Measuring knowledge management performance using a competitive perspective: An empirical study
Introduction
Despite the various studies trying to develop metrics and methods to measure knowledge (Edvinsson, 1997, Lee et al., 2005, Liebowitz and Wright, 1999), people think knowledge measurement is one of the most difficult parts of the knowledge management (KM) activities (Ruggles, 1997). Some studies argue that knowledge cannot be measured, but that activities or outcomes associated with applying knowledge can be measured (Ruggles, 1998). However, knowledge is a critical factor in an organization’s competitiveness. It is also the future value of an organization. Nevertheless, knowledge is intangible and difficult to measure. Therefore, how to manage knowledge, becomes a critical issue, and KM becomes the key to success for an organization. To obtain effective knowledge management, it is necessary to be able to measure KM performance (Ahn & Chang, 2004). However, most of the metrics and methods of knowledge measurement that have been developed are concentrated on measuring the knowledge within the organization. In this hypercompetitive environment, the contributions of a KM performance measurement method will be seriously limited without comparing with major rivals from competitive perspective. Thus, its most important task is to compare the organization’s KM performance with that of its major competitors, to find out what is required to attain the competitive edge.
To achieve this aim, this paper proposes an approach of measuring KM performance from competitive perspective. This approach integrates the analytical network process (ANP) with balanced scorecard (BSC) that contains four perspectives, including customer perspective, internal business perspective, innovation and learning perspective, and financial perspective, being adopted as the indicators of KM performance measurement. The ANP employed in this paper is a multi-attribute decision-making approach based on the reasoning, knowledge, experience, and perceptions of experts in the field. Even though it does not provide an optimal solution, it is valuable for MCDM involving intangible attributes that are associated with strategic factors (Joseph, 1999). One of the major advantages of using ANP is its capability to evaluate the consistency of the decision-maker while making pair-wise comparisons of the relevant importance of the environments.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the relative literatures are reviewed. The details of the approach and a case study are illustrated in Section 3. Then, in Section 4, some important issues such as implications, limitations, and so forth are discussed. We conclude this paper in Section 5 with suggestions and future researches.
Section snippets
Knowledge management performance measurement
In recent years, the evaluation of KM performance has become increasingly important, since it promotes strategic organizational learning and so provides the capabilities required to meet customer needs (Marr, 2004, Smits and Moor, 2004). Some recent examples are as follows. Ahn and Chang (2004) developed the AP3 methodology to assess the contribution of knowledge to business performances by employing product and process as intermediates between the two (Ahn & Chang, 2004). González, Giachetti,
The research methodology
People usually only pay attention to an organization’s internal KM performance measurement, but from competitive view systematic evaluation of whether an organization‘s KM performance is superior to each of its major rivals is more important. Thus, this paper integrates the ANP approach and BSC to judge and rank the performances of KM within an organization and among the organization and its major critical rivals. The rationale for choosing ANP is that the ANP approach is a theory of
Discussion and implications
The main contribution of this paper lies in the development of a comprehensive model, which incorporates diversified issues for conducting KMPM from competitive perspective. As a result, the main findings can be described as follows:
- (1)
It considers four indicators namely customer perspective, internal business perspective, innovation and learning perspective, and financial perspective for conducting the KM performance measurement. The proposed ANP model in this paper, not only guides the decision
Conclusion
As the era of knowledge economy is emerging, the importance of KM performance is gradually increasing. The question of how to measure a firm’s KM performance is becoming increasingly important as time goes by. However, most of the metrics and methods of knowledge measurement that have been developed are focused on measuring the knowledge within the organization, which in practice limits their effectiveness because the most important task of the KM performance measurement is the comparison of a
Acknowledgement
We thank the support of National Scientific Council (NSC) of the Republic of China (ROC) to this work under Grant No. NSC96-2416-H-018-011.
References (50)
- et al.
A multidimensional performance model for consolidating balanced scorecards
Advances in Engineering Software
(2003) - et al.
Assessing the contribution of knowledge to business performance: The KP3 methodology
Decision Support Systems
(2004) - et al.
Transferring auditors’ internal control evaluation knowledge to management
Expert Systems with Applications
(2001) - et al.
An investigation of the effect of balanced scorecard implementation of financial performance
Management Accounting Research
(2004) Developing intellectual capital at Skandia
Long Range Planning
(1997)- et al.
Knowledge management-centric help desk: Specification and performance evaluation
Decision Support Systems
(2005) - et al.
Support for the sense-making activity of managers
Decision Support Systems
(2001) The importance of trust in software engineers’ assessment and choice if information sources
Information and Organization
(2002)- et al.
Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects and project organizations
International Journal of Project Management
(2003) - et al.
Building and deploying profitable growth strategies based on the waterfall of customer value added
European Management Journal
(1997)
Does measuring knowledge make cents?
Expert Systems with Applications
The balanced scorecard: A foundation for the strategic management of information systems
Decision Support Systems
An intergrated methodology for putting the balanced scorecard into action
European Management Journal
Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach
Computers and Industrial Engineering
A knowledge-based system to assist university administrators in meeting disability act requirements
Expert Systems with Applications
Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues
MIS Quarterly
Knowledge management
Performance effects of using the balanced scorecard: A note on the dutch experience
Long Range Planning
Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments
International Journal of Project Management
Knowledge management performance evaluation: A decade review from 1995 to 2004
Journal of Information Science
Excellence in knowledge management: An empirical study to identify critical factors and performance measures
Measuring Business Excellence
Project-based learning, reflective practices and learning outcomes
Management Learning
Cited by (129)
Development of a multidimensional performance evaluation model for container terminals at Marmara Sea
2020, Research in Transportation Business and ManagementAnalytic network process: An overview of applications
2020, Applied Mathematics and ComputationThe supporting role of the project management office in the transfer of knowledge between projects - a study of five cases
2024, International Journal of Project Organisation and ManagementKnowledge management and performance: a bibliometric analysis based on Scopus and WOS data (1988–2021)
2023, Journal of Knowledge ManagementKnowledge management effects and performance in health care: a systematic literature review
2023, Knowledge Management Research and Practice