Assessment of knowledgemanagement growth: a South

Africa perspectiveC.J. (Neels) Kruger and Roy D. Johnson

Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Abstract

Purpose – Wilson argues that knowledge management (KM) maturity is an extension of informationmanagement and effective management of work practices. Gallagher and Hazlett state that there is toomuch effort addressing technological concerns in KM while offering little practical assistance. Krugerand Snyman believe KM is a strategic resource with ICT and information management as enablers inestablishing KM maturity. These three positions of KM growth and maturity reflect the huge spectrumof and diverse views. But, very little is known about the KM growth or maturity that occurs indifferent industries, or how employees and managers perceive growth in KM maturity. This paperaims to address these issues.

Design/methodology/approach – From a large urban South African University engaged innumerous collaboration programmes with industry, the authors gain insight into the growth of KM inindustry groupings over a five-year period. The authors apply an inventory developed by Kruger andSnyman to a set of 86 organisations distributed over nine economic sectors in South Africa. In total 434employees are interviewed over three group levels (operational, middle and senior management). Thisis achieved by interviewing 178 senior practitioners in three subjects (one in each group level).

Findings – Analysis of the growth in KM maturity, as it relates to different organisational sizes,reveals that there are statistical differences between the score reported by small, medium, large andextra-large organisations and between the scores reported by senior, middle and operationalpersonnel. Findings also indicate that growth in KM differs between industry groupings, with highgrowth in construction, building materials and mining (^70 per cent), and low growth in educationalinstitutions (^40 per cent).

Originality/value – This paper is of relevance to KM practitioners interested in gaining insight intoKM maturity growth that occurred in different organisational groupings and at different operationallevels across an extremely diversified environment.

Keywords Knowledge management, Information management, Working practices, South Africa

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionWhat specifically constitutes efficient and effective knowledge management (KM)remains a highly debatable topic. Authors such as Chait (1999), Earl (2001), Gallagherand Hazlett (2000) and Kruger and Snyman (2005) emphasise that apart fromtechnological support, KM also requires social interaction. Kruger and Snyman (2005)identified an increased interdependency between ICT management, informationmanagement and KM and argue that due to the cycle of transferring data intoinformation and information into knowledge, information and communicationtechnology (ICT) systems tend to render KM possible. Analogous to this argument,Kazimi et al. (2004, p. 1) are of the opinion that “today there is a growing realizationthat organizations can attain maturity in KM only through a healthy coexistence of

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0001-253X.htm

AP61,6

542

Received 02 October 2008Revised 12 March 2009Accepted 18 August 2009

Aslib Proceedings: New InformationPerspectivesVol. 61 No. 6, 2009pp. 542-564q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0001-253XDOI 10.1108/00012530911005517

technology, processes and people, thereby paving the way for KM successes in theyears to come”. Arguably, for knowledge to be sufficiently managed, organisationsmust progress to a point where they are able to manage ICT, information andknowledge simultaneously.

In reflecting on the concept of “knowledge management”, Wilson (2002) argues thatKM means different things to different companies and that some companies havingtried it have moved on to other things. Wilson (2002) is of the opinion that even thoughconsultation companies claim that organisations are flocking to KM, studies conductedby Bain and Company in 2000 (Bain and Company, 2001) indicated that only about 35per cent of their worldwide sample of 451 companies were using KM, and reported asatisfaction rating of about 3.5 on a five-point scale. According to Wilson (2002), thisputs KM in nineteenth position out of 25 management tools, compared to about 70percent of organisations using benchmarking, and almost 80 percent using strategicplanning. Propositions made by Wilson (2002) led to the literature being inundatedwith papers focusing on either defending or refuting KM’s success. As an example,Kazimi et al. (2004, p. 1), questioned “Why is it that a concept [KM] so powerful has notdelivered what it was supposed to?”, while Salojarvi et al. (2005) contested that as far asstudies conducted in Finnish small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) areconcerned, there definitely is a relationship between sustainable sales growth and KMactivities. Viewed holistically, much work remains to be done, both theoretically andempirically, before KM can be regarded as a perspective with explanatory power thatexceeds other frameworks (Salojarvi et al., 2005).

A lot of confusion surrounding KM originated from the cycle of transferring datainto information and information into knowledge. In rendering information makingKM possible, ICT systems are often perceived as being KM systems. According toKazimi et al. (2004) and Gallagher and Hazlett (2000), it is this reliance on technologythat resulted in KM maturity being derived from the Software Engineering Institute’sCapability Maturity Model (CMM). Gallagher and Hazlett (2000) therefore criticize KMmaturity models[1] arguing that they either “expend too much effort in trying toaddress technological concerns”, or are “too vague and offer little in the way ofpractical assistance”, or not enough “emphasis is placed upon culture and othermanagement issues”. While current KM maturity thinking often proposes “new”software and methods to support KM growth, authors such as Botha and Fouche (2002)reason that KM maturity should not only emphasis technological concerns, but alsoaddress “softer” managerial and even strategic concerns.

Kruger and Snyman (2007) argue that because KM covers more than technologymanagement by including abstract components such as culture, processes andcommunities there is a great deal of disillusionment surrounding KM maturity;regarding growth in KM maturity, Kruger and Snyman (2005) reason that ICT andespecially information management (IM) are prerequisites to KM. The early stages inKM maturity is therefore anchored in technology where organisations progress to alevel where they are capable of knowing and managing what constitutes data andinformation. At the conclusion of these stages, organisations should be capable ofshifting data and information by means of ICT, all in support of business operations.The next level of maturity requires realisation of the importance of KM as a formalfunction within the organization, and also an associated drive to instil this realisationthroughout the organisation. According to Kruger and Snyman (2007), this involves a

Knowledgemanagement

growth

543

conscious commitment, especially from business managers, to start embracingendeavours in KM. The next level of maturity centres around the ability to both exploitand explore the power vested in knowledge and KM (formulate KM strategies). Theessence of this level of maturity is not only the ability to intentionally enhance strategyformulation, but also to streamline KM processes and procedures. As soon asorganisations are capable of enhancing business and strategy via KM, Kruger andSnyman (2007) argue that the next evolutionary step is the incorporation andutilisation of knowledge vested in the organisation’s value chain and value chainpartners. The primary requirement of this level of maturity is the ability to transcendthe borders of the organization (e.g. the ability not only to share data and information,but also knowledge and expertise with all stakeholders in the organisation’s valuechain).

Kruger and Snyman (2007) proposed a questionnaire consisting of six sections and104 personalised questions to test and assess the KM maturity of organisations fromwithin this strategic/managerial framework, rather than from a technologicalperspective. In order to extract comparable and meaningful findings from within theKM maturity questionnaire, Kruger and Snyman (2007) utilized a four-point Likertscale to express the degree of agreement with the posed questions. This maturityrating system was designed to calculate an overall KM maturity score based onmultiple sections and expressed as values or percentages. The KM maturity sectionswere calculated as follows:

. Cover page: Demographics, Q1-Q4 (maximum score ¼ 0);

. Section 1: ICT management, Q5-Q9 (maximum score ¼ 20);

. Section 2: Information management, Q10-Q28 (maximum score ¼ 76);

. Section 3: KM issues (principles, policy, strategy), Q29-Q52 (maximumscore ¼ 88);

. Section 4: Implementation of KM, Q3-Q84 (maximum score ¼ 94);

. Section 5: Ubiquities knowledge, Q85-Q103 (maximum score ¼ 76); and

. Section 6: Assessment of KM growth, Q104: (maximum score ¼ 4).

The overall KM maturity is calculated by adding the scores achieved in the individualsections together (20 þ 76 þ 88 þ 94 þ 76 þ 4) for a total of 358 points. Section 6 of thequestionnaire was a dependent variable, according to Kruger and Snyman (2007),testing the amount of growth in KM maturity over a five-year period. Thequestionnaire appealed to the researchers primarily because all of the proposedquestions were benchmarked against a survey developed by the Public ManagementService of the OECD (PUMA), originally adapted from work done by Statistics Canadafor private firms. The OECD questionnaire was reviewed internationally by numerousexperts in the fields of KM and public management. Kruger and Snyman (2007) revisedthe OECD questions to suit the South African environment[2].

Towards a solutionDefining the border between ICT, IM and KM, and especially the maturity thereof, willin all certainty remain a highly debatable topic. These issues could be summarisedconcisely as being diverse and problematic and located on a spectrum of views.

AP61,6

544

Unfortunately, diversity in KM thinking is drawing attention away from the mostdetermining factor in KM’s survival, which is the acceptance of KM and use byindustry. Beyond a critique of current maturity models, the research literature hasneglected to supply empirical evidence of the maturity, and especially growth inmaturity, of KM. To date, few studies are focusing on the amount of KM growth andmaturity that is occurring beyond the institutionalisation of technology.

Arguments proposed by authors such as Kazimi et al. (2004), Gallagher and Hazlett(2000) and Kruger and Snyman (2007) are therefore for the most part founded on purelytheoretical reasoning, fuelling the claim that KM is nothing more than a managerialfad. Specifically growth in KM maturity as it relates to the strategic rather than from atechnocratic realm is neglected. To move past these theoretical propositions, this paperrevisits the KM maturity questionnaire proposed by Kruger and Snyman (2007) andreports on a study conducted in 86 South African based organisations, within nineindustry groupings, to determine the KM maturity growth of organisations fromwithin a managerial rather than from a technological perspective.

The intention of this paper is therefore to move past theoretical propositions andinvestigate growth in KM maturity in different organisational groupings and toaddress the following often neglected, but still extremely important, researchquestions:

(1) Is there growth in KM maturity?

(2) Does growth in KM differ between organisational groupings?

(3) Are there differences of opinion among managerial levels regarding growth inKM maturity?

Knowledge management maturity growth in a multicultural environment:the South African scenarioDeep-rooted political and social requirements to integrate cultures, not in a mannerwhere one culture dominates while others become extinct over time (Prime, 1999), makethe South African environment unique in many aspects. Challenged to amalgamateWestern cultures with African cultures, the South African environment portrays aclairvoyant perspective on the future of all business – an environment characterisedby continued change, diversity and even elements of silent intolerance and conflict(Finestone and Snyman, 2005). This paper will refrain from going into a deep anddetailed discussion of the South African scenario, except for a few factors believed todirectly or indirectly affect growth in KM maturity. One of these factors is the policy ofaffirmative action, which, according to Finestone and Snyman (2005), has the potentialof causing a social dilemma. In empowering one group to the sanctioning of another jobsecurity is influenced, consequently leading to an unwillingness of people to shareknowledge (King et al., 2007).

Another barrier to growth in KM in the South African context is the issue oflanguage. People are reluctant to share knowledge if they cannot understand conceptsor find it difficult to convey their message. Language problems in South Africa areheightened by nine ethnicities, each with their own communities, cultural languagesand parlance (Prime, 1999). Communication, which is a major element in theestablishment of KM, is often severely hampered when having to deal with 11 officialSouth African languages. In addition, different communication styles are more

Knowledgemanagement

growth

545

prevalent in different cultures. White South Africans predominantly adhere to WesternCulture, preferring an explicit style of communication such as written commitments(i.e. contracts) as the main indication of trust. In contrast, Black African cultures aremore implicit in their manner of communication, where oral communication ispreferred (King et al., 2007).

Strongly linked to growth in KM is the way South African organisations aremanaged. Three management styles (Eurocentric, Afrocentric and synergisticinspirational) directly or indirectly influenced the successful institutionalisation andgrowth in KM. The Eurocentric approach, a predominantly Western value system,emphasises characteristics such as individualism and self-centeredness (Prime, 1999).Due to the impact of colonialism and the legacy of past repressive policies, such asseparate development, the Eurocentric approach is still dominant in South Africanmanagement. Oppressive policies of the past instilled a lack of trust towards all that isconsidered foreign (King et al., 2007). Previously disadvantaged groups still considerEuro-centrism as an extension of oppression, arguing that Euro-centrism lead to asocialisation of people by race and ethnicity. A major portion of the South Africansociety and business therefore strongly resents any form of Euro-centrism.

The second South African management approach, an Ubuntu-based system,embraces Afro-centricity, which basically encourages the use of home base in dealingwith challenges, whether internal or external to the organisation. Ubuntu thinking isconsidered inclusivist oriented in contrast to the Eurocentric, exclusivist approach.The Ubuntu approach is characterised by a strong sense of community and belonging,supportiveness, solidarity, management being approachable, and freely availableinformation. In general, Ubuntunism is opposed to individualism and rather embracescollectivism, which emphasises the social unit (Prime, 1999).

The synergistic inspirational (SI) approach to South African management is onethat embraces both of the previous styles. SI involves amalgamation of time-honouredAfrican management practices, principles and philosophies with Western managementmethods. Many believe that this is the best approach for South African organisationsto follow, since it incorporates inclusivism by seeking unity in diversity, basicallypromoting the development of common values in addition to building trust and respectwhen values differ.

The South African environment therefore provides a clairvoyant perspective toWestern industry on business confronted by challenges to merge different cultures. Inpractice, due to the legacy left by previous oppressive policies, most South Africanorganisations are in a transition stage somewhere between Euro-centric, synergisticinspirational and Afro-centric management styles. Due to policies such asredistribution of wealth, affirmative action and black economic empowerment,government departments, service industries, and basic resources such as construction,building materials and mining are more lenient towards the Afro-centric andsynergistic inspirational management styles. This is primarily due to a largepercentage of the senior managers of these institutions these days being representativeof previously disadvantaged population groups. In contrast financial institutions,education, pharmaceuticals, ICT and the automotive industry, organisations for themost part still under the control of Western institutions, predominantly still supportthe Eurocentric management style.

AP61,6

546

Methodology and data collectionDifferent paradigms in the philosophy of science (i.e. positivism, realism,postmodernism, critical theory, phenomenology) all impact on the way we thinkabout the concept of knowledge. Arguments surrounding knowledge and KM oftenborder on the philosophical. All methodologies and models proposed in this paperultimately have to answer and adhere to a number of scientific and meta-scientificperspectives. The line of reasoning followed in this paper is therefore based on thetheory that knowledge is the most strategically significant resource of the firm, andthat KM growth is supported by ICT and information management.

Due to restrictions such as sensitivity, confidentiality and availability ofinformation, preliminary research attempts showed an unwillingness oforganisations to participate in the intended research. This problem was overcomeby incorporating a research component into the curriculum of Master’s in BusinessAdministration (MBA), Master’s in Information Technology (MIT) and Master’s inCommerce (MCom) students of a large urban university in South Africa. Since most ofthese students were active practitioners (97 per cent), and considered “senior” withregard to academic achievement as well as work experience, they became suitablesurrogates to participate in the research project. (This research study involving humansubjects was approved by an ethics committee of the same university.)

After numerous lectures and discussions dealing with data, information,knowledge, and KM, senior practitioners used the KM Maturity AssessmentQuestionnaire (KMMAQ) by Kruger and Snyman (2007) to critically evaluate the KMmaturity of their own organisation or one with which they were deeply familiar. Tominimise bias due to self-reporting, subjects were instructed on the need for objectivitythrough group and one-on-one discussions as well as debriefing individually whenquestions arose. Only volunteering practitioners (and organisations) were allowed toparticipate in the study. In total, 178 senior practitioners from nine industry groupingsparticipated in the research, conducting three structured interviews per practitioner. Inorder to sample each of the managerial levels, practitioners were instructed to conductstructured interviews among strategic, middle/management as well as operationalpersonnel in their respective organisations.

The decision regarding the selection of organisational groupings was guided byorganisational sectors, as prescribed by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) andguidelines provided by McGregor Business and Financial Analysis (BFA). BFAsupplies real-time and historical fundamental information on South African listedcompanies, top unlisted companies, local and international economic data as well asinternational financial indicators and currency exchange data. As shown in Table I, theselection of organisational groupings led to a fairly even distribution of the totalpopulation under research with government representing the highest population (18.43per cent), and automotive and transport (Auto/Tran) representing the smallestpopulation (4.38 per cent).

The study sample consisted of 434 employees from 86 South African basedorganisations within the nine industry groupings selected. Due to the diversity oforganisations participating in the study, the sample population consisted ofindividuals from diverse backgrounds and cultures. The sample chosen wastherefore not only representative of the managerial levels present in organisations

Knowledgemanagement

growth

547

(operational personnel totalled 143, middle management 158 and senior management133), but also ethnic and gender diversity.

Data collected by means of the structured KMMAQ was digitalised throughkeyboard entry and transferred to a rating system. In order to ensure a clean anderror-free data set, the process of data capture was monitored closely to ensure as fewerrors as possible. Newly imported data was checked for capturing errors via standardvalidation checks as applied by the university. Checks included frequencies,maximum, minimum, range and checks for missing values. After the verificationprocess had been completed, all data collected was carefully prepared for tabular andgraphic presentation, analysis and interpretation. The computer software used foranalysis and modelling was SAS Version 8.3, from the SAS Institutee. All graphs andfigures were created using Microsoft Excel.

An objective stance was maintained in analysing all research results. All statisticalcalculations were verified by the Bureau for Statistical and Survey Methodology(Statomet). Statomet is a facility that focuses on the scientific design and managementof research. Statomet provides statistical advice on all aspects of research design andmanagement, and aims to improve the quality of research by rendering amultidisciplinary service to public and private organisations.

The analysis that follows consists of the descriptive statistics used for each question.Descriptive statistics involved arranging, summarising and presenting the data in such away that the meaningful essentials of the data could be extracted and interpreted. Thestatistics used established the basic statistical measures of the response variable forevery question covering aspects pertaining to ICT and information management. Unlessspecifically stated, in all instances findings are elaborated upon from a positiveaffirmation “yes, definitely” and “yes, but not significantly”. Where the probability ofexceeding the norm (p-value) was found to be less than 0.05, the decision rule was toreject the null hypothesis at a 5 per cent level of significance.

Discussion, results and findingsThe average KM maturity score obtained by all 86 organizations in the nine industrygroupings, totalled 175 points. This constitutes an overall maturity of 49 per cent. Thescore obtained for ICT and information management as enablers to KM[3] totalled73.60 per cent and 61.14 per cent, respectively. With a score of 51.75 per cent,organisations are able to successfully identify KM issues, principles, policies, andstrategies[4]. However, totalling a score of only 46.50 per cent the ability to successfully

Type Abbreviation Percentage

Automobiles/transport Automotive/transport 4.38Banks and insurance Financial/banking 10.14Chemicals, pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals 6.68Construction, building materials and mining Resources 6.22Consumer goods and utilities Consumer goods 13.36Information technology and telecommunication ICT 17.05Education Education 10.83Consulting, auditing and service delivery Service 12.90Government Government 18.43

Table I.Organisational groupingsand weighting

AP61,6

548

identify KM issues, principles, policies, and strategies are not carried through tosuccessful implementation of KM. Also, in achieving a score of only 30.27 per cent,South African organisations struggle with extending KM beyond their borders(Ubiquities knowledge) (Figure 1).

With regard to growth in KM maturity the average score obtained by South Africanorganisations interviewed was 51.88 per cent. Slightly more than 20 per cent(20.28 per cent) of interviewees indicated that their organisations experienced rapidgrowth (3 þ maturity levels) in KM maturity, 52.12 per cent were of the opinion thatalthough growth occurred it was not significant (1-2 maturity levels), and 22.17 percent argued that although no growth took place there will probably be growth withinthe next five years. Slightly more than five per cent (5.42 per cent) were of the opinionthat a decline in KM growth occurred over the past five years (Figure 2).

Knowledge management maturity by organisational sizeIn order to determine whether organisational size plays a role in KM maturity growth,it was decided to group organisations into four categories. Organisations with 100 orless employees were grouped into the “small organisation” category. Organisationswith between 101 and 2,000 employees were grouped into “medium-sized”organisations, 2,001 to 25,000 employees into “large organisations” and 25,001 andorganisations of above grouped into “extra-large organisations”. This resulted in 21small (24.42 per cent), 24 medium (27.90 per cent), 21 large (24.42 per cent), and 20extra-large (23.26 per cent) organisations.

Figure 1.Knowledge management

maturity per maturitysections

Knowledgemanagement

growth

549

Organisations with 100 or less employees (small organisations) achieved a maturityscore of 43.51 per cent. Organisations with between 101 and 2,000 employees(medium-sized organisations) achieved a score of 50.03 per cent. Large organisations(between 2,001-25,000 employees) scored a bit lower than medium-sized organisationswith a score of 48.87 per cent. Organisations with more than 25,000 employees(extra-large organisations) consistently outperformed all other organisations, onaverage scoring 53.75 per cent. Findings hint that extra-large organisations are at anadvantage when it comes to the institutionalisation of formal KM practice over allmaturity sections. However, of interest is that although large organisationsoutperformed smaller organisations (small- and medium-sized organizations), inSection 1 (ICT management) and Section 5 (Ubiquities knowledge) of the questionnairethey were outperformed by medium-sized organizations when it came to InformationManagement (Section 2), the formulation of KM issues (Section 3), and theImplementation of KM (Section 4). Small organisations achieved 43.68 per cent growthin KM maturity over the past five years. Medium-sized organisations achieved 55.24per cent growth, while large organisations scored a bit lower than medium-sizedorganisations, totalling 51.78 per cent. Organisations with more than 25,000 employees(extra-large organisations) consistently outperformed all other organisations, onaverage scoring 56.25 per cent growth in KM.

Findings indicated that extra-large organisations are at an advantage when it comesto the institutionalisation of KM practice. As a rule extra-large organisations do haveaccess to considerably more resources than smaller sized organisations, possiblyexplaining why extra-large organisations (25,000 þ employees) obtained the highestgrowth in KM maturity. Another explanation could be that due to South African legaland mandatory requirements, extra-large organisations are more mature with regardto implementing policies and strategies than their smaller counterparts. The lowerscore achieved by large organisations (51.78 per cent), compared to the score achievedby medium-sized organisations (55.24 per cent), suggests that there could be a“break-even point” between resources available and the successful institutionalisationof KM. This argument necessitated that for analysis purposes a more holistic stanceneeded to be taken. Note had to be taken of not only the achievement of organisationsaccording to size, but also of the achievements in relation to the different manageriallevels present within organisations. Specifically, analysis needed to include a study of

Figure 2.Growth in knowledgemanagement maturity

AP61,6

550

the diffusion (the spread in score between the different managerial levels) of KMgrowth in different organisational sizes and organisational settings.

Knowledge management maturity by managerial levelSenior managers rated the KM maturity of their organisations at 53.48 per cent; middlemanagers forwarded a figure of 47.89 per cent and operational personnel forwarded afigure of 46.00 per cent. This constitutes an overall difference in scores between seniormanagement and operational personnel of 7.5 per cent. In order to determine wherespecific differences occurred, it was established that within Section 2 (Informationmanagement), Section 3 (KM issues), and Section 4 (Implementation of KM), differenceswere vested primarily between the values forwarded by operational and seniormanagers and middle and senior managers. The values forwarded by operationalpersonnel and middle managers were, however, found not to be significantly different.

Senior managers scored growth in maturity at 54.88 per cent, middle managersdecided upon a figure of 53.22 per cent and operational personnel forwarded a figure of47.69 per cent. This constitutes an overall difference in scores between seniormanagement and operational personnel of 7.19 per cent. With a p-value ,0.0001,analysis of variances (ANOVA) – Ho: means of different managerial levels are thesame; Ha: means differ – this test indicated that there is statistically significantdifference between the score reported by the different managerial levels. In order todetermine where specific differences occurred[5], it was established that differenceswere vested primarily between the values decided upon by operational and seniormanagers. This indicates an over-estimation, or difference in perception by managers,regarding:

. the success of implementation of KM;

. the efficiency and effectiveness of KM issues, policies and strategies; and

. sufficient support given to the institutionalisation of KM endeavours.

Operational personnel are not sharing the same sentiment regarding the success of KMas senior management. This quandary is supported, although not statistically proven,by the fact that operational personnel rate the growth of KM over the past five yearslower than middle and senior managers.

Knowledge management maturity growth by managerial level within organisational sizeWhen differences in opinion with regard to KM maturity growth, as decided upon bythe different managerial levels, are viewed from within the perspective of differentorganizational sizes, the picture changes dramatically (Table II). As a point ofdeparture, an analysis of variances (two-way ANOVA) was done to determine if there

Company sizeManagerial level Small Medium Large Extra-large Average

Operational 42.76 52.63 41.93 51.51 47.69Middle 42.36 58.16 51.35 60.15 53.22Senior 46.55 54.05 62.50 57.25 54.88

Note: Figures shown are percentages

Table II.KM growth by

managerial levels withinorganisation size

Knowledgemanagement

growth

551

is indeed a difference between the score achieved by organisation size and the scoresdecided upon by managerial level. With p-values ,0.0001, this test indicatedpositively that the mean values decided upon by the different managerial levels indifferent organisational sizes are statistically different.

In comparing the totals reported by operational, middle and senior personnel to oneanother, by means of a GLM procedure (least square means), it was confirmed that thescores decided upon by operational personnel and middle managers are similar insmall organisations. However, scores decided upon by operational personnel andmiddle managers in medium, large and extra-large organisations are different. Also,within medium and extra-large organisations, the scores decided upon by seniormanagers were found to be smaller than the scores decided upon by middlemanagement.

With reference to Table II and Figure 3, of interest is that the difference in the scorebetween senior and middle managers is most dominant (^10 per cent) within largeorganisations, and fairly similar (^4 per cent) between small, medium-sized andextra-large organisations. In contrast, the difference in the score between middle andoperational personnel is narrow within small (^1 per cent) and medium-sizedorganisations (^5 per cent), and broader in large and extra-large organisations (^9per cent). However, with reference to Table III, when differences in opinion with regardto the overall KM Maturity score achieved are compared, senior managers inmedium-sized (54.83 per cent), large (55.67 per cent) and extra-large organisations(56.26 per cent) scored KM maturity fairly evenly. In contrast, middle managers withinextra-large organisations scored maturity considerably higher than middle managers

Company sizeManagerial level Small Medium Large Extra-large Average

Senior 47.10 54.83 55.67 56.26 53.48Middle 42.27 48.34 46.08 55.62 47.89Operational 41.94 47.55 45.18 49.45 46.00

Note: Figures shown are percentages

Table III.Overall KM score bymanagerial levels withinorganisational size

Figure 3.KM growth by manageriallevels withinorganisational size

AP61,6

552

in other organisations. Of interest is that the decline in the score between senior andmiddle managers is smallest within extra-large organisations, and largest within largeorganisations. In contrast, the difference in the score between middle and operationalpersonnel is smallest within large- and medium-sized organisations, and largest inextra-large organisations.

Primarily due to the low scores of middle managers, KM growth in largeorganisations (i.e. not extra-large organisations) is lower than KM growth inmedium-sized organisations. Again, this strongly hints at a “break-even point”between the resources available and the successful institutionalisation of KM. There isa strong indication that middle management (supported by senior management) holdsthe key to successful growth in KM. In extra-large and medium-sized organisations,middle managers’ scores were on average higher than senior managers (Table III), andlower than senior managers in small and large organisations.

Knowledge management maturity growth by industry groupingDue to the structure of the questionnaire, the captured data also enabled the analysis ofKM maturity growth for different organisational types, as applicable to South Africanindustries. The industry sector that achieved the highest overall growth in KMmaturity score was the construction, building materials and mining grouping, with anaverage score of 69.44 per cent. The second highest growth in KM maturity wasrecorded by the consulting, auditing and service delivery industry, recording 61.16 percent growth. Consumer goods and utilities came in third at 54.62 per cent, followedclosely by the automotive and transport industry at 52.63 per cent. Governmentdepartments fared surprisingly well, recording growth in KM maturity of 49.37 percent (Table IV and Figure 4).

Banks and insurance. The KM maturity growth of banks and insurance and ICTcompanies is moderate, at 48.83 per cent and 48.55 per cent, respectively. At 47.41 percent, these scores are similar to the scores decided upon by chemical andpharmaceutical companies. In contrast, the education industry achieved the lowestgrowth in KM maturity of all industries interviewed, totalling 42.02 per cent. Thisfinding is supported in that educational institutions also received the lowest scoresover nearly all maturity levels of all organisational groupings interviewed. Possibly,the low score attributed to maturity Section 2 (Information management) carriedthrough to the subsequent maturity sections and growth in KM maturity. Another

Industry group Growth KM maturity

Automotive/transport 52.63 49.58Consumer goods 54.62 49.87Education 42.02 42.45Financial/banking 48.83 53.29Government 49.37 46.39ICT 48.55 49.06Pharmaceuticals 47.41 46.90Resources 69.44 55.67Service 61.16 51.22

Note: Figures shown are percentages

Table IV.Organizational grouping

and maturity growth

Knowledgemanagement

growth

553

explanation could be that the hoarding culture associated with academics resulted inthe guarding of knowledge as a strategic differentiator.

Due to policies such as redistribution of wealth, affirmative action and blackeconomic empowerment, government departments, service industries, and basicresources such as construction, building materials and mining are more lenienttowards the Afrocentric and synergistic inspirational management style. This isprimarily due to a large percentage of senior managers in these institutions these daysbeing representative of previously disadvantaged population groups. In contrast,financial institutions, education, pharmaceuticals, ICT and the automotive industry,organisations for the most part still under the control of Western institutions,predominantly still support the Eurocentric management style.

Resources. Resource organisations recorded the highest growth in maturity over thepast five years (69.44 per cent), and also achieved the highest percentages in Section 2(Information management, 71.49 per cent), Section 3 (KM issues, 61.15 per cent) andSection 4 (Implementation of KM) of the questionnaire. In Section 1 (ICT management,78.33 per cent) and Section 5 (Ubiquities knowledge, 32.01 per cent) scores were notsignificantly lower than the highest scores forwarded (82.95 per cent ICT managementand 35.94 per cent) by all industries. Operational, middle and senior management ratedoverall maturity in a similar manner at 52.82 per cent, 57.46 per cent and 56.23 per cent,respectively. Operational and middle managers also forwarded similar figures – i.e.75.0 per cent and 72.50 per cent – regarding maturity growth. Senior managers ratedgrowth in maturity considerably lower at 61.1 per cent. Of interest is that the largestscore difference between the different managerial levels occurred primarily in maturitySection 3 (Formulation of KM issues), where operational personnel rated the industryat 53.83 per cent with middle and senior management forwarding scores of 64.88 percent and 63.51 per cent, respectively. Viewed holistically, the findings indicate thatresources organisations are fairly mature regarding the management of informationand ICT. However, even though the resources industry recorded the highest score inSection 3 of the questionnaire, the difference in scores between managerial levelsindicate that the formulation of KM issues have not filtered through to operationalpersonnel. This finding is extremely interesting due to all managerial levels scoring the

Figure 4.Organisational groupingand maturity growth

AP61,6

554

implementation of KM similarly at 51.06 per cent (operational personnel), 53.16 per cent(middle managers) and 55.91 (senior managers) per cent, respectively. This hints atdifferences in perception regarding the formulation of KM issues as being more theresult of insufficient communication and/or the time delay associated with thediffusion of policy beyond the strategic domain than unwillingness by management toimplement KM. This argument is supported by a comment made by one of theexecutives interviewed in an extra-large resources organisation:

The organisation has realised the importance of KM as a strategic resource and has decidedon KM. What is still outstanding is the formulation of an organisational-wide knowledgepolicy that will enable the organisation to implement KM initiatives.

Financial/banking. The organisation type that achieved the second highest overallscore was the financial sector, with a total score of 190.79/358 or 53.29 per cent. Incomparison to other industries, the financial sector obtained high scores in Section 2(Information management, 68.03 per cent) and Section 3 (Formulation of KM issues,57.85 per cent) with slightly above average scores in Section 4 (Implementation of KM,48.18 per cent) and Section 5 (Ubiquities knowledge, 32.08 per cent). The financialsector significantly outperformed all other organisational types regarding ICTmanagement (Section 1, 82.95 per cent). An interesting finding is that the maturitygrowth of these organisations is perceived to be extremely moderate, achieving onlysixth place with an average score of 48.83 per cent. This score is primarily the result ofoperational personnel scoring growth in KM at 40.62 per cent, compared to scores of48.21 per cent by middle management and 59.61 per cent by senior management. Eventhough all managerial levels forwarded similar scores regarding ICT management(Section 1), score differences occurred regarding Information management (Section 2:operational personnel, 59.37 per cent; middle managers, 74.53 per cent; seniormanagers, 71.42 per cent), and the formulation of KM issues (Section 3; operationalpersonnel, 52.34 per cent; middle managers, 55.84 per cent; senior managers, 66.15 percent). This strongly hints at an over-estimation by managers regarding the maturity ofinformation management and by senior managers regarding their ability to formulateKM issues. This argument of overestimation of achievement is supported by thefinding that operational personnel rated the Implementation of KM (Section 4) at 43.61per cent, considerably lower than middle and senior management did at 52.96 per centand 48.63 per cent, respectively. A possible explanation for differences in scoressuggested by operational personnel and managers could be due to some managers stillconsidering KM to be “information management”. This position was supported by thefollowing quote from a senior manager working for a large financial institution:

At the moment some members of the board are of the opinion that KM is part of ITmanagement and should thus be incorporated into the IT department. This is creatingconfusion on who does what.

Service. The third highest score was achieved by organisations in the service deliverygrouping, with an overall score of 183.64/358 or 51.22 per cent. These organisationsrecorded high scores in Section 3 (Formulation of KM issues) and Section 4(Implementation of KM) and moderate scores in Section 1 (ICT management) andSection 2 (Information management), and extremely low scores in Section 5 (Ubiquitiesknowledge) of the maturity questionnaire. Maturity growth in this sector is high at61.16 per cent. Of interest is that the score difference between the different maturity

Knowledgemanagement

growth

555

sections is marginal with operational personnel, middle managers and seniormanagers deciding on fairly similar overall maturity scores (operational, 50.85 per cent;middle management, 50.54; senior management, 52.67 per cent). There is, however, asignificant difference in managerial level’ perception of growth in KM with operationalpersonnel scoring growth in maturity at 65.78 per cent, middle management at 55.00per cent and senior management at 63.23 per cent. Managers at a large service deliveryorganisation echoed the sentiment to invest in KM and argued that “there is arealisation and a conscious decision among top management to invest in KM”. Thesemanagers distinguished between ICT and KM and argued that “there is a clearperspective among visionary leadership (our CEO), and our executive board ofdirectors that ICT and KM must work together and not in isolation”.

Consumer goods. Organisations within the consumer goods grouping received thefourth highest maturity score, obtaining an average score of 178.55/358 or 49.87 percent. Although organisations in this sector achieved just above average to just belowaverage scores in Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the maturity questionnaire, they received thethird highest score regarding KM growth (54.62 per cent) and the second highest scorein Section 5 (Ubiquities knowledge, 34.25 per cent). Similar to service organisations, thescore difference between the different maturity sections is marginal over most maturitysections, with operational personnel, middle managers and senior managers decidingon fairly similar overall maturity scores (operational, 49.30 per cent; middlemanagement, 47.90; senior management, 52.51 per cent). There is again an indicationthat senior managers overestimate the formulation of KM issues (Section 3), withsenior managers forwarding a score of 53.94 per cent, compared to scores forwarded byoperational and middle managers of 47.005 and 47.13 per cent, respectively. Differencesregarding managerial levels of perception of growth in KM are also evident, withoperational personnel scoring growth in maturity at 54.16 per cent, middlemanagement at 51.31 per cent and senior management at 58.82 per cent. Anexplanation for the above average score achieved in Section 5 (Ubiquities knowledge –extending KM beyond organisation’s borders) could be that the anticipation ofcustomer demands is a critical success factor in the goods industry. In the words of asenior manager of a large consumer goods company:

Often end users know more about products that suppliers do. A consequent systematic use ofthis stakeholder knowledge [exceeding common customer satisfaction surveys] is mandatoryfor development of new products covering our market demands.

Automotive/transport. Automotive/transport organisations received the fifth highestscore, totalling an average score of 177.52/358 or 49.58 per cent. An interesting findingis that these organisations scored the lowest average score (45.33 per cent) informulation of KM issues (Section 3). In comparison scores achieved in Section 1 (ICTmanagement, 78.42 per cent) and Section 4 (Implementation of KM, 50.11 per cent) aremoderate, with the highest score obtained in Section 5 (Ubiquitous knowledge, 35.94per cent) for all sectors covered. Review of the scores forwarded by the differentmanagerial levels indicate that the low score achieved in maturity Section 3(Formulation of KM issues) is primarily due to operational managers scoring thissection at 36.75 per cent, compared to scores of 48.48 per cent and 50.00 per centforwarded by middle and senior managers, respectively. This difference in score isrepeated in the scores forwarded by operational personnel and managers regarding the

AP61,6

556

Implementation of KM (Section 4), where managers allocated scores of 57.09 per centand 53.95 per cent, and operational personnel 38.65 per cent respectively. This hints atan over-estimation by managers regarding the formulation of KM issues andunwillingness or possibly even an inability to implement KM. This quandary issupported by the finding that even though maturity growth for automotive/transportorganisations is moderate at 52.63 per cent, large differences occurred between thescores forwarded by the different managerial levels with operational personnel at 33.33per cent not supporting the claim of middle (70.83 per cent) and senior management(53.57 per cent) that significant growth in KM occurred. When confronted with whyoperational personnel are not supportive of the claim that significant growth in KM isoccurring, a manager at a large multinational automotive organisation argued that“They [operational personnel] could have perceived KM maturity low because it is nottangible or visible to them”. A senior manager of the same institution stated that KMabilities are poor mainly because of “the lack of a formal KM strategy, the lack of acentral coordinating function responsible for KM and the lack of a high-ranking officerresponsible for KM”. Possibly, in the words of a senior manager from another majorautomotive manufacturer, “leadership and organisational culture are the twodistinguishing inhibitors of levering existing knowledge to enhance performanceand gain competitive advantage”. This manager also supplied an explanation fordifferences in scores by different managerial levels and argued that: “while pockets ofthe company are advanced in knowledge creation and management, initiatives are notcorporate-wide and therefore not sustainable”.

ICT. Due to the nature of their business, ICT organisations scored extremely high inSection 1 (ICT management) of the questionnaire, achieving an average score of 78.85per cent. Subsequent maturity levels followed a trend similar to the average maturityscore achieved by all industries, becoming incrementally smaller as the level ofmaturity increases. Senior managers in ICT organisations, at 60.0 per cent, rated theoverall maturity to be considerably higher than the rating attributed to middlemanagement (46 per cent) and operational personnel (43 per cent). Of interest is that thebulk of the differences in scores between top, middle and operational personnel arevested primarily in the scores allocated to Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the questionnaire (i.e.Information management, Formulation of KM issues and Implementation of KM).Again, there is an indication that senior management is overestimating the ability tomanage information, formulate KM issues, policies and strategies and implement KM.Operational personnel at 39.28 per cent are not supportive of the claim by middle (50.00per cent) and senior management (60.52 per cent) that significant growth in KMoccurred over the past five years. Comments made by a senior manager of SouthAfrica’s largest communications service provider support the argument that there isconfusion regarding the difference between KM, ICT and IM:

Not only is the KM department named the Knowledge Information Management Department,but reports generated by this department are nothing more than operational reports todecision support reports that provide high-level information.

Comments forwarded by executives from the same communications giant hintstrongly at an element of lip service regarding KM, with one executive stating that:“some of the board members doubt whether the KM department is adding real value to

Knowledgemanagement

growth

557

the organization”. A senior manager at a different ICT company made a similarargument, stating that:

Our organization has not yet reached a level whereby KM is able to seamlessly integrate withthe eco-system of the enterprise. KM is still a separate entity although there is a greatawareness, but its effectiveness is still yet to be realised.

Chemical and pharmaceuticals. Chemical and pharmaceutical organisations achievedan overall maturity score of 168.00/358, or 46.9 per cent. Apart from Section 2(Information management) scores achieved in all sections of the questionnaire arelower than the average score achieved per maturity section by all organisationalgroupings interviewed. Maturity growth over the last five years is 47 per cent and isalso below the average score of 51 per cent. This is only slightly better than the lowestscore achieved by the worst performer (the educational industry) at 42 per cent. Aninteresting observation is that although senior managers in this industry scored theoverall maturity at 55 per cent, operational personnel – at 44 per cent – rated theoverall maturity slightly higher than middle management did, at 43 per cent. Thistrend is repeated in the scores forwarded by the different managerial levels regardingthe growth in KM, with operational personnel forwarding a score of 50.00 per cent,middle managers forwarding a score of 40.90 per cent and senior managers 52.77 percent. The low score attributed to middle management is primarily due to middlemanagers perceiving Section 3 (formulation of KM issues) to be inadequate. Commentsmade by middle managers working in a large pharmaceutical company manufacturingfacility supported these arguments in stating that: “the company does not have aclearly defined KM strategy and policy in place and staff members (especiallymanagement) are not evaluated on their ability to share knowledge”. This manager notonly argued that perceptions surrounding KM differs greatly, but that there is also a“perception that the ICT department is KM and not the enabler of KM”. He alsoexpressed a strong opinion that: “there is not a significant drive to get all employeesinvolved in KM and expertise is held locally within functional departments, like IT,finance, production, etc.”. At another large pharmaceutical company, however,managers indicated that various initiatives have been explored to effectively handledata and information. These managers are in agreement that there is an understandingof the importance of managing, securing and protecting knowledge as a strategicresource. However, according to one of the managers interviewed, “although ourcompany realizes the importance of KM policies and strategies, our implementation ofKM as well as our level of ubiquitous knowledge are at lower maturity levels”.

Government. The governmental sector achieved an overall maturity score of166.11/358, or 46.39 per cent. Government departments achieved scores over allmaturity levels (except Section 5) that were considerably lower than the average scoreobtained by all participating organisations. However, an interesting finding is thatgrowth of maturity over the past five years at 49 per cent is moderate compared toother groupings. When findings are broken down to reveal the scores allocated by thedifferent managerial levels that made up the government departments, it was foundthat the difference in score between the different managerial levels within governmentdepartments take on an extremely interesting dimension, with senior and operationalpersonnel rating growth in maturity the same at 43.75 per cent and 42.85 per cent. Thisis considerably lower than the score attributed by middle managers, i.e. 57.14 per cent.

AP61,6

558

Education. Educational institutions not only received the lowest maturity score ofall groupings interviewed (152/358, or 42.45 per cent), but also forwarded the lowestmaturity scores over nearly all maturity levels. Growth of maturity over the past fiveyears was also the lowest of all the organisational sectors interviewed, receiving ascore of 42.02 per cent. Senior managers rated growth in KM at 44.23 per cent andoverall maturity at 47.55 per cent; middle management rated growth in KM at 44.44 percent and overall maturity at 39.86 per cent; and operational personnel rated growth inKM at 37.5 per cent and maturity at 41.44 per cent. The relatively low score attributedto middle management could be traced to middle managers scoring Section 2(Information management) significantly lower than any other maturity section.Possibly, the low score attributed to maturity in Section 2 (Information management)carried through to the subsequent maturity sections. Another explanation could be thatthe hoarding culture associated with academics resulted in the guarding of knowledgeas a strategic differentiator. The findings support the argument that there is anunwillingness of senior management to acknowledge the value of KM. As one managerat a large educational institution put it: “knowledge hoarding takes place due to the‘knowledge is power’ syndrome. We mostly hoard knowledge because no properplatform exists to enable us to share knowledge effectively”. In emphasising neglectfrom senior management, a middle manager at a different tertiary institution arguedthat:

If KM is taken serious by management, this initiative can easily be implementedwithin the next five years. Currently the question is asked whether this initiative (KM)resides at the Directorate ICT or Strategic Management Support.

Information management as an enabler for knowledge managementThe findings confirm that leading KM maturity organisations have sound ICTmanagement practices in place. Medium-sized organisations in both the financial andresources industries were typical examples in case. However, even with strong ICTsupport and having sufficient KM policies and strategies in place, insufficientinformation management was also found to negatively impact on the overall ability toinstitutionalise KM successfully. The dramatic decline in KM maturity in the latterstages of large financial organisations’ scores, primarily due to insufficient informationmanagement, proved to be a definite point in case.

Insufficient and/or immature ICT and information management lead to problemswith regard to supporting KM endeavours beyond organisational borders. Findingsindicated that even though services organisations know how to formulate andimplement KM issues (principles, policy and strategy) successfully, they struggle withcoming to grips with managing knowledge situated outside the borders of theirorganisations. Similarly, the below average performance in ICT management (66 percent compared to an average score of 73 per cent), achieved in the pharmaceuticalorganisations filtering through to successive maturity levels. This again strongly hintsat the enabling role of ICT being insufficient. The relatively low score achieved in theeducational industry, primarily due to middle managers perceiving informationmanagement to be inadequate, strengthening the argument that informationmanagement, similar to ICT, is a prerequisite to the successful institutionalisation ofKM.

Knowledgemanagement

growth

559

Summary and conclusionIn this paper it is argued that the debate surrounding ICT, information managementand KM is drawing attention away from the determining factor in KM’s survival,which is acceptance and use. The current literature largely neglects to acknowledgethis phenomenon. To date, not many studies are focusing on the amount of growth thatis occurring in KM, or if employees and managers hold similar opinions regarding KMgrowth. In contrast to this argument that KM might be a fallacy not able to withstandthe test of time, only 27.60 per cent of South African organisations indicated that nogrowth or a decline in KM growth occurred over the past five years. Due to the SouthAfrican industry being considered a benchmark for Western industry with anenvironment characterised by continued change, diversity and even elements of silentintolerance and conflict, these findings are of extreme importance to KM practitioners,scholars and professionals. In moving past theoretical propositions and investigatinggrowth in KM as it relates to different organisational settings, managerial levels andindustries, it can be argued that KM is taking on a new dimension, one where it isgrowing in stature, becoming a self-governing entity, dependent upon, but separatefrom, ICT and information management.

Analysis of the growth in KM maturity as it relates to different organisational sizesreveals that there are statistical differences between the score reported by small, medium,large and extra-large organisations. Viewed holistically, much larger organisations are atan advantage with regard to the institutionalisation of KM practice over most maturitylevels, especially with regard to the sharing of knowledge beyond organisationalboundaries. Of interest is that although large organisations (NB not extra-largeorganisations) outperformed medium-sized organisations in Section 1 (ICT management)and Section 5 (Ubiquities knowledge) of the questionnaire, they were often outperformedby medium-sized organisations with regard to Information management (Section 2),Identification of KM issues (Section 3), and Implementation of KM (Section 4).

Scores decided upon by senior, middle and operational personnel differ primarilybetween the scores decided upon by operational personnel and managers, especiallywith regard to maturity in Information management (Section 2), Identification of KMissues (Section 3), and Implementation of KM (Section 4). An interesting observation isthat there is a discrepancy of about 10 per cent between the scores allocated by seniorand middle managers to Section 3 of the questionnaire, which deals with theformulation of KM issues (principles, policy and strategy). Middle and especiallyoperational personnel are not sharing the same sentiment regarding the success of KMas senior management. This quandary is supported, although not statistically proven,by the fact that operational personnel rated the growth of KM over the past five yearslower than middle and senior managers. Excluding small organisations, seniormanagers scored KM maturity fairly evenly over all maturity sections. In contrast,middle managers within extra-large organisations scored maturity considerablyhigher than middle managers in other organisations. Of interest is that the decline inthe score between senior and middle managers is smallest within extra-largeorganisations, and largest within large organisations. In contrast, the difference in thescore between middle and operational personnel is smallest within large andmedium-sized organisations, and largest in extra-large organisations. These findingsagain indicate that the size of the organisation does play a role in the diffusion of KMbetween different managerial levels.

AP61,6

560

Growth in KM changed vastly between different industry groupings, withconstruction, building materials and mining companies achieving high growth,consumer goods and utilities, banks and insurance, automotive and transport,government and ICT companies achieving moderate growth, and educationalinstitutions achieving low growth. Score differences between groupings could mainlybe attributed to consistency in achievement over all maturity sections. Especially, itwas noted that leaders all achieved higher than average scores over all maturitysections, and in particular over Section 1 (ICT management), Section 2 (Informationmanagement) and Section 3 (Formulation of KM issues – principles, policy andstrategy) of the questionnaire. In contrast, even though companies in the chemical andpharmaceutical and government sectors achieved high scores in certain maturitysections, score hikes were isolated for the most part. On average, organisations that didnot fare as well as the leaders achieved below-average scores, especially over maturitySections 1, 2 and 3 of the KM maturity questionnaire.

An interesting observation is that in industries prone towards Afrocentric andsynergistic inspirational management styles, KM growth was higher than in industrieslenient towards the Eurocentric management style. However, with reference to Table IVand Figure 4, this trend is not supported by the overall KM maturity score achieved.Arguably, this hints at the possibility that it is more the case of certain industriescatching-up than Afrocentric and synergistic inspirational management stylesout-performing the Eurocentric management style. Of interest is that in organisationsmore prone towards Afrocentric and synergistic inspirational management styles,operational personnel’s perception is higher (resources and services) or closely related(government departments) to the perception of senior management. In contrast, inorganisations more lenient towards the Eurocentric management style, scores forwardedby operational personnel regarding growth in KM are consistently lower than the scoresforwarded by middle and senior management. This finding is similar and supportive ofthe argument proposed by King et al. (2007) that Afrocentric and synergistic inspirationalmanagers follow a more “open door” policy regarding decision-making and the sharing ofknowledge. Arguably, operational personnel in Afrocentric and synergistic inspirationalorganisations are more a part of the vesting of a KM culture and are actively involved inthe implementation of KM than their counterparts in Eurocentric organisations.

When differences in opinion with regard to KM maturity growth, as decided uponby the different managerial levels, are viewed from within the perspective of differentorganisational sizes, it is revealed that the difference in score between senior andmiddle managers is most dominant within large organisations, and fairly similar (^4per cent) between small, medium and extra-large organisations. Extra-largeorganisations seem to be at an advantage regarding KM growth. The findingsrevealed that differences occurred primarily between the scores forwarded byoperational and senior managers and middle and senior managers, especially withregard to maturity in Information management (Section 2), Identification of KM issues(Section 3), and Implementation of KM (Section 4). Viewed holistically, irrespective oforganisational size and industry, commitment and diffusion of KM, especially betweensenior and middle management, are cardinal to the success of KM endeavours. There isa strong indication that middle management (supported by senior management) holdsthe key to successful implementation and growth of KM. In top achievers, middlemanagers’ scores were on average similar to or slightly higher than senior managers.

Knowledgemanagement

growth

561

Findings suggest that there could be a “break even point” between resourcesavailable and KM growth. Though organisational size and the availability of resourcesinfluence the successful institutionalisation of KM, in a practical sense growth in KMmight be more dependent on a deliberate, conscious and calculated managerial effortthan on factors such as organisational size and the competing industries. A surprisingresult was that even with strong ICT support and sufficient KM policies and strategiesin place, insufficient information management was consistently found to impactnegatively on KM growth. The findings also indicate that most South Africanorganisations are not mature in extending KM beyond organisational boundaries.There seems to be a perception that extending KM beyond organisational bordersimpacts negatively on KM maturity. Most South African organisations are thereforenot actively encouraging, or driving, KM endeavours to span their organisationalborders.

Limitations and applicability of the studyIt must be acknowledged that the management of knowledge, in all its complexity,constitutes much more than the issues identified in this research. As the body ofknowledge evolves, the line of reasoning proposed and the associated questionnairemust be updated and revised on a regular basis. Use of the Likert scale, used in the KMmaturity questionnaire, may not have appropriately captured all data. Of interest forfuture research would be to repeat the experiment and change the description of theincision points used, and/or alter the number of incision points used. This study maytherefore be viewed as a “pilot study” to provide insights. To take into account the timefor ICT and information management to impact on KM, more research is needed beforegrowth in KM maturity can be calculated more accurately. Such a longitudinal studyshould span a number of years and be inclusive of additional industries, withindifferent managerial and strategic settings.

Given the time and logistical limitations of this study, plus a focus on providinginsights rather than generating quantitative results, it was impractical andunnecessary to include all organisations within South African industry. However,due to the subjects of research being drawn in as integral parts of the research design,manipulation due to “overly emotional or subjective involvement” could have occurreddue to respondents serving their own, rather than the research needs. A quandary stillto be investigated is that in medium and extra-large organisations scores decided uponby middle management were consistently higher than the scores decided upon bysenior management.

Definitions regarding data management, information management and KM maynever materialise, but a long-term development plan to solve the successfulimplementation of ICT and information management as enablers to KM might prove tobe quite valuable in the continued quest to manage knowledge successfully.

Notes

1. KM Maturity models criticized by Gallagher and Hazlett (2000) include Crosby’s QualityManagement Maturity Grid (Crosby, 1978), SEI’s Capability Maturity Model (Paulk et al.,1993), KPMG’s Knowledge Management Framework Assessment Exercise (KPMG, 1999),KPMG’s Characterization of the Knowledge Journey (Parlby, 1999a, b), and Microsoft’s ITAdvisor for Knowledge Management (Microsoft, 1999).

AP61,6

562

2. Although the questionnaire by Kruger and Snyman (2007) addresses the total spectrum ofKM maturity, this article only focuses on the amount of growth in KM maturity thatoccurred over a five-year period.

3. Arguments proposed by Boon (1990), Gurteen (1998), Applegate et al. (1999), Davenport(1999), Taylor-Small and Tattalias (2000), Logan (2001), Kazimi et al.(2004), Kochikar (2000)and Kruger and Snyman (2005).

4. Arguments proposed by Davenport (1999), Gurteen (1998), Orna (1998), Zack (1999), Bater(1999), Taylor-Small and Tattalias (2000), Logan (2001), Ndlela and du Toit (2001), Laudonand Laudon (2004) and Kruger and Snyman (2005).

5. The GLM procedure (least squares means) was used to determine where specific differencesoccurred.

References

Applegate, L.M., McFarlen, W.F. and McKenny, J.L. (1999), Corporate Information SystemManagement: Text and Cases, Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Bain and Company (2001), Management Tools, Bain and Company, Boston, MA.

Bater, B. (1999), “Knowledge management: a model approach”, Managing Information, Vol. 6No. 8, pp. 38-41.

Boon, J.A. (1990), “Information management: an educational perspective”, South African Journalof Library and Information Science, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 319-26.

Botha, D.F. and Fouche, B. (2002), “Knowledge management practices in the South Africanbusiness sector: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study”, South African Journal ofBusiness Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 13-19.

Chait, L.P. (1999), “Creating a successful knowledge management system”, The Journal ofBusiness Strategy, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 23-6.

Crosby, P. (1978), Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Davenport, T.H. (1999), “Some principles of knowledge management”, McCombs GraduateSchool of Business, University of Texas, Austin, TX, available at: www.mccombs.utexas.edu/kman/kmprin.htm

Earl, M. (2001), “Knowledge management strategies: towards a taxonomy”, Journal ofManagement Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 215-33.

Finestone, N. and Snyman, M.M.M. (2005), “Corporate South Africa – making multiculturalknowledge sharing work”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 128-41.

Gallagher, S. and Hazlett, S.A. (2000), “Using the knowledge management maturity model (KM3)as an evaluation tool”, paper presented at the Conference on Knowledge ManagementConcepts and Controversies, University of Warwick, Coventry, 10-11 February.

Gurteen, D. (1998), “Knowledge, creativity and innovation”, Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-13.

Kazimi, J., Dasgupta, R.R. and Natarajan, G. (2004), “The rise, fall and rise of knowledgemanagement”, available at: www zenzar.com/pdfs/km2.pdf. (accessed 12 August 2004).

King, N., Kruger, C.J. and Pretorius, J. (2007), “Knowledge Management in a multiculturalenvironment: a South African perspective”, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 285-99.

Kochikar, V.P. (2000), The Knowledge Management Maturity Model: A Staged Framework forLeveraging Knowledge, KMWorld 2000, Santa Clara, CA.

Knowledgemanagement

growth

563

KPMG (1999), “Knowledge Management Framework Assessment Exercise”, available at: www.kpmg.co.uk (accessed 22 August 2008).

Kruger, C.J. and Snyman, M.M.M. (2005), “Determining the value of knowledge management”,Mousaion, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 165-79.

Kruger, C.J. and Snyman, M.M.M. (2007), “A guideline for assessing the knowledge managementmaturity of organizations”, South African Journal of Information Management, Vol. 9No. 3, pp. 1-11.

Laudon, K.C. and Laudon, J.P. (2004), Management Information Systems, 8th ed., PearsonEducation, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Logan, D. (2001), “Knowledge management scenario: measuring and managing intellectualassets”, Gartner Symposium/ITxpo Africa, Johannesburg (unpublished).

Microsoft (1999), “IT Advisor for Knowledge Management”, available at: www.microsoft.com/enterprise/building/advisor/KM (accessed 3 November 2008).

Ndlela, L.T. and du Toit, A.S.A. (2001), “Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise”, International Journal of InformationManagement, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 151-65.

Orna, E. (1998), Practical Information Policy, Gower, Aldershot.

Parlby, D. (1999a), “The Knowledge Journey”, KPMG Consulting, available at: www.kpmg.co.uk(accessed 22 August 2008).

Parlby, D. (1999b), “The power of knowledge”, KPMG Consulting, available at: www.kpmg.co.uk(accessed 22 August 2008).

Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. and Weber, C. (1993), “Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1”,IEEE Software, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 18-27.

Prime, N. (1999), “Cross-cultural management in South Africa: problems, obstacles, and solutionsin companies”, available at: www.marketing.byu.edu/htmlpages/ccrs/proceedings99/prime.htm (accessed 19 August 2008).

Salojarvi, S., Furu, P. and Sveiby, K. (2005), “Knowledge management and growth in FinnishSMEs”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 103-22.

Taylor-Small, C. and Tattalias, J. (2000), “Knowledge management model guides KM process”,The Edge Newsletter, April, available at: www.mitre.org/pubs/edge/april_00.htm (accessed10 September 2008).

Wilson, T.D. (2002), “The nonsense of knowledge management”, Information Research, Vol. 8No. 1, p. 144.

Zack, M.H. (1999), “Developing a knowledge strategy”, California Management Review, Vol. 41No. 3, pp. 125-45.

Further reading

Orna, E. (1999), Practical Information Policies, 2nd ed., Gower, Aldershot.

Corresponding authorC.J. (Neels) Kruger can be contacted at: neels.kruger@up.ac.za

AP61,6

564

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints