The development of an instrument to measure readiness for knowle

The development of an instrument to measure readiness for knowledge management

Daniel T Holt¹, Summer E Bartczak¹, Steven W Clark² and Martin R Trent³

1. ¹Department of Systems & Engineering Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright Patterson, OH, U.S.A.
2. ²HQ AFSOC/FMJ, Hurlburt Field, FL, U.S.A.
3. ³AFMC/PKXA, Wright Patterson, OH, U.S.A.

Correspondence: Daniel T. Holt, Department of Systems & Engineering Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, AFIT/ENV, 2950 Hobson Way, Wright Patterson, OH 45433-7765, USA. Tel: [phone] ext. 7396; Fax: [phone]; E-mail: [e-mail]

Received 31 October 2006; Revised 11 January 2007; Accepted 22 February 2007.

Abstract

Implementing knowledge management (KM) projects or knowledge-sharing philosophies in organizations require significant organization change. Because the introduction of change is difficult, leaders have been encouraged to proactively prepare their organizations and its members as they begin one of these initiatives. As the first step in this process, managers should comprehensively examine their organization's underlying readiness to embrace these initiatives. Unfortunately, the measurement of an organization's readiness for KM initiatives poses significant challenges because no known instrument is available to do so. Accordingly, this study drew on the KM and organizational change literature to take a first step in the development of a synergistic instrument that measures readiness for KM and applied it in an organizational setting.

Keywords:

KM enablers, KM readiness, readiness for change

Introduction

It is commonly accepted that the richest resource of today's organizations is knowledge (Drucker, 1993; Wiig, 1993; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). As such, organizations are attempting to leverage this knowledge in order to increase efficiency and effectiveness and to achieve competitive advantage. The focus on knowledge has led to the concept and practice of knowledge management (KM). A variety of definitions for KM exist, but what is important to understand is that the underlying purpose of KM is to 'enhance organizational performance by explicitly designing and implementing tools, processes, systems, structures, and cultures to improve the creation, sharing, and use...of knowledge critical for decision-making' (DeLong & Fahey, 2000, para 14).

Implementing KM projects or knowledge-sharing philosophies in organizations often requires significant organization change (Wiig, 1993; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Most managers and leaders are aware that successfully introducing changes, of any kind, are difficult where resistance to change is often dramatic and immediate. Because of this, leaders have been encouraged to proactively prepare their organizations as they begin any change initiative. As the first step in this preparation, leaders should comprehensively examine their organization's underlying readiness to embrace a proposed change. Considering a KM effort, a readiness assessment would allow leaders to identify the gaps that exist between their own beliefs about the proposed KM effort and the organizational members' beliefs. If large gaps are observed and nothing is done to close those gaps, resistance will likely be encountered and implementation can be less than successful. In essence, an assessment of an organization's readiness could serve as a guide to leaders as they plan and implement KM initiatives. Shaw and Tuggle reinforce this notion saying, 'A critical question for organizations that are thinking of attempting to extract the value implicit from KM is to what degree are they ready to have KM successfully adopted by people in the organization' (2003, p. 153).

Unfortunately, the measurement of an organization's readiness for KM initiatives poses significant challenges because no known instrument is available to do so. Accordingly, we take an initial, exploratory step to confront this challenge. By drawing on the KM and organizational change literature, we draw several promising insights to better understand KM readiness, identifying facets influencing the implementation of KM and organizational change, namely, the individual, the change context, the change content, and the change process. From this, we present a synergistic instrument that others can use as a springboard to guide subsequent empirical efforts to further develop theories and comprehensive measures of KM readiness. Our discussion begins with a summary of the related KM literature followed by a brief review of existing instruments designed to tap readiness for organizational change. Finally, we discuss the integrated instrument that incorporates the ideas gleaned from the KM and change literature, administering this instrument in a field setting, and testing the extent to which the factors that are measured relate to attitudes toward KM.

KM readiness

Despite early proclamations regarding the value of knowledge and managing knowledge (e.g., Drucker, 1993; Wiig, 1993), the KM movement has been viewed as a 'fad' or 'recycled' concept (Spiegler, 2000). The tide is turning, however, as more and more organizations become knowledge-based. In the words of Davenport & Grover, 'It is becoming increasingly clear that knowledge management is here to stay... . There are far too many knowledge workers dealing with too much knowledge for knowledge management to disappear.' (2001, p. 4). Given that KM is becoming a competitive necessity, organizations and organization leaders find themselves asking 'Where to start?' and 'Is my organization ready?'

To begin, considerable qualitative research has suggested 'enablers' of organizational KM (e.g., O'Dell et al., 1998; Havens & Knapp, 1999; Cho et al., 2000). Although the literature is varied, common themes have emerged. For instance, Havens & Knapp (1999) state that content, community, and computing are the principle enablers while Cho et al. (2000) state KM is enabled through people, process, and technology. O'Dell et al. (1998) present yet another model which identifies four critical enablers, namely, infrastructure, technology, culture, and measures. Similarly, Gold et al. (2001) state that infrastructure capabilities (i.e., technology, structure, and culture) and process capabilities (i.e., acquisition, conversion, and application processes) are necessary 'preconditions' for effective KM.

Owing to space limitations, each of these categories of 'enablers' or 'preconditions' will not be discussed in detail; these enablers, nonetheless, have collectively provided a framework that we could use to guide the development of a KM readiness instrument. In essence, we feel that those who have identified KM enablers have 'set the stage' and provided insights into the factors that should be considered as we develop a measure for KM readiness. These researchers, for example, have suggested that KM readiness is influenced by who is involved (e.g., Cho et al.'s, people), where KM is occurring (e.g., O'Dell et al.'s culture), what is involved (e.g., Havens & Knapp's content), and how KM is occurring (e.g., Gold et al.'s process). Moreover, it was commonly suggested that these factors 'must work in concert' (O'Dell et al., 1998, p. 71) to create an institutional KM capability regardless of the specific enablers or preconditions. Therefore, a comprehensive measure of KM readiness should simultaneously assess individual attributes, the internal context, the KM initiative content, and the process used to facilitate KM.

While the need for a leader to champion the successful introduction of KM has been conveyed (e.g., Davenport & Prusak, 1998), the idea that an organization's readiness for KM should consider the attributes of the organization's line workers is increasingly justified as these champions attempt to diffuse KM through their organizations. In the words of Davenport & Grover, 'To fully institutionalize knowledge management, the focus must shift to amateurs – those whose roles in organizations are not primarily knowledge management, but accomplishing their real organization missions' (2001, p. 4). While necessary skills can be taught over time and those that do not learn the skills can be replaced, it is important to understand that organizations often have limited flexibility in teaching or replacing those in knowledge-oriented organizations in the short term and must initiate KM efforts with the members who are in place. Thus, leaders can gain insight as to the speed and effectiveness that KM will be diffused by measuring the appropriate attributes of individual members.

Also, having the right organizational culture (i.e., internal context) in place appears to be an absolute necessity or precursor to the acceptance and adoption of KM (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; DeLong & Fahey, 2000; Shaw & Tuggle, 2003). O'Dell et al. go as far as to say '[culture] is perhaps more potent and more difficult to alter' (1998, p. 71) than any other KM enabler. With this in mind, Gold et al. (2001) suggest that trust and openness are important facets of a culture that is KM ready. Shaw and Tuggle's case study of four organizations offer 13 cultural factors (which include trust, teamwork, positive sentiments, optimism, curiosity, reward and recognition systems to name a few) that are 'germane to the adoption of KM' (2003, p. 76). Taylor & Wright (2004) identified two cultural dimensions (i.e., open leadership climate and learning from failure) related to KM readiness in a quantitative study of public sector organizations. In sum, it appears that aspects of the internal context (i.e., organizational culture) were very appropriate indicators of KM readiness.

Another important issue in assessing KM readiness revolves around the content of the KM initiatives that are being introduced (Wiig, 1993; Hansen et al., 1999; Earl, 2001). Although research findings vary, organizations' KM approaches or strategies cover a wide spectrum from people-centric to technology-centric initiatives. For the purposes of this research, the acknowledgement of these various KM approaches was important in that the comprehensive assessment tool that was desired had to adequately address readiness for any KM change initiative regardless of its orientation. Whether the organization in question was using a technology-based approach (i.e., implementing a relatively simple KM system such as a knowledge repository or knowledge map), a people-based approach (i.e. establishing communication networks or communities of practice) or something in between, an assessment instrument for KM readiness had to be applicable for all situations.

In sum, the implementation of KM projects or knowledge-sharing philosophies in organizations is a complex issue and requires significant organizational effort (Wiig, 1993; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). According to Wiig, 'Usually, introducing KM in an enterprise results in considerable change. It requires adoption of new perspectives and management and work practices and implementation of new approaches. Such changes require efforts and time' (1993, p. 29). As such, KM readiness is an important aspect of the process to facilitate and diffuse KM. And, measurement of the organization's readiness would help leaders know where to start as they try to introduce KM in their organizations. To create this instrument, we intentionally blended the relevant facets of the KM literature with the more established lessons of the organizational change literature.

Integrated readiness instrument

In examining the organizational change literature for measurement instruments that could be adapted to assess KM readiness, it was not surprising that the instruments tapped facets that were consistent with those identified by KM researchers. That is, the instruments' content suggested that these instruments were designed to assess readiness by examining (a) the individual attributes, (b) the organizational culture and climate (i.e., internal context), (c) the specific change (i.e. initiative content), and (d) the process. Thus, if one were to develop an 'ideal' readiness for change instrument, it would seem appropriate to understand attributes of the individual and change initiative while also gauging perceptions of the culture and process – all facets suggested in the KM literature.

In all, we identified over 30 instruments that purportedly assessed readiness for an organization to embrace change (see Table 1 for a summary of the instruments and evidence of their psychometric properties). They were discovered in a wide array of academic journals, popular magazines, and practitioner publications. Unfortunately, the evidence supporting the psychometric properties of the available instruments was somewhat disconcerting. In all, two instruments available, Burke et al.'s (1996) Lay of the Land Survey and McConnaughy et al.'s (1983) instrument appeared to present evidence of content, construct, and predictive validity. Putting this in perspective, only eight other instruments went through a discernable process to develop and review items, a necessary first step so that initial levels of content validity can be established. Similarly, only nine others reported evidence of construct validity where exploratory factor analysis was the most common method of providing this evidence. Even fewer instruments (i.e., four of the other instruments analyzed) reported evidence of predictive validity. Thus, the extent to which these readiness instruments could be distilled and adapted immediately into an ideal instrument to tap KM readiness was constrained. Moreover, the review of available instruments demonstrated that none measured all four aspects of readiness that had been suggested by the KM and change literature (see Table 1).

Table 1 - Instruments to assess readiness for change and a summary of psychometric properties.

Full table

Given these findings, we felt it was appropriate to step-back and develop an instrument that incorporated the ideas of the existing instruments along with those expressed in contemporary change and KM theory. Table 2 summarizes the KM and change literature that guided the development of the instrument and lists the specific dimensions that were measured. It is worth noting that we wanted to give consideration to both practical and theoretical issues. Considering practical issues, we recognized that the KM literature has suggested several individual, internal context, content, and process variables that could be incorporated; use of all of them, however, was not feasible. As noted earlier, Shaw & Tuggle (2003) identified 13 cultural factors (i.e., internal context) that were related to KM acceptance. Not all of these factors could be included while still measuring all of the facets of KM readiness because such lengthy questionnaire would limit an organizational leader's willingness to administer the instrument in a field setting. Considering theoretical issues, factors were selected only if there appeared to be empirical findings that suggested relationships between a particular variable and KM readiness, acceptance, or adoption. Taylor & Wright (2004), for instance, found a positive relationship between open leadership climate (i.e., internal context) and effective knowledge sharing. Additionally, measures had to demonstrate some level of validity and reliability – an important theoretical concern.

Table 2 - Summary of the KM and change literature to guide the content of the integrated readiness measure.

Full table

In order to be practically important, the KM readiness instrument should be related to general attitudes toward KM in expected ways. Thus, we included measures to assess the extent to which the facets of KM readiness were related to attitudes toward KM. Specifically, we expected those that indicated being more 'ready' to be more committed to KM initiatives and less pessimistic about these initiatives. This expectation, for instance, was supported by Herscovitch & Meyer's (2002) recent work that found commitment to change initiatives like those associated with KM were positively related to the behaviors associated with change, where higher orders of commitment (i.e., affective commitment) are more closely related to change behaviors than lower orders of commitment (i.e., normative and continuance commitment). Because our purpose was to present a sound instrument that could serve as a springboard to future efforts and refinements, the details of each instrument that we administered in field setting and summary of the evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the measure is summarized in the Appendix. The evidence compiled on each of the measures contrasts starkly with the existing readiness for change instruments (see Table 1) – in all cases, the measures we selected had a track record of validity and reliability.

Case study and method

Organizational setting

The Chief Information Officer of the Air Force (AF) had championed KM; as such, he was developing and implementing an enterprise-level KM strategy. Under the umbrella of this strategy, there were myriad organization-level KM projects. Our case study focused on the implementation of KM initiatives within one agency that had several new projects on the horizon, making it a fruitful location to administer the KM readiness instrument that included the operational variables outlined in Table 2.

Participants

In this agency, 146 civilian and military personnel of various grade levels and responsibilities completed the questionnaire. The average age of the respondents was 43.4 years (SD=9.6 years). Military personnel comprised 13.7% of the respondents. Of the 117 respondents who indicated their supervisory status, 27.4% were supervisors and lead 5.4 people (SD=9.2), on average. In addition, an array of occupations was represented such as administrative specialists, buyer, and manager. On average, the respondents had (a) worked for the organization for 12.3 years (SD=9.8), (b) worked in their current position for 3.0 years (SD=3.7), and (c) had 12.7 more years until retirement. Finally, the respondents reported that 2.7 organizational levels separated themselves from the organization's executive director.

Procedure

Data were collected using two methods. Originally, the questionnaire was sent to 722 individuals as an attachment to an e-mail containing all relevant information and expressing the strict confidentiality of their responses. Participants were able to open the questionnaire, print a copy, complete the questionnaire, and return it to us via inter-office mail. Response rates were monitored over a 3-week period and follow-up messages were sent to remind participants of the questionnaire. Seventy survey responses were received using this method for a 9.7% response rate. To bolster this rate, the questionnaire was placed on a network system external to the organization and participants were able to access the survey from their own desktop computers. Participants were informed of the web-based questionnaire via an e-mail sent by the researcher that contained identical information as the original e-mail. Seventy-six additional survey responses were received. A total of 146 surveys were accumulated between the e-mail and web-based questionnaires for an overall response rate of 20.2%.

Measures

As noted, a detailed presentation of the instrument is presented in the Appendix. Unless otherwise specified, participants responded by expressing their agreement with each statement using a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree.

Individual measures

 

Affect: Positive and negative affect were measured using the 20-item scale developed by Watson et al. (1988). In this scale, 10 items tap positive affect (i.e., the participant's disposition to feel enthusiastic, active, and alert) and 10 tap negative affect (i.e., the participant's disposition to feel angry, contemptuous, disgusted, and nervous). This measure employed a five-point scale with labels of very slightly or not at all, a little, moderately, quite a bit, and very much, respectively. Coefficient alpha for positive affect was 0.95 and 0.87 for negative affect.

Efficacy: Six items developed by Holt (2002) were used to measure individual efficacy for KM. An example item was, 'I have the skills that are needed to make this [KM] work.' These items produced a coefficient alpha of 0.84.

Innovativeness: Eight items developed by Hurt et al. (1977) were used to tap the extent to which the respondents were generally innovative and open to change. An example item was, 'I rarely trust new ideas until I can see whether the vast majority of people around me accept them.' In this research, these items produced a coefficient alpha of 0.84.

Context measures

 

Perceived organizational support: Six items developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986) were used to measure perceived organizational support. An example item was, 'The organization is willing to extend itself in order to help me perform my job to the best of my ability.' While Eisenberger et al. (1986) presented a 32-item instrument, we followed the lead of recent research that has used an abbreviated version of the scale. Because a coefficient alpha of 0.92 was observed, this appeared to be an appropriate scale.

Communication climate: Four items developed by Miller et al. (1994) were used to measure the organization's communication, representing the extent to which respondents felt they received necessary information. Coefficient alpha was 0.78.

Content measures

 

Appropriateness: Ten items developed by Holt (2002) were used to measure the appropriateness of the KM initiatives. An example item was, 'I think that the organization will benefit from [KM].' These items produced a coefficient alpha of 0.91.

Personal valence: Six items developed by Holt (2002) were used to measure valence. These items represent the extent to which a person feels that he or she will personally benefit from the implementation of the prospective change. An example item was, 'After these [initiatives are implemented], I expect to be recognized more for the work I do.' The estimates of internal consistency was 0.62 (coefficient alpha).

KM evaluation: A semantic differential scale presented by Kazlow (1977) was used to measure the overall evaluation of KM initiatives. The scale included a series of eight bi-polar adjectives pairs. An example of an adjective pair was, 'Progressive, Regressive.' These items produced a Cronbach's coefficient alpha of 0.89.

Process measures

 

Management support: Six items developed by Holt (2002) were used to measure the extent to which one felt the organization's leadership and management was committed to and supported implementation of KM. An example item was, 'Our organization's top decision-makers have put all their support behind this [initiative].' Coefficient alpha was 0.84.

Participation: Four items developed by Wanberg & Banas (2000) were used to measure participation. An example item was, 'I had some control over the changes that were proposed.' Coefficient alpha was 0.77.

Quality of information: Three items developed by Miller et al. (1994) were used to assess the quality of information transferred, representing the extent to which one felt that he or she had useful and meaningful information throughout the process of implementing KM. Coefficient alpha was 0.82.

KM attitudes

 

Pessimism: Four items developed by Wanous et al. (2000) to study cynicism about organizational change were used. These items measured the extent to which respondents felt pessimistic toward the impending change. An example item was, 'Most of the programs that are supposed to solve problems around here will not do much good.' A coefficient alpha of 0.83 was observed.

KM commitment: Three six-item scales were used to measure affective, continuance, and normative commitment to KM initiatives (Hersocovitch & Meyer, 2002). Affective commitment represents the desire to support the KM based on a belief in initiative's inherent benefits. Continuance commitment is the recognition that there will be costs associated with failure to provide support for KM initiatives. Finally, normative commitment represents a feeling of obligation to go along with KM initiatives. The three scales produced coefficient alpha of 0.88, 0.74, and 0.64 for affective, continuance, and normative commitment, respectively.

Results from the case study

Descriptive statistics

The means, standard deviations, and bi-variate relationships among the study variables are shown in Table 3. Because the focal issue in this study was the relationships between the attitudes toward KM (i.e., pessimism and commitment) and the factors of readiness, this discussion will be limited to the relationship between the KM attitudes and the facets of KM readiness. In general, these attitudes toward KM exhibited strong relationships with the majority of the individual, context, content, and process variables. For instance, the relationships between pessimism (i.e., the extent to which respondents felt pessimistic toward the change initiatives) and readiness factors in the expected direction. For instance, pessimism was positively related to individual characteristics like negative affect and innovativeness where r=0.20 and 0.51, respectively. In addition, pessimism was negatively related with all other individual, content, context, and process variables ranging from r=-0.40 with positive affect to r=-0.69 with perceived organizational support. This was expected since the other variables were composed of optimistically worded items.

Table 3 - Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.

Full table

Considering commitment, beginning with affective commitment, which measured the participants' commitment in terms of their desire to provide support for KM initiatives based on their belief in its inherent benefits, the relationships were related in expected directions. Affective commitment was negatively related to negative affect and innovativeness where r=-0.31 and -0.42, respectively. It was positively related with all other study variables ranging from perceived organizational support (r=0.45) to extremely strong relationships with change evaluation (r=0.74) and appropriateness (r=0.90).

Similarly, the readiness measures were related to continuance, which measured the participants' commitment in terms of the perceived cost of leaving the organization due to the changes, in the expected directions. Continuance commitment had a positive relationship with negative affect and innovativeness where r=0.43 and 0.26, respectively. Although continuance commitment's negative relationship with positive affect was statistically insignificant, it was significantly and negatively related to all other individual, content, context, and process variables ranging from valence (r=-0.24) to participation (r=-0.58).

The results were mixed when examining the relationships with normative commitment, which measured the participants' commitment in terms of their positive feelings about the change and a sense of obligation to take part in it. Normative commitment was positively related to all of the individual, context, content, and process variables. Even though it had an unexpectedly positive relationship with negative affect (r=0.16) and innovativeness (r=0.04), the correlations were statistically insignificant.

Regression analysis

In addition to the analysis provided by the bi-variate correlations, multiple hierarchical regression was used to gain greater insight into the patterns of relationships between the KM attitudes and the individual, context, content, and process variables. Typically, individual and context variables represent factors more deeply rooted into the organization fabric, and as a result, are influential and difficult to change. Therefore, the variance shared by the KM attitudes and the individual variables was explored first. Second, after controlling for the variation that could be attributed to the individual variables, the incremental variance the contextual variables contributed was explored. Next, the incremental variance that the content variables shared with the KM attitudes was examined. Finally, the incremental variance that the process variables shared with the KM attitudes was examined.

Owing to the significant correlations exhibited in Table 3, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was computed for all variables to determine whether multicollinearity presented a problem. The VIF scores were well below the 10.0 threshold indicating that multicollinearity among the respective variable sets was not a concern. For instance, with all the individual, context, content, and process variables regressed against pessimism, the VIF scores for the content variables were 4.68 for appropriateness, 2.71 for personal valence, and 2.52 for the KM evaluation.

The regression results shown in Table 4 reveal the outcomes of the hierarchical regression used to test the incremental contributions the factors made in the prediction of the KM attitudes. In the first step of this analysis, the individual variables were entered to predict each of the KM attitudes. Based on the R² reported in Table 4, the analysis indicated that the individual variables significantly explained 31% (P<0.01) of the variance for pessimism, 52% (P<0.01) for affective commitment, 20% (P<0.01) for continuance commitment, and 17% (P<0.01) for normative commitment. Next, the context variables were added to ascertain the extent to which these variables explained unique variation in the KM attitudes. This analysis indicated that the addition of the context variables in step two increased the explained variance of pessimism (R²=0.33, P<0.01), affective commitment (R²=0.04, P<0.05), and continuance commitment (R²=0.21, P<0.01). However, the increase for normative commitment was not significant (R²=0.03, P>0.05).

Table 4 - Results of hierarchical regression.

Full table

Step three of the hierarchical regression was used to determine the increase in explained variance attributable to the content variables. This analysis indicated that the addition of the content variables significantly increased the explained variance in pessimism (R²=0.05, P<0.05), affective commitment (R²=0.28, P<0.01), and normative commitment (R²=0.12, P<0.05). The increases for continuance commitment (R²=0.02, P>0.05) were not significant. The last step in the hierarchical regression was to insert the process variables.

The results of step four indicated that the process variables significantly increased the explained variance for continuance commitment (R²=0.09, P<0.01). The increase in explained variance for pessimism and normative commitment was insignificant and there was no increase in explained variance for affective commitment attributable to the addition of the process variables.

Discussion

As we noted at the onset, this was an initial step to develop a framework to view KM readiness and present a measure that might be used to assess it. We started with the basic premise that implementing and diffusing KM projects or knowledge-sharing philosophies throughout organizations often requires significant organizational change. Given this idea, we blended the KM and organizational change literature to better understand KM readiness, finding that these literatures converged and suggested that KM readiness is a complex multi-faceted concept influenced by the individual, the organizational context, the KM project's specifics (i.e., content), and the process used to introduce KM. From this, we presented an instrument that others can use as a starting point to guide subsequent empirical efforts to further develop theories and measures of KM readiness.

As we look at the diffusion of KM initiatives throughout an organization using a change lens, the process of introducing KM would be expected to unfold through a series of stages. Readiness, the initial stage, would occur when the organizational members' attitudes are such that they are receptive to a forthcoming KM effort. Adoption occurs when the organizational members alter their attitudes and behaviors to conform to the expectations of the KM effort. Institutionalization occurs when KM becomes a stable part of employees' behavior and fabric of the organization. Given the constraints, we confronted with the organization's leaders, it was not possible to study the organization through the entire process. In fact, we had no flexibility in the issue. To ameliorate this concern, we used an approach that has been used frequently and included the measures of KM attitudes. If the organization appeared ready where it would be receptive to KM, we expected the individual, context, content, and process factors to explain significant variance in these attitudes – KM commitment and pessimism. Indeed, we found that higher levels of organization readiness for KM change were indicative of more commitment and less pessimism about KM. The theoretical implications of these observations were important in that they offered some initial support, in a KM context, for the previous contention that emerged when the KM and organizational change literature converged where leaders must recognize that individual, context, content, and process factors influence readiness.

While not an ideal test, several practical advantages emerge when KM readiness is viewed and measured using this framework. In sum, the KM and change literature suggested that a KM readiness measure should be a faceted measurement instrument that taps individual, context, content, and process dimensions. The first two facets – individual and context – which our findings indicated were important in predicting KM commitment and pessimism represent two inertial factors that must be dealt with as an organization embarks on a KM journey. This suggests that KM readiness might be assessed in two phases to better help leaders introduce and diffuse KM throughout their organizations. In the first phase, leaders would be encouraged to measure the individual attributes of the members and the internal context to gain some understanding of organization's general readiness or propensity for a KM strategy. From this, leaders would be able to develop some realistic expectations for their programs' goals or use control systems (i.e., develop feedback systems to provide an organizationally supportive climate) and human resource management systems (i.e., select those that have the appropriate individual attributes) to create a more KM-conducive environment. In the second stage, as leaders have selected specific people- or technology-centric KM initiatives, the content and process facets become relevant. These measurements clearly help leaders anticipate the memberships' response to a particular effort (i.e., members view a specific KM effort as good or bad) and can be translated into approaches to implement KM programs that are deemed to be most desirable.

We hope our investigation serves as a building block for subsequent research that not only explores other facets of the model that we have presented, but advances the level of sophistication of research. As we have implied, future efforts can use this work to guide studies that examine the entire process that organizations might go through as KM is introduced. Moreover, we would like researchers to explore how different messages (i.e., the necessity for KM; the extent to which the correct action has been suggested; the extent to which the employees feel like they can successfully perform; the extent to which the key members demonstrate their support for KM; and the benefits of KM for the employees) can be delivered more effectively. These studies should be conducted in both field and laboratory settings. Finally, they should be simultaneously assessed with context and individual variables where different types of KM efforts (i.e., administrative, technological, radical, or superficial) are addressed. Of course, we must caution readers that our conclusions have been inferred from a single case study, using self-report data; therefore, we would want future researchers to investigate this topic with data obtained from independent sources, eliminating the issues that arise when a common method is used.

Despite these limitations, the research and practical implications of the study are promising. Although our instrument is in its infancy and what we report is exploratory, we have offered a basic tool that both researchers and practitioners can use to assess the overall organizational readiness for KM before the 'nuts and bolts' KM work begins. Potentially more important than the specifics of the instrument, we have offered researchers and organizational leaders a compartmentalized (i.e., individual, context, content, and process variables) perspective such that KM readiness can be further dissected to uncover additional areas of importance, grounding these ideas in the literature on KM and organizational change. Also, our evaluation of existing instruments puts forth a guide to evaluate KM readiness instruments that might be available, facilitating wiser decisions as KM readiness is measured. This not only enhances our knowledge of KM readiness; it may serve as the foundation for a more developed theory of KM readiness. Considering the magnitude of organizational commitment and resources often required to initiate and implement KM, this effort warrants further attention.

References

1. Al-Khalaf AM (1994) Factors that affect the success and failure of TQM implementation in small U.S. cities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
2. Amidon DM (1997) Innovation Strategy for the Knowledge Economy: The Ken Awakening. Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MA.
3. Armenakis AA, Harris SG and Mossholder KW (1993) Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations 46, 681–703. | Article |
4. Bedell JR, Ward JC, Archer RP and Stokes MK (1985) An empirical evaluation of a model of knowledge utilization. Evaluation Review 9, 109–126. | Article |
5. Belasco JA (1990) Teaching an Elephant to Dance: Empowering Change in your Organization. Crown Publishers, New York.
6. Bollar SL (1996) The impact of organizational culture on employee work attitudes, readiness for change and organizational performance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
7. Burke WW, Coruzzi CA and Church AH (Eds) (1996) The Organizational Survey as an Intervention for Change. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
8. Cho G, Jerrell H and Landay W (2000) Program Management 2000: Know the Way How Knowledge Management Can Improve DoD Acquisition. Defense Systems Management College, Fort Belvoir.
9. Davenport TH and Grover V (2001) Guest editor's introduction Special Issue: Knowledge Management. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1), 3–4.
10. Davenport TH and Prusak L (1998) Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
11. Deevy E (1995) Creating the Resilient Organization: A Rapid Response Management Program. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
12. DeLong D and Fahey L (2000) Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive 14(7), 113–127.
13. Drucker PF (1993) Post-Capitalist Society. Harper Collins Publishers, Inc, New York.
14. Earl M (2001) Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1), 215–233.
15. Eby LT, Adams DM, Russell JEA and Gaby SH (2000) Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: factors related to employees' reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations 53, 419–442.
16. Eisenberger R, Huntingon R, Hutchison S and Sowa S (1986) Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 500–507. | Article |
17. Giacquinta JB (1975) Status, risk, receptivity to innovations in complex organizations: a study of the responses of four groups of educators to the proposed introduction of sex education in elementary school. Sociology of Education 48, 38–58. | Article |
18. Gold AH, Malhotra A and Segars AH (2001) Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities prspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1), 185–241.
19. Grimaud AE (1994) How to overcome resistance to change: the '7M Model'. Canadian Banker 101, 36–37.
20. Hanpachern C (1997) The extension of the theory of margin: A framework for assessing readiness for change. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
21. Hansen MT, Nohria N and Tierney T (1999) What's your strategy for managing knowledge? In Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000–2001 (CORTADA JW and WOODS JA, Eds), pp 55–69, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
22. Harvey TR (1990) Checklist for Change: A Pragmatic Approach to Creating Controlling Change. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
23. Havens C and Knapp E (1999) Easing into knowledge management. Strategy and Leadership 27(2), 4–9.
24. Hay and McBer Company (1993) Total Quality Management Readiness Index. Author, Boston.
25. Henkel AG, Repp-Begin C and Vogt JF (1993) Empowerment-readiness survey: foundations for total quality. In Developing Human Resources (PFEIFFER JW, Ed), pp 147–161, Pfeiffer and Company, San Diego, CA.
26. Herscovitch L and Meyer JP (2002) Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 474–487. | Article | PubMed |
27. Hiebeler RJ (1996) Benchmarking: knowledge management. Strategy and Leadership 24(2), 22–28.
28. Holsapple C and Joshi KD (2000) An investigation of factors that influence the management of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9, 235–261. | Article |
29. Holt DT (2002) Readiness for change: The development of a scale. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
30. Human Resource Development Press (1995) Change Abilitator Leader's Guide: A Tool for Managing Change. Author, Amherst, MA.
31. Hurt HT, Joseph K and Cook CD (1977) Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communications Research 4(1), 58–65.
32. Ireh M (1995) The relationships of superintendents' leadership styles, perceived teachers' readiness to implement planned change, and selected characteristics of school districts. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.
33. Johnson CM and Kerckhoff AC (1964) Family norms, social position, and value of change. Social Forces 43, 151.
34. Jones JE and Bearley WL (1996) Organizational Change-Readiness Scale: Facilitator's Guide. HRD Press, Amherst, MA.
35. Kaluzny AD, Veney JE and Gentry JT (1974) Innovation of health services: a comparative study of hospitals and health departments. Health and Society 52, 51–82. | ChemPort |
36. Kazlow C (1977) Faculty receptivity to organizational change: A test of two explanations of resistance to innovation in higher education. Journal of Research and Development in Education 10, 87–98.
37. Keith KL (1986) The development and analysis of a 'perceived readiness for change' measure as a part of an organizational change process. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utah, Provo, UT.
38. Kotter JP and Schlesinger LA (1979) Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review 57, 106–114. | PubMed | ChemPort |
39. Loup KS (1994) Measuring and linking school professional learning environment characteristics, teacher self and organizational efficacy, and multiple indices of school effectiveness. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
40. Mahler RJ (1996) Implementation of a complex mandated change: A prediction study using the change model Checklist for Change developed by Thomas R. Harvey. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne.
41. Malhotra Y (2003) Why knowledge management systems fail? Enablers and constraints of knowledge management in human enterprises. In Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters (HOLSAPPLE CW, Ed), Vol. 1, pp 577–599, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
42. Matejka K and Julian R (1993) Resistance to change is natural. Supervisory Management 38, 10.
43. McConnaughy EA, Prochaska JO and Velicer WF (1983) Stages of change in psychotherapy: measurement and sample profiles. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice 20(3), 368–375.
44. Miller VD, Johnson JR and Grau J (1994) Antecedents to willingness to participate in planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communications Research 22, 59–60.
45. Moore RE (1993) A case study of the diffusion of an electronic mail system in a high school administrative setting. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.
46. Neal MA (1965) Values and Interests in Social Change. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
47. Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
48. Nurss JR (1979) Assessment of readiness. In Reading Research: Advances in Theory and Practice (WALLER TG and MACKINNON GE, Eds), Vol. 1, pp 31–62, Academic Press, New York.
49. O'Dell C, Grayson Jr. CJ and Essaides N (1998) If We Only Knew What We Know. The Free Press, New York.
50. Rolland N and Chauvel D (2000) Knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. In Knowledge Horizons: The Present and the Promise of Knowledge Management (DESPRES C and CHAUVEL D, Eds), pp 225–239, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA.
51. Shaw N and Tuggle F (2003) An expanded model of organizational culture and its effects upon the acceptance of knowledge management. In Knowledge and Information Technology Management in 21st Century Organizations: Human and Social Perspectives (GUNASEKARAN A, KHALIL O and SYED MR, Eds), pp 72–88, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
52. Siegel SM and Kaemmerer WF (1978) Measuring perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 63, 553–562. | Article |
53. Spiegler I (2000) Knowledge management: a new idea or a recycled concept? Communications of the Association for Information Systems 3(14). Retrieved April 23, 2007, from http://cais.aisnet.org/articles/3-14/default.asp?View=html&x=27&y=9
54. Stewart TA (1994) Rate your readiness to change. Fortune 129, 106–110.
55. Taylor WA and Wright GH (2004) Organizational readiness for successful knowledge sharing: Challenges for public sector managers. Information Resources Management Journal 17, 22–37.
56. Trahant B and Burke WW (1996) Traveling through transitions. Training and Development 50, 37–41.
57. Trumbo DA (1961) Individual and group correlates of attitudes toward work-related change. Journal of Applied Psychology 45, 338–344. | Article |
58. Velicer WF, DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO and Bradenburg N (1985) Decisional balance measure for assessing and predicting smoking status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1279–1289. | Article | ChemPort |
59. Wanberg CR and Banas JT (2000) Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology 85, 132–142. | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
60. Wanous JP, Reichers AE and Austin JT (2000) Cynicism about organizational change. Group & Organizational Management 25, 132–153.
61. Watson D and Clark LA (1997) Extraversion and its postive emotional core. In Handbook of Personality Psychology (HOGAN R, JOHNSON J and BRIGGS S, Eds), Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
62. Watson D, Clark LA and Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 1063–1070. | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
63. Waugh R and Godfrey J (1995) Understanding teachers' receptivity to system-wide educational change. Journal of Educational Administration 33, 38–54. | Article |
64. Wiig KM (1993) Knowledge Management Foundations – Thinking About Thinking – How People and Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge. Schema Press, Arlington, TX.
65. Willey RJ (1991) An analysis of readiness for change among admistrators and faculty members at member institutions of the American Association of Bible Colleges. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
66. Zmud RW (1984) An examination of 'push-pull' theory of applied to process innovation in knowledge work. Management Science 30, 727–738.

Appendices

Appendix

We have included the items that were used to measure each construct. Note that an (R) following the item indicates that the item was reverse scored prior to any analysis. In addition, a summary of the evidence related to the measures reliability and validity is provided. As with the existing instruments, each was evaluated to ensure it had (1) content validity; (2) reliability evidence; (3) construct validity evidence; (4) predictive validity; and (5) replication or evidence that it has been used in multiple samples. References to EFA mean exploratory factor analysis was used to assess construct validity and references to CFA mean confirmatory factor analysis was used. For the citations listed in this appendix and a copy of the actual questionnaire please contact the first author.

Individual measures

Positive affect (Watson et al., 1988).

Positive affect and negative affect were introduced to the participants in the following fashion.

Please read each word and then fill in the circle that best reflects the way you generally feel, that is, how you feel on average concerning changes.

Validity evidence summary:

Negative affect (Watson et al., 1988).

Validity evidence summary:

Efficacy (Holt, 2002).

I do not anticipate any problems adjusting to the work I will have when knowledge-sharing changes are adopted.

When we implement such knowledge-sharing changes, I feel I can handle it with ease.

When I set my mind to it, I can learn everything that will be required when such changes are adopted.

There are some tasks that will be required when we change I don't think I can do well. (R)

I have the skills that are needed to make such knowledge-sharing changes work.

My past experiences make me confident that I will be able to perform successfully after such changes are made.

Validity evidence summary:

Innovativeness (Hurt et al., 1977).

I am generally cautious about accepting new ideas.

I rarely trust new ideas until I can see whether the vast majority of people around me accept them.

I am aware that I am usually one of the last people in my group to accept something new.

I am reluctant about adopting new ways of doing things until I see them working for people around me.

I tend to feel that the old way of living and doing things is the best way.

I am challenged by ambiguities and unsolved problems.

I must see other people using new innovations before I will consider them.

I often find myself skeptical of new ideas.

Validity evidence summary:

Context measures

This section of the questionnaire was introduced to the participants in the following fashion.

We would like to understand how you generally feel about [organization's name] and your job.

Perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

[The organization] shows very little concern for me. (R)

[The organization] is willing to extend itself in order to help me perform my job to the best of my ability.

Even if I did the best job possible, [the organization] would fail to notice me. (R)

The organization takes pride in my accomplishments

The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work.

The organization really cares about my well being.

Validity evidence summary:

Communication climate (Miller et al., 1994).

I feel like no one ever tells me anything about what's going on around here. (R)

I am thoroughly satisfied with the information I receive about what's going on at [organization's name].

My performance would improve if I received more information about what's going on here. (R)

The people who know what's going on at here at [organization's name] do not share information with me. (R)

Validity evidence summary:

Content measures

 

This section of the questionnaire was introduced to the participants in the following fashion.

We would like to understand how you feel about the implementation of initiatives to improve knowledge sharing within your organization. The following questions will help us do that. Unless specifically told otherwise, the terms, 'organization' refers to [our organization] (including staff and support) and 'top management' refers to [our organization's] executive staff (e.g., director). Also, knowledge-sharing initiatives are projects that make it easier and/or faster to share knowledge throughout the organization. Hypothetically speaking, such initiatives might include the following:

1. Web-based 'yellow pages' that list points of contact throughout [the organization] for various topics;
2. Computer software and hardware that allows multiple individuals (regardless of geographic location) to collaborate real-time (i.e. web cams and video conferencing capability at each desktop);
3. Extensive digital knowledge libraries that capture best practices in written, audio, and video formats (i.e. web-accessible video interviews with retiring personnel who have extensive experience in certain processes);
4. Monetary award incentives for sharing knowledge with others; and/or
5. Job performance standards based on knowledge sharing.

Such initiatives may be mandated by management levels above [our organization's leadership] and may be implemented over multiple organizations.

Appropriateness (Holt, 2002).

It doesn't make much sense for us to initiate changes that will improve knowledge sharing. (R)

I think that the organization will benefit from this change.

Changes to improve knowledge sharing will make my job easier.

Changes to improve knowledge sharing will improve our organization's overall efficiency.

There are legitimate reasons for us to make changes that improve knowledge sharing.

When changes that improve knowledge sharing are implemented, I don't believe there is anything for me to gain. (R)

There are a number of rational reasons for such changes to be made.

In the long run, I feel it will be worthwhile for me if the organization adopts changes that improve knowledge sharing.

The time we are spending on such changes should be spent on something else. (R)

These changes matches the priorities of our organization.

Validity evidence summary:

Personal valence (Holt, 2002).

I am worried I will lose some of my status in the organization when this change is implemented. (R)

Implementation of knowledge-sharing changes will disrupt many of the personal relationships I have developed. (R)

My future in this job will be limited because of these knowledge-sharing changes. (R)

After this change, I expect to be recognized more for the work I do.

Such knowledge-sharing changes make it easier for me to feel like I'm part of the 'team.'

Such changes give me the ability to make decisions about how my work is done.

Validity evidence summary:

KM evaluation (Kazlow, 1977).

The adjective pairs were introduced as follows: Please read each pair of words and indicate your general feelings toward the knowledge-sharing changes as they pertain to that particular pair of words. The scale is a spectrum with the middle being neutral and your feelings getting stronger as you move farther out toward each word. Use the following scale to indicate your answers. Response scale was

Validity evidence summary:

Process measures

Management support (Holt, 2002).

Our senior leaders have encouraged all of us to embrace changes that will improve knowledge sharing.

Our organization's top decision-makers have put all their support behind knowledge-sharing efforts.

Every senior manager has stressed the importance of knowledge sharing.

I think we are spending a lot of time on this change when the senior managers don't even want it implemented. (R)

This organization's most senior leader is committed to such changes.

Management has sent a clear signal this organization is going to make changes that will improve knowledge sharing.

Validity evidence summary:

Participation (Wanberg & Banas, 2000).

I was able to ask questions about such changes.

I was able to participate in the implementation of this change.

I had some control over the changes that were proposed.

If I wanted to, I could have had input into the decisions being made about our future programs.

Validity evidence summary:

Quality of information (Miller et al., 1994).

The information I received about such knowledge-sharing changes was timely.

The information I received about such changes has adequately answered my questions.

The information I received about such changes helped me understand the change.

Validity evidence summary:

KM attitudes

Pessimism (Wanous et al., 2000).

Most of the programs that are supposed to solve problems around here will not do much good.

Attempts to make things better around here will not produce good results.

Suggestions on how to solve problems will not produce much real change.

Plans for future improvement will not amount to much.

Validity evidence summary:

KM commitment (Hersocovitch & Meyer, 2002).

I believe in the value of such changes.

Such knowledge-sharing changes are a good strategy for this organization.

I think that management is making a mistake by introducing such changes. (R)

Such knowledge-sharing changes serve an important purpose.

Things would be better without such knowledge-sharing changes. (R)

Such changes are not necessary. (R)

Validity evidence summary:

About the authors

Daniel T. Holt is an active duty Air Force officer and assistant professor of management at the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. He has served as an Air Force civil engineer in Central America, Asia, and throughout the Middle East. He received his Ph.D. in Management from Auburn University. His research interests focus on organizational change and development, human resource management issues, and measurement theory.

Summer E. Bartczak is an active duty Air Force officer and assistant professor of information resource management, Department of Systems and Engineering Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. She received her Ph.D. in Management from Auburn University. Her research interests include knowledge management strategy and implementation.

Steven W. Clark is an active duty Air Force officer and Chief of Special Operations Forces Flight Operations at Headquarters Air Force Special Operations Command in Hurlburt Field, FL. He has served as an Air Force financial manager and certified cost estimator in a variety of assignments. He received his Master of Science degree in Cost Analysis from the Air Force Institute of Technology where he conducted research on organizational change.

Martin R. Trent is a procurement analyst at the Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command Directorate of Contracting, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. He has also served as a Contract Negotiator and Contracting Officer on a wide variety of Air Force acquisitions. He received his Master of Science degree in Acquisition Management at the Air Force Institute of Technology.

MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS

These links to content published by Palgrave Macmillan are automatically generated.

RESEARCH

The development of an instrument to measure readiness for knowledge management

Knowledge Management Research & Practice Article

Knowledge management process effectiveness: measurement of preliminary knowledge management implementation

Knowledge Management Research & Practice Article

Beyond transactional management: Transformational lessons for Pharmaceutical sales and marketing managers

Journal of Medical Marketing Original Article

Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice

Knowledge Management Research & Practice Article

The impact of rewards within communities of practice: a study of the SAP online global community

Knowledge Management Research & Practice Article

See all 10 matches for Research