This paper seeks to contribute to the on-going research in knowledge management (KM) by presenting a study conducted in six public service agencies in Singapore. The study was guided by three research foci, namely, (1) to elucidate the nebulous nature of KM initiatives, (2) to uncover the motivation behind KM measurement and (3) to identify the various elements of a KM initiative that can be measured. Data collected from the public service agencies revealed that KM initiatives were generally top-down and technology-focused. Project management and the need to quantify the value of KM initiatives drove KM measurement. The measurement indicators adopted by the agencies encompassed four elements of measurement: activities, knowledge assets, organizational processes and business outcomes. In conclusion, this paper highlights two practical implications for the design of a KM measurement regime and suggests a number of possible directions for further research.
A. Ithia, UK lawyers spend more on KM, KM Review5(6) (2003) 11.
2.
M. Koenig, Leadership roles for information professionals. In: C. Khoo et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Library and Information Education and Practice , Singapore, April 3-6, 2006, (Nanyang Technological University School of Communication and Information , Singapore, 2006) 11-17.
3.
C. O'Dell and J. Grayson, If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal best practices, California Management Review40(3) (1998) 154-74.
4.
T.H. Davenport , D.W. de Long and M.C. Beers, Successful knowledge management initiatives , Sloan Management Review39(2) (1998) 43-57.
5.
J. Kluge, W. Stein and T. Licht, Knowledge Unplugged: the McKinsey & Company Global Survey on Knowledge Management (Palgrave, New York, 2001) 63-67.
6.
P. Sanchez , C. Chaminade and M. Olea, Management of intangibles: an attempt to build a theory, Journal of Intellectual Capital1(4) ( 2000) 312-27.
7.
W.J. Suh , D.J.H. Sohn and J.Y. Kwak, Knowledge management as enabling R&D innovation in high tech industry: the case of SAIT, Journal of Knowledge Management8(6) (2004) 5-15.
A. De and R. Sathyavgeeswaran , KM at Hughes Software Systems: certification, collaboration, metrics. In: M. Rao (ed.), Leading with Knowledge (Tata-McGraw-Hill , New Delhi, 2003).
10.
E.C. Wenger , R. McDermott and W.M. Snyder, Cultivating Communities of Practice (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2002).
11.
N.M. Dixon , Common Knowledge (Harvard Business School Press , Boston, 2000).
12.
R. Garud and A. Kumaraswamy, Vicious and virtuous circles in the management of knowledge: the case of Infosys Technologies, MIS Quarterly29(1) (2005) 9-33.
13.
R. McDermott and C. O'Dell, Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge, Journal of Knowledge Management5(1) (2001) 76-85.
14.
B. Prasad and J. Nadessin, Continuous knowledge-based innovation at EDS. In: M. Rao (ed.), Leading with Knowledge (Tata-McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, 2003) 61-94.
15.
A. Ardichvili , V. Page and T. Wentling, Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice , Journal of Knowledge Management7(1) (2003) 64-77.
16.
P.K. Ahmed , K.K. Lim and A.Y.E. Loh , Learning through Knowledge Management (Butterworth-Heinemann , Boston, 2002).
17.
P.K. Ahmed , K.K. Lim and M. Zairi, Measurement practice for knowledge management , Journal of Workplace Learning11(8) (1999) 304-311.
18.
American Productivity and Quality Center , Linking knowledge to innovation and bottom line benefits: investigating best practice, Strategic Direction20(2) (2004) 28-30.
19.
A.M. Fairchild , Knowledge management metrics via a balanced scorecard methodology. In: R. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 7-10 January 2002 ( IEEE Press, Big Island, Hawaii, 2002) 3173-80.
20.
J. Liebowitz , Aggressively pursuing knowledge management over two years: a case study at a US government organization, Knowledge Management Research and Practice1(2) (2003) 69-76.
21.
M.Y. Chen and A.P. Chen, Knowledge management performance evaluation: a decade review from 1995 to 2004, Journal of Information Science32(1) (2006) 17-38.
22.
Department of Navy, Metrics Guide for Knowledge Management Initiatives (2001). Available at: www.km.gov/documents/DoN_KM_Metrics_Guide_Aug_01.pdf (accessed 1 October 2006).
23.
S. Parise, J. Wolfe, S. Wilson and L. Abrams, Building the Business Case for a Knowledge Initiative, IBM Institute for Business Value study (2004). Available at: www.-1.ibm.com/services/de/bcs/pdf/strat/entwbusiness-case.pdf (accessed 7 July 2006).
24.
T.A. Stewart , Intellectual Capital: the New Wealth of Organizations (Nicholas Brealey, London, 1997).
25.
T.H. Davenport , and L. Prusak, Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998).
26.
N. Bontis , Assessing knowledge assets: a review of models used to measure intellectual capital, International Journal of Management Reviews3(1) (2001) 41-60.
27.
K.E. Sveiby , Methods for Measuring Intangible Assets (2004). Available at: www.sveiby.com/articles/IntangibleMethods.htm (accessed 6 October 2006).
28.
R.S. Kaplan and D.P. Norton, The balanced scorecard measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review70(1) (1992) 71-8.
K. Nogeste and D.H.T. Walker, Using knowledge management to revise software-testing processes, Journal of Workplace Learning18(1) ( 2006) 6-27
31.
Z. Iftikhar , I. Eriksson and G. Dickson, Developing an instrument for knowledge management project evaluation, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management1(1) (2003) paper 7. Available at: www.ejkm.com/volume-1/volume1-issue1/issue1-art7.htm (accessed 30 October 2006).
32.
V.P. Kochikar , K. Mahesh and C.S. Mahind, Knowledge management in action: the experience of Infosys Technologies. In: V. Hlupic (ed.), Knowledge and Business Process Management ( Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, 2002) 83-98.
33.
D. Rush, Measuring connectivity at Aventis pharmaceuticals, KM Review5(2) ( 2002) 10-13.
34.
Public Service21, PS21 Framework (2005). Available at: www.ps21.gov.sg (accessed 30 October 2006).
35.
Knowledge Management Consulting Unit (Civil Service College Publications, Singapore , 2003).
36.
Singapore Productivity and Innovation Board , Singapore Quality Award for Business Excellence. Available at: www.spring.gov.sg/portal/products/awards/sqa/sqa.html (accessed 3 June 2006).
37.
D. Robey , J. Ross and M.C. Boudreau, Learning to implement enterprise systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of change , Journal of Management Information Systems19(1) (2002) 17-46.
38.
R.E. Boyatzis , Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998).
39.
Y.S. Lincoln and E.G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry ( Sage, Beverley Hills, CA, 1985).
40.
S.C. Voelpel , M. Leibold, R.A. Eckhoff and T.H. Davenport, The tyranny of the Balanced Scorecard in the innovation economy, Journal of Intellectual Capital7(1) ( 2004) 43-60.
41.
P. Yates-Mercer and D. Bawden, Managing the paradox: the valuation of knowledge and knowledge management, Journal of Information Science28(1) (2002) 19-29.
42.
R.Z. Elias , The impact of corporate ethical values on perceptions of earnings management , Managerial Auditing Journal19(1) (2004) 84-98.
