Enhancing Knowledge Management Using ICT
in Higher Education: An Empirical Assessment
¹ Walter Omona, ¹ Jude T. Lubega, ² Theo van der Weide
¹ Makerere
University, Uganda , ² Radboud University Nijmegen ,
the Netherlands
ABSTRACT:
The main purpose of this
paper is to introduce and empirically assess the validity of a proposed
conceptual framework for enhancing knowledge management (KM) using ICT in
higher education in order to advance strategic goals and direction. The
proposed framework delineates the relationships among the key factors that have
been identified as integral in enhancing KM using ICT in higher education to
arrive at a systematic and holistic framework for improved KM outcomes and
consists of higher education process, KM enabling ICT, KM processes and higher
education goals. The key dimensions of the proposed framework were tested using
case studies of higher education institutions (HEI) in
Keywords: Knowledge management, ICT,
1.
Introduction
Knowledge comes from
information that are processed from available data and
includes experience, values, insights, and contextual information. The key difference between information and
knowledge is that information is much more easily identified, organized and
distributed while knowledge cannot be easily managed because it resides in
one’s mind (Terra and Angeloni, 2003). According to Miller
and Shamsie (1996), knowledge has long been
recognized as a valuable resource for organizational growth and sustained
competitive advantage, especially for organizations competing in an uncertain
environment. With the emergence of the knowledge-based economy where knowledge,
competence and related intangibles are the key drivers of competitive advantage
in achieving goals, many changes are being witnessed in the delivery of higher
education as well as on the demands placed on HEI so that they become
storehouses of innovation where wellsprings of talents are nourished and
sustained (Seleim et al., 2004). Effective management of knowledge plays an important role in the improvement of
organizational competitive advantage through sharing of best practices,
achieving better decision making, faster response to key institutional issues,
better process handling, and improved people skills; and is essential to
long-term organizational effectiveness. To ensure effective management of
knowledge and information in higher education, there is need for putting in
place a common, standardized framework, procedures, programs or processes for
the creation, capturing, acquisition, and use of available knowledge and
intellectual capital in the organization to support and advance their goals.
This is because an institution that has no common standardized framework,
procedures, programs, or processes for KM will be inefficient and unable to
gain a competitive edge with other competitors (European Commission, 2003).
Higher education in
The main purpose of this
paper is to introduce and empirically assess the validity of a proposed
conceptual framework for enhancing KM using ICT in higher education (Omona et al.
2010) in order to advance strategic goals and direction. To achieve this, the
paper examines relevant theoretical concepts and gives a brief description of
the proposed framework. The empirical evidence gathered using case studies in
higher education in
2. Background
2.1. KM
The objectives of KM in organizations are to promote knowledge growth, knowledge communication and knowledge preservation (Steels, 1993) and entails managing knowledge resources in order to facilitate access and reuse of knowledge (O’Leary, 1998a). As a key progress factors in higher education, KM aims at capturing explicit and tacit knowledge in order to facilitate the access, sharing, and reuse of that knowledge as well as create new knowledge and facilitate organizational learning. To succeed, KM must be guided by a strategic vision to fulfill primary organizational objectives such as improving knowledge sharing and cooperative work, disseminating best practices, improving relationships with the external world, and preserving past knowledge for reuse (Omona et al. 2009).
Nonaka et al. (2000) have developed the SECI model which describes four main knowledge conversion modes: from tacit to tacit, tacit to explicit, explicit to explicit and explicit to tacit. Socialization presents a process of tacit knowledge sharing between individuals working in the same environment and understanding it. Externalization is the process of transforming tacit knowledge into forms (symbols, analogies and metaphors), which can be understood by other group members. As a result, individual’s tacit knowledge become a group’s asset. Then, through combination, knowledge is organized, edited and systemized; it is shared with other groups and finally becomes a “common property” in the organization. When it is put into practice and used by employees, then internalization is said to have taken place. Choenni et al. (2005) approaches KM from two perspectives: a cognitive approach and a community approach. According to the model, knowledge is captured, analyzed, developed, created, organized and shared by individuals with the use of ICT. Hansen, et al. (1999) divides approaches to KM into the codification approach and the personalization approach. The codification/people-to-document approach is centered on the computer. Organizations use ICT to capture, store, disseminate, and allow for the re-use of knowledge. The personalization/people-to-people approach on the other hand is centered on the dialogue between individuals, not the knowledge objects in a database.
2.2.
Enhancing KM Using ICT
To ensure the success of
KM in higher education, numerous studies have identified ICT as one of the
critical factors for enhancing KM (Ruggles, 1998; Skryme, 1999; Kim, 2001). ICT plays a crucial role
in managing and organizing knowledge by providing the channels for acquiring,
storing, sharing, collaboration, categorizing, dissemination and reuse of
knowledge in a faster and more convenient ways both within and between organizations
(Mathew, 2009). They have
become an essential component for KM as they enable organizations to exploit
knowledge from data and information generated and collected during the process
of teaching and learning as well as carrying out researches and outreach
services. In analyzing knowledge work, for examples, Skyrme
(2004) points out that ICT support knowledge processes and workers through
providing ready access to organized information, improved communications and
interaction with fellow knowledge workers (either individually or in groups),
and group decision support systems that facilitate learning and decision making
processes. Dougherty (1999) further argues that ICT should be seen as a tool to
assist the process of KM in organizations.
The use of the Internet and the World Wide Web has been expanding rapidly in higher education and a number of web-based technologies have been making significant impact on people’s social, professional and academic lives because of their capabilities to support knowledge exchanges, sharing and collaboration between various parts of an organization or distinct organizations (Holsapple and Whinston, 1996). Because of this, many HEI have implemented one or a combination of these ICT tools/technologies to enhance KM within and between institutions, and examples of these ICT tools/technologies include Global Search Registries (Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft), Knowledge Repositories/Digital Libraries, Electronic Academic Publishing, Academic Content and Exchanges, Communities of Practice, Social Communities of Interest and Individual Knowledge Network.
2.3: KM And
Higher Education
The introduction and use
of computers, internet, intranet, and instructional software applications in
higher education have brought many changes in the way academic services and
learning activities are currently delivered. Furthermore, the huge amount of
information and knowledge that exist in forms of digital contents and online
resources; the changes in the teaching methods; the nature of curriculum; the
size and composition of the student population; and the impact of ICT across
every facet of higher education are challenging the historic models of what
higher education is and how it is supposed to be effectively delivered. To cope
up, HEI are being forced to make new changes in their activities and process
management by introducing new approaches and methods in the way KM, teaching
and learning processes are performed. According to Petrides
and Nodine (2003), the use of KM method in higher
education enables the encouragement of the greater intelligence, practical
know-how, and effectiveness of HEI management.
Because HEI are made up of
a number of components and levels consisting of faculty, students,
administration, academics and researchers, each of these components or levels
generate as well as consumes knowledge. To ensure success in higher education,
it is important that the knowledge that each level/component requires and
contributes to the system to perform its functions are identified and appropriate
methodology developed using relevant KM enabling ICT so that available
knowledge are exploited to achieve organizational goals and vision. Appropriate
KM methodology in higher education should aim at integrating the knowledge
produced at all levels and using it towards achieving organizational goals and
targets. This will assist in improving the operational quality, capacity
development, and effectiveness of the organization leading to enhanced
productivity and performance. To succeed in KM initiatives in higher education,
therefore, managers and all the other relevant stakeholders need to consciously
and explicitly manage the processes associated with the generation and use of
their knowledge assets, and to recognize the value of their intellectual capital
to their continuing role in society (Rowley, 2000).
3. Conceptual Framework
he proposed conceptual framework (Omona et al. 2010) is based on the study and review of existing literature on KM approaches and frameworks and extends the earlier conceptual work of Stankosky’s (2005) KM pillar to enterprise learning, in combination with the task-technology fit theory (Goodhue and Thompson, 1995) to form the basis for defining the framework development approach. The framework links higher education processes involved in generating knowledge to enabling ICT and KM processes to arrive at a systematic and holistic framework for improved KM outcomes to achieve higher education goals. Stankosky’s (2005) KM pillars to enterprise learning consist of leadership, organization, technology and learning in support of enterprise-wide KM initiatives and each of these pillars represent critical success factors for KM implementation. The task/technology fit theory on the other hand holds that the use of information technology is more likely to have a positive impact on individual performance and should be used if the capabilities of the information technology match the tasks that the user must perform (Goodhue and Thompson, 1995). In the proposed framework, organization and leadership are subsumed to form a constituent part of higher education processes, KM enabling ICT, and KM processes which form the three key elements of the framework while the resulting output is represented by the KM outcomes/higher education goals. Figure 2 shows the diagrammatic representation of the proposed conceptual framework.
Figure
1: Framework For Enhancing KM Using ICT In Higher
Education (Omona et al., 2010)
The proposed framework envisages that to achieve success, higher education processes must be aligned and linked with respect to new KM methods, existing KM enabling ICT tools/technologies and KM processes to be able to achieve the goals of delivering academic services and learning, student life-cycle management, institutional development and enterprise management and support, in more productive ways (Systems Analysis and Programme Development, 2005). Delivering Academic Services and Learning includes teaching, learning, research, content development, e-learning and outreach services; Student Life-cycle Management includes managing student recruitment, student admission, student records, student finances, and academic advises; Institutional Development includes market research and analysis, resource mobilization, alumni management, partnerships, and academic profile; while Enterprise Management and Support includes human capital management, corporate services, operation support, and finance. For the purpose of this study and taking into consideration resource and time constraint, this study was limited to academic services and learning as the core activities of higher education.
In this study, the framework is modified such that KM factors (organization and management), KM enabling ICTs, and KM processes become the main inputs (independent variables), while KM outputs/higher education goals and higher education processes are the main outputs (dependent variable). Knowledge management factors refer to the critical issues that influence the effective implementation of KM using ICT in higher education, KM enabling ICT refers to the entire infrastructure and tools to support KM processes within an enterprise; KM processes refer to a systematic approach to the identification, capturing, organization and dissemination of the intellectual assets that are critical to HEI long term performance; higher education processes consist of a set of logically interconnected knowledge generating activities through which actors converts inputs into outputs to achieve higher education goals; and higher education goals refer to knowledge behaviors of individuals or groups of individuals that contribute to improve learning/work related outcomes. Higher education process is considered here as a dependants variable based on the fact that an enabling KM environment combined with appropriate KM enabling ICT and KM processes contributes to effective higher education processes which are usually reflected in improved academic services and learning to advance higher education goals. The framework further suggests that the availability and use of appropriate KM enabling ICT should have a positive impact on KM processes since they are perceived as an enabling tool in facilitating knowledge sharing, representation and transformation, as well as improving people’s ability to store, search and acquire knowledge (Denning, 2002).
4.
Methodology
The study which was mainly quantitative was conducted through a survey-based field study with the help of a questionnaire using case studies in higher education in Uganda to review the current situation (organizational, management and technical factors) in KM using ICT, the relative use and effectiveness of the current existing KM enabling ICT, and the relative importance of key KM processes using ICT in higher education. The survey design approach was chosen based on a range of insights from theoretical KM literature as well as the reviews of prior related survey research (Zhou and Fink, 2003; Pillania, 2006). The questionnaire was designed to test the KM factors; use and effectiveness of KM enabling ICT; and the significances of KM processes using the set of items that constituted the indicators identified in the framework, and consisted of close-ended questions using a five-point Likert scale.
4.1.
Data Collection
The sampled population for the quantitative study was got from 3 public and
2 private universities in
Table 1:
Profile Of Respondents
|
Profile characteristics |
No. of
respondents |
Percentage responds |
Cumulative percent |
|
University Position Academic staff Administrative staff Postgraduate student Undergraduate student Sex Female Male Age 20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years Qualification PhD Master Bachelor Diploma Certificate |
56 36 29 25 22 48 30 42 48 73 95 82 63 14 9 9 35 79 30 15 |
33.3 21.4 17.3 14.9 13.1 28.6 17.9 25.0 28.6 43.5 56.5 48.8 37.5 8.3 5.4 5.4 20.8 47.0 17.9 8.9 |
33.3 54.8 72.0 86.9 100.0 28.6 46.4 71.4 100.0 43.5 100.0 48.8 86.3 94.6 100.0 5.4 26.2 73.2 91.1 100.0 |
4.2.
Reliability Of Data
To ensure reliability of the quantitative data that were collected, a reliability test was conducted to determine the degree of internal consistency. The analysis were performed on the 28 items that measured the current KM environment, on the 16 items that measure KM enabling ICT, and on the 7 items that constituted the key KM processes. Note that in this study, the variables for KM enabling ICT has been modified from 11 as appear in the proposed framework to 16 including video-conferencing, personal digital assistants, learning management systems, help-desk technologies, and electronic publishing. Table 2 shows the values of Cronbach’s Alpha for each of the variable that was used in this study. The results suggest that the instrument used as well as the data that was collected in this study was highly reliable as the reliability statistics for each of the KM component category fall well above 0.7 (Hair et al. 1998).
Table
2: Reliability Tests
|
Knowledge Management Components
No. of Items Cronbach’s Alpha KM Factors
28
0.8874 KM Enabling ICT
16
0.8664 KM Processes 7 0.8827 |
4.3.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this study included the use of descriptive statistics and factor analysis using the SPSS statistical software package. Descriptive analysis involves the transformation of raw data into a form that will make them easy to understand and interpret using a precise statistical summary to characterize observations and variables. In this study, the analysis was used to describe the profiles of respondents, determine use and effectiveness of KM enabling ICT, and analyze the significances of key KM processes. Factor analysis on the other hand was used to determine interrelationships among a large number of variables that were tested to determine KM factors and their common underlying characteristics. To carry out factor analysis for this study, the correlations matrix of all KM factors were computed, factors were then extracted, and the factors were then rotated to create a more understandable factor structure for interpretation (George and Mallery, 2001).
5.
Findings And Discussion
To determine the use and effectiveness of ICT in enhancing KM in higher education, respondents were asked to rate from 1 to 5 the level of use and effectiveness that the identified KM enabling ICT were having in achieving their academic goals. For “use”, the ratings were based on the scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Very Often, and 5 = Always; while for effectiveness, the scale were 1 = Of no effect, 2 = Of little effect, 3 = Of some effect, 4 = Effective, and 5 = Highly effective. Table 3 present the mean score for the use and effectiveness of each identified KM enabling ICT in enhancing KM in higher education for the sampled respondents.
Table
3: Use And Effectiveness Of KM Enabling ICT
|
KM Enabling
ICT |
Description |
Mean Ratings |
|
|
|
|
Use |
Effectiveness |
|
Social
Communities of Interests |
Social networks drawn together through use of ICT
to share knowledge and build relationships, eg., facebook |
4.61 |
2.37 |
|
Knowledge
Portal |
Searching & accessing web-based knowledge, egs. Yahoo, google |
4.35 |
4.24 |
|
Groupware
|
A platform designed to help people involved in a common task achieve their
goals, eg., wikipedia |
4.17 |
3.99 |
|
Academic
Contents and Exchanges |
E-collections of course materials and learning
objects |
4.13 |
4.20 |
|
Academic
Publishing |
Paid subscriptions for e-access to academic
publishing, egs., EBSCO Host, Blackwells |
3.95 |
3.82 |
|
Communities
of Practices |
Practitioners networking in a particular field
using ICT to define a practice and knowledge domain, eg., consortia |
3.80 |
3.99 |
|
E-Document
Management Systems |
Knowledge repositories created by individual
institutions, eg., Digital Library |
3.31 |
3.58 |
|
Electronic
Publishing |
Digital publications of e-books and electronic
articles, eg., newspapers |
3.07 |
3.46 |
|
Help
Desk Technology |
An integrated ICT-based end-to-end approach to
providing users with timely knowledge requests |
2.96 |
3.12 |
|
Learning
Management Systems |
Software application for the administration of
training programs and e-learning |
2.93 |
3.20 |
|
Database
Management Systems |
Computer programs that control the creation,
access, maintenance, and use of data |
2.84 |
2.10 |
|
Individual
Communities of Interests |
ICT tools for individuals to manage personal
knowledge and networks, eg., twitter, blogs |
2.42 |
3.12 |
|
Video
Conferencing |
A set of ICTs that allows interactions between different
locations via audio/videos, eg., webcams |
2.28 |
2.90 |
|
Personal
Digital Assistants |
Mobile devices that serves as a personal information
manager |
2.18 |
1.91 |
|
Data
Mining |
The process of extracting patterns from data, eg., academic profiling |
2.13 |
1.98 |
|
Data
Warehouse |
A repository that facilitates analysis and
reporting of data, eg., budgeting |
2.01 |
1.91 |
5.1.
Use And Effectiveness Of KM Enabling ICT
The results show that the most frequently used KM enabling ICT is the Social Communities of Interest at a rating of 4.61, followed by Knowledge Portal at 4.35, Groupware at 4.17, and Academic Contents and Exchanges at 4.13 respectively. The findings also suggest that the frequency of use does not necessarily translate into effectiveness with Social Communities of Interest showing the highest differences of ratings at 4.61 for use and 2.37 for effectiveness. The main reasons that were given for the low rating for the effectiveness of Social Communities of Interest included the respondents concerns relating to privacy, ensuring online safety, and the anxiety of exposing their academic activities in this environment. To the respondents, and as the name suggest, Social Medias are only use for communication and sharing of information and knowledge on social activities and not academic activities. The heavy use of Social Communities of Interest, however, suggest the needs by HEI to start considering ways through which they can harness the informal learning setting of Social Medias so that they can be integrated into higher education processes since the different activities that take place in the different Social Medias can provide diverse avenues for learning, teaching, research, creative expression, civic engagement, political empowerment, and economic advancement. Selwyn (2007) points out that Facebook has quickly become the social network site of choice for use by college students and an integral part of the “behind-the-scene” higher education experience and this finding further confirms the point. Arrington (2005) findings that the adoption rate of Facebook in universities stand at 85% for students that have a university network within Facebook further substantiate this finding.
With respect to Knowledge Portal, Groupware, Academic Contents and Exchanges, and Academic Publishing, the evidence from the findings on use and effectiveness confirms them as useful and quite effective KM enabling ICT. The findings further suggest that Knowledge Portal and Groupware usually provide the first link for those who want to access information and knowledge from the Internet both in terms of ease of use, access and down loads through reduction of the time required to acquire knowledge or information. Academic Contents and Exchanges, Academic Publishing, and Communities of Practices are also rated highly both in term of use and effectiveness because of their contents relevance and as reference points for teaching, learning and research activities by lecturers. The use and effectiveness that are attached to Knowledge Portals, Groupware, Academic Contents and Exchanges, Academic Publishing, and Communities of Practices although moderate are in agreement with modern constructivist educational theory which emphasizes critical thinking, problem solving, “authentic” learning experiences, social negotiation of knowledge, and collaboration, by making students learn how to learn, not just what to learn (Newman et al., 1989; Strauss, 1994).
Although the ratings for the use and effectiveness of E-Document Management Systems, Electronic Publishing, Help Desk Technology, Learning Management Systems, Database Management Systems, and Individual Communities of Interest were rated as moderate, further probing indicated that their ratings would be higher if it were not for the challenges that are faced in the application and use of KM enabling ICT in higher education. The challenges highlighted include slow speed of the Internet connections due to narrow bandwidth, erratic power supply, lack of ICT skills, and poor and underdeveloped ICT infrastructure and support. As for video-conferencing, the finding points out that deliberate effort are being put in promoting its use in faculties/departments that are involved in e-learning. Personal digital assistants, data mining and data warehousing have not been used by most respondents and are thus not having any effect in promoting academic services and learning.
5.2.
Significances Of KM Processes
To determine key KM processes, respondents were asked to rate the significances of the proposed KM processes based on the scale of 1 = Insignificant, 2 = Little significant, 3 = Moderately significant, 4 = Quite significant, and 5 = Very significant. Table 4 shows the mean score for each of the proposed KM processes.
Table
4: Significances Of KM Processes
|
KM Processes |
Description |
Mean Values |
Standard Deviation |
|
Knowledge planning |
Matching the context that knowledge
is used in and setting knowledge normative, strategic and operational goals |
4.31 |
0.717 |
|
Knowledge capture |
The
extraction of useful knowledge from vast and diverse sources of information
as well as its acquisition directly from users |
4.27 |
0.793 |
|
Knowledge organize |
Providing
clear and efficient ways of storing, retrieving and processing of acquired
knowledge and information |
4.35 |
0.774 |
|
Knowledge retrieve |
Process
by which stored/retained information is selected or reconstructed to satisfy
the user's request |
4.24 |
0.872 |
|
Knowledge utilize |
Transformation of
knowledge to products and services |
4.27 |
0.779 |
|
Knowledge maintenance |
The process of ensuring
that knowledge is
accessible, correct and updated |
4.25 |
0.832 |
|
Knowledge evaluation |
Coordinating
knowledge strategy with operational practices so as to get a better control
over knowledge resources and knowledge reuse |
4.18 |
0.905 |
As shown in Table 4, each of the proposed KM processes received a rating of over 4.00 with ‘knowledge organizing’ receiving the highest rating of 4.35 while ‘knowledge evaluation’ received the lowest rating of 4.18. Thus all the KM processes are rated as quite significant and these are consistent with what is proposed in the conceptual framework. Respondents, however, recommended that “knowledge dissemination” should be included as a sub-component of the KM processes. Knowledge dissemination here refers to the transfer of knowledge within and across organizational settings for use conceptually in learning, enlightenment, or the acquisition of new perspectives or attitudes; instrumentally in the form of modified or new practices; or as legitimate outcomes in the forms of increased awareness and making informed choices among alternatives. The overall results as well as the recommendation that was made here are in line with the system thinking approach to KM from which the proposed framework was derived. This is because systems thinking encourages consideration of the entire KM processes in organizations and facilitates the linkage between KM initiatives and the strategic goals and objectives of the organization so as to maintain a clear vision of what is being done and why it is being done (Gao et al. 2002).
5.3.
Key KM Factors
To determine the measure of the sampling adequacy for the key KM factors of
the collected data, a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
sampling adequacy test was carried out. The findings indicate that the sampling
adequacy is 0.805 (80.5%) implying that factor analysis is appropriate for
these data. Table 5 shows the result of the
Table
5: KMO And
|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin of Sampling
Adequacy
0.805 Significant
0.000 |
As shown in Table 6, the total cumulative variance explained by the factor
analysis is 65.121%. From the rotated component matrix, using Varimax with Kaiser Normalization, the analysis extracted
eight factors as having eigen
values of greater than one out of the twenty eight sub-variables that were
tested, and these have been identified as key factors that are critical for
enhancing KM using ICT in higher education in
Table
6: Key Factors For Enhancing KM Using ICT in Higher
Education
|
KM Factors |
% of Variance Explained |
Eigenvalues |
|
1.
Leadership and strategy 2.
ICT infrastructure and support 3.
Process reengineering 4.
Learning culture 5.
Organizational culture 6.
Performance measurement 7.
Resources allocation 8.
KM framework/system |
11.690 10.170 9.460 9.000 8.621 5.660 5.451 5.070 |
3.273 2.847 2.649 2.520 2.414 1.585 1.526 1.420 |
|
Total of variance
explained |
65.121 |
|
Leadership and strategy: Leadership and strategy plays a key role in influencing the success of KM using ICT through the development of appropriate strategies and provision of the foundation on how an organization can deploy its capabilities and resources to achieve KM goals. The sub-variables for this factor were six and included having a well defined strategic direction, appropriate ICT policy, management of change, promoting knowledge sharing culture, human resource development plan, and staff motivation and job security.
ICT infrastructure and support: To succeed in KM, ICT infrastructure and support must be robust and reliable to enable the provision of a multiplicity of KM applications and services to meet the needs of delivering academic services and learning activities in higher education, especially with respect to efficiencies and timeliness. Sub-variables here included availability of hardware, availability of application software, availability of network infrastructure, availability of people with technical support skills, and effective content management systems.
Process reengineering: Process reengineering refers to the use of the power of modern ICT to radically redesign higher education processes in order to achieve dramatic improvements in organizational performance. It involves re-designing and configuring of the features and functionalities of the ICT infrastructures and support services such as learning processes, management environment and KM processes. Sub-variables here included total quality management, process redesign, and putting in place process work flows.
Learning
culture: To become a learning
organization is to accept a set of attitudes, values and practices that support
the processes of continuous learning and knowledge access and use using
appropriate KM enabling ICT within the organization. Training and continuous
education on KM and KM enabling ICT use and applications in higher education is
supposed to be a key element in the business strategy of an organization
dedicated to continuous learning and knowledge access and use like HEI. A true
learning culture continuously challenges its own methods and ways of doing
things using emerging KM enabling ICT. This ensures continuous improvement and
the capacity to change. Sub-variables here included continuous ICT training and
awareness services, pedagogical training in ICT, and integrating ICT in the
teaching, learning and research activities of higher education.
Organizational culture: Organizational culture defines the core
beliefs, values, norms and social customs that govern the way individuals act
and behave in an organization. A good organizational culture should be one that
highly values knowledge and encourages its creation, sharing and application.
Organizational culture is therefore, essentially the building block to creating
a knowledge friendly culture, which leads to positive outcomes such as more
innovation and improvement of organizational performance in higher education.
Sub-variables here included collaborations and networking, rewarding success
and innovations, and having a shared visions and goals.
Performance measurements: Performance measurements enable organizations
to track the progress of KM using ICT, determine its benefits and
effectiveness, and provide the basis for evaluation, comparison, control and
improvement on its KM outputs. Sub-variables here included use of best
practices in KM and availability of KM metric standards.
Resources allocations: Successful KM implementation using ICT in higher education is dependent on enough resource allocations in financial and human terms. Enough financial support is required if an investment in a technological system such as KM enabling ICTs are to be made, while a well facilitated skilled human resources are needed to coordinate and manage the implementation process as well as to take up knowledge-related supporting roles.
KM framework/systems: A KM framework/system is very important for the organizations that intend to implement KM using ICT in their organization because it acts as the guidelines for the creation of knowledge repositories, improvement of knowledge access and sharing as well as communication through collaboration, enhancing the knowledge environment and managing knowledge as an asset for advancing academic goals.
6.
Conclusion And Future Directions
This study presented and empirically tested a proposed framework for
enhancing KM using ICT with the help of case studies of HEI in
Although the study has implications for research and practice, its main
limitation is due to the specific context in which the study was carried out as
the findings are based solely on enhancing KM using ICT in HEI in
7.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Higher Education (NUFFIC) for supporting this study
Arrington, M. (2005), 85% of college students use Facebook. TechCrunch. Retrieved February 2012 from http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/09/07/85-of-college-students-use-facebook/.
Choenni, S., Bakker, R., Blok, H.E. and de Laat, R. (2005), Supporting
technologies for knowledge management, In: Baets,
Walter (Editor): Knowledge management and management learning: extending the horizons of knowledge-based
management, Springer Science+Business Media,
2005, 89-112.
Denning, S. (2002), The
role of ICT in knowledge management for development, The Courier ACP-EU
Journal, May-June, 8-61.
Dougherty, V. (1999), Knowledge is about people, not databases, Industrial and Commercial Training, 31(7), 262-266.
European
Commission (2003), Study on the
Measurement of Intangible Assets and Associated Reporting Practices,
Gao, F., Li, M. and Nakamori, Y.
(2002), Systems thinking on knowledge and its management: Methodology for
knowledge management, Journal of
Knowledge Management, 6(1), 7-17.
Garwood, K. (2004), A database for
storing, searching and disseminating experimental proteomics data, BMC Genomics, 5(1), 68.
George, D. and Mallery, P.
(2001), SPSS for Windows Step by Step,
10.0 Update,
Goodhue, D.L. and Thompson, R.L. (1995), Task-technology fit and individual performance, MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213-36.
Hair,
J.F.,
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and
Tierney, T. (1999), What’s your strategy for managing
knowledge? Harvard Business Review, March-April, 106-116.
Hawkins,
B. (2000), Libraries, knowledge management and higher education in an
electronic environment, In: Proceedings of the American Library and
Information Association (ALIA) Conference,
Holsapple, C.W. and Whinston,
A.P. (1996) Decision-support Systems: A
Knowledge Based Approach,
Kasozi, A.B.K. (2008), The
State of Higher Education and Training in
Kim, S. (2001), An Empirical Study of the Relationships Between Knowledge Management
and Information Technology Infrastructure Capability in the Management
Consulting Industry, PhD Dissertation, University of Nebraska, 2001.
Mathew, V. (2009), Virtual knowledge sharing and collaborative learning in organization, In: Proceedings of First Virtual Conference on Business Management, 22-23 September 2009
Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. 1996, The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: the
Hollywood Film Studios from 1936 to 1965,
Newman, D.,
Nonaka, I., Reinmoeller,
P. and Senoo, D. (2000), Integrated IT Systems to
Capitalize on Market Knowledge, Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value,
O’Leary, D.E. (1998a),
Omona, W., van der Weide, T., and Lubega, J. (2009),
A framework for knowledge management using ICT in
higher education in
Omona, W., van der Weide, T., Lubega, J. (2011), Knowledge management technologies and higher education processes: approach to integration for performance improvement, International Journal of Computing and ICT Research, 5, Special Issue, 55-68.
Omona, W., van der Weide, T., and Lubega, J. (2010), Using ICT to enhance knowledge management in higher education: a conceptual framework and research agenda, International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 6(4), 83-101.
Petrides, A.L. and Nodine,
R.T. (2003), Knowledge Management in
Education: Defining the Landscape,
Pillania, R.K. (2006), State-of-the-art of knowledge
storage and access in Indian industry, Journal
of Information & Knowledge Management, 5(1), 55-61.
Rowley,
J. (2000), Is higher education ready for knowledge
management? International Journal of Educational Management, 14(7),
125-333
Ruggles, R. (1998), The state
of the nation: knowledge management in practice, Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 59-69.
Seleim, A., Ashour, A. and Bontis, N. (2004), Intellectual capital
in Egyptian software firms, The Learning Organization: An
International Journal, 11(4/5), 332-346.
Selwyn,
N. (2007), Screw blackboard…do it on Facebook! An investigation of students’
educational use of Facebook, Presented at the Poke 1.0 – Facebook
Social Research Symposium, University of
Skyrme, D.J. (2004), Information managers: do we need them? In: Proceedings of the Conference of Online Information, London, United
Kingdom, 30th November to 2nd December, 2004, 149-55.
Skryme, D.J. (1999), Knowledge Networking: Creating the Collaborative Enterprises,
Stankosky, M. (2005), Advances in knowledge management:
university research toward an academic discipline, In: Stankosky,
M. (Ed.), Creating the Discipline of
Knowledge Management,
Steels,
L. (1993), Corporate knowledge management, In: Proceedings of ISMICK’93,
Steyn, G.M. (2004), Harnessing the power of knowledge in higher education, Educational Development, 124(4), 615-630.
Strauss, M. J. (1994), A constructivist dialogue, Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 32(4), 183-87.
Systems Analysis and Programme Development (SAP)
(2005), SAP for Higher Education and
Research: Industry Overview,
Terra, J.C. and Angeloni, T. (2003), Understanding
the Difference Between Information Management and
Knowledge Management,
Tusubira, F.F., Mulira,
N.K., Kahiigi, E.K. and Kivunike,
N.K. (2007), Transforming Institutions
through ICT: The
Zhou, A. and Fink, D.
(2003), Knowledge management and intellectual capital: an empirical examination
of current practice in
Contact the Authors:
Walter Omona,
Jude T. Lubega,
Theo van der Weide, Radboud
University Nijmegen, The Netherlands