs of any organization. It can therefore be considered as a holistic approach for supporting decision makers in the selection process of a Knowledge Management System.

Keywords: Decision support, Knowledge management system, Knowledge management, IT systems, Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Article Classification: Research paper

Decision Making in Choosing Knowledge Management Systems: an

Empirical Study in Jordan

Introduction

Knowledge management (KM) has become a highly prominent topic both in the

literature and in practice. Knowledge has assumed the role of a strategic resource in

companies striving for competitive advantage (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Zack,

1999; Skyrme, 2000; Tiwana, 2000). Sarvary (1999) and Wiig (1997) refer to

knowledge as information stored in the minds of individuals, related to facts,

procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations and/or judgments.

However, this definition encompasses not only the knowledge contained in

individuals' minds, but also the information inside organizational networks (Hendriks,

1999; Chen and Huang, 2011). As a consequence, information and communication

technology (ICT) is an essential tool for organizations to be able to store and share

knowledge effectively.

Today, companies competing on a global scale need to manage this knowledge

efficiently in order to succeed. In a survey conducted by Murray (1999) it was reported

that 50% of the Fortune 500 companies plan to invest in KM systems (KMS), with

rising percentages in companies with over 500 employees. These numbers are an

indicator for those market, where investments in KM are growing and where precise

plans are being developed to provide managerial guidelines on how to make knowledge

available within organizations (Salisbury, 2003). In continuation of past policies, the

current success of an organization is strictly connected with the integration of the right

system to manage the organizational knowledge (Chang et al., 2012). The challenges

facing enterprises consist of codifying, sharing and applying this knowledge within their

environment in such a way that will benefit the organization. Since the development of

firms‘ intangible assets is strictly related to their competitive strategy, and the adopted

strategy reflects managerial decisions on how to respond to external contexts (Zack,

1999), managers‘ perceptions should shape knowledge resources and be valued as

intangible assets in the organization (Lee and Chen, 2011).

Thus, selecting the most appropriate KMS is not an easy task. Most companies

failed in their KM initiatives by being technology-driven organizations, implementing a

KMS and then trying to find a business process that could adopt it (Wild and Griggs,

2008; Salim et al., 2009). It is therefore important to define all the required business

processes as a first step, by means of a strategic management approach, prior to the

implementation of the KMS (Evanschitzky et al., 2007). In this way, criteria are

defined, which facilitate the choice of appropriate KMS. Strategic considerations by

managers have proven to be of the utmost importance in choosing a KMS. The

experience of company managers and their acquaintance with the context in which the

KMS will be utilized correspond with the achievement of the mission and goals

established by the business strategies. The present paper considers the following

research questions that managers face in choosing the most appropriate and suitable

KMS:

How should organizations choose the most suitable KMS for their business?

Which factor should be assigned the highest priority: application, cost reduction,

knowledge impact, or stakeholder satisfaction?

In what ways can KMS be assessed easily and effectively in the global market?

Most of the literature to date has addressed these questions by evaluating only

one or two KMSs (Ngai and Chan, 2005; Chen et al, 2007; Kreng and Chao, 2007).

Therefore, the research presented here aims to fill the gap in the literature with a

comprehensive study of the most widespread KMSs from the software market. A

methodological framework is proposed, which adopts a multi-criteria approach to

analyzing and comparing KMSs, based on pair-wise comparisons among several criteria

that affect the selection process of a suitable KMS. The proposed framework is applied

to an empirical study aiming to support managers (decision makers) in two leading

organizations in Jordan to evaluate, compare and choose the most suitable KMS.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the existing literature

regarding KM, KMS, KMS selection processes and factors, and the analytic hierarchy

process (AHP) approach; Section 3 illustrates the AHP building processes by defining

the criteria, the sub-criteria and the alternatives within the hierarchical structure; the

empirical study is described in Section 4, focusing on KMS selection in Jordanian

organizations; the results of the study are presented and discussed in section 5;

conclusions are drawn in Section 6.

Literature review

Knowledge Management

There are several global definitions of KM. The majority refers to a set of

processes related to the ability of organizations to create, acquire, store, maintain and

spread their knowledge. KM has been studied from different points of view and with a

variety of approaches. One of the most relevant definitions of KM describes it as a

process of continually managing knowledge of all kinds with the purposes of meeting

existing and emerging needs, identifying and exploiting existing and acquired

knowledge assets, and developing new opportunities (Quintas et al., 1997). Moreover,

Ives et al. (1998) introduced KM as the effort to make the knowledge of an organization

available to those within the organization when needed, where needed, and in the

correct form, in order to increase human and organizational performance. In addition to

this, Rao (2005) points out that KM can be defined as a systematic discipline and set of

approaches which enable information and knowledge to grow, flow and generate value

in an organization. In fact, KM seeks to create, collect and convert individuals‘

knowledge in a manner that is of value to the organization (Nonaka, 1998; Evanschitzky

et al., 2007). Moreover, thanks to the variety of information technology (IT) tools and

systems capable of storing incredible amounts of information, it is possible to make

information and knowledge circulate more efficiently (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). As a

consequence, KM is increasingly seen as a guiding force inside the organization,

developing and creating organic and holistic approaches to understanding the usefulness

and the key role of knowledge processes. According to Rasmus (2002), successful KM

organizations share certain characteristics, ranging from technology infrastructure to a

strong belief in the value of knowledge sharing and collaboration. Summing up, KM

can be analysed in terms of socialization, codification, and collaboration (Alberghini et

al., 2013).

Knowledge management Systems

ICT makes an important contribution to the success of KM, since it facilitates

many of the technology and people-based activities. However, it is important to

underline that technology is simply a useful helping hand, rather than the solution to all

KM problems. KMSs are systematic approaches to the managing of organizational

knowledge through ICT. KMSs include intranets, document and content management

systems, workflow management systems, business intelligence tools, visualization tools,

groupware and e-learning systems. According to Alavi and Leidner (2001), these

technologies support and enhance the primary organizational processes of knowledge

generation, codification, sharing and implementation. With regard to this, IT literature

has contributed greatly to the field of KM. The spread of ICT has increased the ability

of firms to store, share and generate knowledge, accelerating the emergence of a new

economic, organizational and technological context referred to as the knowledge-based

economy (Schwartz et al., 1999). In order to reach a competitive position, it is worth

understanding how value creation processes and business goals can be implemented and

combined (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Hanson, 1999). The mere availability of

innovative technology does not always imply an effective KM. According to Bloodgood

and Salisbury (2001), IT applications enable firms to have a simple selection and

internalization process of their knowledge. In addition to this, business policies and

practices are fostered by the strategic integration of IT tools, business processes and

intellectual capital (Carayannis, 1999).

KMS integrates an extensive range of tools depending on its characteristics

(Reyes and Raisinghani, 2002). The goal of KMS is not to manage all the existing

knowledge inside the organization, but to manage the knowledge needed by people

within the organization, in order to help them in achieving their expected benefits (Kou

and Lee, 2009; Kou et al., 2011). To do this, it is necessary to manage the right

information and make it readily available to the right people at the right time, as well as

helping people to create, store and share knowledge inside the organization in ways that

lead to improved individual and organizational performance (Bose, 2004). The power of

KMS lies in enhancing the ability of employees to create value-added knowledge and to

increase their company‘s intellectual asset. In the light of the SECI model (socialization,

externalization, combination, internalization), the major objective of the system is to

transform tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, and vice versa (Nonaka and Takeuchi,

1995).

KMS selection factors and processes

When an organization aims to implement a KMS, several factors and different

perspectives must be taken into consideration (Mertins, et al., 2003; Jafari et al., 2008;

Khalifa et al., 2008; Sharma and Djiaw, 2011; Chang et al., 2012). One of these

perspectives concerns the application of the system. It regards the necessity of

evaluating the technical side and analyzing the software or hardware specifications. It is

also important to consider the cost factor and the economic perspective in general. The

available budget reserved for purchasing a KMS includes maintenance, long term

operating expenses and costs for user training (Davis and Williams, 1994; Storey and

Barnett 2000; Bhatt 2001).

Moreover, another factor refers to knowledge impact. Technological

applications play a fundamental role in facilitating the processes of knowledge

generation, storage, sharing and application. It is important to assess how the

environmental opportunities can be exploited, by means of the main KM processes (Lee

and Kim, 2001; Tyndale, 2002; Grimaldi and Cricelli, 2009; Capece et al., 2012). One

final aspect to be taken into account is the stakeholder‘s satisfaction and the knowledge-

based partnership with stakeholders (Cricelli and Grimaldi, 2010; Mainardes et al.,

2011) in terms of customer impact, employees in terms of human resource development

(Davenport, 1995), and shareholder perspective in terms of profit (Sarvary, 1999).

In addition, to choosing the most appropriate KMS, there are some additional

steps to follow (Jafari et al., 2008; Wild and Griggs, 2008). Firstly, it is necessary to

collect and analyze the business activities that the system is going to serve. Secondly,

after having specified the company‘s business activities, the analysis should focus on

the future needs and expectations from the KMS. The result of the analysis should

indicate the most important features and the general set-up of the selected KMS.

Thirdly, the appropriate KMSs that meet the criteria resulting from the previous

analyses should be identified. At this stage, a list of all of the possible KMSs that could

be purchased and shortlisted as considerable alternatives should be provided.

However, it is possible that the software market is not able to provide a solution

that meets all the company‘s expectations. In this scenario, the company might choose

the most appropriate KMS by evaluating to what extent it satisfies their requirements

and by considering the importance of their expectations. The decision-making process

can be supported by multi-criteria methods, of which the Analytic Hierarchy Process

(AHP) is the method that best reflects judgments based on opinions and emotion, and

that best prioritizes the ranking by expressing the preference for different alternatives

(Tseng, 2008; Soni and Kodali, 2010; Greco et al., 2013). Because of the intuitive

nature of the process and its power in solving complex problems, the AHP is one of the

most widely used methods where both qualitative and quantitative aspects of decisions

need to be considered among the given alternatives (Sipahi and Timor, 2010).

Moreover, the structure and modality of the AHP ensures that all the desired

specifications are included in the decision process according to the decision maker‘s

perspective.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process

The AHP, was first introduced by Saaty (1980), is a flexible, structured

technique for dealing with complex decisions, which seeks to break down the problem

into a hierarchical structure consisting of goal, criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives.

The element placed at the top of the hierarchy represents the goal the decision

maker wants to achieve. The alternatives are placed at the bottom level of the hierarchy.

The criteria and their attributes are presented in the middle levels of the hierarchy for

the evaluating process. Figure 1 shows the goal element, criteria, attributes and

alternatives.

Figure 1

The AHP method is implemented by the software tool Expert Choice, available

in different versions for individual and group decision making. The application method

can be summarized in the following steps, according to Saaty (1980):

Define the problem and determine the kind of sought knowledge.

Structure the decision hierarchy from the top, placing the goal of the decision at

the highest level, through the intermediate levels (criteria and sub-criteria on

which subsequent elements depend) to the lowest level (which usually is a set of

the alternatives).

Construct a set of pair-wise comparison matrices. Each element in a higher level

is used to compare the elements in the level immediately below it.

The priorities obtained from the comparisons are used to weight the priorities in

the lower level.

Add weighted value for each element in the level below to obtain its

overall/global priority.

Determine the weights of the alternatives at the bottom level of the hierarchy.

To make the comparisons, a numerical scale is used (Table 1). This scale

indicates how many times one element is more important than another with respect to

the criterion or property with which they are compared.

Table 1

The framework used in choosing a KMS

The methodological framework is based on the AHP approach (Figure 2). In the

following paragraphs, the criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives used in the AHP are

described in detail.

Figure 2

Criteria and sub-criteria

The criteria and sub-criteria have been selected on the basis of the literature

review. Thus, the factors to consider in selecting the most suitable KMS for a company

can be classified into four essential criteria:

Application

Cost reduction

Knowledge impact

Stakeholder satisfaction

Application

This criterion has been divided into four sub-criteria, as follows: collaboration

and communication; integration; tracking and monitoring; personalization.

Collaboration and communication

This sub-criterion of application considers one of the main aspects of KM. It is

widely known that collaboration in the workplace (in solving problems, sharing

knowledge, discussion, and teamwork) creates a significant proportion of knowledge

assets for enterprises. Collaboration and communication are important factors in

creating and sharing knowledge through any proposed KMSs (Salisbury, 2003).

Through communication, information and all forms of data should be captured,

managed and shared in the enterprise or by users in the internal environment. In

addition, it should contain real-time features, such as chat and video conferences, as

tools for storing and updating the knowledge inventory (Nikoukaran and Paul, 1999;

Ossadnik and Lange, 1999; Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001).

Integration

Integration describes the ability to integrate and use different KMSs as an extra

support to users so as to facilitate the creation, storage and sharing of knowledge within

an enterprise, through its integration among different internal and external users

(Nikoukaran and Paul, 1999; Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001; Bowman, 2002; Salisbury,

2003).

This sub-criterion refers to the application of automated communication and

information processes in order for enterprises to be able to control and monitor users‘

behaviors in sharing and transferring the accumulated knowledge base (Bowman, 2002;

Salisbury, 2003).

Personalization

Users can customize their personal profile in the proposed KMS, particularly

regarding the user interface. In addition, users can access the KMS both through internal

networks and the Internet, thus facilitating the promotion of knowledge from workers to

managers, and accelerating the process of exchanging and sharing of knowledge

(Salisbury, 2003; Choi and Scacchi, 2001; Chorafas, 2001; Mohamed et al., 2006).

Cost reduction

Cost is considered an important and influencing factor for decision makers in

choosing a KMS. Since costs include the expenditure associated with product license,

training, maintenance and software subscription costs, this criterion has been classified

into capital expenditures and operating expenditures, based on the Generally Accepted

Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Capital expenditures

These are the non-recurring costs that are usually involved in setting up any

proposed system. Capital expenditures are expressed in terms of hardware and software

(Karlsson and Ryan, 1997; Ochs el at., 2001).

Operating expenditures

Operating expenditures are recurring costs of a KMS and include maintenance

and training costs, and software subscriptions for which organizations must pay during

the period of usage (Karlsson and Ryan, 1997; Ochs el at.,2001).

Knowledge impact

The value of individuals rises when the use of knowledge in the KMS enables

them to perform their work more effectively and satisfactorily. Therefore, with regard to

this criterion, the following subcriteria of knowledge creation, transfer, accumulation

and diffusion are considered as core elements in KM processes (Holsapple and Joshi,

2002).

Knowledge creation

Knowledge creation assumes a fundamental and very complex role in

knowledge-based organizations. It consists of the creation of ―newǁ knowledge, i.e. the

acquisition/identification of knowledge through external/internal sources. As shown by

the knowledge spiral proposed by Nonaka (1998), knowledge creation is a continuously

evolving and emergent phenomenon that enables companies to develop interactions, by

making use of their human skills, competencies, capabilities and practices.

Knowledge transfer

The knowledge transfer process concerns the distribution of knowledge among

members of an organization. Knowledge transfer is more complex than mere

communication, since knowledge resides in members of an organization, tools, tasks,

and their sub-networks (Argote and Ingram, 2000; Wilkesmann and Wilkesmann, 2011)

and is mainly tacit or hard to articulate. Knowledge management has no value if created

knowledge cannot be used to its full potential.

Knowledge accumulation

The generated and shared knowledge needs to be preserved, organized and

easily accessible.

Knowledge accumulation is considered as an important element in the enterprise

knowledge components, since it allows all the individuals inside the enterprise to access

the knowledge base inventory. Knowledge accumulated in the enterprise plays an

important role in improving management performances (Walsh and Ungson, 1991),

obtaining the relevant knowledge and supporting managers‘ decisions.

Knowledge diffusion

The last sub-criterion of knowledge impact is knowledge diffusion, which is

considered a result of knowledge sharing and user innovation (Han and Anantatmula,

2007). To share the existing knowledge within the organization successfully, knowledge

diffusion is often treated as a building capability to engage and utilize knowledge (Lall,

1994). Knowledge diffusion involves knowledge re-creation, production and value

adding processes, by means of contextualization, projecting and compacting activities.

Stakeholder satisfaction

Stakeholders‘ satisfaction should be considered an important part of managerial

decisions. This criterion can be subdivided into the following sub-criteria: suppliers,

customers, employees and shareholders.

Suppliers

Reputation, service and support orientation play a vital role in selecting a KMS

(Byun and Suh, 1996; Min, 1992) and are considered important factors in leading the

decision maker during the selection process of a KMS provider. In addition, quality of

implementation and consulting services are particularly important if the decision maker

doesn't have previous experience in KMS. According to Cricelli and Grimaldi (2010),

the best way to improve the productive processes and exploit the benefits of

collaboration is to capture the suggestions made during communication and partnerships

with suppliers, thus ensuring a high rate of quality and efficiency in delivery time

(Barua el at., 1997).

Customers

In today‘s competitive markets, the definition and maintenance of good

relationships with customers is one of the most important strategies for every

organization.

Customers should be considered as central actors of the organization: through

their opinions, suggestions and claims the company can redesign and improve

production and sales processes (Cricelli and Grimaldi, 2010). Customer relation

management, when integrated with the right technology, plays an important role in

capturing organizational knowledge and using it to obtain the competitive advantage.

Employees

Human resources are considered a key factor in the success of any enterprise

(Wakayama, et al., 1998). Furthermore, the employees in the context of KM are

considered the key players in creating, sharing and capturing knowledge inside the

enterprise (Grimaldi et al., 2012). Thus, the right KMS should help companies to create,

share, and codify existing knowledge.

Shareholders

Using the existing knowledge within an enterprise is added value for the

company's activities, in terms of cost reduction, time management, human resources

development, new product development, and workers sharing knowledge with each

other. This sub-criterion analyzes these factors from the point of view of profitability

and earnings (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001; Capece et al., 2010).

Alternatives

The alternatives are at the bottom level of the hierarchy. The following seven

alternatives represent different types of the mostly known KMSs in the software market,

for government and non-government sector services.

Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

CRM is the technology that seeks to understand consumers from the perspective

of who they are, what they do and what they need. Therefore, in this study, the customer

is typically considered as a knowledge source, since the business relies on long-term,

high-value relationships with customers based on building a shared future together.

And since customers' needs are even more complex in open worldwide

competitive markets, the need for understanding customers becomes fundamentally

important for every organization. Customer knowledge usually consists of a varied

collection of information and insights built up by organizations over time, in order to

forge successful relationships and serve the needs of those relationships (Hammami and

Triki, 2011). Typically, customer knowledge is distributed around an enterprise in a

fragmented way: some in market research, some in databases, some in the minds of

sales and customer service staff.

Supply Chain Management (SCM)

The SCM plays a major role in creating profitability and competitive advantage.

A growing number of organizations are highlighting the value of knowledge within the

supply chain and realizing the strategic importance of efficient data, information or

knowledge among members of the SCM network (suppliers, manufacturers, distributors

and retailers). The SCM affects the knowledge receivers (designers, decision makers

and peer agents) by supporting their decisions and their future markets strategies in a

more efficient way (Malone, 2002; Zhuge, 2002).

Virtual Human Resource Management System (VHRMS)

Knowledge development and use can be facilitated by human resource practices

(Gupta and Singhal, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Leiponen, 2000; Laursen,

2002).

Competitive advantage depends on the firm's use of existing knowledge and its

ability to generate new knowledge efficiently (Penrose, 1959; Nonaka and Takeuchi,

1995; Tidd, 2000; OECD, 2000). At the individual level, increased delegation of

responsibility and freedom for creativity may better allow for discovery and use of local

and dispersed knowledge in the organization.

During the past years, many researchers introduced the Virtual Human Resource

Management (VHRM) and e-Human Resource Management (e-HRM) in different

ways. This trend can be considered as an application of IT for both networking and

support of at least two individuals or collective actors in their shared activities

(Strohmeier, 2007). According to Lepak (2003) the VHRM is characterized by a kind of

network structure based on partnership and by ICT, which is used as a carrier to help

organizations in accessing, developing and employing human capital. VHRMs usually

include a wide range of human capital retraining inside organizations, such as career

development activities (Mancuso et al., 2010).

Knowledge Portal System (KPS)

Organizations invest in different KM projects based on IT (Bock and Kim, 2002;

Choi and Lee, 2002) in order to share knowledge and information among employees

easily and quickly (Liebowitz and Wright, 1999). Implementing these technologies

appears to be the best and quickest solution for knowledge sharing. One such

technology is the KPS, which is a web-based application offering single access to

various sources of knowledge. KPSs are suitable for distribution of knowledge within

the entire organization, and can be considered as an extension of the enterprise's

information portal (EIP) to KM (Kim et al., 2002). A study by White (2000) is among

several studies that discuss the functions of knowledge portals and their characteristics,

and illustrates seven essential functions of knowledge portals, including management of

heterogeneous databases and document types, structured access, customized interfaces,

collaborative working, multi-level security, real-time information and future-proofing.

Learning platform (e-L)

Nowadays, the world is experiencing and focusing on the web-learning

phenomenon, which has received major attention globally from governments and even

worldwide enterprises. E-learning is the use of ICT to support and facilitate the learning

process. In general, e-Learning can represent a solution to learning and sharing

knowledge, through the aid of ICT, should the learners be dispersed over time and space

while needing to work together on a project. It can be described as the way people use

an electronic device (usually a computer) with learning technology (Rushby and

Seabrook, 2008). E-learning is becoming the most accepted solution in complex

organizations and enterprises to develop new knowledge and skills individually or

collaboratively (Mancuso et al., 2010; Mayadas et al., 2009).

Decision Support System (DSS)

Enterprises have understood the importance of knowledge as a strategic resource

to support the decision maker‘s action (Zack,1999). Therefore, numerous organizations

find that the most valuable knowledge is based on their employees' tacit knowledge and

on their social and interpersonal interaction (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998).

To do this, an organization captures strategic knowledge by maintaining it in a

database with the aim of retrieving and using it in the decision making process, through

DSS tools. From the 1970s, when the DSS was introduced as a computer-based system

(CBS) to support the decision making process, the DSS movement started focusing on

what is known as an interactive CBS (Sol, 1987). Thus, the DSS can be introduced as a

database system used to support the decision making process during the activities of

using and retrieving the accumulated and stored data.

Document Management System (DMS)

Today, organizations and enterprises have an overload of information pertaining

to different contexts. Most of the activities and processes are initiated or formalized in

different types of information systems and documentation, including orders, invoices,

queries, complaints, technical drawings of components and parts, price lists, product

ranges, and legal and safety regulations. This kind of documentation relates to all of the

enterprise‘s activities and processes, and forms a large part of the organization‘s

memory. Furthermore, people, technology and documents were identified by

Wakayama et al. (1998) as the main business process enablers within an organization.

Since such documents are thought to facilitate business transactions, enterprises

are increasingly seeking different methods and technologies by which to connect these

documents with people and organizations, so guaranteeing the whole business process

cycle. One such technology is the DMS, a system for storing and distributing documents

and informing people about the state of the document with regard to enterprise activities

and processes (Fahey and Prusak, 1998; Sarvary, 1999).

Empirical Study Screening

As a test and validation of the framework, the paper presents two empirical

studies from Jordanian organizations, where AHP has been applied with the aim of

implementing a KMS to enhance their competitive advantages and improve their

business transactions.

Method and sample selection

The two selected organizations are from the Jordanian Governmental and non-

governmental sector, respectively. The aim of the dichotomy is to compare the

application of the framework between public and private sectors.

To ensure full coverage of potential respondents, the investigator contacted the

managers of each organization by telephone to explain the objectives of the study and to

arrange for them to be sent the questionnaire as targeted participants in the study.

Data collection

The researchers used an AHP questionnaire to collect data from managers

working for the organizations in the case study.

The AHP questionnaire was sent by e-mail, with a cover letter explaining the

nature of the research and its purpose. The cover letter also asked respondents to return

the completed questionnaire (data file) by e-mail. A total of three questionnaires were

distributed to chief financial officers and IT managers.

Computing the weight of the elements

The data analysis of the aforementioned questionnaires is based on Expert

Choice 11™, in order to calculate and synthesize the weights of the AHP hierarchy

components for the final measurement of the given alternatives. Expert Choice 11™

allows the user to structure the decision into criteria and alternatives, to measure the

criteria and alternatives using pair-wise comparisons, and to achieve alignment and

confidence around important organizational decisions. Specifically, the process consists

of three steps, as follows:

Pair-wise comparisons: the first step of the process is based on the comparison

of the elements on each level, according to their importance or contribution,

with regard to the node that takes place in the level directly above the elements

in comparison. By means of the numerical rating method from 1 to 9 (Table 1), a

matrix containing all the pair-wise comparisons is obtained for each level. So if

the elements at the same level are represented by n, the quantitative judgments

used in comparison are:

Computing a vector of priorities: once the principal eigenvector of the matrix is

computed, it becomes the vector of priorities when it has been normalized

(Saaty, 1980).

Measuring consistency: during the pair-wise comparison step, decision-makers

may face difficulty in reaching consistency within the process. There is a need

for the measurement of consistency in the given pair-wise comparison.

According to Harker (1989), the consistency ratio (CR) provides a measure of the

probability that the matrix was filled purely at random. The accepted upper limit for CR

is 0.1. The measurement of consistency can be used to evaluate the consistency of

decision makers as well as the consistency of the entire hierarchy.

The organizations involved in the empirical study

The King Abdullah II Fund for Development (KAFD)

KAFD was established in 2001 and is located in Amman, Jordan. KAFD is an

organization that aims to achieve developmental goals in Jordan and elevate the

citizens‘ socio-economic standards of living. With an investment in different sectors,

including real estate, agriculture, IT, microfinance, education and services, KAFD‘s

strategies are based on establishing pioneering projects in response to citizens‘ needs

and priorities, and capitalizing on their capabilities and potential.

The KAFD management expects to draw the following potential benefits from

the selected KMS:

Improve employees’ knowledge about their customers (fundraisers). The

management considers KAFD as an incubator of information and

knowledge, since it is in the middle of the socio-economic development

process. This is due to the fact that the KAFD links disadvantaged people

to the companies by means of relevant and crucial forms of support and,

in addition, connects stakeholders by mobilizing information and

knowledge.

Create and share knowledge among employees with the aim of

supporting their communication and learning.

Enhance employees ‘awareness and the organization‘s knowledge with

more information about their customers and fundraisers.

The Ministry of Transport (MOT)

The MOT is responsible for the transport sector in Jordan, through supporting,

managing and coordinating the functions of the departments, commissions,

organizations and companies involved therewith. This also includes the responsibility of

drafting and updating the sector‘s laws, by-laws and instructions that regulate all

matters related to transport, in a way that is congruent with domestic and foreign

transport. Furthermore, the MOT is involved in the regulation of relations with local,

Arab, regional and international institutions, associations and companies operating in

the field of transport. Therefore, the MOT was looking for the appropriate KMS to

support decision makers with the best knowledge practice. The MOT expects to draw

the following potential benefits from a KMS:

Improve the tender‘s management process. This is one of the

requirements for the new launched project. The MOT hopes that the

KMS will support employees with the bidder‘s proposal review process,

aiding them by providing the necessary information and the required

knowledge to prepare tender calls and choose the right bidder.

Retain previous knowledge and experience learned from past bidding

and calls of tenders. This will allow the codifying of knowledge in the

KMS even when a bid and tender officer moves to another position or

department, or even leaves the MOT. In addition, newly recruited

employees can access and gain the knowledge that has been stored in the

system.

Learn information and share knowledge among employees about

products and solutions.

Results and Discussion

The empirical study was carried out using the Expert Choice v.11 (EC) software

package, which allows the synthesis of criteria and the ranking of objectives by

obtaining a prioritized list of the alternatives. In these implementations, the weights

represented in Figure 3 and Figure 4 represents the results of the pair-wise comparisons.

The judgments during the pair-wise comparisons were elicited from the decision makers

of KAFD and MOT, respectively.

Figure 3

Figure 4

The priorities from each set of judgments are subsequently found and recorded

in Figure 5 and Figure 6, with regard to KAFD and MOT, respectively.

In the case of KAFD (Figure 5), the obtained results indicate that CRM, with the

highest priority value of 0.270, is the most suitable KMS among the seven alternatives.

The second and third priorities are given to VHRMS and e-L, which obtained very low

priority values compared with CRM: 0.185 and 0.166.

Figure 5

With regard to the MOT case (Figure 6), the results show that the DSS, with the

highest priority value of 0.384, has been elected as the most appropriate KMS. The

second highest priority is shown by the KPS with a value of 0.200, and the third by the

DMS with a value of 0.145. The other alternatives (VHRMs, e-learning, SCM and

CRM) obtained very low priority values (0.086, 0.072, 0.062 and 0.052, respectively).

Figure 6

The King Abdullah II Fund for Development

As the KAFD is a charitable organization that works in the field of development

and funding, its main interest is to focus on customers' knowledge and success stories.

Thus, there is the need to find an effective KMS to serve this purpose. On the basis of

the results obtained from the pair-wise comparisons, it is evident that the CRM, with a

priority value of 0.270, is considered as the optimal solution to enhance the KAFD

funding officers' knowledge and experience.

Moreover, to avoid any future misleading decisions with the funding proposals

received through customers, the second and third priorities are given to VHRMS and e-

L, which can be considered, from the manager‘s point of view, as the logical

classification with regard to the use of the accumulated knowledge and human resource

in developing the KAFD.

Finally, the rest of the global weights obtained by the other alternatives DMS,

KPS, DSS, SCM are 0.152, 0.125, 0.053 and 0.049, respectively. These results reflect

the logical evaluation by the interviewed manager with respect to the first three

alternatives. The greater the content of knowledge, the higher the importance assigned

to the KMS.

The Ministry of Transport

As the MOT is a governmental organization controlling the Jordanian transport

sector through policies and governance roles, the comparisons lead the decision maker

to the DSS as the most suitable KMS, with a priority of 0.384. This can be explained by

the fact that being responsible for developing and investing in new projects in the

transport sector in Jordan requires confidence and awareness of the consequences of

these decisions.

The second alternative is the KPS which, with a value of 0.200, can play a role

in supporting the decisions makers with previous experiences and accumulated

knowledge from both failures and successes in the MOT history. The same point has

been discussed with the interviewed manager regarding the third value of DMS, with a

priority value of 0.145, which is a possible option for an intelligence document

management system.

The logical sequence of the other priorities, VHRMs, e-L, SCM, CRM with

lower priority values, 0.086, 0.072, 0.062, and 0.052 respectively, is the outcome of the

obvious need for a suitable KMS, which supports the MOT decision makers in drawing

their strategies and implementing these decisions in the Jordanian transport sector.

Conclusions and implications

Organizations are forced to develop new methods of deploying KMSs to

facilities their activates and impact their performance in responds to markets

opportunities. The present paper indicates how KMSs are becoming ever more complex

and how it is essential for individuals and organizations remain up to date with such

technologies in order to select, adapt and use the most suitable KMS for their

organization.

Selecting the proper KMS is a time consuming task. In order to assure the best

practices in the KMS implementation projects inside the organizations, this paper

provides both researchers and practitioners with a persuasive analytical tool to support

them in taking the best decisions during the process of selecting the proper KMS that

covers their needs, through a comprehensive evaluation processes for wide range of

criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives. The paper proposes a framework based on the

AHP approach and EC software to serve these needs, as well as supporting the decision

maker in choosing the KMS with the highest priority.

The framework has been tested by means of two empirical studies. The obtained

results confirm the expectations of the interviewed managers. Furthermore, the authors’

believe that the application introduced in this paper can be useful for researchers and

practitioners, belonging to different areas and sectors that can benefit from easy

implementation of such an application.

However, there are several factors that must be taken into account when

implementing a KMS initiative. These factors include rigid hierarchies, cultural

acceptance, stakeholder issues, staff resistance and overlapping of initiatives. They can

all create serious obstacles and challenges and must be addressed properly and wisely to

facilitate the procedure. Accordingly, before going through with the transition process,

it is mandatory to fully understand the current system, the organization, and the

limitations of both. In the proposed framework, these aspects can be properly addressed

by implementing the AHP.

The AHP is considered a comprehensive approach for the evaluation and

synthesis of elementary criteria, based on multi-criteria evaluation and pair-wise

comparison. The criteria described in this paper, as well as the sectors and environments

of potential future studies, may have to be updated to parallel the development of new

KMS technology.

References

Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. E. (2001), “Review: Knowledge management and

knowledge management: Conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS

Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 107-136.

Alberghini, E., Cricelli, L. and Grimaldi, M. (2013), “KM versus enterprise 2.0: a

framework to tame the clash”, International Journal of Information Technology and

Management, Vol. 12, Nos. 3/4, pp.320–336.

Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J.M., and Moreland, R.L. (2000), “Knowledge Transfer

in Organizations: Learning from the Experience of Others”, Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 1-8.

Barua, A., Ravindran, S. and Whinston, A. B. (1997), “Efficient selection of suppliers

over the Internet”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.

117-137.

Bloodgood, J.M. and Salisbury, W.D. (2001), “Understanding the Influence of

Organizational Change Strategies on Information Technology and Knowledge

Management Strategies”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 55- 69.

Bock, G.-W.and Kim, Y.-G. (2002), “Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory

study of attributes about knowledge sharing”, Information Resource Management

Journal, 15, 14–21.

Bose, R. (2004), “Knowledge management metrics”, Industrial Management and Data

Systems, Vol. 104, No. 6, pp. 457-468.

Bowman, B. J. (2002), “Building knowledge management systems”, Information

Systems Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 32-40.

Byun, D. H., and Suh, E. H. (1996), “A methodology for evaluation EIS software

packages”, Journal of End User Computing, Vol. 8, No. 21, pp. 31.

Capece, G., Cricelli, L., Di Pillo, F., Levialdi, N. (2010), “A cluster analysis study

based on profitability and financial indicators in the Italian gas retail market”,

Energy Policy, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 3394-3402.

Capece, G., Cricelli, L., Di Pillo, F., Levialdi, N. (2012), “New regulatory policies in

Italy: Impact on financial results, on liquidity and profitability of natural gas retail

companies”, Utilities Policy, Vol. 23, pp. 90-98.

Carayannis, E.G.(1999), “Fostering synergies between information technology and

managerial and organizational cognition: the role of knowledge management”,

Technovation, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 219-233.

Chang, C. M., Hsu, M. H. and Yen, C. H. (2012), “Factors affecting knowledge

management success: the fit perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.

16, No. 6, pp. 847-861.

Chen, C., Yang, C.C., Lin, W.T., Yeh, T.M. and, Lin, Y.S. (2007), “Construction of

key model for knowledge management system using AHP-QFD for semiconductor

industry in Taiwan”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 18,

No. 5, pp. 576 – 597.

Chen, Y.Y. and Huang, H.L. (2012), “Knowledge management fit and its implications

for business performance: A profile deviation analysis”, Knowledge-Based Systems,

Vol. 27, pp. 262-270.

Choi, B., and Lee, H. (2002), “Knowledge management strategy and its link to

knowledge creation process”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.

173-187.

Choi, S.J., Scacchi, W. (2001), “Modeling and simulation software acquisition process

architectures”, Journal of Systems Software, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 343-354.

Chorafas, D.N. (2001), Integrating ERP, CRM, supply chain management and smart

materials, Boca Raton, FL; Alexandria, VA: St. Lucie Press; APICS.

Cricelli, L. and Grimaldi, M. (2010), “Knowledge-based inter-organizational

collaborations”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.348–358.

Davenport, T.H., and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations

Manage What They Know, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Davis, L., and Williams, G. (1994), “Evaluating and Selecting Simulation Software

Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Integrated Manufacture Systems, Vol. 5,

No. 1, pp. 23–32.

Evanschitzky, H., Ahlert, D., Blaich, G. and Kenning, P. (2007), “Knowledge

management in knowledge-intensive service networks: A strategic management

approach”, Management Decision, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 265 – 283.

Fahey, L., and Prusak, L. (1998),’The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge

management’, California Management Review, 40, 265-276.

Greco, M., Cricelli, L. and Grimaldi, M. (2013), “A strategic management framework

of tangible and intangible assets”, European Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1,

pp. 55-66.

Grimaldi, M. and Cricelli, L. (2009), “Intangible asset contribution to company

performance: The "hierarchical assessment index"”, VINE, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 40-

54.

Grimaldi, M., Cricelli, L. and Rogo, F. (2012), “A methodology to assess value

creation in communities of innovation”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 13, No.

3, pp. 305 - 330.

Gupta, A.K. and Singhal, A. (1993), “Managing Human Resources for Innovation and

Creativity”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 41-48.

Hammami, S.M. and Triki, A. (2011) “Exploring the information technology

contribution to service recovery performance through knowledge based resources”,

VINE, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.296–314.

Han, B.M. and Anantatmula, V.S. (2007) “Knowledge sharing in large IT

organizations: a case study”, VINE, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.421-439.

Hanson, M. (1999), “The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing

Knowledge Across Organizational Subunits”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,

83-111.

Harker, P. T. (1989), The art and science of decision making: The analytic hierarchy

process, The analytic hierarchy process application and studies, Berlin: Springer.

Hendriks, P.H. (1999), “The organisational impact of knowledge-based systems: a

knowledge perspective”, Knowledge Based Systems, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 159-169.

Holsapple, C. W., Joshi, K. D. (2002), “Knowledge manipulation activities: Results of

a Delphi study”, Information and Management, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 477-490.

Ives, W., Torrey, B., and Gordon, C. (1998), Knowledge Management is an Emerging

Area with a Long History, Andersen Consulting.

Jafari, M., Fathian, M., Jahani, A. and Akhavan, P. (2008) “Exploring the contextual

dimensions of organization from knowledge management perspective”, VINE, Vol.

38, No. 1, pp. 53–71.

Karlsson, J., Ryan, K. (1997), “A cost–value approach for prioritizing requirements”,

IEEE Software, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 67-74.

Khalifa, M., Yu, A. Y. and Shen, K. N. (2008), “Knowledge management systems

success: a contingency perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12,

No. 1, pp. 119-132.

Kim, Y.J., Chaudhury, A., and Raghav Rao, H.(2002), “A knowledge management

perspective to evaluation of enterprise information portals”, Knowledge and Process

Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 57-71.

Kreng, V.B. and Chao,Y.W. (2007), “Evaluation of knowledge portal development

tools using a fuzzy AHP approach: The case of Taiwanese stone industry”,

European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 176, No. 3, pp. 1795-1810.

Lall, S. (1994), “Technological capabilities”, in: Salomon, J.-J., Sagasti, F. R., and

Sachs-Jeantet, C., The uncertain quest: science, technology, and development,

Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 264-301.

Laursen, K. (2002), ”The Importance of Sectoral Differences in the Application of

Complementary HRM Practices for Innovation Performance”, International Journal

of Economics and Business, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 139-156.

Lee, J. and Kim, Y. (2001), “A stage model of organizational knowledge management:

a latent content analysis”, Expert System with Applications, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 299-

311.

Lepak, D.P. and Snell, S.A. (1998), “Virtual HR: strategic human resource

management in the 21st century”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 8,

No. 3, pp. 215-34.

Liebowitz, J. and Wright, K. (1999), “Does measuring knowledge make cents?”,

Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 99–103.

Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2011), “Stakeholder theory: issues to

resolve”, Management Decision, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 226 - 252.

Malone, D. (2002), “Knowledge management a model for organizational learning”,

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 111-

123.

Mancuso D.S., Chlup, D. T., and McWhorter , R.R.. (2010), “Advances in Developing

Human Resources”, SAGE Publications, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 681-699.

Mertins, K., Heisig, P., Vorbeck, J. (2003), Knowledge Management. Best Practice in

Europe, Berlin: Springer.

Min, H. (1992), “Selection of software: The analytic hierarchy process”, International

Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 42-

52.

Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M. and Murray, A. (2006), “Knowledge management and

information technology: can they work in perfect harmony?”, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.103 – 116.

Murray, G. (1999), The knowledge management factbook, Bulletin, International Data

Corporation.

Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal,S. (1998), “Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the

Organizational Advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.

242-267.

Ngai, E.W.T. and Chan, E.W.C. (2005), “Evaluation of knowledge management tools

using AHP”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 889-899.

Nikoukaran, J. and Paul, R.J. (1999), “Software selection for simulation in

manufacturing: a review”, Simulation Practice Theory, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-14.

Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford

University Press, New York.

Nonaka, I., Konno, N.(1998),’ The concept of Ba: Building a foundation for knowledge

creation’, California Management Review, Vol. 40, pp. 116-132.

Ochs, M., Pfahl, D., Chrobok-Diening, G. and Nothhelfer-Kolb, B. (2001), “A method

for efficient measurement-based COTS assessment and selection method description

and evaluation results”. Proceedings of the seventh international software metrics

symposium (METRICS 2001), pp. 285-296.

OECD, (2000), Knowledge Management in the Learning Society, CERI, Paris.

Orlikowski, W.J. and Iacono, C.S. (2001), “Research commentary: desperately seeking

the IT, in IT research a call to theorizing the IT artefact”, Information System

Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 121–134.

Ossadnik, W. and Lange, O. (1999), “AHP-based evaluation of AHP software”,

European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 578-588.

Penrose, E., (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997), “Knowledge management: A strategic

agenda”, Long Range learning, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 385-391.

Rasmus, D. W. (2002), Targeting Knowledge Management Initiatives - Planning

Assumption, Giga Information Group.

Reyes, P. and Raisinghani, M.S. (2002), “Integrating Information Technologies and

Knowledge-based Systems: A Theoretical Approach in Action for Enhancements in

Production and Inventory Control”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 9,

No. 4, pp. 256-263.

Rushby, N. and Seabrook, J. (2008), “Understanding the past illuminating the future”,

British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 198-233.

Saaty, T. L. (1980), The analytic hierarchy process, NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

Salim, J., Rafidza, N., Rashid, M., Yahya, Y., Hamdan, A., Deraman, A., and

Shahizan, M. (2009), “HiKMas: Cultural Behavioural and ontology based approach

towards a Holistic Knowledge Management System Design”, 11th IBIMA

Conference on Innovation and Knowledge Management in twin track economies.

Salisbury, M. W. (2003), “Putting theory into practice to build knowledge management

systems”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 128-14.

Sarvary, M. (1999), “Knowledge Management and Competition in the Consulting

Industry”, California Management Review, 41, 95-107.

Schwartz, D.L., Brophy, S., Lin, X.D., and Bransford, J.D. (1999), “Software for

managing complex learning: An example from an educational psychology course”,

Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 47, pp. 39-59.

Sharma, R.S. and Djiaw, V. (2011) “Realising the strategic impact of business

intelligence tools”, VINE, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp.113–131.

Sipahi, S., Timor, M. (2010), “The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network

process: An overview of applications”, Management Decision, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp.

775-808.

Skyrme, D.J. (2000), Developing a Knowledge Strategy: From Management to

Leadership, Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works, Eds.

Morey D., Maubury M. and Thuraisingham B., Boston, MA. MIT Press.

Soni, G., Kodali, R. (2010), “A multicriteria decision model for the selection of supply

chain management software”, International Journal of Services and Operations

Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 501-533.

Strohmeier, S. (2007), “Research in e-HRM: Review and implications”, Human

Resource Management Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 19–37.

Tidd, J., (2000), From Knowledge Management to Strategic Competencies, Series on

Technology Management, London: Imperial College Press.

Tiwana A. (2000), The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Practical Techniques for

Building a Knowledge Management System, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall PTR.

Tseng, S.M. (2008), “Knowledge management system performance measure index”,

Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 734-745.

Tyndale, P. (2002), “A taxonomy of knowledge management software tools: origins

and applications”, Evaluation and program planning, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 183-190.

Wakayama, T., Kannapan, S., Khoong, C. M., Navathe, S., and Yates, J. (1998),

Information and process integration in enterprises, USA: Kluwer Academic Press.

Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991), “Organizational memory”, Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 57–91.

White, M. (2000), “Enterprise information portals”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 18,

No. 5, pp. 354-362.

Wiig, K. (1997),”Knowledge Management: An Introduction and Perspective”, Journal

of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 6-14.

Wilkesmann, M. and Wilkesmann, U. (2011) "Knowledge transfer as interaction

between experts and novices supported by technology", VINE, Vol. 41, No. 2,

pp.96-112.

Wild, R. and Griggs, K. (2008) “A model of information technology opportunities for

facilitating the practice of knowledge management”, VINE, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp.490–

506.

Yang, C. and Huang, J. (2000), “A decision model for IS outsourcing”, International

Journal of Information Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 225–239.

Zack, M. H. (1999), “Developing a Knowledge Strategy”, California Management

Review, Vol. 41, pp. 125-145.

Figures and tables

Fig. 1 - An example of AHP hierarchy

Fig. 2 – The complete hierarchy model

Fig. 3 - The elected local weights by KAFD's decision makers

Fig. 4 - The elected local weights by MOT's decision makers

Fig. 5 - The obtained priority values of the KAFD case study

Fig. 6 - The obtained priority values of the MOT case study

Table 1 - The scale of judgments

Rating Definition

9 Extremely preferred 8 Very strongly to extremely 7 Very strongly preferred 6 Strongly to very strongly 5 Strongly preferred 4 Moderately to strongly 3 Moderately preferred 2 Equally to moderately 1 Equally preferred