th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
Student First Name: Ahmad
Student Surname: Al-Halak
Copyright subsists in all papers and content posted on this site.
Further copying or distribution by any means without prior permission is prohibited,
except for the purposes of non-commercial private study or research, as defined in the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or as otherwise authorised by statute.
To obtain permission, please contact the author of the relevant paper in the first
instance or email [email protected] with details of your request.
1
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: EXPLORING THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN CAPITAL AND
ORGANISATION STRUCTURE CAPITAL
Abstract
This paper reflects to the field of knowledge management by examining the relationship in the
literature between Human Capital and Organisation structure capital effectiveness in the
business organisations.
Business organisations develop knowledge infrastructure to drive desired behaviours, yet
Knowledge worker develop processes to circumvent the organisation’s infrastructure. This
may contribute to the problem of knowledge management failure. However, the relationships
between Human capital and Organisation structure capital have not been empirically
examined in the Syrian business organisations, until this study.
In addition, most knowledge management research has been conducted at the organisation
level, yet most knowledge management implementation occurs at the team level (project
teams, business units, social groups). To help bridge the gap between theory and practice,
this study aligned the theory more closely with the practitioners’ level of implementation.
Using the Syrian business organisation to provide guidance for business leaders in the
private sectors in how they can influence the success of knowledge management programs.
Keywords: Knowledge management, Human capital, Organisation structure capital.
1
INTRODUCTION
According to Bontis (2001) HC defined as skills of an employee that help meet the task at
hand. It is the combined knowledge, skill, innovativeness and ability of the organisation’s
2
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
individuals. On the other hand OSC is the hardware, software, databases, organisational
structure, patents, trademarks and everything else that employees use to support their
business activities and processes (Bontis, 2001).
Knowledge management (KM) involves creating a learning culture to continuously create,
share, and use knowledge for the purposes of developing new opportunities (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 1990) Knowledge and knowledge management (KM) play a big part
in HC and OSC. Knowledge is considered as the new wealth of organisations by which
superior business performance and a competitive advantage can be achieved (Al-Alawi, AlMarzooqi & Mohammed, 2007).
According to Al-Alawi et al. (2007, p. 22) “knowledge management is currently one of the
hottest topics in information technology and management literature.” Knowledge
management has become one of the most important trends in business because organisations
are trying to achieve greater value from the knowledge they possess (Grossman, 2006), such
as finding better ways to value, or elicit, and apply knowledge to create new knowledge
(Denning, 2006). More than 25% of Fortune 500 companies employ Chief Knowledge
Officers and another 43% are planning to do so within a few years (Bose, 2004). In addition,
largest U.S. and European companies use some form of knowledge management
approximately 81% of the (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez & Sabherwal, 2004).
However, it has been difficult for firms to implement and maintain effective knowledge
management systems (Jolly & Thérin, 2007).
Therefore, this research investigates and describes the relationship between Human capital
(HC) and Organisation structure capital (OSC) in the Syrian business organisations. A gap in
3
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
the research of the impact of HC and OSC has been identified in the current literature; this
research is attempted to provide an insight to the impact of HC and OSC.
Additionally, the research presents a conceptual framework (see figure 1) with “processes”
and “contents” perspectives instead of just Information technology (IT) effects that were
heavily focused in the early KM initiatives. In addition to IT, there are also Human capital
and Organisation structure capital that are critical to KM and its processes.
2
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The problem explored in this quantitative study is that businesses tend to launch knowledge
management programs without consideration of the capabilities required for the effort to
prosper, making it difficult to guarantee any degree of success (Gold et al., 2001). Part of this
problem, as argued by Rhodes et al (2008) and Kalling (2003) is a lack of practical guidance
due to “relatively few knowledge management texts that make an explicit connection
between knowledge and performance.” The development of effective Human capital and
Organisation structure capital is discussed in the literature, and prescribed by vendors. The
problem with using only the business as the unit of analysis is that it provides guidance for
business leaders (Hedberg, 1981) in how they can influence the success of Human capital and
Organisation structure capital framework and its impacts on their business (Lynn, Reilly &
Akgün, 2000; Serenko et al., 2007).
Human capital and Organisation structure capital research could provide more value if the
unit of analysis (individual and organisational) is aligned with the practitioner’s level of
implementation. No known studies exist that examine Human capital and Organisation
structure capital conceptual framework.
4
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
3
RELEVANT LITERATURE
The literature review of this paper provides an insight into the issue of Knowledge
Management frameworks especially taking in consideration the Human capital which affects
Knowledge Management. It is important to understand the current literature in relation to
Knowledge Management strategies, influences, models presented and dimension in order to
comprehend the link between Human capital factor and it relation to Organisation structure
capital (Minonne, 2007). In the present age the link between competitive advantage and
Knowledge is considerable, which reinforces the need to in depth evaluation of the concept of
knowledge management. The Human capital factors are of significant importance to
determine human capital and its role within the organisation structure capital.
There are different frameworks which have been presented by (Alavi et al., 2001; Scarbrough
and Swan, 1999; Nickols, 2000; Hackett, 2000; Choo & Bontis, 2002; Abell & Oxbrow,
2001; Jashapara, 2005) the frameworks distinguish the varieties of Knowledge that exists e.g.
common framework which has been introduced is a framework which categorises the
dimensions of knowledge which distinguishes between tacit knowledge and explicit
knowledge. The tacit knowledge emphasises the internalisation process of the acquisition of
knowledge in which the candidate does not know how to accomplish a particular task. The
approach of explicit knowledge is just the opposite, where the knowledge acquired by the
individual is done consciously and there is a focus and knowledge can be communicated
easily to others (Alavi et al., 2001). Tacit Knowledge is the concept which has been
introduced by Michael Polanyi (1966) which is the foundation for assessment of knowledge
Management.
5
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
Nickols (2000) proposes that the categories presented by Nonaka and Takeuchi should be
broken down into more procedural knowledge which is declared (Nickolas, 2000).
Scarbrough and Swan (1999) have introduced a collection of studies which suggests that
many knowledge management initiatives over-emphasis the role of IT systems and result in
failure to address the human factor. On the other hand Hackett (2000) focuses on practices
associated with management and organisational learning he made a substantial contribution
to the companies or organisation. The study by Choo and Bontis (2002) addresses the
strategic management of the intellectual capital for well-informed organisational set up; the
emphasis of the study is on intellectual capital disclosure.
Abell and Oxbrow (2001) emphasises on the existing environmental conditions which
impacts the operation of business. Their research focuses on business drivers for various
sectors which influences the manner in which organisation achieves knowledge management.
Alavi et al. (2001) discussed the knowledge management systems which can be adopted as a
challenge for the benefit of the organisation.
Jashapara (2005) argues that knowledge management is a processed of four direct channels
such as, system technology, organisational culture, culture and strategy. The strategic
knowledge management is implemented using intellectual capital and organisational
performance. The systems technology and organisational learning supports the management
of knowledge at various levels. The study of intellectual capital based on his frameworks
represents that knowledge and learning are important factors in assessment and measurement
of organisational success.
A summary of the most recent studies are listed in the Table 1 below:
Author
Propose
Type
Finding
6
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
Zhang et al. 2006
How organizational
and technological
factors interact with
the nature of
knowledge to
influence the
knowledge sharing
process.
A case study
approach
Distributed
leadership, alignment
of issues, incentives,
coordination of a
number and variety
of groups, trust,
technology, and
implementation
Murat Gumus 2007
attempted to
investigate the effects
of communication on
knowledge sharing in
an organization
A questionnaire form
designed and
conducted to collect
data from 167
Academic and
Administrative in
Canakkale Onsekiz
Mart University
(COMU), Turkey.
Knowledge sharing is
strongly related with
communication
satisfaction and
communication style.
Gammelgaard 2007
Aims to answer the
question: is
Incentives Encourage
Knowledge Sharing?
A questionnaire
survey producing
data from 1,535
respondents from 9
different
organizations
localized in 4
different countries.
Reward
Jamali and Sidani
2008
Assess the
performance of a
sample of Lebanese
organizations of the
core learning
organization
dimensions identified
in the literature
The questionnaire
was compiled,
comprising 40
questions
consolidated from the
published literature,
addressing seven key
learning organization
dimensions.
Employee
participation,
learning climate,
systematic employee
development,
constant
experimentation, and
learning reward
systems.
Rhodes et al. 2008
Aims to discuss
factors that the
A survey study,
conducted amongst
IT systems,
structured learning
7
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
influences
knowledge transfer.
1,086 high-tech
companies.
strategies, innovative
organizational
culture, and flexible
structure and design
Table 1. Summary of previous studies.
3.1
CONUPTAL FRAMEWORK
The conceptual framework (upper layer) of the present study (see figure 1) involves
consideration of active collection, dissemination and regular updating on relative data. It
takes into consideration the knowledge revolution which is taking place within corporations.
The emphasis is on efficiency and creation of new business process within the organisation.
The framework focuses strongly on the strategies which enable to work in streamline and
enhance the capture, flow and transfer of information and knowledge to specific tasks. It is
achieved by organisational culture, leadership support and performance measurement. There
is need to integrate Human capital and Organisation structure capital with customers
knowledge in order to measure performance for successful implementation of knowledge
management. The role of individual knowledge is primary in the study impacting the
knowledge at individual which results in Human capital. The organisation knowledge level is
structured to reach the objectives of organisation structure capital. The process of knowledge
management involves creation of new knowledge, documentation and codification,
dissemination of knowledge to organisational network.
The conceptual framework provided by this paper is ideal for the development of the
methodology for the focus of study of the study which is evaluation of impact of Human
capital and Organisation structure capital on knowledge management.
8
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of Human capital and Organisation structure capital (upper layer).
Literature has offered important theoretical grounding for this study with regard to
knowledge management’s frameworks, Human capital and Organisation structure capital as a
predictor of effectiveness, also the research literature has emphasised that business
organisations must move beyond information management into the scope of knowledge
management in order to recognise, accumulate, create, transform, and distribute knowledge.
(Alavi et al., 2006; Bose, 2004; Goh, 1998; Gold et al.; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998; Orlikowski,
2000; Sutton, 2001; Verkasalo & Lappalainen, 1998; Walczak, 2005). Yet, despite growing
awareness among practitioners that Human capital and Organisation structure capital are
critical components of knowledge management success.
4
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION
The methodology of the study will be quantitative nature; the key focus is on understanding
the concept of Knowledge management through diverse studies so that it can be linked with
9
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
Human capital and Organisation structure capital. The top management support is gathered
through interview based surveys. The focus is on Knowledge Management capabilities which
can be identified through the application of the information system. The research approach is
based on the systematic study of Nonaka and Takeuchi in the context of their knowledge
spiral. The study attempts to gather data through conducted interviews, surveys and gathering
of data which can be used to assess the impact of Human capital and Organisation structure
capital on Knowledge Management of the top leading Syrian business organisations. The
knowledge and experience of the leading business organisations is interpreted as the outcome
of the data gathered. The objective is to support Human capital and Organisational structure
capital by process and framework.
5
CONCLUSION
The comparative analysis of the frameworks reveals that there are varieties of knowledge
platforms which exist to evaluate the process of knowledge management. A very common
framework by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) which has been introduced the dimensions of
knowledge which distinguishes between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. The
frameworks provide an insight into the study of Human capital and Organisation structure
capital which impacts on knowledge management. The conceptual framework presented in
this paper can be compared with the integrative framework presented by Jashapara (2005), in
which he focuses his study directly on the knowledge management which is processed
through four direct channels system technology, organisational culture, culture and strategy.
The framework presented in this paper focuses more on the Human capital and Organisation
structure capital which assesses through surveys, interviews.
10
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
The framework of the present study involves consideration of active collection, dissemination
and regular updating on relative data. It takes into consideration the knowledge revolution
which is taking place within business organisations.
This research will have a deeper understanding of the business organisations which results in
developing a conceptual framework in order to provide acceleration in a project life cycle
functional of business organisation. This is an important issue to address which is the focus of
many business organisations today.
9
REFERENCES
Abell, A. & Oxbrow, N. 2001. ‘Competing with Knowledge’, Library Association Publishing,
London.
Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., and Mohammed, Y. F. 2007. ‘Organizational culture and
knowledge sharing: Critical success factors’. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22–42.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. 2001. ‘Review: knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues’. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107 -136.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., Gonzalez, A., and Sabherwal, R. 2004. ‘Knowledge management challenges,
solutions, and technologies’. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice.
Bontis, N. 2002. ‘Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. In
C.W. Choo, N. Bontis (Eds.)’. The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and
Organizational Knowledge. NY: Oxford University Press.
Bontis, N. 2001. ‘Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual
capital’. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 41-61.
Bose, R. 2004. ‘Knowledge management capabilities and infrastructure for e-commerce’. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 42(5) 40–49.
Choo, C.W. & Bontis, N. 2002. ‘The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and
Organizational Knowledge’. Oxford University Press, USA.
Denning, S. 2006. ‘Ten steps to get more business value from knowledge management’. Strategy and
Leadership, 34(6), 11–16.
Grossman, M. 2006. An overview of knowledge management assessment approaches. Journal of
American Academy of Business, 8(2), pp. 242–247.
Hackett, B. 2000. ‘Beyond Knowledge Management: New Ways to Work and Learn’. The conference
board.
Hedberg, B. 1981. How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational design, Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press, 1, pp. 3–27.
Rhodes, J., Hung, R., Lok, P., Lien, B. Y. & Wu, C. M. 2008. ‘Factors influencing organizational
knowledge transfer: implication for corporate performance’, Journal of knowledge management, Vol.
12 No 3, pp. 84-100.
Jashapara, A. 2005. ‘The emerging discourse of knowledge management: a new dawn for information
science research?’, Journal of Information Science, Vol.31, No.2, 138-148.
Jolly, D., & Thérin, F. 2007. ‘New venture technology sourcing: Exploring the effect of absorptive
capacity, learning attitude and past performance’. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice,
9, 235–248.
Kalling, T. 2003. Knowledge management and the occasional links with performance’. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 7(3), pp. 67–81.
11
th
th
Brunel Business School – Doctoral Symposium 28 & 29 March 2011
Lynn, G. S., Reilly, R. R., & Akgün, A. E. 2000 ‘Knowledge management in new product teams:
Practices and outcomes. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 47, pp. 221–231.
Minonne, C. 2007. ‘Towards an integrative approach for managing implicit and explicit knowledge:
An exploratory study in Switzerland’. In B. Martins & D. Remenyi (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Eighth European Knowledge Management Conference, Barcelona, Spain.
Nickols, F. 2000. ‘The Knowledge in Knowledge Management: The Knowledge Management
Yearbook 2000-2001’. ed. J.W. Cortada and J.A. Woods, Butterworth-Heinemann, 12-21.
Nonaka I. & Takeuchi, H. 1995. ‘The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation’. Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M. 1966. ‘The Tacit Dimension’. London, UK: Routledge and Keoan.
Scarbrough H. and Swan, J. (eds). 1999. ‘Case Studies in Knowledge Management’. Institute of
Personnel and Development.
Senge, P. 1990 ‘The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review’, 32(1),pp. 7–23.
Serenko A., Bontis, N., & Hardie, T. 2007 ‘Organizational size and knowledge flow: A proposed
theoretical link. Journal of Intellectual Capital’, 8(4), 610–627.
12