See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/239781205

The practice of knowledge management processes : A comparative

study of public and private higher education institutions in
Malaysia

Article  in  VINE · March 2009

DOI: 10.1108/03055720911003978

CITATIONS READS

50 956

3 authors:

Sharimllah Ramachandran Siong-Choy Chong

Monash University (Australia) Finance Accreditation Agency
5 PUBLICATIONS   138 CITATIONS    94 PUBLICATIONS   2,056 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hishamuddin Ismail
Multimedia University
17 PUBLICATIONS   310 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

User acceptance of Multipurpose Smart National Identity Card View project

Internet Banking Adoption Studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Siong-Choy Chong on 06 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
[Link]/[Link]

Knowledge
The practice of knowledge management
management processes processes
A comparative study of public and private
higher education institutions in Malaysia 203
Sharimllah Devi Ramachandran Received April 2008
Centre of Languages and Human Development, Revised June 2009
Accepted July 2009
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia, Melaka, Malaysia
Siong Choy Chong
Asian Institute of Finance, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Hishamuddin Ismail
Faculty of Business and Law, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The objective of this paper is to investigate and compare the practices of knowledge
management (KM) processes, which have been grounded in the KM literature, between public and
private higher education institutions (HEIs).
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 594 academics from three public and
three private HEIs in Malaysia.
Findings – The analyses suggest that all the six KM processes (knowledge creation, capture,
organisation, storage, dissemination, and application) are moderately practiced by the institutions
surveyed and that there are significant differences in the overall practices of KM processes between
the public and private HEIs.
Practical implications – This paper raises awareness and provides initial guidelines to the HEIs as
knowledge-intensive organisations in formulating strategies on how to properly implement and
manage their KM processes.
Originality/value – This study has extended knowledge in KM for it is probably the first to provide
a comparative analysis between public and private HEIs. It further opens up new lines of future
research possibilities.
Keywords Knowledge management, Private education, Public education, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
There appears to be consensus in both the resource- and knowledge-based views that
firms seeking to maintain competitive advantage are exploiting and leveraging
knowledge for value creation purposes (Barney, 1991; Bishop et al., 2008; Chen and
Mohamed, 2008; Chong et al., 2007; Chong et al., 2006; Chong et al., 2006; Halawi et al.,
2006; Lustri et al., 2007; Marques and Simon, 2007; Mehta, 2008; Mohamed, 2008; VINE: The journal of information and
Spender, 1996; Stewart, 1997; Zack, 1999a, b). The resource-based view adjudicates that knowledge management systems
Vol. 39 No. 3, 2009
the only way to achieve competitive advantage is through the strategic use of scarce, pp. 203-222
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
intangible, and firm-specific resources that include knowledge (Spender, 1996; Zack, 0305-5728
1999a, b). Knowledge, in this regard, has been stressed as the most eminent factor as DOI 10.1108/03055720911003978
VINE viewed from the knowledge-based perspective. It is for this reason that the business
sector have progressed to equip themselves with the ability of managing knowledge to
39,3 stand competition strategically, to overcome problems swiftly and to capitalise on
opportunities as they emerge.
Similarly, the higher education institutions (HEIs), just like private concerns, see the
dire need to gain competitive edge due to stiff competition and pressure to face
204 globalisation. This is imperative to many countries and Malaysia is no exception as the
country aspires to become the regional education hub of Asia. The Malaysian HEIs
play a significant role in the development of the nation’s workforce and the economy in
general, particularly after 1996 where private universities were established along with
the public-owned tertiary institutions to provide more opportunities for Malaysians to
pursue higher education within the country. A search on the web site of the Malaysian
Ministry of Higher Education ([Link]) reveals that as of 2008, there are 20
public universities, 22 polytechnics, and 36 community colleges. In addition, there are
about 37 private universities, university colleges, foreign university branch campuses,
and about 544 private colleges currently in operation. Besides catering to the needs of
Malaysians, many HEIs have gone global with the intention to recruit international
students to the country. In this regard, the web site also reports that there are about
65,000 international students from 150 countries pursuing various levels of education
in Malaysia as of 2008, out of the 80,000-target set to be achieved by the year 2010.
There are three obvious reasons why knowledge management (KM) is imperative to
the Malaysian HEIs. First and foremost, HEIs by nature are knowledge-intensive
organisations where they are recognised to be in the knowledge business (Cronin and
Davenport, 2000; Goddard, 1998) since knowledge production, distribution and
application are ingrained in the institution (Ho et al., 2008). Knowledge, in this case, is
both an HEI’s main production factor as well as its final product (Goddard, 1998).
Second, the unprecedented growth of HEIs, in which the numbers have more than
doubled after 1996, compelled with the increasing intakes by institutions, both public
and private, have driven stiff competition among them for academics and students,
both locally and abroad. Third, the recent issues of quality of courses offered by
various HEIs have been a great concern to the nation. This is evident from the drop in
ranking of some top institutions in Malaysia. As such, by considering both the
resource- and knowledge-based views, proper management of knowledge can act as a
strategic tool for these HEIs to remain and/or gain competitive advantage.
Hence, KM, which has been long established in business, must also be established in
the education sector as society moves from the industrial to the knowledge age to
improve teaching and learning, and to provide a strong knowledge base for
research-based practices and strategies. It is therefore not surprising for Sallis and Jones
(2002) to insist that there is as much need for KM in education as there is in industries. As
a matter of fact, Kidwell et al. (2000) support the notion that HEIs are suitable places to
apply KM practices to support their functional and operational processes. This is
because HEIs are posited to profit greatly from the development and application of
certain KM mechanisms that assist in identifying not only what is known, but also what
must be known, similar to business organisations (Tippins, 2003).
Henceforth it is obvious that public and private HEIs have much to gain from KM
implementation. However, there is a deliberation on which sector is a better manager of
knowledge. Literature on private education argues that private universities or colleges
are likely to enhance the quality of provision by increasing competition amongst
educational providers (both public and private). Balan (1990) and Patrinos (1990), for
instance, have argued that the major advantage of private sector HEIs has been Knowledge
providing the type of education most in demand, and graduates typically experience
lower unemployment rates, and get better-paid jobs (Jimenez and Tan, 1987; Patrinos,
management
1990). On the other hand, public HEIs provide superior quality of education as they are processes
well established (Morshidi et al., 2006) and strongly supported by their research and
development endeavours (Wilkinson and Yussof, 2005). However, they may be slow to
respond to the immediate demands of the market (Patrinos, 1990). Hence, given that 205
knowledge is HEIs’ main business, the fact that private and public HEIs manage it
differently to project their own forte warrants research.
Nevertheless, there exists a vacuum concerning KM practices in the context of HEIs.
A simple Internet search reveals that literature pertaining to KM processes in HEIs to
date is sparse. Moreover, although there were many studies done to propose the
implementation of KM processes in corporate sectors and even some in HEIs, very few
have attempted to test them empirically (Sharimllah Devi et al., 2007, 2008), more so, on
the differences in practices of KM processes between public and private HEIs. As
Anantatmula (2007) opines, since the majority of studies on KM processes are conducted
on for-profit organisations, the results may be biased towards these firms. As the KM
processes are well grounded, it is timely to asseses them empirically in the HEIs’ setting.
Since KM requires significant investments of time, money and personnel (Chong and Lin,
2008; Parikh, 2001), a careful examination of the KM processes can determine KM
implementation success in the HEIs. The objective of this paper is therefore to:
.
examine the respondents’ knowledge of KM;
.
identify the level of practices of KM processes in private and public HEIs; and
.
compare the level of practices of KM processes between private and public HEIs.
The next section reviews the literature pertaining to the KM processes, resulting in six
processes proposed for this study. The subsequent section describes the methodology,
followed by discussion of the empirical results and their implications. The key findings
are then summarised and limitation presented as a conclusion section of this paper.

Literature review
KM in higher education institutions (HEIs)
The definition of KM from the perspective of HEIs has been provided by Joseph (2001).
He opines that KM is a process where institutions formulate ways in an attempt to
recognise and archive assets from within that are derived from the employees and/or
academics of various departments or faculties, and in some cases, even from other
institutions and/or organisations sharing similar areas of interest. Thus, the HEIs do
not solely provide knowledge to students, but are also engaged in managing and
collaborating the existing knowledge for future reference (Goud et al., 2006; Maizatul
Akmar and Chua, 2005; Yusof and Suhaimi, 2006). An institutional-wide approach to
KM has been identified to lead to considerable improvements in sharing explicit and
tacit knowledge and thus improve the performance of the HEIs. Steyn’s (2004) research
on KM applications in a faculty of a HEI demonstrates substantial benefits gained as
presented in Table I.
Notwithstanding the benefits to be attained, there are two primary issues that make
KM implementation a challenge across all HEIs. First, rather than considering
knowledge as an asset that increases in value when shared, many faculty members
consider knowledge as proprietary and something that is not shared freely (Ho et al.,
VINE
KM applications Benefits
39,3
Repository of curriculum revision efforts that Improved quality of curriculum and programmes
includes research conducted, best practices, lesson and leveraging best practices and monitoring
learnt, etc. outcomes
Repository of content arranged to facilitate Improved speed of curriculum revision and
206 interdisciplinary curriculum design and
development
updating
Improved faculty development efforts, especially
Access to information related to teaching and for new faculty members
learning with technology, outcomes tracking, Improved administrative services related to
lessons learnt, best practices, etc. teaching and learning with technology
Hubs of information in each disciplinary area, Improved responsiveness by monitoring and
including updated materials, recent publications, including lessons learnt from the experiences of
applicable research, etc. colleagues, students’ evaluation or other role
Repository of instructional and assessment players’ inputs
techniques, including best practices, outcome Interdisciplinary curriculum design and
tracking, and research development facilitated by moving across
Repository of analysed learner evaluations boundaries
updated each semester or year for lesson learnt
and best practices for the faculty
Access for new educators to guides for developing
curriculum, working with senior staff members,
establishing effective teaching styles, advising
do’s and don’ts supervising Master’s and Doctoral
students, etc.
Repository of relationships to identify curriculum
design task teams, guest speakers, case studies
Table I. cites, etc.
KM applied in a faculty in
a HEI Source: Steyn (2004)

2008; Wind and Main, 1999). Given the nature of academia and the emphasis placed on
conducting primary research, it is not surprising that some faculty members view
knowledge as a possible source of differentiation and thus defer sharing certain aspects
of their knowledge. When knowledge is viewed as a source of power it acts as a
“separator” between the haves and the have-nots (Wiig, 1993) and in some cases,
knowledge loss occurs. Further, HEIs are often organised in functional areas (e.g.
academic, research and development, marketing, student affairs, and so on) that
operate independently (Tippins, 2003). Thus, as in the business environment,
functional areas within many HEIs often fail to share knowledge that can lead to the
establishment of a higher standard of education.
Second, since private and public HEIs are in the knowledge-based industry, it is
argued that the KM processes should be similarly present (Sallis and Jones, 2002).
However, there is a deliberation on which sector better maximises their knowledge
processes. The proponents of private HEIs argued that the major advantage of these
HEIs has been responding more quickly or efficiently to market demands (Balan, 1990;
Patrinos, 1990). The public HEIs however, have traditionally been considered as
bureaucratic institutions as they operate in complex political systems where different
interests of stakeholders are in constant flux (Mintzberg, 1993). These institutions are
motivated less by financial than by political considerations (Perry and Rainey, 1988).
As a result, it is argued that the public HEIs have blurred objectives and goals and the
autonomy of the public HEIs’ managers to pursue organisational goals have been Knowledge
constrained (Day and Klein, 1987). Hence, it will be interesting to investigate if there is
significance difference in the practices of KM processes in the public and private HEIs.
management
The following sub-section discusses the KM processes in detail. processes
KM processes
Defining knowledge accurately is complex because of its vague and fuzzy nature. 207
Nonetheless, there are several definitions provided by researchers in order to
encapsulate knowledge in an anchored form. Among them are Davenport and Prusak
(1998) who define knowledge in a very interesting manner. According to them,
knowledge is the fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and
expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new
experiences and information. On the other hand, KM, which stems from knowledge, is
concerned with the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an
organisation with a view to furthering the organisation’s objectives (Davenport et al.,
1998). Briefly, the knowledge to be managed includes both explicit; documented
knowledge, and tacit; subjective knowledge, and management entails all of those
processes associated with the identification, sharing, and creation of knowledge.
Given the descriptions above, unless managed efficiently, knowledge may not
transfer into intellectual capital or assets that the organisation can use to be more
competitive and productive (Skyrme and Amidon, 1997). Concurrently, many
researchers believe that KM is more than just the storage and manipulation of
information, but a process that requires the responsibility to create and disseminate
knowledge throughout the organisation (Marshall et al., 1996; Parikh, 2001). For
example, Zack (1999a) remarks that in order to remain competitive, establishments
must efficiently and effectively create, capture, organise, share, and apply
organisational knowledge and expertise. Similarly, Gupta et al. (2000) state that KM
is a process that deals with development, storage, retrieval, and dissemination of
information and expertise within an organisation to support and improve its business
performance. Gottschalk (2002) contends that KM is a process of implementing,
sharing, distributing, creating, and comprehending the knowledge of an organisation.
Albers and Brewer (2003) postulate KM as a process of knowledge creation,
acquisition, incorporation, allocation, and application to advance the operation
efficiency and competitive advantage of an organisation.
Two general observations can be made from the definitions of KM processes
presented in the literature. In general, KM is recognised as a process involving
knowledge generation, use, and application. In this context, researchers have proposed
between three to eight KM processes depending on their backgrounds and interests. A
thorough review of these processes allowed the authors to identify six common KM
processes and to define these processes in the HEI setting as a systematic process of
knowledge creation, capture, organisation, storage, dissemination, and application by the
academics of various faculties sharing similar areas of interest in advancing theirs as
well as the endeavours of the HEIs. In this perspective, KM enables the HEIs (as units
representing the academics in general) not only to quickly filter to find critical
information but also to enable the institutions to manipulate, use, and re-use information
in creative ways so that novel insights and new knowledge would surface. Table II
shows the adapted KM processes and their definitions in the HEI setting as identified
from the literature (e.g. Albers and Brewer, 2003; Lawson, 2003; Earl and Scott, 1999;
Morse, 2000). The next section presents the methodology used in this survey.
VINE
KM processes Definition
39,3
1. Knowledge creation Knowledge is created through discovery, that is, academics develop
new ways of doing things or it is brought in through external sources.
Research and development activity is one such knowledge creation
2. Knowledge capture Knowledge capture happens when new knowledge is identified as
208 relevant and valuable to current and future needs. Methods of
knowledge capture that comes from external sources include:
benchmarking best practices from other HEIs; attending conferences;
hiring consultants; monitoring economics, social, and technological
trends; collecting data from staff, students, competitors, and resources;
hiring new staff; collaborating with other HEIs; building alliances;
forming joint ventures; and establishing knowledge links with
collaborators
3. Knowledge organisation Knowledge organisation happens when new knowledge is refined and
then organised. This is done through filtering to identify and cross list
the useful dimensions of the knowledge for different products and
services of the HEIs. The knowledge is placed in context so that it is
actionable and it can be reviewed and kept current and relevant
4. Knowledge storage Knowledge storage is a process where knowledge is codified and
stored in a reasonable format so that others in the HEIs can access to
it. Database management and data warehousing technologies can help
in this process. Besides, databases, directories of expertise, procedural
handbooks, and email messages are examples of codifying knowledge
5. Knowledge dissemination Knowledge dissemination involves personalising knowledge and
distributing it in a useful format to meet the specific needs of the
academics. The knowledge is articulated in a common language using
tools that are understood by all users. Publications, presentations,
websites, white papers, teaching and learning activities, policies, and
reports are examples of mechanisms used by HEIs to disseminate and/
or transfer knowledge
6. Knowledge application Knowledge application happens when knowledge is applied to new
situations where academics can learn and generate new knowledge. In
the learning process, there should be analysis and critical evaluation
to generate new patterns for future use. Decision making at the
Table II. organisational level, innovation, and customer/student relationship
Definitions of KM management are examples of direct knowledge application. The
processes in the HEI application of knowledge may generate new knowledge or update
setting current knowledge that have to be stored in the databases of the HEIs

Methodology
Sampling
The unit of analysis for this study is the HEIs divided into two strata: public and
private. The criteria for selecting the HEIs are, first, the nature of the institution.
College universities, one of the types of HEIs, were chosen instead of universities or
colleges because in Malaysia, these type of institutions are relatively new, established
circa 2000, specialised in their discipline (field specific), and they offer degree
programmes, thus it will interesting to study their KM processes as compared to long
established institutions which are mostly set in their ways. Moreover, these institutions
are on a stepping stone to become full-fledged universities, which was evident in mid- Knowledge
to late-2007 where all the public HEIs chosen for this study were upgraded to full
university status. However, since in essence it remains the same faculty wise and in
management
physical and administrative structure, they were retained as units of analysis. Within processes
each stratum, the elements, i.e. academics, were surveyed. The academics were chosen
because of their responsibility in generating knowledge through research and
disseminating knowledge via teaching. Moreover, academics are the ones who are 209
faced with pressure to produce results from educational reform efforts, which in turn
results in more practitioner-based research initiatives (Jones, 2003).
The first measure taken was to contact all the public and private college universities
listed in the Ministry of Higher Education’s list of college universities
([Link]). During the conversation, the institutions were asked whether
they had a formal KM programme in place as a pre-requisite for an institution to be
selected to participate in this survey. In some instances, the representatives of the
college universities were probed in order to provide examples of their KM initiatives.
This resulted in the identification of six public and six private college universities.
Questionnaires were sent to all the academics working in these college universities so
as to ensure a maximum return rate of the questionnaires. The nature of the study was
explained in a cover letter accompanying the questionnaires.
Owing to the relatively large number of college universities and academics
identified in this study, a timeframe has been set where only academics from
institutions that responded fairly fast (within six months) and in reasonable quantities
(20 per cent or more responses) were included in the statistical analyses. It was by mere
coincidence that three public and three private college universities met these criteria
and were included in the study. To preserve anonymity, the public college universities
are labelled as A, B and C and the private college universities labelled as D, E and
F. About 594 responses were collected from the college universities in which the details
are as illustrated in Table III. Overall there was a return rate of 33.9 per cent for public
college universities and 52.8 per cent for private college universities. Sekaran (2005)
opines that for a given population of 30,000 (the total academic population in Malaysia
in 2008 is 35,987 as provided in the Ministry of Higher Education’s web site), a sample
of 379 would be sufficient. This study contains 594 respondents, which more than
meets the requirement.

Questionnaire
Self-reporting questionnaire was used as the main form of data collection. The
questionnaire is divided into two sections to specifically address the three objectives
determined in this study. Section 1 contains two questions measuring the respondents’
knowledge of KM and whether they are aware that their institution has a formal KM
programme in place. Section 2 contains 24 statements measuring the KM processes.

Types of HEIs
Public college universities Private college universities
Institution Return rate (%) Institution Return rate (%)
Table III.
A 32.2 D 62 Number of respondents
B 41.4 E 46.2 and return rate for
C 24.3 F 57.5 private and public HEIs
VINE The questions, shown in Table IV, were adapted from the KM assessment instrument
(KMAI) developed by Lawson (2003), utilising a five-point Likert scale ranging from
39,3 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. The KMAI is considered in view of its
comprehensiveness in addressing all the dimensions of the KM processes.
Prior to dissemination, the instrument was piloted on 20 faculty members from both
the private and public college universities to check for appropriateness, readability,
210 and comprehensiveness of the survey instrument (Rossi et al., 1983), particularly in the
Malaysian HEIs’ context. As a result, minor amendments were made on the
instrument. Besides face validity, the instrument has also been found to achieve a fairly
adequate degree of construct validity. As shown in Table IV, the factor analysis results
explain between 51.67 and 59.76 per cent of all the dimensions of the KM processes.
With eigenvalues of 1.00 or greater, all the items loaded above 0.50 in their respective
processes extracted from the analysis. Further, items intended to measure the same
construct exhibited prominently and distinctly higher loadings on a single component
than on other components, suggesting adequate convergent and discriminant validity
of the measurement. Table VI also shows that the alpha coefficients for all the KM
processes are above 0.70, signifying high reliability (Sekaran, 2005). It can thus be
concluded that the reliability and construct validity of the instrument supported the
adequacy of the measurement used in this study.
Table V shows the profiles of the respondents based on the types of college
universities (public and private). Although nearly half of the respondents from the
public HEIs possess some knowledge of KM, about 46.2 per cent of them are unsure
if their institutions have a formal KM programme in place. This is in contrast with
the respondents from the private HEIs where their knowledge of KM is richer, and
that slightly more than 60 per cent of them are certain that their institutions have a
formal KM programme in place. Although 16.2 and 7.8 per cent of the respondents
from the respective public and private HEIs state that they do not have any
knowledge of KM, their responses are still subjected to analysis given that the KM
processes are part of their trade even without them realising it. This argument leads
us to the results section.

Results
Table VI shows the mean and standard deviation scores for all the six KM processes in
the public HEIs. The average mean and standard deviation scores are 3.32 and 0.605
respectively. Two of the KM processes scored above average mean factor rating; the
highest of this being disseminating knowledge (M ¼ 3:59, SD ¼ 0:602), followed by
creating knowledge (M ¼ 3:46, SD ¼ 0:594). The lowest is applying knowledge
(M ¼ 3:18, SD ¼ 0:607). The standard deviation scores are all below one, implying that
the respondents have consistently rated on all the elements.
Similarly, the mean and standard deviation scores for all the six KM processes in
the private HEIs are identified. As presented in Table VII, the average mean and
standard deviation scores are 3.18 and 0.460 respectively. Four of the processes scored
above average mean factor rating; the highest of this being knowledge dissemination
(M ¼ 3:28, SD ¼ 0:540), followed by storing knowledge (M ¼ 3:21, SD ¼ 0:464),
organising knowledge (M ¼ 3:20, SD ¼ 0:440), and capturing knowledge (M ¼ 3:19;
SD ¼ 0:425). Knowledge creation recorded the lowest mean score (M ¼ 3:04,
SD ¼ 0:447). Again, the standard deviation scores are below one for all the processes.
 Factor Variance Coefficient
Knowledge
loading Eigenvalue (%) a management
Factor 1: creating knowledge
processes
My institution has mechanism for creating and
acquiring/ research knowledge from different sources
such as academics, Ministry of Higher Education, 211
industries and competitors 0.745 1.067 51.67 0.840
My institution encourages and has processes for the
exchange of ideas and knowledge between academics 0.761
My institution rewards academics for new ideas and
knowledge 0.628
My institution has a mechanism for creating new
knowledge from existing knowledge and uses lessons
learnt and best practices from projects to improve
successive projects 0.551
Factor 2: capturing knowledge
My institution responses to academics’ ideas and
documents them for further development 0.562 1.218 55.45 0.731
My institution has a mechanism in place to absorb and
transfer knowledge from academics, Ministry of Higher
Education, industries and competitors into my
institution 0.683
My institution has a mechanism for converting
knowledge into action plans and the design of new
academic services. 0.781
My institution has policies in place to allow academics to
present new ideas and knowledge without fear and
ridicule 0.765
Factor 3: organising knowledge
My institution has a policy to review knowledge on a
regular basis. Academics are specially tasked to keep
knowledge current and up to date 0.612 1.857 56.43 0.714
My institution has a mechanism for filtering, cross listing
and integrating different sources and type of knowledge 0.720
My institution gives feedback to academics on their ideas
and knowledge 0.638
My institution has processes for applying knowledge
learned from experiences and matches sources of
knowledge to problems and challenges 0.577
Factor 4: storing knowledge
My institution utilises databases, repositories and
information technology applications to store knowledge
for easy access by all academics 0.654 1.891 59.76 0.763
My institution utilises various written devices such as
newsletters, manuals to store knowledge captured from
academics 0.677
My institution has different publications to display
captured knowledge 0.724
My institution has a mechanism to patent and copyright Table IV.
new knowledge 0.619 Factor analysis results
(continued) for KM processes
VINE Factor Variance Coefficient
39,3 loading Eigenvalue (%) a

Factor 5: disseminating knowledge

My institution has knowledge in the form that is readily
accessible to academics who need it (e.g. intranets,
212 internets) 0.712 1.132 53.29 0.803
My institution sends out timely reports with appropriate
information to academics, stakeholders and relevant
organisations 0.624
My institution has libraries, resource centre and other
forums to display and disseminate knowledge 0.533
My institution has regular symposiums, lectures,
conference, and teaching and training sessions to share
knowledge 0.671
Factor 6: applying knowledge
My institution has different methods for academics to
further develop their knowledge and apply them to new
situations 0.548 1.127 53.18 .703
My institution has mechanism to protect knowledge
from inappropriate or illegal use inside or outside of the
organisation 0.746
My institution applies knowledge to critical competitive
needs and quickly links sources of knowledge in problem
solving 0.737
My institution has methods to research and critically
evaluate knowledge to generate new patterns and
Table IV. knowledge for future use 0.670

Types of HEIs
Public college universities Private college universities
(A, B, C) (D, E, F)
Items and descriptions % %

Knowledge of KM
Nothing 16.2 7.8
Some knowledge 41.9 32.1
Average knowledge 35.3 48.6
More than average knowledge 6.0 11.5
Very knowledgeable 0.6 0.0
Table V.
Demographic Institution has a formal KM programme
characteristics of Yes 30.8 62.6
respondents in public and No 23.1 16.0
private HEIs Unsure 46.2 21.4
The results in Table VIII indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the Knowledge
mean for knowledge creation and dissemination between the public and private HEIs
(t ¼ 9:327, df ¼ 592, p ¼ 0:000; t ¼ 6:384, df ¼ 592, p ¼ 0:000). The results also
management
indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean for overall KM processes
processes between the public and private HEIs (t ¼ 4:529, df ¼ 592, p ¼ 0:000).
However, no significant differences were found for the individual processes of knowledge
capture, organisation, storage, and application between the public and private HEIs. 213

KM processes Ranking Mean Std deviation

Creating knowledge 2 3.46 0.594

Capturing knowledge 3 3.26 0.654
Organising knowledge 4 3.24 0.579
Storing knowledge 6 3.18 0.607 Table VI.
Disseminating knowledge 1 3.59 0.602 Mean factor scores for
Applying knowledge 5 3.19 0.597 KM processes in the
Average mean factor scores 3.32 0.605 public HEIs

KM processes Ranking Mean Std deviation

Creating knowledge 6 3.04 0.447

Capturing knowledge 4 3.19 0.425
Organising knowledge 3 3.20 0.440
Storing knowledge 2 3.21 0.464 Table VII.
Disseminating knowledge 1 3.28 0.540 Mean factor scores for
Applying knowledge 5 3.13 0.444 KM processes in the
Average mean factor scores 3.18 0.460 private HEIs

Knowledge management processes IHL type n Mean t df Sig. (two-tailed)

Creation Public 351 3.46 9.327 592 0.000

Private 243 3.04 9.809 587.831 0.000
Capture Public 351 3.26 1.558 592 0.120
Private 243 3.19 1.678 589.942 0.094
Organisation Public 351 3.24 0.933 592 0.351
Private 243 3.20 0.980 586.737 0.328
Storage Public 351 3.18 20.555 592 0.579
Private 243 3.21 20.582 586.307 0.561
Dissemination Public 351 3.59 6.384 592 0.000
Private 243 3.28 6.511 553.992 0.000
Application Public 351 3.19 1.257 592 0.209
Private 243 3.13 1.325 589.033 0.186 Table VIII.
Differences between KM
KM processes Public 351 3.31 4.529 592 0.000
processes in public and
Overall Private 243 3.18 4.755 586.751 0.000 private HEIs
VINE Discussion and implications
39,3 This paper contributes to the existing body of knowledge in terms of narrowing the
research gap by investigating the practices of KM processes in the HEIs setting which
have received relatively little attention to date. The novelty of this study is that insofar,
the attempts to compare the KM processes between the public and private HEIs have
not been addressed by prior research. The use of a reliable and valid instrument on the
214 KM processes has further enriched the empirical findings that provide the means for
discussing and providing relevant recommendations to the HEIs.
The factor analysis results reveal an important confirmation to the theoretical
findings identified in the literature with respect to the six KM processes. It corroborates
findings in the corporate setting where all the six KM processes are important to
achieve proper implementation of KM even in the HEIs. This is not unexpected as HEIs
by nature are knowledge-intensive organisations (Cronin and Davenport, 2000;
Goddard, 1998; Rowley, 2000). Academics are performing knowledge-intensive tasks
with or without realising it, and to a greater degree if the institution has a formal KM
programmes in place (Sharimllah Devi et al., 2008). As such, this argument calls for a
proper attention in terms of the importance and implementation of these processes.
The first objective is to examine the respondents’ knowledge of KM. More than 80 per
cent of them possess at least some knowledge of KM. This is expected since HEIs have
been regarded as knowledge-intensive organisations. Furthermore, the selection of HEIs
with a formal KM programme in place justified the results obtained. Notwithstanding
the level of knowledge of KM possessed by the academics, more than half of the
respondents in the public HEIs are unaware that their institutions have a formal KM
programme in place. This is in sharp contrast with the private HEIs. One possible
explanation is that the public HEIs do not communicate with their staff on their strategic
directions, including their KM endeavours. Consistent with Mintzberg (1993), and Perry
and Rainey (1988), public institutions are politically rather than financially motivated
and therefore, they have blurred organisational objectives and goals (Day and Klein,
1987). This is in contrast with private HEIs where by responding more quickly and
efficiently to market demands (Balan, 1990; Patrinos, 1990) affect their bottom-line and
subsequently help them to gain competitive edge. These institutions are therefore quick
to take steps to inform their staff of organisational objectives in line with their strategic
directions. A second reason can be attributed to the fact that many of the academics are
unsure that many of their practices are indeed part of the KM processes, judging from
their levels of knowledge of KM. On an overall, the findings imply a need to formally
establish and communicate KM initiatives within all the HEIs concerned.
The second objective is to identify the degree of KM processes practiced in the
public and private HEIs. Although the majority of respondents in both the types of
HEIs demonstrate some knowledge of KM and that those from the private HEIs show
higher awareness of a formal KM programme in their institutions, the KM processes
are only moderately practiced by both types of HEIs as evident from the mean scores
obtained. This might be a reason why many of them are unsure of the KM development
in their respective institutions. It is impossible for the academics to understand what
constitutes a KM processes and how it relates to their tasks unless the HEIs have
developed a full-fledged KM programme and the academics are acutely aware of the
existence of such a programme. This again implies a need to improve the KM processes
implementation within the HEIs in order to capture the essence of KM through a formal
institutionalisation of a KM programme.
 Taking a closer look, knowledge dissemination and creation received higher ratings Knowledge
among academics in the public HEIs. This is not surprising as these constitute the core
activities of academics who are primarily responsible to generate knowledge through
management
research and to disseminate the outputs via teaching and other platforms. In light of processes
research being a core activity in the public HEIs (Morshidi et al., 2006; Wilkinson and
Yussof, 2005), many public HEIs have developed their directories of expertise on the
Internet and that the information is made available on the Ministry of Higher Education’s 215
web site. In many cases, the abstracts of published papers are featured on the web sites of
the public HEIs, and this allow the academics from similar or different HEIs to cite relevant
research works from these sources in their efforts to build upon current knowledge. This is
on top of the journal databases subscribed by the HEIs. From time to time, symposiums,
lectures, conferences, teaching and training sessions are organised to allow the academics
to share their knowledge. Academics from the public and a limited number of private HEIs
who generate excellent research outputs are rewarded both by the HEIs as well as the
government through the initiation of the nation’s Top Academician Award.
On the other hand, the academics in the private HEIs rated highest on knowledge
dissemination but lowest on knowledge creation, in contrast with prior literature
(Marshall et al., 1996; Parikh, 2001). This however comes as no surprise as being
private HEIs, the core business lies in teaching, with little emphasis given to research
(Morshidi et al., 2006; Wilkinson and Yussof, 2005). Compared to the public HEIs,
relatively fewer efforts have been undertaken to promote research in many of the
private HEIs. It is observed that many of the private HEIs do not demonstrate a
research agenda on their web sites and that journal databases are rarely subscribed by
the institutions. Even if training programmes are organised, they are mostly
concentrated on disseminating knowledge on pedagogy and teaching skills.
The lower mean rating on knowledge application in both the types of HEIs is
somehow expected. This is because while many KM theorists suggest knowledge
application is an important KM process (Lawson, 2003; Marshall et al., 1996; Parikh,
2001; Wiig, 1993; Zack, 1999a); this might be more applicable to corporate organisations
as knowledge application is an important source of identifying novel ways on how
things are normally done. The HEIs have traditionally been emphasising on long
established theories in the activity of teaching and learning, and in many occasions, only
basic research is conducted. Furthermore, the functional structure of HEIs that operate
independently often makes it difficult for HEIs to apply the knowledge generated.
The third objective is to compare the level of practices of KM processes between the
public and private HEIs. The results in Table VIII suggest that overall, there is a
significant difference in all the KM processes between the public and private HEIs,
with the public HEIs show higher ratings on five out of the six KM processes (except
for storing knowledge). The results seem to reject the proponents of the advantages
enjoyed by the private over the public HEIs (Balan, 1990; Day and Klein, 1987;
Mintzberg, 1993; Patrinos, 1990). Three reasons have been advanced. First, the public
HEIs are responsible to serve the community at large within which they operate (Perry
and Rainey, 1988) by providing decent education to them. Their activities thus
encompass basic teaching and learning where research and development is another
major agenda. In contrast, the private HEIs concentrate only on teaching and therefore
knowledge creation is not expected from the academics. Second, the better facilities
provided by the public HEIs (including lower student-teacher ratio) compared to the
private HEIs enable high quality education to be delivered, which can be translated
into higher intensity of the practices of KM processes. Third, knowledge storage does
VINE not differ between the public and private HEIs as it depends on the information
technology (IT) infrastructure employed by the institutions that can be much
39,3 standardised in nature. Almost all HEIs, regardless of public or private, have some sort
of databases, repositories, and the use of manual applications such as publications and
newsletters to capture knowledge with different emphasis in terms of teaching,
learning, and research outputs. Nevertheless, a more balanced response between the
216 academics from the public and private HEIs may lead to different results.
Specifically, the results suggest that the public HEIs are significantly different from
the private HEIs in terms of knowledge dissemination and creation. This is in harmony
with the literature where public institutions show more prominence of these two
processes over the private entities (Cong et al., 2007; McAdam and Reid, 2000). Closely
aligned to the second objective of the study, their differences in focus, objectives
(profitability), and therefore use of resources (manpower) provide explanation for the
differences. KM initiatives require manpower and support from the IT unit in order to
remain relevant (Mohayidin et al., 2007). However, private HEIs may not have adequate
staff and/or academics (Morshidi et al., 2006) to manage and keep knowledge updated
on a constant basis to be disseminated. The private HEIs are profit-driven and their
primary aim is to fulfil the requirements of their students whom they view as “clients”,
specifically to teach and ensure that students go through their chosen programme
successfully. Thus, research, a knowledge creation activity, is considered a personal
pursuit and is normally not given financial consideration as opposed to the public HEIs
(Balan, 1990; Morshidi et al., 2006; Patrinos, 1990). Since these two KM processes are
prominent to all the HEIs, attention must be provided to improve upon these processes
based upon the organisational objectives of the HEIs.
Having addressed all the three objectives set forth in the study, the overall findings
indicate that there is a need to develop strategies in order to enhance the academics’
understanding of the KM processes and relate them to their job functions through a formal
institutionalisation of a KM programme. It is also imperative that the important processes
identified in this study are given sufficient attention and which must be implemented
along with the enablers of a KM programme as elucidated by Chong (2006a, b).
In institutionalising a proper KM programme, the following recommendations can
serve as a guideline; it is imperative that the HEIs align their KM efforts with their
institutional vision, mission, and objectives, and communicate their KM strategies to
all staff. This is because only strong leadership could provide the necessary direction
that allows an HEI to effectively implement and deploy a KM strategy (Gottschalk and
Karlsen, 2005; Hansen et al., 1999). Through the establishment of a dedicated KM unit
headed by a Chief Knowledge Officer (a position that is senior enough, i.e. equivalent to
the Deputy Vice-Chancellor) who could be hired from outside or seconded from a
faculty/centre/unit within the institution, the management of HEIs can then cascade
the KM strategies down to the lowest level (DeTienne et al., 2004), and in this context,
from the deans to the academics. The deans can allocate one or more sessions during
the normal faculty meetings for briefings and/or trainings to be conducted by staff
from the KM unit. New academics will be gathered for similar sessions during the
orientation programme.
The academics need to know how their job functions are related to the KM processes
and the benefits to be attained (examples as illustrated in Table I) from the practices of
these processes. To achieve this, knowledge strategies ought to be explicitly developed to
enhance the academics’ understanding of the KM processes. First, an HEI is to identify
and capture precincts of an HEI’s knowledge base. This may involve the assessment of
current curriculum vitae or resumes of each faculty member. Additionally, a record of Knowledge
journal, conference, and other forms of publications can provide insights concerning
specific areas in which an academic has interest in. Similarly, information related to
management
subjects taught also provides a general indication of a faculty member’s exposure to processes
specific area of knowledge. Upon collecting this information, it should be compiled so
that the number of knowledge areas is reduced to a more manageable number. The
clustering of work is important since it can act as a prescriptive tool for helping the HEIs 217
to remain relevant as far as their knowledge base is concerned.
Such a mapping and auditing efforts guide the HEIs on which of its knowledge base
is relevant, what of the areas that are obsolete, and deficient (Biloslavo, 2005; Tippins,
2003) that require attention. In other words, it allows the faculty and administrators to
identify gaps in the current knowledge base and withdraw obsolete knowledge. It can
act as a means for the benchmarking purposes or even lead to collaborations between
the HEIs. Appropriate training programmes can be set for the academics and that
additional faculty or staff can be determined and hired from outside in areas lacking
who can immediately bring such knowledge into the HEIs. These moves help to ensure
that knowledge loss is curbed. In the long run, it helps the HEIs to realign their
strategies in focusing not only in teaching but also research as well, particularly for the
private HEIs while enhancing the activities of the public HEIs as far as the KM
processes are concerned.
Next, the deans, representing the management of HEIs, serve an important role in
ensuring that their academics have adequate knowledge of KM and in synchronising
their tasks with the KM initiatives of the respective HEI. Together with other deans,
the deans formulate strategies of how the KM goals of the HEIs can be translated into
the KM processes based on the tasks performed by the academics. A knowledge-based
performance metrics can then be developed to measure individual academic’s
contributions toward KM initiatives, specifically through the KM processes, against
the HEI’s outcomes from KM implementation.
Closely related to the successful implementation of KM is the presence of an
egalitarian culture which encourages knowledge sharing. It is imperative for the HEIs
to establish a proper rewards system in line with the knowledge-based performance
metrics developed. The academics will be motivated to share if the incentives and
reward mechanisms are in place and encouraging enough. In this case, both monetary
and non-monetary rewards must be considered to generate the passion of sharing.
While a reasonable increase in salary is attractive, academics are also attracted to other
rewards such as research funding, opportunities for promotion, sabbatical leaves, and
other forms of recognition. Such a knowledge sharing effort must be intertwined with
the benefits attained from KM implementation and overall success of the institution.
In performing the above tasks, the HEIs cannot underestimate the role of information
technology (IT) in enabling KM. While knowledge sharing depends on people, many other
KM processes need the support of IT infrastructure. For instance, knowledge
dissemination to a wider group of academics and other stakeholders beyond a
particular HEI, and the activities of capturing, organising, and storing of knowledge that
would allow the academics to be aware of knowledge that are useful and apply them.
Unfortunately, many of the HEIs do not have a proper KMS set-up and instead rely on
verbal communication or hardcopy documents and this will lead to loss of valuable
knowledge. As such, institutionalising an institutional-wide KM system (KMS) is
warranted. The Ministry of Higher Education plays an important role to encourage the
linking of all the KMS in order to create a nationwide KM initiative. This will not only push
VINE for excellence in teaching but also research as well. This will guarantee competitive edge to
these HEIs as they compete with each other and with HEIs in other parts of the world.
39,3

Conclusion and suggestions for future research

This study has contributed in advancing the knowledge of KM processes in the HEI
218 setting that at present is lacking. It is hoped that the findings will help the HEIs
undergo self-check of the various processes proposed so that actions can be taken to
minimise and close the gaps. In addition, it is also hoped that the recommendations
would provide insights to the HEIs on how to organise their KM processes in the right
perspective in order to be more competitive in facing the global challenges and meeting
the expectations of the stakeholders in which the operate.
The issues raised here warrant further research. Future studies could consider a
bigger sample size from various HEIs, both public and private and possibly of different
countries. It is also important to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between KM
processes and performance measurement in order to capture the outcomes and/or
benefits of KM implementation in HEIs. Correlating KM processes with other KM
critical success factors (Chong and Choi, 2005) among the HEIs is also another research
possibility. A longitudinal rather than a cross-sectional study may be useful to capture
the details intended by this study.

References
Albers, J.A. and Brewer, S. (2003), “Knowledge management and innovation process, the
eco-innovation model”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, available at: www.
[Link]/[Link] (accessed 14 February 2008).
Anantatmula, V.S. (2007), “Linking KM effectiveness attributes to organisational performance”,
VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 133-49.
Balan, J. (1990), “Private universities within the Argentine higher educational system, trends and
prospects”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 13-17.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Biloslavo, R. (2005), “Use of the knowledge management framework as a tool for innovation
capability audit”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 402-24.
Bishop, J., Bouchlaghem, D., Glass, J. and Matsumoto, I. (2008), “Ensuring the effectiveness of a
knowledge management initiative”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 16-29.
Chen, L. and Mohamed, S. (2008), “Impact of the internal business environment on knowledge
management within construction organisations”, Construction Innovation: Information,
Process, Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
Chong, C.W., Chong, S.C. and Wong, K.Y. (2007), “Implementation of KM strategies in the
Malaysian telecommunication industry: an empirical analysis”, VINE: The Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 452-70.
Chong, C.W., Chong, S.C. and Yeow, P.H.P. (2006), “KM implementation in Malaysian
telecommunication industry: an empirical analysis”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 106 No. 8, pp. 1112-32.
Chong, S.C. (2006a), “KM critical success factors: a comparison of perceived importance versus Knowledge
implementation in Malaysian ICT companies”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 230-56. management
Chong, S.C. (2006b), “KM implementation and its influence on performance: an empirical processes
evidence from Malaysian multimedia super corridor (MSC) companies”, Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Chong, S.C. and Choi, Y.S. (2005), “Critical factors in the successful implementation of knowledge 219
management”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 6, available at: www.
[Link]/[Link]
Chong, S.C. and Lin, B. (2008), “Exploring KM issues and KM performance outcomes: empirical
evidence from Malaysian multimedia super corridor companies”, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 285-303.
Cong, X-M., Li-Hua, R. and Stonehouse, G. (2007), “Knowledge management in the Chinese public
sector: empirical investigation”, Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 250-63.
Cronin, B. and Davenport, E. (2000), “Knowledge management in higher education”, in
Bernbaum, G. (Ed.), Knowledge Management and the Information Revolution, Vol. 3,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Davenport, T., De Long, D. and Beers, M. (1998), “Successful knowledge management projects”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage what
They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Day, P. and Klein, R. (1987), Accountabilities in Five Public Services, Tavistock, London.
DeTienne, K.B., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C. and Harris, S. (2004), “Towards a model of effective
knowledge management and directions for future research: culture, leadership and CKOs”,
Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 26-43.
Earl, M.J. and Scott, I.A. (1999), “Opinion: what is a chief knowledge officer?”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 29-38.
Goddard, A. (1998), “Facing up to market forces”, Times Higher Education Supplement, Vol. 13,
pp. 6-7.
Gottschalk, P. (2002), “A stages of growth model for knowledge management technology in law
firms”, The Journal of Information, Law and Technology, available at: [Link]
[Link]/jilt/02-2/[Link]
Gottschalk, P. and Karlsen, J. (2005), “A comparison of leadership roles in internal IT versus
outsourcing projects”, Journal of Industrial Management and Data System, Vol. 105 No. 7,
pp. 32-45.
Goud, N.V., Venugopal, N.M. and Anitha, S.Y. (2006), “Impact of knowledge management in
higher education”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management
in Institutes of Higher Learning, Multimedia University, Malaysia and Suan Dusit
Rajabhat University, Bangkok.
Gupta, B., Lakshmi, S. and Iyer, J.E. (2000), “Knowledge management: practices and challenges”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 17-21.
Halawi, L.A., McCarthy, R.V. and Aronson, J.E. (2006), “Knowledge management and the
competitive strategy of the firm”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 384-97.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), “What’s your strategy for managing
knowledge?”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 106-16.
VINE Ho, J.S.Y., Cheng, M.Y. and Lau, P.M. (2008), “Knowledge sharing in knowledge-based
institutions”, Proceedings of the 10th International Business Information Management
39,3 Association Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Jimenez, E. and Tan, J.P. (1987), “Selecting the best for post secondary education in Columbia: the
impact of equity”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 129-35.
Jones, A.C. Jr (2003), Development of an Architecture for Knowledge Management in Special
220 Education, UMI Microform 3099656.
Joseph, M.F. (2001), “Key issues in knowledge management”, Knowledge and Innovation: Journal
of the Knowledge Management Consortium International, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 8-38.
Kidwell, J.J., Vander Linde, K.M. and Johnson, S.L. (2000), “Applying corporate knowledge
management practices in higher education”, EDUCAUSE Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 28-33.
Lawson, S. (2003), “Examining the relationship between organisational culture and knowledge
management”, unpublished academic dissertation, Nova Southern University, Fort
Lauderdale, FL.
Lustri, D., Miura, I. and Takahashi, S. (2007), “Knowledge management model: practical
application for competency development”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 186-202.
McAdam, R. and Reid, R. (2000), “A comparison of public and private sector perceptions and use
of knowledge management”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 317-29.
Maizatul Akmar, I. and Chua, L.Y. (2005), “Analysis of KM impact in higher learning
institutions”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management in
Institutes of Higher Learning, Multimedia University, Malaysia and Suan Dusit Rajabhat
University, Bangkok.
Marques, D.P. and Simon, F.J.G. (2007), “The effect of knowledge management practices on firm
performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 143-56.
Marshall, C., Prusak, L. and Shpilberg, D. (1996), “Financial risk and the need for superior
knowledge management”, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 77-101.
Mehta, N. (2008), “Successful knowledge management implementation in global software
companies”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 42-56.
Mintzberg, H. (1993), Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organisations, Prentice-Hall,
Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mohamed, M. (2008), “The ‘continuumization’ of knowledge management technology”, VINE:
The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 167-73.
Mohayidin, M.G., Azirawani, N., Kamaruddin, M.N. and Margono, M.I. (2007), “The application
of knowledge management in enhancing the performance of Malaysian universities”,
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 301-12.
Morse, R. (2000), “Knowledge management systems: using technology to enhance organizational
learning”, paper presented at Challenges of Information Technology Management in the
21st Century, Anchorage, May 21-24.
Morshidi, S., Muhammad, J., Suhaimi, S., Chan, H.C. and Suzyrman, S. (2006), “Enhancing quality
of faculty in private higher education in Malaysia”, Monograph Series No: 9/2006. Higher
Education Research Monograph, Universiti Sains Malaysia: National Higher Education
Research Institute.
Parikh, M. (2001), “Knowledge management framework for high-tech research and
development”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 27-33.
Patrinos, H.A. (1990), “The privatization of higher education in Columbia, effects on quality and Knowledge
equity”, Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 161-73.
management
Perry, J.L. and Rainey, H. (1988), “The public-private distinction in organisation theory: a critique
and research agenda”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 182-201. processes
Rossi, P.H., Wright, J.D. and Anderson, A.B. (1983), Handbook of Survey Research, Academic
Press, New York, NY.
Rowley, J. (2000), “Is higher education ready for knowledge management?”, International Journal 221
of Educational Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 325-33.
Sallis, E. and Jones, G. (2002), Knowledge Management in Education Enhancing Learning and
Education, Kogan Page Limited, London.
Sekaran, U. (2005), Research Methods for Managers: A Skill Building Approach, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Sharimllah Devi, R., Chong, S.C. and Lin, B. (2007), “Organisational culture and KM processes
from the perspective of institution of higher learning”, International Journal of
Management in Education, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 57-79.
Sharimllah Devi, R., Chong, S.C. and Lin, B. (2008), “Perceived importance and effectiveness of
KM performance outcomes: perspectives of institutions of higher learning”, International
Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 18-37.
Skyrme, D.J. and Amidon, D.M. (1997), Creating the Knowledge Based Business, Business
Intelligence, London.
Spender, J.C. (1996), “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62.
Stewart, T. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Currency and
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Steyn, G.M. (2004), “Harnessing the power of knowledge in higher education”, Higher Education,
Vol. 124 No. 4, pp. 615-31.
Tippins, M.J. (2003), “Implementing knowledge management in academia: teaching the teachers”,
The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 339-45.
Wiig, K.M. (1993), Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking about Thinking: How People
and Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge, Schema Press, Arlington, TX.
Wilkinson, R. and Yussof, I. (2005), “Public and private provision of higher education in
Malaysia: a comparative analysis”, Higher Education, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 361-86.
Wind, J. and Main, J. (1999), Driving Change, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Yusof, I. and Suhaimi, M.D. (2006), “Managing knowledge transfer among academic staff of
institutions of higher learning (IHL): Lessons from public universities in Malaysia”,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management in Institutes of Higher
Learning, Multimedia University, Malaysia and Suan Dusit Rajabhat University, Bangkok.
Zack, M. (1999a), Knowledge and Strategy, Butterworth-Heinmann, Boston, MA.
Zack, M. (1999b), “Developing a knowledge strategy”, California Management Review, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 125-45.

Further reading
Chong, S.C., Wong, K.Y. and Lin, B. (2006), “Criteria for measuring KM performance outcomes in
organisations”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 7, pp. 917-36.
VINE Horwitch, M. and Armacost, J. (2002), “Helping knowledge management be all it can be”, The
Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 26-31.
39,3 Hussey, J. and Hussey, R. (1997), Business Research, Macmillan Press, London.
Mohamed, M. (2007), “The triad of paradigms in globalization, ICT, and knowledge management
interplay”, VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 100-22.
222 Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Quinn, J., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996), “Leveraging intellect”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 7-27.
Roscoe, J. (1975), Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Rinehart &
Winston, New York, NY.
Smith, P.A.C. and Saint-Onge, H. (1996), “The evolutionary organization: avoiding a Titanic
fate”, The Learning Organization: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 4-21.

About the authors

Sharimllah Devi Ramachandran is a senior lecturer at Universiti Teknikal Melaka, Malaysia. She
has submitted her PhD thesis and is currently waiting for her viva voce. She has published more
than 27 articles in international refereed journals, in conference proceedings and as book
chapters. Her research interests include knowledge management, educational management,
organisational culture, teaching and learning in higher education. Sharimllah Devi
Ramachandran is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: sharimllah@[Link]
Siong Choy Chong is the General Manager of the Asian Institute of Finance responsible for
certification and accreditation. He received his PhD from Multimedia University. He has
published more than 65 articles in international refereed journals, in conference proceedings and
as book chapters. His research interests include knowledge management, human resource
management, information technology management and entrepreneurship.
Hishamuddin Ismail is currently the Dean of the Faculty of Business and Law at Multimedia
University, Melaka Campus. He received his PhD from Multimedia University. He has published
many articles in the area of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and e-commerce. Among his
published avenues are Journal of Targeting, Marketing and Analysis (JTMA), Journal of
Academy of Business Cambridge (JABC), Journal of Social Sciences (JSS), Academy of Marketing
Studies Journal (JAMS), World Journal of Business Management (WJBM), International Journal
of Business and Economics Perspectives (IJBEP), International Journal of Electronic Customer
Relationship Management (IJECRM) and Indian Institute of Management Journal (IIMJ). He is
currently carrying out research in the areas of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, customer
relationship marketing and e-commerce.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@[Link]

Or visit our web site for further details: [Link]/reprints

View publication stats