The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.

htm

IJEM 24,2

Knowledge management in academic institutions

Dev Raj Adhikari
Central Department of Management, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a concept of knowledge among the campus chiefs and other university leaders to make them aware of how important knowledge management (KM) is to achieve quality education criteria. Design/methodology/approach The approach of the article is basically conceptual and descriptive. The article was presented at three different seminars of professors and campus chiefs and their suggestions are also incorporated. Originality/value The article deals with KM and quality education relations. The author believes that this article is valuable to academic leaders to know the issues and challenges of Nepalese academic institutions and apply the concept of KM to achieve quality education goals. Practical implications The article was prepared to familiarize Nepalese educational leaders with the tools and processes of KM. Originality/value This is a conceptual article and there is still a need for research in Nepalese academic institutions to know the real situation of KM. However, the article helps educational leaders to know how important are KM concepts, tools and practices to fulll the objective of quality education. Keywords Knowledge management, Higher education, Nepal Paper type Conceptual paper

94

We need systematic work on the quality of knowledge and the productivity of knowledge neither even dened so far. The performance capacity, if not the survival, of any organization in the knowledge society will come increasingly to depend on those two factors. But so will the performance capacity, if not the survival, of any individual in the knowledge society (Drucker, 1994).

International Journal of Educational Management Vol. 24 No. 2, 2010 pp. 94-104 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0951-354X DOI 10.1108/09513541011020918

Introduction We all agree that our society is becoming more and more knowledge-based, and thus only those organizations will succeed in the global information society that can identify, value, create and evolve their knowledge assets. Knowledge management (KM) is one of many components of good management in our knowledge-based society. Many KM experts believe that knowledge is a modern organizations most important resource, the only resource not readily replicated by rivals, and therefore the source of its uniqueness. Senge (1990) argues that some organizations are unable to function as knowledge-based organizations because of the lack of their learning abilities. Nonaka (1991) believes that the twenty-rst century successful organizations are those that
This paper was prepared for discussion at the Campus Chief Seminar organized by Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal, August 2008.

consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely throughout the organization, and quickly embody it in new technologies and products. Nonaka (1991) further states, In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge . . . Successful organizations are those that consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely throughout the organization, and quickly embody it in new technologies and products. Academic institutions[1] are universities and different forms of educational institutions engaged in higher education management and delivery. Therefore, these institutions are in need of an integrative discipline for studying, researching and learning about the knowledge assets human intellectual capital and technology. In the past decades, especially in least developed countries, these institutions worked in a relatively stable environment, and seemed isolated from much competitive pressure. However, the global environment has changed so drastically that the decision and operation processes of academic institutions have become more volatile and dynamic than ever. The new academic environment is characterized by radical and discontinuous changes and demands that needs to carry out new mandate for knowledge creation and implementation in order to get bottom-line benets. In this volatile and dynamic environment, successful educational institutions are those that constantly create new knowledge, disseminate it widely through their systems. This requires approaches to lead us to question if a good environment for the knowledge transfer process will lead to effective teaching performance in higher education. However, knowledge-, motivation-, and communication-related factors concerning both faculty and student also have been proved to affect knowledge transfer (Ko et al., 2005). Therefore, in our education system, we need to prepare the students for knowledge transfer and higher education institutions should understand and improve knowledge transfer mechanism to meet the needs of students and society. This is what we call the bottom-line benets from the management of knowledge. In this perspective, the main challenge for todays educational institutions is to develop knowledge management process in order to make these institutions relevant for society. With these caveats in mind this paper aims to discuss the concepts, tools, processes and requirements of KM to reach the goal of quality education in our country. Knowledge dened In the face of a globally expanding and highly competitive knowledge-based economy, the traditional organizations are urgently seeking fundamental insights to help them nurture, harvest and manage the immense potential of their knowledge assets capability to excel at the leading edge of innovation. Knowledge is a fundamental factor, and its successful application helps our organizations to deliver creative services or products. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), knowledge is:
A dynamic human process of justifying personal belief toward the truth.

KM in academic institutions

95

According to this denition, knowledge represents the set of justied beliefs that enhance an organizations capability for effective action. It represents truth and offers a reliable basis for action. Most organizations already have a vast reservoir of knowledge in a wide variety of organizational process, best practices, know-how, management information system, culture and norms. Organizations, therefore, need to recognize knowledge reservoir and focus on processes and systems to promote knowledge

IJEM 24,2

96

acquisition and knowledge sharing as well as knowledge creation. It must be captured centrally to use for the daily efcient operations and to help the organization grow and sustain. However, organizational members cannot absorb all knowledge. The knowledge that resides in the organization is known as intellectual capital. For sustained growth of an organization, it is important to keep experience and knowledge in organizational memory. Intellectual capital will be destroyed if the organization fails to store and preserve it. Types of knowledge We all agree that our society is increasingly knowledge-based. Since knowledge is regarded as the key strategic resource of the future, our need to develop comprehensive understanding of this unique assets processes for creation, transfer and deployment are becoming critical. Nowadays, in management literature, managing knowledge has become increasingly important. According to Polanyi (1966) and Saint-Onge (1996), there are two types of knowledge: (1) Explicit knowledge: also known as hard knowledge, explicit knowledge can be expressed in numbers and words and shared formally and systematically in the form of data, specications, manuals, and so on. It is part of everyday professional life, exemplied by manuals, books and articles and thus this type of knowledge can easily be captured, and then shared with others either through thought courses or through books for self-reading. (2) Tacit knowledge: known as soft knowledge that includes insights, intuitions, and hunches, tacit knowledge is difcult to express and formalize, and is, therefore, difcult to share. It includes skills and know how that we have inside each of us and cannot be shared easily. It is embedded in practices of the people of an organization. This kind of knowledge is acquired over several years. Tacit knowledge also has a taken-for-granted dimension. This dimension consists of schemata, mental models, beliefs and perceptions deeply ingrained into our psyche and it is not only shared but also is taken as given (Nonaka et al., 1995). Knowledge management dened Clearly, KM is not a new phenomenon. For many years, organizations knowledge has been stored in several ways, including human minds, documents policies and procedures and shared among individuals through the means of conversation, training and reports. Advances in knowledge dened the achievements of the ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Chinese civilizations. According to Davenport and Hansen (1999):
Knowledge management (KM) is concerned with the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an organization with a view to furthering the organizations objectives.

According to Malhotra (1998):

Knowledge management caters to the critical issues of transitional adaptation, survival and competence in face of increasingly discontinuous environmental change . . . essentially, it embodies organizational processes that seek synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies, and creative and innovative capacity of human being.

As the above denition states, any structured activity that improves an organizations capacity to acquire, share, and use knowledge in the ways that improves its survival and success is included in Knowledge management systems. Knowledge management involves a number of processes that govern the creation, dissemination and utilization of knowledge to fulll organizational objectives. It also refers to a range of practices used by organizations to identify, create, represent, and distribute knowledge for reuse, awareness, and learning across the organizations. All activities of KM are typically tied to organizational objectives and are intended to lead to the achievement of specic outcomes, such as shared intelligence, improved performance and higher levels of innovation. Knowledge processing and management framework can provide an integrated approach for understanding the interrelation among structural organization, longer-term focus, learning orientation and capabilities (Bowonder and Miyake, 1999). The KM process and ow KM includes several strategies for knowledge that are acquisition, sharing and use. Some of these processes are briey explained below (Gupta et al., 2000; Clarke and Rollow, 2001; McShane, 1998): (1) Knowledge acquisition: all organizations should have a strategy to guide the acquisition of new knowledge. In order to have a viable future, an organization must have processes, which obtain new knowledge for the organization to apply. Normally knowledge can be acquired: . by obtaining from outside organization, purchasing it, hiring experts, or licensing patents; and . by creating inside the organization doing formal research activities; and . by acquiring experienced experts. (2) It refers to the process of sharing of experiences through observation, imitation and practices. Different methods involved in socialization process are, for example, workshops, seminars, apprenticeships and conferences. (3) Knowledge retention and dissemination: the aim of knowledge retention strategy is to maintain the knowledge base of the organization. This knowledge is vital to the present performance of the organization and so it must be maintained at the point of exploitation. This also involves the process of conversion of tacit knowledge (e.g. what one learned at a worship) into explicit from (written report). Dissemination of knowledge also constitutes a retention activity, because the knowledge still must be available at the point of exploitation, and should be shared to protect it from loss. (4) Knowledge exploitation: knowledge exploitation is the most vital KM category in terms of sustainable competitive advantage, because the exploitation of the knowledge gained is an economic justication for the existence of any type of organization. However, this article aims that the organizations are often not sufciently imaginative when formulating methods to deploy the knowledge they possess. For example, manufacturing organizations typically embody their knowledge in a product; however, a better source of competitive advantage may actually be in providing design consultancy services to external customers.

KM in academic institutions

97

IJEM 24,2

98

KM tools The ability of an organization to exploit knowledge depends on three KM tools; its technology, organizational structure and other specic knowledge tools (Birkinshaw, 2001): (1) Technology: this generally refers to information technology. Information technology helps as repository of knowledge that provides libraries of information about clients, past transactions and engagements. However, it can capture tacit knowledge or expertise of leading experts. (2) Organizational structures: it includes both formal and informal structure. A large part of KM is simply about facilitating the natural interactions between people. Structures may be physical layout of ofces to facilitate social interaction or formal structure around the key knowledge ows. There is a new approach of structure known as communities of practices. This refers to the groups of individuals with common interests and problems and who are dispersed throughout the organization. (3) Specic KM tools: some of the specic KM tools are the transfer of best practices and designation of centre of excellence. Best practices are transferred from one part of an organization to another. Centre of excellence is required to employ individuals or groups with specic expertise whose knowledge could be picked up and used in other parts of the rm. KM in educational institutions Our educational institutions create new knowledge, import it from diverse sources, and apply in a range of different environments (Traneld et al., 2004). In January 2001, the UK Minister for Science Lord Sainsbury told the North West Knowledge Economy conference that that university is the heart of the UKs productive capacity, being the center of the business network and industrial clusters. Characteristics of knowledge relevant to educational institutions include facts, opinions, ideas, theories, principles, models, experiences, values, contextual information, faculties and staff insights, and intuitions. Since our institutions are gradually being knowledge-based, they have to play a key role to change and develop our society by formation of human capital through proper education of students. The role of universities in this respect is likely to further increase given the development of a knowledge-intensive economy and society/both in terms of the expansion of the knowledge sector itself and in terms of the growing focus on information and knowledge in all sectors and activities. KM is an integral process component of any institutions structure and process. Our institutions devote billions of rupees in the discovery and creation of knowledge. They employ professors and lecturers to codify knowledge in the classroom setting and to disseminate it to students, and they build libraries to organize and catalog it. Our universities are helping to communicate knowledge supporting faculties to write articles in journals and textbooks and some sponsor attendance at conferences in order to share knowledge between academics and practitioners. Our students (hopefully) make practical use of the knowledge they have gained.

For educational institutions KM is dened as:

The organized and systematic process of generating and disseminating information, and selecting, distilling, and deploying explicit and tacit knowledge to create unique value that can be used to strengthen teaching-learning environment.

KM in academic institutions

According to this denition, the key role of institutions is to manage knowledge (both tacit and explicit) to enhance its performance to the development of society. Knowledge is essential to create and add value that helps to build a sound environment for teaching and learning. Knowledge management improves an institutions capacity to acquire, share and use knowledge in ways that improve its survival and success. The knowledge that resides in our institutions is called its intellectual capital. Intellectual capital is the sum of their human capital, structural capital and relationship capital. KM-related issues and challenges in Nepalese educational institutions The main issues and challenges related to KM facing our educational institutions are: . Less organizational efforts in creating knowledge (e.g. lack of organized form of database and information systems). . Except classrooms, there are a few occasions for sharing knowledge that our faculties possess. . There is a need for scientic approach in creating knowledge. . There exists the lack of initiatives to use already created knowledge. . It is surrounded by non-knowledge based activities. . There belongs a need for proper organizational structure to create and transfer of knowledge. . It needs some motivation and enforcement practices to create and use knowledge. Role of KM for performance excellence in educational institutions The most common type of success in KM involves operational improvement limited to a particular process or function. An impressive benet from KM projects involves money saved or earned, increase in productivity and motivation of employees and customer satisfaction (McCampbell et al., 1999). The impact of KM on an educational institutions performance is strongly tied to its ability to identify where knowledge resides and its use for the benet of our students and society. Malcom Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) is an initiative of the US government to promote the quality education in educational institutions. MBNQA prescribes seven criteria, well-known as best criteria which can be used to evaluate performance of educational institutions. These criteria selected by MBNQA are as follows (Lee et al., 2000): . Leadership: it refers to leadership system and public responsibility and citizenship. . Strategic planning: this concept normally applies to business. For educational institutions it involves strategy development process and course strategy. . Student and stakeholder focus: it requires understanding knowledge of student needs and expectations; and student and stakeholder satisfaction and relationship enhancement.

99

IJEM 24,2

100

Information and analysis: this refers to the system of selection and use of information and data; selection and use of comparative information and data; and analysis and review of course performance. Staff focus: concentration on work systems; staff education, training and development; and staff well-being and satisfaction. Educational and support process management: it includes criteria such as education design and delivery and education support processes. Course performance results: criteria to measure course performance results are: student performance results; student stakeholder satisfaction results; staff performance results; and course-specic results.

The author of this paper believes that quality education is the need of concerned all. KM helps to strengthen our institutions teaching-learning environment concentrating on MBNQA criteria through the following ways: . Knowledge acquisition, retention and disseminating and exploitation. . Development of knowledge ow process through socialization, capture, dissemination and internalization. . Exploitation of knowledge through the help of technology, organizational structure and specic knowledge tools (such as best practices and center of excellence). . Development of supportive institutional culture.

KM initiatives required for educational institutions Teaching, research and technology are the important functions for strengthening educational institutes. However, these three functions should be taken as highly interconnected for result in creating synergy and value for the society. In addition to fostering these three functions, it is necessary to develop intra and inter business related networking to provide inputs in the process of creating synergy and value. Educational institutions are the best places for knowledge management with the following initiatives: . Teaching-learning environment: creation and dissemination of knowledge is practically not possible without a harmonious teaching and learning environment. There should be incentives for commitment for those have been engaged in teaching activities. Students have to be aware of the benets that are possible from a sound teaching-learning environment. . Research activities: although a number of research institutions are functioning within university framework, it seems less collaborative and knowledge-based. There should be a system of transferring research knowledge and skills within different research institutions. . Technology based knowledge: technology helps to create and process the knowledge in a required form. It is a tool to document explicit knowledge. Information technology is now being effective media for disseminating and sharing knowledge.

Knowledge-based networking: it is not possible to create, store and disseminate knowledge without networking activities within and outside university systems. A networking hub is essential to foster the social relations among business communities, government ministries and non-government organizations.

KM in academic institutions

Difculties in implementing KM initiatives at our educational institutions It is a well-known fact that our educational institutions are becoming larger, under-funded, and even unmanageable. Number of students is on rise and it is becoming difcult to accommodate them into classrooms. Institutes are infested with politics that has interfered campus life, inuencing academic appointments and decisions across levels. Under-investment in libraries, information technology, laboratories, and classrooms are the big challenges to provide top-quality instruction or engage in cutting-edge research. Rising number of contract and part-time teachers and the limitation on new full-time appointments in many places have affected morale in the academic profession. There is no system of regular measurement of accountability, and as a result the teaching and research performance is seldom measured with the system providing few incentives to perform. The following factors may limit our KM initiatives in the future: . Institutional culture: institutional culture is a crucial aspect for facilitating sharing, learning, and creating knowledge. An open institutional culture is required with incentives to promote integrating individual skills and experiences into institutional knowledge. . Recognize our strengths that already exist: many of our institutions are not able to recognize that they are having abundant strengths of knowledge utilizing formally and informally. For example, at some of our educational institutions formal organizational structures are typically designed to ensure that knowledge exchange takes place between those who most need it. . We think that technology is the main part of knowledge management: it is not only technology that supports KM activities. Social relations, networking and interaction are the main elements for implementing KM practices at our institutions. Information technology is never a substitute for these elements. Therefore, a good t between information technology and social relations is required. . Our focus is on recycling old knowledge rather than generating the new one: most of our institutions are inward looking. They more focus on old knowledge rather than on creation of new knowledge. Much more important, over the long term, is the ability to ring new knowledge into the institution, and turn it into new model of teaching and learning. . Our technique of KM is traditional: no doubt that the concept of communities of practice is alluring, but essentially it is just about encouraging people to communicate with one other and share their ideas. This idea is as old as the hills. We are proud of data base that we have had earlier but not able to deal with users needs. . We are reluctant to change our habit: without changing prevailing habits it is difcult to implement KM initiatives. We have to devote more time and efforts in the process of socialization and internalization of knowledge. Our skills to use technology require a lot of improvements.

101

IJEM 24,2

102

Prerequisites to implement KM initiatives at our educational institutions In fact, KM is a multidisciplinary eld and does not there lend prescriptive implementation methodologies. However, prior to implementing KM initiatives there are number of initial steps applicable to a large number of academic institutions: . Map the knowledge ows at our educational institutions: identifying the current state of the knowledge ow shows very clearly which parts of our institutions suffer from a lack of knowledge ow and these can then be highlighted for attention. It is necessary to examine the current level of connection between faculties, staff, students and institutions. . Identify the key sources of expertise at the institute: it is essential to map the stocks of knowledge and use them to push the sharing of best practices. This can be done by examining performance results of faculties and staff. If there are some best practices and styles followed it is better to use them to enhance performance of educational institutions. . Investigate who needs knowledge at your institute: it is imperative to focus on mission-critical rather than nice-to-have knowledge practices. If our core faculties are needed some specic training to enhance their class performance skills it is better on this part. . Make the knowledge visible: there should be easy access to knowledge for the institutional members. Manuals, instructions, catalogues, notices, computer facility and databases help in making knowledge visible. Visible knowledge can easily be transferred around an organization. All departments can use such knowledge for planning and making decisions. . Develop policy to institutionalize KM initiatives: it is necessary to facilitate knowledge growth through culture and incentives. Such growth of knowledge provides soft form of incentives to reinforce KM activities at our institutions. Incentives help to reinforce best practices, and at the same time to instill a shift in behavior. Incentives should be based on annual performance review of faculties and staff on the basis of their contribution to the institutions knowledge. Summary and conclusions Knowledge management (KM) is one of the components of good management in the knowledge-based society. In the twenty-rst century an organization that fails to manage the knowledge nds it difcult to sustain and grow its activities. Nepalese academic institutions are characterized by less organizational efforts in creating knowledge, few occasions to share it, less scientic approach in creating it, and less use of created knowledge. They are surrounded by non knowledge-based activities and many other features. The concept and practice of KM has yet to arrive in these institutions. At the same time, there are no proper criteria to evaluate academic activities of these institutions. In todays world, trying to manage the educational institutions without KM initiatives can bring their downfall. We need to manage both social and technical aspects of KM to restore and utilize knowledge and raise the level of performance excellence. With certain modication, we can also use MBNQA criteria to examine KM initiatives overtime at our educational institutions. However, it requires a major shift in institutional culture and commitment at all levels of our institutions. A strong

technological base, customized for the needs of each institution provides the tools necessary for ensuring the success of KM efforts. Similarly, teaching-learning environment, research activities, technology-based knowledge and knowledge-based networking are essential initiatives to take by our educational institutions. Moreover, KM is not only dened in term of technology, it is concerned with not just tapping into institutional memory but also with institutionalized skills and existing intellectual capital. A supportive institutional climate brought through good KM can bring transformation in entire institutional learning process and we become competent enough to tackle most of our educational challenges. Finally, there is a need to protect our educational institutions through the practice of KM and quality education initiatives.
Note 1. In this article academic institution refers to universities and higher educational institutions. References Birkinshaw, J. (2001), Why knowledge management so difcult?, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 11-18. Bowonder, B. and Miyake, T. (1999), Japanese LCD industry through knowledge management, Competing through Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 77-99. Clarke, T. and Rollow, C. (2001), Corporate initiatives in knowledge management, Education Training, Vol. 43 Nos 4/5, pp. 206-14. Davenport, T. and Hansen, M. (1999), Knowledge management at Andersen Consulting, Harvard Business School Case Study, 9-499-032, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA. Drucker, P.F. (1994), The age of social transformation, The Altantic Monthly, November. Gupta, B., Iyer, L.S. and Aroson, J.E. (2000), Knowledge management: practices and challenges, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 17-21. Ko, D-G., Kirsch, L.J. and King, W.R. (2005), Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 59-85. Lee, S.F., Lo, K.K., Leung, L.F. and Ko, S.O. (2000), Strategy formulation framework for vocational education: integrating SWOT analysis, balanced scorecard, QFD methodology and MBNQA education criteria, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 407-23. McCampbell, A.S., Clare, L.M. and Gitters, S.M. (1999), Knowledge management: the new challenge for the twenty-rst century, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 172-9. McShane, S. (1998), Organizational Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Malhotra, Y. (1998), Deciphering the knowledge management hype, Journal for Quality & Participation, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 58-60. Nonaka, I. (1991), The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, November-December, pp. 96-104. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. and Umemoto, K. (1995), Theory of organizational knowledge creation, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 11 Nos 7-8, pp. 833-45.

KM in academic institutions

103

IJEM 24,2

104

Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge, London. Saint-Onge, H. (1996), Tacit knowledge: the key to the strategic alignment of intellectual capital, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 10-16. Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, Doubleday, New York, NY. Traneld, D., Denyer, D. and Marcos, J. (2004), Co-producing management knowledge, Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 3/4, pp. 375-86. Further reading Alvarez, K., Salas, E. and Garofano, C.M. (2004), An integrated model of training evaluation and effectiveness, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 385-416. Deven, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA. MBNQA (1999), Education Criteria of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), National Institute of Standards, US Department of Commerce, Washington DC. Murray, P. (2002), Knowledge management as a sustained competitive advantage, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 71-6. Shariq, Z.S. (1997), Knowledge management: an emerging discipline, The Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 75-82. Simon, J. and Soliman, K.S. (2003), An alternative method to measure MIS faculty teaching performance, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 195-9. Corresponding author Dev Raj Adhikari can be contacted at: devraj@enet.com.np

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

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.