Personal Knowledge Management and

Personal Knowledge Management and
organization’s competency: a service
organization case study
Mstafa Jafari, peyman Akhavan, Mohadeseh Nikookar
Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17101014&show=pdf). Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Citation: Jafari, Mostaf, Akhavan, Peyman, and Mohaddeseh Nikoukar (2013), Personal Knowledge
Management and organization’s competency: a service organization case study, Education, Business and
Society, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 181-194.
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to study the relationship between personal knowledge management (PKM) and
organization’s competencies in a service organization.
Design/methodology/approach – A research model was developed based on a critical review of PKM and the
organization’s competencies literature. The results and conclusions were made based on the quantitative analysis
approach.
Findings – The results indicate that in studied organization there is a significant and positive relationship between
PKM and organization’s competencies; the role of PKM for organization’s competencies are positively correlated to
External Information Awareness, Internal Knowledge Dissemination, Effective Decision Architecture and
Organizational Focus, and not correlated to continuous innovation.
Practical implications – The paper discusses how PKM may improve organization’s competencies in a practical
setting and how organization will benefit from PKM.
Originality/value – The discussion of this case is valuable in that it illustrates how the PKM can be used to improve
organization’s competencies and enhance understanding about the influence of PKM skills on the improvement of
organization’s competencies.
Keywords Personal Knowledge Management, Organization’s competencies, Service organization
Paper type Case study
Introduction
Knowledge is a human ability and producer engine of income and an important and strategic asset to the
© Emerald Group Publishing organization. The knowledge have converted into a vital resource and a kind of competitive advantage to
organizations, and since any source needs to management, the knowledge needs to management (Alavi
and Leidner, 2001).
So, nowadays success mystery of organizations is not anything else knowledge management. With due to
inherent attributes of knowledge, the best management is accomplished by persons; therefore a subject is
propounded on the ground of management of personal knowledge in front of organizational knowledge
management. The benefits related to the PKM are not at individual level. The organization will enjoy of
benefits by combination of PKM with the organizational knowledge management.
In this research, at first with doing library study and reviewing subject literature, it’s extracted element
of the PKM and organization’s competencies. On the basis of those studies, seven have presented to the
PKM by Avery et al. that is consist of: retrieving information, evaluating information, organizing
information, collaborating around information, analyzing information, presenting information and
securing information (Avery et al., 2001). To organization’s competencies, have considered five elements
on the basis of the offered foundation by Ziegler that is consist of: external information awareness,
internal knowledge dissemination, effective decision architecture, organizational focus and informationage business network (Ziegler, 2008). In continuation, it’s studied the relation between PKM and
organization’s competencies by studding a service organization. In this work, attention is focused on this
matter that how PKM can influence organization’s competencies.
Literature review
The literature review provides a critical evaluation of previous literature on KM, PKM, and organization’s
competencies.
Knowledge
There is no single agreed definition of knowledge. Grant mentioned that we have had philosophical
debates about what knowledge is. The philosopher, Plato, has defined knowledge as perception and true
judgment (Grant, 2000). Knowledge in the Oxford English Dictionary is:
 information and skills acquired through experience or education;
 the sum of what is known;
 Awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
It is difficult to define knowledge accurately; however it is generally agreed that knowledge is an
organized combination of ideas, rules, procedures and information (Dalkir, 2007). Stewart argued that
knowledge is a conclusion drawn from data and information (Stewart, 2000). Data mean a set of discrete
and objective facts concerning events. Therefore, they can be construed as a structured record of
transactions within an organization. Information is data with attributes of relevance and purpose, usually
having the format of a document or visual and/or audible message. Knowledge is linked to the capacity
for action. It is intuitive, therefore hard to define. It is linked to the users’ values and experience, being
strongly connected to pattern recognition, analogies and implicit rules (Joia, 2000).
Knowledge is commonly viewed in the two dimensions of “Explicit” and “Tacit”. Explicit knowledge is
deeply ingrained in the traditions of Western management, from Frederick Taylor to Herbert Simon; it is
in the form of words, numbers and can easily be communicated and shared in the form of hard data,
scientific formulae, codified procedures, or universal principles (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Polanyi
termed Tacit knowledge based on the logic that “we know more than we can tell” (Polanyi, 1996). It is
something not easily visible and expressible; it is highly personal and hard to formalize, making it
© Emerald Group Publishing difficult to communicate or to share with others; subjective insights, intuitions and hunches are classified
as tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
Knowledge management
Peter Drucker invented the term “a knowledge worker” in the 1960’s. There were some discussions
around Knowledge Management, but these were mostly driven by Sociologists like Amitai Etzioni in the
1970’s. These terms and ideas were not in the focus of management magazines until the early 1990’s,
when all major consulting companies started talking about them (Schutt, 2003). One of the challenges for
modern organizations is to shift from methods of Scientific Management which evolved from Taylor's
studies on improving the productivity of manual workers, to new management approaches that address
the increasingly knowledge-intensive nature of work (Drucker, 1999). Knowledge management is known
as a systematic, goal-oriented application of measures to steer and control the tangible and intangible
knowledge assets of organizations, with the aim of using existing knowledge inside and outside of these
organizations to enable the creation of new knowledge, and generate value, innovation and improvement
out of it (Wunram, 2000). KM creates a new working environment where knowledge and experience can
easily be shared and also enables information and knowledge to emerge and flow to the right people at the
right time so they can act more efficiently and effectively (Smith, 2001).
Personal knowledge management
In knowledge-intensive environments, employees can best be described as investors whose capital is the
expertise they bring into a company (Stewart, 1998; Davenport, 1999; kelloway and Barling, 2000). PKM
is a modern subject seldom discussed until recent years. In the field of knowledge management, scholars
have been focusing at organizational level, examining factors, conditions, and interventions that empower
and guide knowledge work, rather than indicating how knowledge workers can organize their own work.
Lots of them believe that the fundamental purpose of knowledge management is to improve the
achievement to organizational goal, and thus subconsciously consider PKM as a subset of the knowledge
management in the field of organizations (Li and Li, 2009).
Frand and Hixon believe that PKM refers to a strategy and process to expand personal knowledge,
during which individuals organize and concentrate their important information as a part of their own
knowledge, and transfer scattered fragments of information into systemic application information. In
addition, they believe that PKM also includes the expansion of personal knowledge and the conversion
from personal tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge (Frand and Hixon, 1999).
Avery et al. defined PKM as an overall structured process for intentionally managing information and
turning it into useful knowledge. There are seven skills in their proposed PKM framework which are
(Avery et al. 2001):
(1) retrieving information;
(2) evaluating information;
(3) organizing information;
(4) collaborating around information;
(5) analyzing information;
(6) presenting information; and
(7) Securing information.
Kong believes that the PKM includes three meanings: First, managing personal knowledge gained;
Second, acquiring new knowledge through various channels, learning from and drawing on the
© Emerald Group Publishing experience and strong points of others to make up for their own deficiencies in thinking and knowledge,
so as to constantly construct their own knowledge characteristics; Third, achieving dominant change of
tacit knowledge and stimulating innovation of new knowledge by applying their mastered knowledge and
the long-standing views and ideas, and combining with other people's ideological essence and disposing
draft (Kong, 2003). Higgison believes that in PKM the focus shifts from the management of knowledge
across an organization to the management of knowledge by an individual. As one practitioner has noted,
if organizations “stopped spending so much time and money on process and technology solutions and
uncovered the latent potential in employees, then real value and differentiation would be harnessed
through PKM” (Higgison, 2044). Efimova argued that PKM is an interactive process between individuals,
other people and ideas. This is an approach which focuses on supporting knowledge worker productivity
by taking an active perspective in studying their work (Efimova, 2005). Wright mentioned that while
PKM was primarily an unconscious process and occurred naturally, it was more than personal (Wright,
2005). Jefferson believes that PKM invites an approach to KM that encourages organizations to facilitate
workers taking responsibility, managing information and increasing their own productivity, through a
variety of tools and techniques (Jefferson, 2006). Ke argued that PKM is the management of knowledge
resources to achieve personal goals. PKM mainly includes the management of basic personal knowledge
database and the management of personal thinking database. The former includes personal
communications management, personal time management, personal work management, personal learning
management, personal network resource management and personal files management, etc. (Ke, 2007).
Martin argued that PKM is knowing what knowledge we have and how we can organize it, mobilize it
and use it to accomplish our goal, and how we can continue to create knowledge (Martin, 2008).
Up to the present, we still cannot give a unified definition to PKM. However, throughout the various
definitions, we get to know that: PKM, different from organizational KM, is the knowledge management
at personal level, with the goal to better support individual knowledge activities (Li and Li, 2009).
Irrespective of how PKM is defined by different scholars, the key purpose of PKM is to provide a
framework for Individual Knowledge Workers to manage new information, integrate it and enrich each
individual knowledge database in an effective manner (Cheong and Tsui, 2010).
Organization’s competencies
Frameworks for measuring the competencies of organization are very mature and one of the models
highly relevant to knowledge organization is the Organizational IQ (OIQ) framework proposed by
Mendelson and Ziegler in 1999. Previous research by Mendelson and Ziegler showed that the OIQ is
positively correlated to the firm’s performance. The OIQ framework consists of five key indicators
namely (Mendelson and Ziegler, 1999):
(1) External Information Awareness (EIA);
(2) Internal Knowledge Dissemination (IKD);
(3) Effective Decision Architecture (EDA);
(4) Organizational Focus (OF); and
(5) Information-Age Business Network (IBN).
Ziegler enhanced the framework to replace the IBN by Continue Innovation (CI). Below is a brief
description of the principles of Organizational IQ. By itself, none of the principles is revolutionary, or
even new for that matter. However, what is revolutionary is the ability to quantitatively measure the
degree to which those principles are being implemented in organizations. Based on this, Synesis works
© Emerald Group Publishing with clients to identify what needs to change in the culture, IT systems, structures and processes in order
to achieve world-class performance (Ziegler, 2008):
The EIA is to measure the customer dynamics, technology opportunities and competitive actions; the
IKD is to measure the effective flow of information horizontally, vertically (top down and bottom up) and
the review process; the EDA is to measure the decision quality, decision time and sense of ownership and
accountability for decisions; the OF is to measure the scope of the business focus, the core competencies
focus and simplification of the processes. CI is to measure the creativity, product development and quality
improvement.
Research methodology
In this research, it’s used questionnaire in order to collecting data and information for analysis.
Questionnaire contains two parts: dimensions of the PKM and dimensions of organization’s
competencies. The questions were the closed questions and measurement scale is Likert scale. It means
that the questions have a five choice spectrum that very little choice is on the one hand of five choice
spectrum and have allocated grade 1 to it, and very much choice is on the other hand and have allocated
grade 5 to it. The work method as follows was that the entire questionnaire are distributed and collected
verbally at statistical society. Statistical society of the current research contains all the personnels having
educations higher than diploma of a service organization (in Iran) that number of them is 172 persons.
Based on the cochran’s sample size formula, statistical sample volume calculated equal to 80. So, by
usig random sampling method has distributed 80 questionnaires in this organization that have returned 70
questionnaires.
There are two common research approaches namely quantitative methodology and qualitative
methodology .The quantitative methodology is always associated to the positivism research
paradigms while qualitative methodology is usually associated to the interpretive/critical realism
research paradigms (Neuman, 2006; Perry, 1995). Therefore, quantitative research methodology
was selected for this research. So, the collected data were analyzed by quantitative analysis. The
constructs of each concept were tested as to validity, reliability, and normality distribution before the
hypotheses tests. Validity is a term that refers to a target that test have prepared to prove it. The different
methods exist to validity determination of the measurement tools the one of them is questioning from
specialists and experts. So the containing formal validity method have used in order to determination of
validity of questionnaire. The different methods exist in order to determination of measurement tools
reliability that one of them is measuring its inner adaptation (Conca et al., 2004). The inner adaptation of
measurement tools can be measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951). However,
acceptable minimum value should be 0.7 for this coefficient, but also values of 0.6 and even 0.55 are
acceptable (Van de ven and Ferry, 1979). The calculated alpha value related to any variable and the total
alpha have been presented at the table I.
Table I: Reliability test
Variable
N of Items
PKM
8
Organization’s competencies
9
Total
17
Cronbach's Alpha
.779
.781
.780
On the basis of the research model, research hypothesis implies into two groups: main and secondary;
The main hypothesis consists of:
H1: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and organization’s competencies.
The secondary hypotheses consist of:
H2: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and External Information Awareness.
© Emerald Group Publishing H3: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Internal Knowledge Dissemination.
H4: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Effective Decision Architecture.
H5: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Organizational Focus.
H6: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Continuous innovation.
Based on the literature review, a research model was developed as shown in Figure 1. The model
consists of two concepts which are PKM Skills and Organization’s competencies.
There are seven PKM skills as proposed by Avery et al. in 2001 namely:
(1) retrieving information;
(2) evaluating information;
(3) organizing information;
(4) collaborating around information;
(5) analyzing information;
(6) presenting information; and
(7) Securing information.
Figure 1: research model
Organization’s competencies are measured by the five principles as suggested by Ziegler in 2008 which
are:
(1) External Information Awareness (EIA);
(2) Internal Knowledge Dissemination (IKD);
(3) Effective Decision Architecture (EDA);
(4) Organizational Focus (OF); and
(5) Continuous innovation (CI).
Research findings
In this research, all data have been analyzed by SPSS 17 software and in data analysis have been used two
methods, descriptive statistics and presumptive statistics that its results are suggested in following.
© Emerald Group Publishing Respondents’ profile
Table II shows the descriptive statistic data of the studied service organization:
Table II: the descriptive statistical data of statistical sample members
Range
Educations level
Record of service
Age
Sexuality
Description
Numbers
Percent (%)
diploma
savoir-faire
expertise
master of science
totally
Under 5 years
5-10 years
10-15 years
15-20 years
Up to 20 years
totally
Under 25 years old
25-45 years old
45-70 years old
Up to 70 years old
totally
male
female
totally
10
16
34
10
70
16
32
12
4
6
70
2
40
20
8
70
44
26
70
14.3
22.8
48.6
14.3
100
22.8
45.7
17.2
5.7
8.6
100
2.8
57.2
28.6
11.4
100
62.8
37.2
100
The result shows 62.8% of respondents are males and 37.2% of them are females. Also, for purpose of
educations level, 14.3% of respondents have diploma, 22.8% have savoir-faire, 48.6% have expertise and
14.3% have Master of Science or master’s degree. In the connection of record of service, 22.8% of the
respondents have lower than 5 years, 45.7% have between 5-10 years, 17.2% have between 10-15 years,
5.7% have between 15-20 years, and 8.6% have record of service up to 20 years. With respect to age, also
2.8% of respondents have 25 years old, 57.2% have between 25-45 years old, 28.6% have between 45-70
years old and 11.4% have upper than 45 years old.
Hypotheses tests
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is used for studding the propounded claim about normal data distribution. At
first using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test has studied normality of questionnaire data at any parts of PKM and
the organization’s competencies. The result of this test showed at table III.
Table III: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
N
Sig.
PKM
70
.801
Organization’s competencies
70
.744
Variable
With due to the obtained results at table III, it saw that sig. value is more than 0.05 for any research
variables, which this problem is proved normality of data distribution related to the research
variables, so hypothesis of research will be test by Pearson’s correlation coefficient method.
© Emerald Group Publishing H1: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and organization’s competencies.
Table IV: Correlation between PKM and organization’s competencies
Organization’s
PKM
Pearson Correlation
PKM
Competencies
1
.340*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.046
N
Organization’s Competencies
70
70
Pearson Correlation
.340*
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.046
N
70
70
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Based on the table IV, because the meaningful level (sig.) is less than 0.05, H0 hypothesis is rejected and
H1 hypothesis is supported, namely meaningful relation is approved between two variables. Correlation
between two variables, the PKM and organization’s competencies, have been calculated equal to 0.340
that is indicator of meaningful and positive relation between two variables.
H2: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and External Information Awareness.
Table V: Correlation between PKM and the External Information
Awareness
PKM
Pearson Correlation
PKM
EIA
1
.317*
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
EIA
.047
70
70
Pearson Correlation
.317*
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.047
N
70
70
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Just as analysis results shows in the table V, because the meaningful level (sig.) is less than 0.05, H0
hypothesis is rejected and H1 hypothesis is supported, namely meaningful relation is approved between
two variables. The correlation also has been calculated equal to 0.317, between two variables, the PKM
and external information awareness which shows meaningful and positive relation between two variables.
© Emerald Group Publishing H3: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Internal Knowledge Dissemination.
Table VI: Correlation between PKM and Internal Knowledge
Dissemination
PKM
PKM
IKD
Pearson Correlation
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.035
N
IKD
.334*
Pearson Correlation
70
70
*
1
.334
Sig. (2-tailed)
.035
N
70
70
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Just as analysis results shows in the table VI, because the meaningful level (sig.) is less than 0.05, H0
hypothesis is rejected and H1 hypothesis is supported, namely meaningful relation is approved between
two variables. Correlation between two variables, the PKM and internal knowledge dissemination, have
been calculated equal to 0.334 that is indicator of meaningful and positive relation between two variables.
H4: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Effective Decision Architecture.
Table VII: Correlation between PKM and Effective Decision Architecture
PKM
PKM
Pearson Correlation
EDA
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
EDA
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.390*
.013
70
70
.390*
1
.013
70
70
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Just as analysis results shows in the table VII, because the meaningful level (sig.) is less than 0.05, H0
hypothesis is rejected and H1 hypothesis is supported, namely meaningful relation is approved between
two variables. Correlation between two variables, the PKM and effective decision architecture, have been
calculated equal to 0.390 that is indicator of meaningful and positive relation between two variables.
© Emerald Group Publishing H5: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Organizational Focus.
Table VIII: Correlation between PKM and Organizational Focus
PKM
PKM
OF
Pearson Correlation
.457**
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.006
N
OF
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
70
70
.457**
1
.006
N
70
70
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Just as analysis results shows in the table VIII, because the meaningful level (sig.) is less than 0.05, H0
hypothesis is rejected and H1 hypothesis is supported, namely meaningful relation is approved between
two variables. Correlation between two variables, the PKM and organizational focus, have been
calculated equal to 0.457 that is indicator of meaningful and positive relation between two variables.
Also, meaningful level (sig.) is less than 0.01 that is meaning that correlation between these two variables
is very strong, and these two variables are correlated to each other at the 99% reliability level.
H6: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Continuous innovation.
Table IX: Correlation between PKM and Continuous innovation
PKM
PKM
Pearson Correlation
CI
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
CI
.153
.346
70
70
Pearson Correlation
.153
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.346
N
70
70
Just as analysis results shows in the table IX, because the meaningful level (sig.) is more than 0.05, H1
hypothesis is rejected and there isn’t reason for rejection of H0 hypothesis; so, H0 hypothesis is approved,
namely absent of meaningful relationship between the PKM and continuous innovation.
Discussion
About the H1 hypothesis, meaningful relation is approved between PKM and organization’s
© Emerald Group Publishing competencies; Perhaps this correlation being for the reason that in the studied organization is used
electronic spreadsheets and statistical softwares in order to analysis; so, analyzing skill is saw in this
organization. On the other hand, among organization’s competencies dimensions, dimensions of internal
knowledge dissemination, effective decision architecture and organizational focus needs to information
analysis, and this matter is caused that organization’s competencies partly is depended on analyzing skill
and totally on PKM. So, organizations should be having special attention to the PKM with regard to
competencies improvement. If organizations provides the suitable condition for execution of the PKM for
its employees, this matter will be lead to competencies improvement of organization.
Regarding the H2 hypothesis, meaningful relation is approved between PKM and external information
awareness; It seems that this correlation arising from this matter that in the studied organization have been
considered the preparatory employees in order to synchronous and asynchronous communication; so,
collaborating skill is saw in this organization. On the other hand, dimension of external information
awareness needs to collaborating around information, and this matter is caused external information
awareness partly is depended on collaborating skill and totally on PKM.
Concerning the H3 hypothesis, meaningful relation is approved between PKM and internal knowledge
dissemination; Reason of this correlation can be this matter that in the studied organization is used
electronic spreadsheets and statistical softwares in order to analysis that is needful to converting
information into knowledge; so, analyzing skill is saw in this organization. Also, in the studied
organization are seen new electronic tools and venues for presentations, through computer-based
presentation tools and web sites; so, presenting skill also have been executed as well in this organization.
Also, electronic tools have been used for relation among employees that this matter leading to
collaborating improvement. On the other hand, dimension of internal knowledge dissemination strongly
needs to analyzing information, presenting information and collaborating around information, and this
matter is caused that the internal knowledge dissemination partly is depended on analyzing skill,
presenting skill and collaborating skill, and totally on PKM.
About the H4 hypothesis, meaningful relation is approved between PKM and effective decision
architecture; This correlation probably arising from this problem that in the studied organization is saw
active and skilled working teams and groups, so skills such as questioning, listening, experiment and
verbal research and etc. is observed in the meantime activity of this teams and groups, and also making
relation is provided between employees in the high level that this matter leads to successful execution of
evaluating and collaborating skills in this organization. Also, in the studied organization is used electronic
spreadsheets and statistical softwares in order to analysis; so, analyzing skill is saw in this organization.
On the other hand, dimension of effective decision architecture strongly needs to analyzing information,
evaluating information and collaborating around information, and this matter is caused that the effective
decision architecture partly is depended on analyzing skill, evaluating skill and collaborating skill, and
totally on PKM.
Regarding the H5 hypothesis, meaningful relation is approved between PKM and organizational focus;
this correlation perhaps is for the reason that it is performed meaning extraction from data, and converting
information into knowledge, and at last good analyzing skill. Also, it is used from directories and folders,
databases, web pages, and web portals and other electronic tools in order to organizing information in this
organization. On the other hand, dimension of organizational focus strongly needs to analyzing
information and organizing information, and this matter is caused that the organizational focus partly is
depended on analyzing skill and organizing skill, and totally on PKM.
Concerning the H6 hypothesis, absent of meaningful relation is approved between PKM and continuous
© Emerald Group Publishing innovation; this absent of correlation can arise from this matter that there isn’t strategies in the
organization that organization lead to an innovator and knowledge-based organization.
Conclusion
This work is a study to investigate the role of PKM for organizations. The results indicated that PKM is
playing important role and can benefit organizations in improving competencies.
The values of PKM for organization were found to improve the four of five competencies suggested by
Mendelson and Ziegler (1999) and Ziegler (2008). In external information awareness competencies, the
collaborating skill scored very high role. In internal knowledge dissimilation competence, the analyzing,
collaborating and presenting skills scored very high roles. In effective decision-making competence, the
evaluating, analyzing and collaborating skills scored very high roles. In organization focus competence,
very high scored roles were found in organizing and analyzing skills. In continuous innovation
competence, none of PKM skills scored very high roles.
The results of the research are summarized in Table X. In short, PKM can benefit in improving the
organization competencies; the role of PKM for organization’s competencies are positively correlated to
External Information Awareness, Internal Knowledge Dissemination, Effective Decision Architecture and
Organizational Focus, and not correlated to continuous innovation.
Table X: Hypotheses tests results
hypothesis
H1: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and organization’s competencies.
H2: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and External Information Awareness.
H3: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Internal Knowledge Dissemination.
H4: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Effective Decision Architecture.
H5: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Organizational Focus.
H6: there is a meaningful relationship Between PKM and Continuous innovation.
result
supported
supported
supported
supported
supported
rejected
At just observed, on the basis of research findings, namely existence correlation between the PKM and
organization’s competencies, it should be attentioned to PKM like an influential factor to improving
dimensions of organization’s competencies. So, it should be considered encouragement of employees to
using the PKM in order to promotion of organization’s competencies level. The following proposals can
facilitate the PKM policy and lead employees towards execution of the PKM: (1) existence of strategies
for motion toward knowledge-based organization. (2) Enjoying suitable facilities and tools and also using
modern technology in order to making desirable situation in information exchanging. (3) Making
organizational culture and providing necessary facilities to sharing knowledge between employees and
making suitable case for knowledge exploitation at the same time. (4) Making suitable ground for
knowledge storage and also knowledge exchanging between managers and employees to presenting new
ideas in direction of improvement the personal and organizational knowledge management. (5)
Management’s commitment and supporting from activities related to execution of knowledge
management systems. (6) Making suitable training terms in connection the PKM and its skills, and also
assessment of efficiency rate of these terms.
For future research, in due to obtained results in this research and in order to more complete studying,
we mention that organizational culture is an attractive problem that can be studying its intermediary role
in relationship between PKM and organization’s competencies. Also, since the present study has been
© Emerald Group Publishing carried out in a government organization, private organization of such research can be obtained different
results, that with a comparative study between the results of government and private organizations can be
realized differences between them.
References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-136.
Avery, S., Brooks, R., Brown, J., Dorsey, P. and O’Conner, M. (2001), “Personal knowledge management:
framework for integration and partnerships”, 35th annual Conference of the Association of Small Computer
Users in Education (ASCUE), 11-14 June, Myrtle Beach, SC.
Cheong, R.K.F. and Tsui, E. (2010), “The roles and values of personal knowledge management: an exploratory
study”, the journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 204-227.
Conca, F.J. and et al. (2004), “Development of a measure to assess quality management in certified firms”,
European journal of operational research, Vol. 156, pp. 683-697.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test”, Psychometricka, Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Dalkir, K. (2007), Knowledge management in theory and practice, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Davenport, T. H. (1999), Human capital: What it is and why people invest it, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Drucker, P. (1999), “Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge”, California Management Review, Vol.
41, pp. 79-94.
Efimova, L. (2005), “Understanding personal knowledge management: a Weblog case”, Telematica Instituut,
Enschede, available at: https://doc.telin.nl/dsweb/Get/Document 44969/pkm_weblogs_final.pdf (accessed 14
March 2012).
Frand, J. and Hixon, C. (1999), “Personal Knowledge Management: Who, What, Why, When, Where, How?,
available
at:
http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/jason.farand/researchers/educom98pkm/sld001.htm
(accessed 10 March 2012).
Grant, R. (2000), “Shifts in the world economy, the drivers of knowledge management”, in Despres, C. and
Chauvel, D. (Eds), Knowlege Horizons, Butterworth-Heinmann, Boston, MA.
Higgison, S. (2004), “Your say: personal knowledge management”, Inside Knowledge, Vol. 7 No. 7.
Jefferson, T.L. (2006), “Taking it personally: personal knowledge management”, VINE: The Journal of Information
and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 35-37.
Joia, L.A. (2000), “Measuring intangibles corporate assets: linking business strategy with intellectual capital”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 68-84.
Ke, P. (2007), Introduction to Information Management, 2nd edn. Science Press, Beijing.
Kelloway, E. K. & Barling, J. (2000), “Knowledge work as organizational behavior”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 2, pp. 287-304.
Kong, D.C. (2003), “Personal Knowledge Management”, Library Development, pp. 17–18.
Li, G. and Li, Y. (2009), “A Study on Blog Based Personal Knowledge Management”, Second International
Workshop on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 248-251.
Martin, J. (2008), “Personal Knowledge Management: The basis of Corporate and Institiutional Knowledge
Management”,
Spotted
Cow,
Alberta,
18
September,
available
at:
www.spottedcowpress.ca/KnowledgeManagement/pdfs/06MartinJ.pdf (accessed 11 March 2012).
Mendelson, H. and Ziegler, J. (1999), Survival of the Smartest, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
© Emerald Group Publishing Neuman, WL. (2006), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 6 edn, Pearson, Boston,
USA.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Perry, C. (1995), A Structured Approach to Presenting Theses: Notes for Student and Their Supervisors, Sourthern
Cross University, Lismore.
Polanyi, M. (1996), Tacit Dimension, Doubleday & Co, London.
Schutt, P. (2003), “post-Nonaka Knowledge Management”, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 9 No. 6,
pp. 451-462.
Smith,
R.
(2001),
“A
roadmap
for
knowledge
management”,
www2.gca.org/knowledgetechnologies/2001/proceedings (accessed 14 March 2012).
available
at:
Stewart, A. (2000), “Where to look for intellectual capital”, Intellectual Capital: The Wealth of Organisations,
Nicholas Brealey, London.
Stewart, T. A. (1998), “A new way to think about employees”, Fortune, pp. 169-170.
Van de ven, A. and Ferry, D. (1979), Measuring and assessing organizations, John Wiley, New York.
Wright, K. (2005), “Personal knowledge management: supporting individual knowledge worker performance”,
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 3 No. 3, p. 156.
Wunram, M. (2000), “Concepts of the CORMA knowledge management model”, available at: www.corma.net
(accessed 10 March 2012).
Ziegler, J. (2008), What are the Key Principles of Organizational IQ?, Synesis, London.
© Emerald Group Publishing

Download Report