Knowledge management metrics

Abstract

Over several years, there have been intensive discussions about the importance of knowledge management (KM) within the business community. Effectively implementing a sound KM strategy and becoming a knowledge-based company is seen as a mandatory condition of success for organizations as they enter the era of the knowledge economy. However, standardized metrics are needed to quantify knowledge and to fully convince management and stakeholders as to the value of KM initiatives. Development of KM metrics has begun in recent years and these metrics are being applied by some organizations, but more research is needed to better define these measures and to make them universal. The purpose of this research is to survey and report the current measures of knowledge assets or intellectual capital, as well as the methods that are popularly being followed by organizations to measure the performance of KM strategies. The research findings should: assist organizations in identifying the measures that are appropriate and suitable for them, for improving the quality of metrics they use for measuring KM effectiveness; and assist researchers in identifying future research needs toward the standardization of KM measurement metrics.

Measuring Knowledge

“…BSC has multidimensional nature because of comprising quantitative, qualitative, financial and non-financial measures. BSC evaluates, according to Bose (2004), four key perspectives: financial ("How can we add value to our shareholders? ", e.g.…”

“…Similarly, Davenport and Prusak (1998 as cited in Ipe, 2003) defined knowledge as a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insights that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. Many authors connect the definition of knowledge with information, e.g., knowledge is an understanding of information and their associated patterns (Bierly et al, 2000 as cited in Singh, 2008); knowledge is conceptualized as codified information including insight, interpretation, context, experience, wisdom, and so forth (Davenport and Volpel, 2001 as cited in Fong, Ooi, Tan, Lee, & Chong, 2011), or knowledge can be thought as information that is "contextual, relevant and actionable" (Bose, 2004). Krogh et al (2000) highlight that knowledge is always linked to a specific context (e.g., a location).…”

“…Based on the finding of Ragab and Arisha (2013), Sveiby (2010), Kankanhalli andTan (2004), andBose (2004), when measuring knowledge at organization level, it is possible to review the level (amount) of knowledge, which is at the disposal of an organization, or to focus on reviewing how effectively it is worked with knowledge, for example when evaluating the effectivity of sharing knowledge within the organization. It means the classification of methods of measuring knowledge at organizational level can be as follows:…”

“…Employees' knowledge influences the innovation process, quality and accuracy of work, it helps people solve problems and deal with unexpected situations. Bose (2004) mentions that the least developed aspect of knowledge management is measurement. Partly it might be due to the fact that measuring knowledge is not easy, according to some authors, it is even impossible.…”

“…Furthermore, the findings might assist organizations in identifying the measures which are suitable for them, for improving the quality of metrics they use; and assist researchers in identifying future research needs related to knowledge measurement metrics as well as in deciding about the methods and techniques suitable for their research. There were done several similar reviews, e.g., Ragab and Arisha (2013), Sveiby (2010), Kankanhalli and Tan (2004), and Bose (2004), but this review combines their findings and offers a more comprehensive overview. Additionally, the group level knowledge measurement was not discussed in prior studies.…”