**6. Results**

Equipped with KM technology, employees can leverage personal knowledge and improve

In this study, management who can utilize knowledge can leverage their capabilities to improve business profitability, streamline working processes, and influence coordination of efforts as well as responsiveness to market‐changing innovation [16, 18, 22], thus contributing

Prior study explained that although most companies find KM promising, they can only capi‐ talize on a few processes [19]. They further asserted that action is vital to turn knowledge into practice, which, in turn, allows knowledge workers to learn from mistakes and move on to the next stage. As an exploratory examination, the current study focuses on the practice of the three KM pillars in organizations. The relative importance and hierarchical position of the three KM pillars are then examined. The perceived importance of KM pillar is construed to influence the way management steers the KM program. Accordingly, the congruence between perception and the KM orientation is investigated. Given the different KM strategies and mix of the KM pillars, organizational performance is expected to vary. The notions are illustrated in **Figure 2**.

This exploratory study employed questionnaire‐based survey for data collection. Pilot tests with one professor and one business practitioner were conducted in order to solicit feedback on the structure, readability, and completeness of the questionnaire. In 2013, the revised questionnaires were distributed to 93 study informants, with a cover letter to depict the major objective of the study. To improve the understanding of information from respondents with conception and experience of KM, study informants who engage, steer, or participate in organizational KM were primarily solicited to participate in the survey. The data collec‐ tion period lasted about 5 months, with 44 valid questionnaires were returned for analysis. In order to minimize the social desirability bias, anonymity was stated explicitly to all study informants in the cover letter. The study mainly examined the constructs of perceived

skills through sharing and collaborative learning [9].

**4. Perceived importance, practice, and performance**

to desirable organizational performance.

72 Knowledge Management Strategies and Applications

**5. Methodology and data collection**

**Figure 2.** Framework of perceived importance, practice, and performance.

To assess the interrelationships among the three KM pillars, descriptive statistics and correla‐ tion coefficients were derived with the aid of Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The perceptions of respondents were also examined to evaluate whether the three pillars influence how they harness knowledge assets.

### **6.1. Perceived importance**

All 44 respondents expressed a unanimous agreement toward the importance of the three KM pillars, namely, people, technology, and process, to organizational growth. The aware‐ ness and recognition toward the three pillars are presumed to influence the KM agenda and endeavors in their organizations.

Upon their consensus, the respondents were asked to rank the order of the three pillars in their organizations according to importance. Two diverse views were identified from the respondents: (1) the three pillars are conceived as equally important and (2) a specific KM pillar is more crucial than the other two KM pillars. In **Figure 3**, nearly half of the respon‐ dents (45.4%, 20) explicated that people, process, and technology are inseparable and valued equally significant in their organizations. The rest of the respondents (54.6%, 24) perceived their organizations to have dissimilar emphasis over the three KM pillars. This dissimilarity accounted for the diversity in their organizational profile, history, competitive edges, and environment.

The 24 respondents were further asked to reflect their views toward the most important and rudimentary pillar in their organization and rank the three pillars accordingly (from the most to the least important pillar). The result is illustrated in **Figure 4**; 11 respondents (25.0%) perceived "people" as the most important pillar, followed by eight respondents (18.2%) for "technology," and finally five respondents (11.4%) for "process."

Apart from the ranking order of KM pillars, the 24 respondents were asked to reveal their perception toward the degree of importance of the KM pillars. The study employed a 5‐point Likert scale (ranging from 5 = most important to 1 = least important) and computed the mean scores accordingly. The higher the mean, the higher the perceived importance of the particu‐ lar pillar toward the organizational performance. Among the three KM pillars, "people" was rated with a mean score of 4.19, which was higher than "technology" and "process" pillars with respective scores of 3.88 and 3.71.

### **6.2. Practice**

Emanating from theory of action advocated by Argyris and Donald [23], individuals are encompassed with a disparity between their "espoused" theory and theory in use. For exam‐ ple, participants in community of practice clearly know the benefits of knowledge sharing. However, in practice, employees may not explicate or externalize their knowledge continu‐ ally because of different private agendas held or reciprocity toward community members.

**Figure 3.** Perception of the most important knowledge management pillar.

Knowledge Management Hybrid Strategy with People, Technology and Process Pillars http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70072 75

**Figure 4.** Perceived importance and inclination of knowledge management pillars.

Upon their consensus, the respondents were asked to rank the order of the three pillars in their organizations according to importance. Two diverse views were identified from the respondents: (1) the three pillars are conceived as equally important and (2) a specific KM pillar is more crucial than the other two KM pillars. In **Figure 3**, nearly half of the respon‐ dents (45.4%, 20) explicated that people, process, and technology are inseparable and valued equally significant in their organizations. The rest of the respondents (54.6%, 24) perceived their organizations to have dissimilar emphasis over the three KM pillars. This dissimilarity accounted for the diversity in their organizational profile, history, competitive edges, and

The 24 respondents were further asked to reflect their views toward the most important and rudimentary pillar in their organization and rank the three pillars accordingly (from the most to the least important pillar). The result is illustrated in **Figure 4**; 11 respondents (25.0%) perceived "people" as the most important pillar, followed by eight respondents (18.2%) for

Apart from the ranking order of KM pillars, the 24 respondents were asked to reveal their perception toward the degree of importance of the KM pillars. The study employed a 5‐point Likert scale (ranging from 5 = most important to 1 = least important) and computed the mean scores accordingly. The higher the mean, the higher the perceived importance of the particu‐ lar pillar toward the organizational performance. Among the three KM pillars, "people" was rated with a mean score of 4.19, which was higher than "technology" and "process" pillars

Emanating from theory of action advocated by Argyris and Donald [23], individuals are encompassed with a disparity between their "espoused" theory and theory in use. For exam‐ ple, participants in community of practice clearly know the benefits of knowledge sharing. However, in practice, employees may not explicate or externalize their knowledge continu‐ ally because of different private agendas held or reciprocity toward community members.

"technology," and finally five respondents (11.4%) for "process."

**Figure 3.** Perception of the most important knowledge management pillar.

with respective scores of 3.88 and 3.71.

74 Knowledge Management Strategies and Applications

environment.

**6.2. Practice**

A similar assertion is found in the current study. Despite the slight disparity, the perceived importance of KM pillars communicated to others is realized to be only partially congruent to the respective KM pillar deployment. To illustrate this point, all 44 respondents were further asked to evaluate the inclination of their KM strategy. The findings (**Figure 4**) presented four major KM strategies adopted in the organizations, namely, hybrid, people‐oriented, technol‐ ogy‐oriented, and process‐oriented [24, 25].

In connection with the previous finding, 18 of the 20 respondents revealing the equal impor‐ tance of the three KM pillars asserted that a "hybrid" strategy of KM practice is deployed in their organizations. Their KM plans incorporated and assimilated the three KM pillars to leverage people to engage in various KM processes, with the aid of KM‐related technology to drive innovation and organizational improvement. They emphasized the interdependence and indispensability of people, process, and technology enabling organizational members to explore and exploit different types of knowledge.

Likewise, 10 of 11 respondents discerning "people" as the most important KM pillar, asserted that people‐oriented KM strategy is carried out in their organizations. They emphasized that sources of innovation and new ideas are primarily instigated from people, given that most of the knowledge are tacit in nature and deeply residing in the mind of individuals. The orga‐ nizations deploy diverse groups of KM people to articulate, interpret, and share knowledge among one another.

Concerning the supremacy of the ubiquitous technology in organizations, 11 respondents asserted that the technology‐oriented strategy is adopted in their organizations, whereas only 8 respondents conceived "technology" as the most important pillar in the previous session. The 11 respondents explained that technology is extensively used in their workplace to con‐ nect, communicate, and collaborate with parties in and outside the organization. Technology facilitates the integrative (e.g., new and old knowledge combination) and interactive flow (e.g., different knowledge workers exchange knowledge) of knowledge assets.

The five respondents valuing "process" pillar mostly concurred that KM strategies are pri‐ marily process oriented. The process‐oriented strategy is characterized as a deliberated series of KM activities, including acquiring, storing, retrieving, reusing, applying, and creating knowledge, sequentially integrating with other organizational operations through the knowl‐ edge workers or technology‐enhanced platforms.

Other than the congruence of the KM perception and KM strategy, understanding the effec‐ tiveness of their KM practices is important to evaluate organizational performance. The gen‐ eral results of organizational performance presented in **Table 2** showed that organizations adopting a "hybrid" strategy attained better scores than those organizations adopting KM strategies driven by a particular KM pillar. The 18 organizations demonstrated and experi‐ enced the highest organizational performance (mean = 4.32); the three KM pillars were well‐ adjusted and developed, resulting in moderately high scores of 4.28, 4.08, and 4.11 for people, technology, and process, respectively.

Organizations with KM inclinations showed interesting findings with regard to KM effective‐ ness. The results from people‐oriented organizations revealed that the pillar of people per‐ formed the best with the mean score of 3.87, followed by process and technology with mean scores of 2.97 and 2.90, respectively. Technology‐oriented organizations deployed efforts and realized highest effectiveness in the pillar of technology when compared with the results of other two pillars (technology = 4.36, process = 3.12, people = 2.33). The KM effectiveness of pro‐ cess‐ and people‐oriented organizations demonstrated a similar pattern. In process‐oriented organizations, the most effective KM pillar is process (mean = 4.0), followed by people and technology, which shared the same mean value of 3.40.

Recognizing the organizational performance of other non‐hybrid organizations with less favorable results is necessary (**Figures 5**–**7**): people‐oriented, process‐oriented, and technol‐ ogy‐oriented organizations obtained a mean of 3.47, 3.4, and 3.06, respectively. Although the inclination toward a particular KM pillar enables organizations to exploit their KM resources, the inattentive practice or under‐utilization of other KM pillars may hinder their long‐term


**Table 2.** Correlation between knowledge management pillars and knowledge management strategy.

Knowledge Management Hybrid Strategy with People, Technology and Process Pillars http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70072 77

**Figure 5.** Organizational performance by hybrid strategy and people‐oriented strategy.

The 11 respondents explained that technology is extensively used in their workplace to con‐ nect, communicate, and collaborate with parties in and outside the organization. Technology facilitates the integrative (e.g., new and old knowledge combination) and interactive flow

The five respondents valuing "process" pillar mostly concurred that KM strategies are pri‐ marily process oriented. The process‐oriented strategy is characterized as a deliberated series of KM activities, including acquiring, storing, retrieving, reusing, applying, and creating knowledge, sequentially integrating with other organizational operations through the knowl‐

Other than the congruence of the KM perception and KM strategy, understanding the effec‐ tiveness of their KM practices is important to evaluate organizational performance. The gen‐ eral results of organizational performance presented in **Table 2** showed that organizations adopting a "hybrid" strategy attained better scores than those organizations adopting KM strategies driven by a particular KM pillar. The 18 organizations demonstrated and experi‐ enced the highest organizational performance (mean = 4.32); the three KM pillars were well‐ adjusted and developed, resulting in moderately high scores of 4.28, 4.08, and 4.11 for people,

Organizations with KM inclinations showed interesting findings with regard to KM effective‐ ness. The results from people‐oriented organizations revealed that the pillar of people per‐ formed the best with the mean score of 3.87, followed by process and technology with mean scores of 2.97 and 2.90, respectively. Technology‐oriented organizations deployed efforts and realized highest effectiveness in the pillar of technology when compared with the results of other two pillars (technology = 4.36, process = 3.12, people = 2.33). The KM effectiveness of pro‐ cess‐ and people‐oriented organizations demonstrated a similar pattern. In process‐oriented organizations, the most effective KM pillar is process (mean = 4.0), followed by people and

Recognizing the organizational performance of other non‐hybrid organizations with less favorable results is necessary (**Figures 5**–**7**): people‐oriented, process‐oriented, and technol‐ ogy‐oriented organizations obtained a mean of 3.47, 3.4, and 3.06, respectively. Although the inclination toward a particular KM pillar enables organizations to exploit their KM resources, the inattentive practice or under‐utilization of other KM pillars may hinder their long‐term

> Technology 4.08 2.90 4.36 3.40 Process 4.11 2.97 3.12 4.00

**Hybrid People Technology Process**

4.32 3.47 3.06 3.40

(e.g., different knowledge workers exchange knowledge) of knowledge assets.

edge workers or technology‐enhanced platforms.

technology, which shared the same mean value of 3.40.

Organizational performance

**Strategy**

*Pillar* People 4.28 3.87 2.33 3.40

**Table 2.** Correlation between knowledge management pillars and knowledge management strategy.

technology, and process, respectively.

76 Knowledge Management Strategies and Applications

growth in today's dynamic environment. Given the intricate nature of knowledge process, high mobility of the knowledge workers and swift change in advanced technology as well as support and championship from management are paramount for encouraging organizational members to explore the current knowledge sources in organizations or to acquire the pillars externally (e.g., recruitment of quality staff).

**Figure 6.** Organizational performance by hybrid strategy and technology‐oriented strategy.

**Figure 7.** Organizational performance by hybrid strategy and process‐oriented strategy.

The descriptive statistical results indicated that the gap between espoused theory (regard‐ ing their perceived importance) and theory in use (regarding the inclination practice) was further evaluated. **Figure 8** illustrates the correlation coefficients of the three major pillars. The perceived importance of KM pillars showed a relatively strong relationship with the KM practice (0.80). Most of the organizations are consistent with what they believe and commu‐ nicate to others in regard to their KM strategies. No obvious disparity exists between their degree of championing KM and the degree they engage in KM. Similarly, the results dem‐ onstrated a strong relationship between the KM practice and organizational performance, with a correlation coefficient of 0.87. The KM strategy steered by management is important in promoting the synergistic coordination of different organizational resources to achieve desirable organizational results.

**Figure 8.** Correlation of perceived importance, practice, and organizational performance.
