Knowledge management capabilities consensus: evidence from a Delphi study.
Ekionea, Jean-Pierre Booto ; Fillion, Gerard
INTRODUCTION
The Delphi method, more and more known by mid- to long-term
strategy development specialists, aims to collect via an open survey the
justified opinions from a panel of experts in different spheres of
activities. The procedure based on retroaction avoids confrontations
between experts and preserves their anonymity. The results of a first
questionnaire are communicated to each expert (including a summary of
the general tendencies and particularities, opinions and justifications,
etc.) that is then invited to react and answer to a second questionnaire
developed in function of the first opinions collected, and so on until
the strongest possible convergence of answers be obtained. The Delphi
method distinguishes itself from usual group communication techniques on
the following axes: (1) it helps to get experts opinions in a sector;
(2) it allows to collect information at a distance, via the Web, fax, or
mail, while the respondents have not to meet; (3) it facilitates the
task of identifying and selecting experts since the number of experts
participating in the study is limited to 7 to 18 (Paliwoda, 1983; quoted
in Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004, p. 4); (4) it is flexible in its
conception and its survey administration: this allows rich data
collection leading to an appropriate understanding and a consensus on
knowledge management (KM) capabilities; (5) it allows quasi-certainly to
get a consensus via the issuance of consecutive questionnaires; (6) it
allows a controlled feedback consisting of a series of steps from which
a summary of the previous step is provided to the participants; so, if
they want, they can review their previous judgements; (7) it has an
advantage over other methods of group decision making given the analysis
of anonymous experts opinions which are identified before the study (for
example the nominal group and the analysis by social judgement)
(Rohrbaugh, 1979; quoted in Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004, p. 4); and (8)
it can be used as successfully in management, economic, or technological
sectors as it can in social sciences.
On the other hand, several constraints are limiting the use of the
Delphi method: it is lengthy, costly, fastidious and intuitive rather
than rational, among others. In addition, the procedure constraints
(multiple rounds of surveying) are questionable since only the experts
that stray from this norm have to justify their position. However, we
can also consider that strayed opinions, in prospective terms, are more
interesting than those close to the norm. Finally, the interactions
between the different hypotheses proposed are not taken into account and
they are even avoided, leading the promoters of the Delphi method to
develop probabilistic cross impact methods. Furthermore, it is obvious
that a Delphi study does not base itself on a statistically
representative sample of a population. It is rather a mechanism for
group decision making that requires the participation of qualified
experts having a clear understanding of the phenomenon being studied. It
is for this reason that one of the most critical factors of this
approach is to find qualified experts.
The objective of the present research is not to conduct a study
aiming the improvement of the Delphi method or to perform a comparative
study between the Delphi method and the other methods or techniques of
group communication, but rather to try to understand the phenomenon of
KM capabilities by identifying the key concepts and the characteristics
of each concept in order to reach a consensus from experts. Thus, the
use of the Delphi investigation shed the light on the ideas of KM
experts and helped to find a consensus from experts on the theoretical
concepts of the KM capabilities.
The paper is structured as follows: first, a brief history and some
applications of the Delphi method in management, information systems
(IS)/information technologies (IT), and KM are presented; second, the
steps of the Delphi investigation related to this study are described;
and the paper ends by providing some examples of general comments from
the experts participating in the study and their profile.
DELPHI METHOD HISTORY AND APPLICATIONS
Developed in 1950 by Olaf Helmer at Rand Corporation (Okoli &
Pawlowski, 2004), the purpose of the Delphi method is to highlight the
convergence of opinions and to reach a consensus on a subject, often
with an important prospective, from the consultation of experts and the
use of questionnaires (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). Experts are defined
here as people who are consulted during the process of the Delphi
inquiry. The selection of these experts must take into account:
(1) their knowledge on the subject; (2) their legitimacy compared
to the panel of experts they could represent; (3) their availability
during the process of the Delphi inquiry; and (4) their independence
toward commercial, political, or different pressures. To summarize, the
main steps of the Delphi method are depicted in Figure 1. We can see in
Figure 1 that this method is articulated around two important phases:
the steps related to the experts' selection procedure and the steps
related to the process of administering the questionnaire.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The experts' selection procedure includes four steps: step 1:
development of the experts' selection criteria; step 2: development
of a list of potential experts and attribution of a number to ensure the
experts' anonymity during the questionnaire administration; step 3:
contact with the selected experts; and step 4: invitation of the experts
by email or fax to take part in the study.
As for the process of administering the questionnaire to the
selected experts, it is performed in three steps: step 5: administration
of the questions: at this time each expert receives a series of
questions on the subject of the study; step 6: consolidation of the
answers for the elaboration of the report for each round until a
consensus is obtained: here the questionnaire is administered, then we
analyze the answers and administer them once again while asking, if
possible, to the experts to reexamine their original answers (opinions)
or to answer some specific questions according to the feedback obtained
from the other respondents taking part in the study; step 7: the
classification of sub subjects (if necessary): it helps to produce the
final report of the Delphi investigation and to validate it with the
participating experts.
During the two processes, the respondents remain mutually
anonymous, except for the researcher, to neutralize the mutual
influences. With respect to its usage, the Delphi method is more and
more used today by several researchers as listed in Table 1 which
presents the various applications of the Delphi method in the design of
models (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004) within the fields of IS, IT, and
KM, specifically in the development of organizational capabilities in IT
as well as in IT project management.
DELPHI INVESTIGATION
The Delphi investigation of the present study respected the seven
steps evocated in the previous section. Thus, after having prepared the
questionnaire, we selected a panel of experts (the respondents) on the
basis of the suitable criteria. Then the questionnaire was administered.
After this, we analyzed the responses and administered them once again
while asking to experts to reexamine, if possible, their original
responses (opinions) or to answer some specific questions according to
the feedback of the other respondents participating in the study. This
process was performed until the respondents reached a satisfactory
degree of consensus. During all the process, the respondents remained
anonymous to each other, except for the researcher, in order to limit
the influence of the ones on the others.
Indeed, a Delphi inquiry of three rounds was necessary. On the
first round, the links that presumably exist between the concept of KM
capabilities and each of its three key dimensions (KM-infrastructures,
KM-processes, and KM-competences) were presented to the experts. On the
second round, on the basis of the answers of the first round, a report
of the first round Delphi questionnaire was provided to the
participating experts. Thus, on the basis of this report, it was asked
to the experts to draw a conclusion about the questions, conclusion
specifically focused on the points of consensus and divergence of
opinions. Finally, on the third round, the report of the second round is
produced and proposed to the experts in order that these ones draw a
conclusion on the points of consensus and persistent divergences. In
fact, the steps followed by this research are: (1) definition of the
selection criteria for participating experts; (2) development of a list
of experts; (3) contact with the listed experts and summary of
procedures; (4) invitation of the experts to take part in the study; (5)
questionnaire administration; (6) complete examination and consolidation
of the answers according to the various perceptions and the presentation
of results; and (7) development of a synthesis and classification of the
key concepts characteristics. Then, there are two important parts: steps
related to the procedure of expert selection and steps related to the
process of questionnaire administration.
STEP 1: DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXPERTS' SELECTION CRITERIA
In this step, people retained were those who were published in
journals or those whose articles were accepted in International
Conferences having an evaluation of peers within the field of KM related
to KM capabilities or to the maturity models. The following conferences
and journals were retained given their popularity and the number of
experts academicians which contribute to them both by their articles and
by the topics examined: Information Resources Management Association
(IRMA): international association of informational resource management
based in the United States and holding annual conferences with more than
250 scientists coming from all around the world and discussing topics of
informational resource management (including KM); International
Conference on Knowledge Management (ICKM): annual international
conference specialized on KM with more than 100 scientists coming from
all the continents and discussing various aspects of KM (including
strategic aspects); European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM):
annual international conference on KM based in England grouping together
more than 250 scientists coming from Europe and other continents, and
discussing various topics on KM; Journal of Knowledge Management (JKM):
scientific journal on KM based in England (a leading journal);
International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM): scientific journal
on KM published by IGI Global (a leading journal).
STEP 2: DEVELOPMENT OF A LIST OF EXPERTS
The present study was based on conferences proceedings or journals
articles to develop a list of expert authors or scientific joint authors
of articles answering the following criteria: (1) to have been author or
co-author of a scientific article within the field of KM with an
orientation on strategic planning; (2) to have been author or co-author
of a scientific article within the field of KM with an orientation on
the strategic aspects of KM; (3) to have been author or co-author of a
scientific article within the field of KM with an orientation on the
development or the application of maturity models; (4) to have been
author or co-author of a scientific article within the field of
organizational capabilities or KM capabilities. The reason for which the
present study retained only scientists as participants in the Delphi
investigation is that KM concepts and organizational capability are not
yet well defined and understood by everyone, and that the participation
of the practitioners would come only add some confusion. Moreover, the
results of the Delphi investigation show how much the experts opinions
are divergent when the time comes to the understanding of concepts
commonly used. Thus, following the consultation of IRMA 2005, ICKM 2005,
and ECKM 2003 conferences proceedings, as well as the papers published
in JKM and IJKM from 2005 to 2006, a list of 256 experts has been
developed in a Microsoft Word document containing the following
information for each expert: number assigned to the expert, email,
function (title) of the expert, university, department or organization
of association, phone number, fax number, country, and, if possible,
postal address. It is to be noted that in order to guarantee anonymity,
each expert was allowed a unique confidential number known only by the
researcher.
STEP 3: CONTACT WITH LISTED EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES
During this step, we contacted by email the experts listed at step
4 and, as recommended by the Delphi method, we asked each one to refer
us to other experts answering the study criteria. If the number of
experts agreeing to take part in the study was lower than 10, then step
3 would be performed again, that is, we forwarded reminder letters to
the experts who had not yet answered our request. As soon as the list
had reached more than 20 acceptances, we were going at step 4. Thus, on
a total of 256 potential experts solicited, 22 experts regrouped in 13
countries (England, Australia, Brazil, Canada, United States, Spain,
Estonia, Finland, Hungary, India, Portugal, Switzerland, and Thailand)
agreed to take part in the Delphi investigation, which largely exceeds
the minimum of 7 participants and the maximum of 18 suggested by the
Delphi method. We provided the expert respondents with pseudonyms in
order to keep their anonymity. In addition, the names of the
departments, faculties, and universities are kept in the source
languages in order to identify them according to the country to which
they belong.
STEP 4: INVITATION OF THE EXPERTS TO TAKE PART IN THE STUDY
We invited each expert to take part in the study by explaining to
him/her its objectives, the procedures to be followed, and the tasks
related to his/her participation to guarantee the success of the study.
We asked each participant to use the email or fax for the reception or
the sending of the questionnaires and answers. All the participants
chose the email for all their correspondences.
QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION
During this step, each expert received a series of questions
related to the points mentioned at step 4. These questions consisted of
asking the expert to give his/her point of view about: (1) the links
existing between the concepts of the KM capabilities (KMC) and its three
dimensions; (2) the links existing between each dimension of the KMC and
the characteristics describing each dimension; (3) the other more
representative KMC concepts; (4) the addition, modification, or
suppression of dimensions or characteristics. Thus, three rounds of the
Delphi investigation were finally necessary to reach a consensus
regarding the KMC concepts and characteristics.
FIRST ROUND: SENDING THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE
ANSWERS FROM EXPERTS
As mentioned in the previous section, the first round of the
questionnaire, which was held from November 16 to December 14, 2006,
consisted of defining the key KMC concepts, the key characteristics of
each dimension of the KMC as suggested by Abou-Zeid (2003) and Chang and
Ahn (2005). Thus, in the first round, we presented to the experts the
links that are supposed to exist between the KMC concept and each of its
three dimensions, that is, KM-infrastructures, KM-processes, and
KM-competences. For each dimension, some links between the
characteristics and each dimension of the KMC were submitted to their
opinions. Then, three additional questions were added: a first question
about the KM-infrastructures characteristics; a second question about
the KM-processes characteristics; and a third question about the
KM-competences characteristics. For each of these four questions, each
expert was asked to answer by yes or no if he/she was in accordance to
provide his/her point of view. In addition to the questionnaire, a cover
letter for the first round of the Delphi investigation was sent by
email.
It is to be noted here that instead of one week, as it was
determined at the beginning, the first round of the Delphi investigation
took 4 weeks because the majority of the experts had not answered in
time and it was necessary to grasp a sufficient number in order to
ensure the success of the investigation. Thus, in order to better
determine the results of the first round of the Delphi investigation, a
detailed report was written and became a starting point for the
structure of the initial questionnaire aiming to facilitate the
experts' understanding during the second round. The results of the
first round emphasized the experts' differences in opinion on their
understanding of the KMC concept. Four fundamental questions were
presented to the experts in order to get their point of view.
Question 1 of the Delphi investigation first round questionnaire on
the KMC: "The present study defines the concept of the KM
capabilities as being a whole of capabilities related to
KM-infrastructures, KM-processes, and KM-competences. Do you think that
these three constructs define effectively the concept of KM
capabilities?" The answers from the panel of experts during this
first round already revealed a consensus on some dimensions defining the
KMC concept, as shown in Figure 2, in spite of some reserves showed by
certain experts in their comments: there was a divergence of opinions
regarding some dimensions defining the KMC concept.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
As shown in Figure 2 and Table 2, there is a consensus on the
dimensions of KM-Infrastructures (93.75%) and KM-Processes (81.25%) as
strongly defining the concept of KM capabilities. On the other hand,
there is no consensus on the dimension KM-Competences. Indeed, as seen
in Table 2, the consensus is moderated regarding the first round of the
Delphi inquiry for the three constructs (KM-Infrastructures,
KM-Processes, and KM-Competences) as a construct or dimensions defining
the concept of KM capabilities. However, the experts' opinions show
that the absence of consensus on this dimension is not due to its
contents, but it is due to its application. Because, according to the
experts, the dimension "Competences" in KM applies sometimes
to the organization and other times to the individual. On the basis of
the experts' opinions, we have formulated the following
proposition: It can be better to use "Management of actors"
instead of "Competences" in KM. In fact, as some experts wish,
these capabilities could include some of the following sub-dimensions or
characteristics: the culture, the KM-Structures (or function), the
KM-Rewards, the individuals' motivation, the orientation of the KM
policy, the KM-Responsibilities, the vision of KM-Competences
development, the KM actors, etc. Question 4 of the questionnaire is
related to the dimension "KM-Competences".
Question 2 of the Delphi investigation first round questionnaire on
the KM-Infrastructures: "The 'KM-Infrastructures' refer
to: (1) the technological infrastructures of KM; (2) the structures
specific to the KM; (3) the organizational culture of knowledge as a
strategic resource. Do you think that these three characteristics define
the constructs of organizational capabilities related to the
KM-Infrastructures?" The answers from the panel of experts
regarding the characteristics of the dimension
"KM-Infrastructures" revealed a consensus, as in the first
round, focusing on some characteristics defining the dimension (see
Figure 3), in spite of the reservations of certain experts. Indeed, some
characteristics showed a divergence of opinions on the questions
involving them as defining the KM-Infrastructures (see Figure 3 and
Table 3).
With regard to the consensus on certain characteristics, we noted
that, in general, the consensus is very strong concerning the
"Technological infrastructures" of KM (100%) and it is
moderate for the "Structures" specific to KM (62.5%) as a
characteristic defining the dimension of KM-Infrastructures. However, we
also noted the absence of consensus on the characteristics defining the
"Culture" of KM (56.25%) which would be explained, according
to the experts, by the fact that the characteristic of "KM
culture" has rather its place in the dimension of
"KM-Competences".
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Taking into account the experts' interrogations and opinions,
we formulated the following proposition: "KM-Infrastructures",
as a dimension of KM capabilities, includes two important
characteristics, that is, "KM Technological Infrastructures"
and "KM Structures", while the characteristic "KM
Culture" is transferred to the dimension
"KM-Competences".
Questions 3 of the Delphi investigation first round questionnaire
related to KM-Processes: "The organizational capabilities related
to KM-Processes refer to: (1) the process of knowledge generation; (2)
the process of knowledge manipulation; (3) the process of knowledge
application. Do you think that these three characteristics define the
constructs of organizational capabilities related to KM processes?"
The answers from the panel of experts concerning the three
characteristics defining the "KM-Processes" revealed a
consensus as in the first round (see Table 4 and Figure 4).
Regarding the consensus on some characteristics at the conclusion
of the first round of the Delphi investigation results, we noted that,
in general, the consensus is moderate on the three characteristics:
"Process of knowledge generation" (75%), "Process of
knowledge manipulation" (62.5%) and "Process of knowledge
application" (62.5%) concerning the characteristics defining the
KM-Processes dimension.
Question 4 of the Delphi investigation first round questionnaire
related to KM- Competences: "The organizational capabilities
related to KM-Competences refer to: (1) the facilitation of the
KM-Processes; (2) the skills to motivate and manage human resources; (3)
the skills to use and manage KM technologies. Do you think that these
three characteristics define the constructs of organizational
capabilities related to KM-Competences?" The answers from the panel
of experts during the first round of the Delphi investigation regarding
the characteristics of the dimension "KM-Competences" revealed
that there is a very moderate consensus on the three characteristics
defining this dimension (see Figure 5 and Table 5).
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Indeed, the consensus is very moderate for the three
characteristics of the dimension KM-Competences: "KM
facilitation", "KM motivation", and "KM technical
abilities" (each characteristic got 57.13%).
In summary, the points of view obtained from the experts in the
first round of the Delphi investigation provided the following results:
(1) there is a consensus on three dimensions of the organizational
capabilities specific to the KM (OCSKM) defining the construct
(dimension); (2) there is a divergence of opinions on the application or
the use of the dimension "Competences" which has been replaced
by "People or actors" of KM; (3) there is a solid consensus on
the characteristics "Technological infrastructures" and
"Structures" of KM defining the construct (dimension) of
"Infrastructures" of KM; (4) there is no consensus on the
characteristic "Culture" of KM defining the construct
(dimension) of "Infrastructures" of KM which has been
transferred to the dimension (construct) "Competences" in KM
according to the opinions from the majority of the experts; (5) there is
a moderate consensus concerning the characteristics of the
"Processes of knowledge generation", "Processes of
knowledge manipulation", and "Processes of knowledge
application" defining the construct (dimension) of
"Processes" of KM in spite of some comments formulated by some
experts; (6) there is no consensus on the term "Competences"
in KM as a construct defining the OCSKM concept. Consequently, there is
no defining consensus on the characteristics of the construct
(dimension) "Competences" in KM, beyond the need for initially
arrive at a consensus on the characteristics of the construct
(dimension) and on the terms suitable to use for defining the third
dimension (construct) of the OCSKM.
SECOND ROUND: EXAMINATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE
KEY KMC CONCEPTS
Having noted differences in opinion concerning the understanding of
the experts on two of the three dimensions of the KMC concept during the
first round of the Delphi investigation, a second round helped to
advance the debate in order to reach a consensus on the KMC concepts and
characteristics. Since the information gathered from a Delphi study is
often rich and relevant, the negative comments collected from the
experts are treated with much attention and are often more interesting
than the positive feedback. Indeed, they allow identifying the main
points of divergence and disagreement which are at the basis of a
misunderstanding of the concepts and possible problems with their
application. Following this assertion, we can obtain important
advantages from a second round of the Delphi investigation: first, the
phenomenon can occur because the discussion with similar subjects
increases the certainty; second, some individuals can moderate their
answers according to opposite points of view; third, the reciprocal
argumentation influences some members and the others can reinforce
existing orientations. With regard to the distribution of the
questionnaire, we started from a list of sixteen experts from twelve
countries (Finland, Portugal, Switzerland, Canada, United Kingdom
(England), United States, Thailand, Spain, Estonia, Hungary, India, and
Australia) who took part in the first round of the Delphi investigation
in which we requested the collaboration of the experts academicians. A
cover letter to the second round of the Delphi investigation was sent by
email. It is to be noted that instead of taking one week, as anticipated
at the beginning, the second round of the Delphi investigation took 4
weeks (from December 11, 2006 to January 15, 2007), the majority of
experts having not answered on time and forcing us to wait in order to
get a sufficient number of respondents to avoid compromising the success
of the investigation. In order to better determine the results of the
second round of the Delphi investigation, a detailed report was written
and served as a starting point of the initial questionnaire in order to
facilitate the understanding of the experts during the third round of
the Delphi investigation. In fact, the second round of the Delphi
investigation aimed at seeking and increasing the consensus on some KMC
concepts and characteristics. The results of the second round emphasized
a general consensus on the definition and the understanding of the
majority of the concepts with very few divergences. Indeed, five
fundamental questions were proposed to the experts in order to get their
opinions on the KMC concept according to the lack of consensus in the
first round.
Question 1 of the Delphi investigation second round questionnaire
related to the KMC: question 1 of the Delphi survey questionnaire was
revised as follows for the second round: "After consideration of
the experts' opinions in the first round of the Delphi
investigation, the present study defines the KMC concept as being a set
of capabilities connected to the following constructs (dimensions):
KM-Infrastructures, KM-Processes, and KM-actors/people (Competences). Do
you think that these three constructs are well defining the KMC
concept?" The answers got from the panel of experts during the
second round confirm the consensus gained during the first round (see
Figure 6 and Table 6) on the dimensions of
"KM-Infrastructures" and "KM-Processes" defining the
KMC concept. However, the dimension "KM-actors/people
(Competences)" continues to divide the experts' consensus.
Indeed, the "KM-actors/people (Competences)" dimension,
as defining the KM capabilities concept, continued to get the most
divergences in the panel of experts, with 53.85% of disagreement.
However, as in the first round, the lack of consensus on this dimension,
while taking into account the experts' opinions, is attributable to
the concept application rather than its contents. Thus, the
experts' opinions and comments resulted in considering the wording
of this dimension as follows: "KM-Actors/people". It is what
explains why the three dimensions taken together (as shown in Table 6)
strongly define the KMC concept, while the participating experts'
opinions form a consensus (76.92%).
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
Question 2 of the Delphi investigation second round questionnaire
related to KM-Infrastructures: "The present study defines the
concept of the KM capabilities as a set of capabilities related to two
main characteristics (sub-dimensions): (1) KM technological
infrastructures; (2) KM structures. Do you think that these two
characteristics define the construct (dimension) of
KM-Infrastructures?" The answers from the panel of experts during
the second round of the Delphi investigation remained very favorable as
they were during the first round. The characteristics "KM
technological infrastructures" and "KM structures"
revealed that there is a consensus on these ones defining the
"KM-Infrastructures" dimension (see Figure 7 and Table 7).
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
Table 7 shows, as in the first round of the Delphi investigation, a
consensus for the two characteristics "KM technological
infrastructures" (100%) and "KM structures" (61.54%)
defining the "KM-Infrastructures" dimension.
Question 3 of the Delphi investigation second round questionnaire
related to the KM-Processes: "The present study defines the
construct of KM capabilities by referring to the following
characteristics: (1) KM process of knowledge generation; (2) KM process
of knowledge manipulation; (3) KM process of knowledge application. Do
you think that these three characteristics define the KM capabilities
related to the KM-Processes?" The answers from the panel of experts
during the second round regarding the characteristics of the
"KM-Processes" dimension showed a consensus on the three
characteristics defining this dimension (see Figure 8 and Table 8), in
spite of some reserves of certain experts.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
With regard to the consensus on the three characteristics, as in
the first round of the Delphi inquiry, we observed that, in general,
there is a consensus on the three characteristics: "Processes of
knowledge generation" (69.23%), "Processes of knowledge
manipulation" (61.54%), and "Processes of knowledge
application" (69.23%) defining the "KM-Processes"
dimension.
Question 4 of the Delphi investigation second round questionnaire
related to KM-Competences: Taking into account the experts'
opinions in the first round, the 4a and 4b questions are formulated in
order to make sure that the characteristics proposed for the
"KM-Actors/ people (Competences)" dimension are those that the
panel of experts really wishes to see appearing. Therefore, concerning
the 4a and 4b questions, we noted the answers and the comments which are
synthesized in tables 9 and 10.
Question 4a of the Delphi investigation second round questionnaire:
KM-Competences or other concepts? "The following concept can be
used as the third dimension of the KM capabilities instead of
"KM-Competences" (see the list of concepts in Table 9)."
The answers from the panel of experts with regard to the
designation of a concept which should replace those of
"KM-Competences" revealed that there is a consensus on the
"KM-Actors/ people" concept, that is, 8 favorable respondents
out of 13 (61.54%) and 9 respondents out of 13 (69.23%) if we distribute
the undecided ones. In addition, the "KM-Competences" concept
got the second position after those of "KM-Actors/people",
with 7 favorable respondents out of 13 (53.46%) and 8 respondents out of
13 (61.54%) after distribution of the undecided ones. As a result,
taking into account the experts' opinions, we will use the
expression "KM-Actors/ people" as the third dimension of the
KM capabilities.
Question 4b of the Delphi investigation second round questionnaire
related to the characteristics defining the "KM-Actors/people"
dimension. "Do the following characteristics correctly describe the
third dimension of the KM capabilities? (see the list of characteristics
in Table 10)."
The answers from the panel of experts with regard to the
designation of the characteristics which best define the
"KM-Actors/people" dimension revealed that there is a
consensus on the characteristics "KM culture", that is, 9
favorable respondents out of 13 (69.23%) and 10 respondents out of 13
(76.92%) if we distribute the undecided ones. In addition, the
characteristics "KM motivation", "KM rewards", and
"KM inciting" got a stronger consensus defining the
"KM-Actors/people" dimension, with 11 favorable respondents
out of 13 (84.61%) and 12 respondents out of 13 (92.31%) after
distribution of the undecided ones. So this proves that we can use the
three characteristics as defining the "KM-Actors/people"
dimension. Thus, following the answers from the panel of experts to the
questions 4a and 4b, question 4 was reformulated as follows: "The
KM-Actors/people (Competences) as the third dimension of KM capabilities
refers to the characteristics: (1) KM culture; (2) KM motivation; (3) KM
rewards; (4) KM incentives. Do you think that these four characteristics
define the KM-Actors/people construct?" The answers from the panel
of experts from the fourth question of the second round with regard to
the characteristics of the "KM-Actors/people" dimension
revealed that there is a consensus on these four characteristics
defining this dimension (see Figure 9 and Table 11).
With regard to the consensus on the four characteristics at the
conclusion of the results from the Delphi investigation second round, we
noted that, in general, there is a light consensus (61.54%) on: "KM
culture", "KM motivation", "KM rewards", and
"KM inciting" as characteristics defining the
"KM-Actors/people" dimension. Thus, the analysis of the
answers got from the panel of experts for the fourth question of the
Delphi investigation second round is synthesized in Table 11. Indeed,
the consensus is very strong for the three characteristics "KM
motivation" (84.62%), "KM rewards" (84.62%), and "KM
inciting" (84.62%) as defining the "KM-Actors/people"
dimension, while the characteristic "KM culture" as defining
the "KM- Actors/people" dimension got a weaker result
(69.23%).
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
The results of the Delphi investigation second round helped to
consolidate the experts' answers by excluding duplications and by
unifying the terminology.
THIRD ROUND: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS, IDENTIFICATION OF THE EXPERTS,
AND CONCLUSION OF THE DELPHI INVESTIGATION
After having obtained the consensus from the panel of experts on
the dimensions (constructs) and the characteristics of the KMC concept
during the first and second rounds of the Delphi investigation, the
third round of the Delphi investigation highlighted the recorded profits
making possible to identify the respondents' profile and to
conclude on consensus obtained. Thus, the objectives of the third round
of the Delphi investigation are: (1) to emphasize the strong points and
the limits of this Delphi investigation; (2) to identify the profile of
the expert respondents; and (3) to draw general conclusions from the
study. Indeed, with regard to the distribution of the questionnaire, we
started from a list of thirteen experts of twelve countries (Finland,
Portugal, Switzerland, Canada, United Kingdom (England), United States,
Thailand, Spain, Estonia, Hungary, India, and Australia) who took part
in the second round of the Delphi investigation. Thus, a cover letter to
the third round of the Delphi investigation was sent by email. The third
round of the Delphi investigation, which has been performed from
February 8 to March 28, 2007, aimed at confirming the results and the
consensus obtained on some concepts and characteristics of the KMC.
Question 1 of the Delphi investigation third round questionnaire
related to the general comments from the expert respondents of this
study: question 1 from the Delphi survey questionnaire was the following
for the third round: "What are your general comments on the present
study?" The answers from the panel of experts to question 1, during
the third round of the Delphi investigation, provided the following
comments:
(1) "A useful exercise, but there remain still some
considerable differences in opinion about the foundations of knowledge
management. There is, for example, an aspect which some experts deem as
being essential. But others do not even understand what they mean."
(2) "A better way of combining information from experts in the
field. But the number of participants should be more because in your
case, it is less."
(3) "Generally, it seems that you have led a rigorous Delphi
process. I suppose that it would have been better to have more than 16
and 13 participants in each step. One of my students recently proposed
to make a Delphi study on the future of Web services. I provided him
your materials so that he can familiarize himself with it and understand
the methodology. I appreciate the organization of your documents and
processes and I think that they would be an excellent example."
(4) "This Delphi study approached a very difficult and
discussed matter in the field of knowledge management, which after 15-20
years of research and practice is always at the research of shared
sights. It is why; this makes me think that this study was a true
challenge. I first of all appreciated the way in which this study was
undertaken, it stimulated me so that I can take part and cooperate with
other experts under the wire of the study's author. I think that
the central tendency identified by the study gives a very good base for
the future investigations in the theory of knowledge management and
future practical applications."
(5) "The lack of consensus in some sectors astonished me. In
my opinion, sometimes the experts are more concerned with establishing a
link or to justifying their own work rather than to help to carry out
the consensus. In all events, I certainly appreciated your effort in the
research for such a consensus by producing a framework. Moreover, the
discussion was refreshing and very didactic for me."
(6) "I found it interesting and I surely appreciated the
reports since they clarified the opinions of other colleagues. I still
have this idea that the field of knowledge management requires a deep
change, in terms of theories that explain the processes of knowledge
management in organizations and the methodologies employed to guide the
processes. It always sounds a little too much like information
management with the dimension of people [quid] to force a little
differently the savor. Knowledge is still first of all seen as an
"object" which can be controlled by specific processes which
can be controlled in parallel or independently of the usual management
targets. Its intangible nature is hardly recognized. However, the future
will indicate if I am right or wrong ..."
(7) "In my opinion, the study was overall well made. The
charts and tabular of the results were really helpful in clarifying the
results. I wait with interest to see the digested synopsis of this study
and I hope that the author will share the latter with us. I would like,
however, to present my observations on a question relative to the
administration of the study, which is that I think that faster cycle
duration in between the rounds (of the Delphi investigation) would help
the respondents in keeping subsistence and to remain focused on the
subject. Secondly, in the synoptic table of the question 4a, the
(characteristic) "KM culture" contains two answers and I think
that this seems to be an error."
(8) "The Delphi study is an excellent method to obtain the
reviews and the opinions from experts. In particular on your work, you
tried to analyze all the opinions and classified them by category in a
completely convincing way. But as we all realize that knowledge is very
abstract and differs from one field to another. The functionalities of
knowledge change according to its field of study or application. For
example, knowledge in the medical field cannot be treated in the same
manner as knowledge in technical fields or in arts or sports. Thus the
answers which you received from the experts are likely to be linked
towards their fields of expertise. Moreover, your interpretation is also
likely to be aligned with your field of expertise. My apprehensions
about the Delphi studies are: can this polarization be surmounted in
interpretation and how can the impartiality are justified? Nevertheless,
the recapitulation of the tools and the procedures of analysis are also
important."
(9) "I found it very interesting. It can also be very useful
and an effective way to use the Delphi method with the aim of clarifying
terminologies and the relations between the concepts in the field of
research which is still very fragmented. My opinion is that the Delphi
method helps to identify differences and the polemics in the conceptual
framework and the theoretical reasoning and consequently opens the way
to finding mutual arrangements on several suitable questions. Moreover,
I think that this kind of structured discussion between experts using a
facilitator of the Delphi study is very inspiring for the collection of
experts' opinions; it stimulates the thought process and directs
the attention to the important questions. Always, I've noted that
the somewhat clear and tightened expiries were good; (because) I think
that research is completely much a process led by "the fall
date". Thank you!"
Question 2 of the Delphi investigation third round questionnaire
was the following: "Give information on your identification?"
The answers from the panel of experts to question 2 during the third
round of the Delphi investigation are summarized in Table 12. We gave
pseudonyms to the expert respondents in order to keep their anonymity.
In addition, the names of the departments, faculties, and universities
are kept in the source languages in order to identify them compared to
the country to which they belong.
Question 3 of the Delphi investigation third round questionnaire
was the following: "Give the important publications that you have
made in journals and conferences with peer review in the fields of
knowledge management, organizational capabilities, or KM capabilities
and the maturity models?" The answers from the panel of experts to
question 3 during the third round of the Delphi investigation are
summarized in Table 13. This synthesis takes some examples from
publications made by the expert respondents in the Delphi investigation.
CONCLUSION
According to the results of the Delphi investigation, we can
conclude that: (1) the "KM capabilities" (KMC) concept is the
sum of the whole organizational capabilities related to the
KM-Infrastructures, the KM-Processes, and the KM-Actors/people; (2) the
KM-Infrastructures are the whole organizational capabilities referring
to the KM technological infrastructures and the KM structures; (3) the
organizational capabilities related to the KM-Processes are the whole
organizational capabilities referring to the KM processes of knowledge
generation, the KM processes of knowledge manipulation, and the KM
processes of knowledge application; (4) the organizational capabilities
related to the KM-Actors/people (Competences) is the whole
organizational capabilities referring to the KM culture, with the KM
motivation, the KM rewards, as well as the KM inciting.
In addition, some results observed from our Delphi investigation as
a whole as well as the comments received from the experts taking part in
the study clearly show that the choice of the Delphi method in this
study was suitable in order to get a consensus on the concepts and the
key characteristics related to the KM capabilities. Finally, we also
observed that, according to the opinions of the experts taking part in
the study, the way at which the study was conducted was very rigorous
and appreciated from the participants.
REFERENCES
Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (2003). Developing business aligned knowledge
management strategy. In E. Coakes (Ed.), Knowledge Management: Current
Issues and Challenges (pp. 156-172), Hershey, PA: IRM Press.
Bacon, D. & Fitzgerald, B. (2001). A systemic framework for the
field of information systems. Database for Advances in Information
Systems, 32(2), 46-67.
Contandriopoulos, A.-P., Champagne, F., Potvin, L., Denis, J.-L.
& Boyle, P. (1990). Savoir preparer une recherche: la definir, la
structurer, la financer. Montreal: University of Montreal Press.
Linstone, H.A. & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method:
Techniques and Applications. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Bertrand R. in collaboration with C. Valiquette (1986). Pratique de
l'analyse statistique des donnees. Quebec: University of Quebec
Press.
Chang, S.-G. & Ahn, J.H. (2005). Product and process knowledge
in the performance-oriented knowledge management approach. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9(4), 8-18.
Dalkey, N. & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of
the Delphi method to the use of expert. Management Science, 9(3),
458-467.
Holsapple, P. & Joshi, K. (2002). Knowledge manipulation
activities: Results of a Delphi study. Information & Management,
39(6), 477-490.
Mulligan, P. (2002). Specification of a capability-based IT
classification framework. Information & Management, 39(8), 647-658.
Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R. & Tanniru, M. (1999). Organizational
mechanism for enhancing user innovation in information technology. MIS
Quarterly, 23(3), 365-395.
Okoli, C. & Pawlowski, S.D. (2004). The Delphi method as a
research tool: An example, design considerations and applications.
Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29.
Paliwoda, S.J. (1983). Predicting the future using Delphi. Manage
Decision, 21(1), 31-38.
Rohrbaugh, J. (1979). Improving the quality of group judgments:
social judgment analysis and the Delphi technique. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 73-92.
Scholl, W., Konig, C., Meyer, B. & Heisig, P. (2004). The
future of knowledge management: An international Delphi study. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 19-35.
Schmidt, R.C., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M. & Cule, P. (2001).
Identifying software project risks: An international Delphi study.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 5-36.
Jean-Pierre Booto Ekionea, University of Moncton
Gerard Fillion, University of Moncton
Table 1: Application of the Delphi Method in the Design of Models
(adapted from Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004, p. 3)
Authors Studies
Bacon & Fitzgerald Goal: To develop a conceptual framework of the
(2001) main fields of the information systems.
Participants: Researchers within the field of
information systems.
Holsapple & Joshi Goal: To develop a descriptive conceptual
(2002) framework of the elementary activities of
handling knowledge. Participants: Researchers
and experts within the field of knowledge
management.
Mulligan (2002) Goal: To develop a typology of the capacities
of information technologies in the industry of
finance departments. Participants: Members from
11 different organizations.
Nambisan et al. Goal: To develop a conceptual taxonomy of the
(1999) mechanisms of action of organizational design
to increase the propensity of the technology
users in order to innovate in information
technologies. Participants: Senior officers of
various industries.
Schmidt et al. Goal: To develop an ordered list of common risk
(2001) factors for software projects as a basis for
the construction of theories in information
systems projects. Participants: Three groups of
experienced software project managers in Hong
Kong, Finland, and United States.
Scholl et al. (2004) Goal: To give more structure to the field of
knowledge management and to obtain the
prospects on the valid developments during the
ten years to come.
Table 2
Summary of the Results from the First Question of the Delphi
Investigation First Round
Constructs/Dimensions Very in Rather in Rather in
agreement agreement dissension
(%) (%) (%)
The three constructs
(KM- Infrastructures,
KM-Processes, and
KM-Competences) define 7 6 0
the KMC concept (43.75%) (37.5%) (0%)
KM-Infrastructures 15 0 0
(93.75%) (0%) (0%)
KM-Processes 13 (81.25%) 1 (6.25%) 0 (0%)
KM-Competences 6 0 4
(37.5%) (0%) (25%)
Constructs/Dimensions In total TOTAL
dissension (number of
(%) respondents)
The three constructs
(KM- Infrastructures,
KM-Processes, and
KM-Competences) define 3 16
the KMC concept (18.75%)
KM-Infrastructures 1 16
(6.25%)
KM-Processes 2 (12.5%) 16
KM-Competences 6 16
(37.5%)
Table 3 Summary of the Results from the Second Question of the
Delphi Investigation First Round
Characteristics Very in Rather in Rather in
agreement agreement dissension
(%) (%) (%)
The three following
characteristics define the 6 9 1
dimension of (37.5%) (56.25%) (6.25%)
KM-Infrastructures: KM
technological infrastructures,
KM structures, and KM culture
KM Technological 16 0 0
infrastructures (100%) (0%) (0%)
KM Structures 9 1 1
(56.25%) (6.25%) (6.25%)
KM Culture 6 1 2
(37.5%) (6.25%) (12.5%)
Characteristics In total TOTAL
dissension (number of
(%) respondents)
The three following
characteristics define the 0
dimension of (0%) 16
KM-Infrastructures: KM
technological infrastructures,
KM structures, and KM culture
KM Technological 0 16
infrastructures (0%)
KM Structures 5 16
(31.25%)
KM Culture 7 16
(43.75%)
Table 4 Summary of the Results from the Third Question of the Delphi
Investigation First Round
Very in Rather in Rather in
Characteristics agreement agreement dissension
(%) (%) (%)
The three following
characteristics define the
dimension of KM-Processes: 7 2 1
processes of knowledge (43.75%) (12.5%) (6.25%)
generation, processes of
knowledge manipulation, and
processes of knowledge
application
Process of knowledge generation 12 0 2
(75%) (0%) (12.5%)
Process of knowledge 9 1 5
manipulation (56.25%) (6.25%) (31.25%)
Process of knowledge application 9 1 5
(56.25%) (6.25%) (31.25%)
In total TOTAL
Characteristics dissension (number of
(%) respondents)
The three following
characteristics define the
dimension of KM-Processes: 6 16
processes of knowledge (37.5%)
generation, processes of
knowledge manipulation, and
processes of knowledge
application
Process of knowledge generation 2 16
(12.5%)
Process of knowledge 1 16
manipulation (6.25%)
Process of knowledge application 1 16
(6.25%)
Table 5
Summary of the Results from the Fourth Question of the Delphi
Investigation First Round
Very in Rather in Rather in
Characteristics agreement agreement dissension
(%) (%) (%)
The three following
characteristics define the 5 3 0
dimension of KM-Competences: KM (35.71%) (21.42%) (0%)
facilitation, KM motivation, and
KM technical abilities
Facilitations with knowledge 5 3 0
management (35.71%) (21.42%) (0%)
Motivation to the management 5 3 0
of knowledge (35.71%) (21.42%) (0%)
Technical skills in knowledge 5 3 0
management (35.71%) (21.42%) (0%)
In total TOTAL
Characteristics dissension (number of
(%) respondents)
The three following
characteristics define the 6 14
dimension of KM-Competences: KM (42.85%)
facilitation, KM motivation, and
KM technical abilities
Facilitations with knowledge 6 14
management (42.85%)
Motivation to the management 6 14
of knowledge (42.85%)
Technical skills in knowledge 6 14
management (42.85%)
N.B.: Two participants were undecided on the fourth question of the
first Delphi round.
Table 6
Summary of the Results from the First Question of the Delphi
Investigation Second Round
Constructs/Dimensions In agreement In dissension TOTAL
(%) (%) (respondents)
The three constructs
(KM-Infrastructures,
KM-Processes, and KM-
Competences) define 10 3 13
the KMC concept (76.92%) (23.08%)
KM-Infrastructures 10 3 13
(76.92%) (23.08%)
KM-Processes 10 3 13
(76.92%) (23.08%)
KM-Competences 6 7 13
(46.15%) (53.85%)
Table 7
Summary of the Results from the Second Question of the Delphi
Investigation Second Round
Constructs/Dimensions In In dissension TOTAL
agreement (%) (respondents)
(%)
The two following 9 4 13
characteristics define the (69.23%) (30.77%)
KM-Infrastructures
dimension: KM
technological
infrastructures and KM
structures
KM technological 13 0 13
infrastructures (100%) (0%)
KM structures 8 5 13
(61.54%) (38.46%)
Table 8
Summary of the Results from the Third Question of the Delphi
Investigation Second Round
Constructs/Dimensions In In dissension TOTAL
agreement (%) (respondents)
(%)
The three following
characteristics define 9 (69.23%) 4 (30.77%) 13
the dimension of the
KM- Processes: KM
processes of knowledge
generation , KM
processes of knowledge
manipulation, and KM
processes of knowledge
application
KM processes of 9 (69.23%) 4 (30.77%) 13
knowledge generation
KM processes of 8 (61.54%) 5 (38.46%) 13
knowledge manipulation
KM processes of 9 (69.23%) 4 (30.77%) 13
knowledge application
Table 9: Summary of the Results from the Question 4a of the Delphi
Investigation Second Round
Experts' answers
Concepts Very in In In
dissension dissension Undecided agreement
(-2) (-1) (0) (+1)
KM-Competences 3 2 1 2
KM-Actors/people 2 1 2 2
Human resources 2 2 2 5
for KM
KM vision 3 49 3 2
KM culture 3 1 32 4
KM abilities 3 1 4 3
KM skills 1 4 5 2
KM governance 3 3 4 3
Experts' answers
Concepts Very in
agreement Experts' comments
(+2)
Competence is, from my point
of view, a concept of
KM-Competences 5 individual level
It is a good idea to not
consider it
KM-Actors/people 6 Because it is part of human
resources of KM
Human resources 2 The men are more than a
for KM resource
I would view this as a process
KM vision 1 It is too narrow
KM culture 3 It is too narrow
KM abilities 2 This would lead to
terminological disorder
The same thing as
"competences in KM"
Sounds good at first sight but
what would you say of the
employees' knowledge?
KM skills 1 I think that it is more specific
and more suitable
To also put the skills and
competences
All the other titles cover this
one
KM governance 0 I do not think that
"governance" is suitable
I wonder how it would be
evaluated in a model of
maturity
Table 10: Summary of the Results from the Question 4b of the Delphi
Investigation Second Round
Experts' answers
Characteristics Very in In Undecided
(sub-dimensions) dissension dissension (0)
(- 2) (-1)
KM culture 1 1 2
KM motivation/ 2 1 2
rewards/
initiative
Skill management 2 1 7
KM employability 4 2 5
(usability)
KM abilities 4 1 4
Human resources 3 1 1
for KM
KM orientation 1 1 5
Experts' answers
Characteristics In Very in Experts' comments
(sub-dimensions) agreement agreement
(+1) (+2)
KM culture 3 6 Ok, but it is better
"orientation"
KM motivation/ 5 6 It is the best among the
rewards/ alternatives
initiative Individual level
Skill management 1 2 The concept is not very
clear
KM employability 2 0 Put this in
(usability) "infrastructures"
dimension
This is related to the
infrastructure more than
to people Which expert
proposed that? I did not
find it
KM abilities 2 2 This concept is too
broad for a
characteristic
Human resources 2 6 I would consider this
for KM for the "process"
dimension
KM orientation 2 4 They are very good, this
refers to various
orientations such as the
orientation of training
or the orientation
undertaking
Table 11
Summary of the Results from the Fourth Question of the Delphi
Investigation Second Round
Constructs/Dimensions In agreement In dissension TOTAL
(%) (%) (respondents)
The four following 8 5
characteristics define (61.54%) (38.46%) 13
the KM/Actors/people
dimension: KM culture,
KM motivation, KM
rewards, and KM
inciting
KM culture 9 (69.23%) 4 (30.77%) 13
KM motivation 11 (84.62%) 2 (15.38%) 13
KM rewards 11 (84.62%) 2 (15.38%) 13
KM inciting 11 (84.62%) 2 (15.38%) 13
Table 12
Profile of the Respondents to the Delphi Investigation: Identification
No Name Academic status
1 Ariane Jean-Francois Professor
2 Andree Raymond Assistant professor
3 Beneto Benito Professor/director of the research and
consultation department
4 John Ricardo Assistant professor
5 King Winnie Professor
6 Mike Davidson Professor of resources and operations of
systems and a KM group, editor-in-chief
of a KM journal
7 Gandi Gandi Professor
8 Sun Swamidaravalli Assistant professor
9 Marcel Bonenfant Professor and scientific director
10 Miguel Donfus Assistant professor
11 Sergio Valencia Professor
12 Gamila Hungay Professor
13 Jonson Marley Professor
No Department/university/country
1 Department of Business Administration,
Lappeenranta University of Technology,
Finland
2 Department of Information Systems,
School/Faculty: Engineering School,
University of Minho, Portugal
3 Swiss Distance University of Applied
Sciences (FFHS) Suisse
4 Department of MIS School/Faculty:
Business, San Jose State University, USA
5 Claremont Graduate University,
Claremont, CA, USA
6 Aston Business School, Aston University,
Aston Triangle, Birmingham, U.K.
7 University Business School, Panjab
University, Chandigarh, India
8 Department of Information Technology,
Ramrao Adik Institute of Technology,
NERUL, New Bombay, India
9 Service de l'enseignement du management,
HEC, Montreal, Canada Departamento de
Sistemas de Informajao, Escola de
10 Engenharia, Universidade do Minho,
Campus de Azurem, Guimaraes, Portugal
11 Universidad Politecnica de Valencia,
Alicante, Spain
12 MTA Information Technology Foundation,
Budapest, Hungary
13 Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Table 13
Profile of the Respondents to the Delphi Investigation: Publications
No Reviews/conferences Tackled subjects Field of studies
1 European Conference Knowledge management Knowledge management
on Knowledge strategy To allow Maturity Models
Management the management of
knowledge by the
cognitive
engineering of
practice and
treatment Management
and maturity models
of knowledge
2 International Management systems Knowledge management
Journal of Knowledge for knowledge and
and Systems Sciences processes of
businesses
3 Diviner To tackle the Knowledge management
cultural questions
in intensive
knowledge
organizations
Journal of Social Organizational Knowledge management
4 Sciences, Science knowledge: to leave
Publications from academic
concepts towards the
fundamental
procedures of
management
5 International Knowledge management Knowledge management
Journal of Knowledge systems for the
Management state of help
preparation: the
experiment of
consortium from the
University of
Claremont
6 Journal of To design knowledge Knowledge management
Information Systems management systems
Education to teach and learn
with from wiki
technology
7 Electronic Journal Exchanges of Knowledge management
of Knowledge knowledge in the
Management communities online:
a duality of
participation and
culture
8 European Journal of Capabilities and Organizational
Journal of Knowledge innovative execution capabilities
of knowledge Knowledge management
treatment: an
empirical study
9 Management Management of the Organizational
Innovation creation and capabilities
Management knowledge sharing-- Knowledge management
dynamic scenarios
and capabilities in
the inter-
industrial knowledge
networks
