Dissertation Defense: Critical Success Factors for Knowledge Management
•
5 j'aime•2,074 vues
Curtis A. Conley Dissertation Defense June, 29th 2011
![Agenda ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
Similaire à Dissertation Defense: Critical Success Factors for Knowledge Management
Similaire à Dissertation Defense: Critical Success Factors for Knowledge Management (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Dissertation Defense: Critical Success Factors for Knowledge Management
- 1. TOWARD A FRAMEWORK OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: PERCEPTIONS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SCHOLARS AND PRACTITIONERS Curtis A. Conley 06.29.11
- 3. Introduction
- 5. Purpose The purpose of this study is the development of a framework of CSFs for KM that is of value to both research and practice.
- 13. Findings 1b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives? Significant Differences of CSFs for KM Ranked by Participants Significant Differences of CSFs for KM Rated by Participants Critical Success Factors Z Sig. Factors Related to the KM Initiative Link to Corporate / Business Strategy -3.317 .001 KM Champion -2.876 .004 Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader Ability to Trade-off -2.147 .032 Effective Leadership -3.444 .001 Change Management Skills -2.645 .008 Education -2.099 .036 Factors Related to the KM Team Members Full-time / Dedicated Staff -2.161 .031 Factors Related to the External Environment Governmental Climate -2.115 .034 Political Climate -2.106 .035 Educational Climate -3.138 .002 Critical Success Factors Z Sig. Factors Related to the KM Initiative Effective Monitoring, Control, and Measurement -2.268 .023 Link to Corporate / Business Strategy -2.167 .030 Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader Ability to Delegate Authority -2.238 .025 Change Management Skills -2.582 .010 Trust -3.173 .002 Education -2.437 .015 Strategy and Objective Setting -2.520 .012 Factors Related to the KM Team Members KM Background -3.087 .002 Other -2.211 .027 Factors Related to the Organization Top Management Support -2.539 .011 Factors Related to the External Environment Technology -2.592 .010 Time -2.073 .038 Political Climate -2.100 .036 Educational Climate -2.538 .010
- 14. Findings 1b. What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives? CSF Categories Rated by Participants Critical Success Factors Scholars Practitioners Mean SD Mean SD Factors Related to the External Environment 3.6418 1.67605 4.0267 1.57068 Factors Related to the KM Initiative 2.9701 1.49717 2.5668 1.19568 Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader 2.8955 1.24480 2.6310 1.19033 Factors Related to the KM Team Members 2.8358 1.12273 3.3155 .97381 Factors Related to the Organization 2.6567 1.30909 2.4599 1.41886 Mean scale ranges from 1 to 4 (1 = Very Unimportant, 2 = Unimportant, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important)
- 27. Implications Framework of CSFs for KM
- 31. Questions
Notes de l'éditeur
- The first served to identify background information of the participants (industry, academic or practitioner, etc.). The second part asked participants to rate and rank CSFs for KM in five different categories The third and final part of the survey asked participants to assess how effective the framework developed in this research study was in identifying, characterizing, presenting, and describing the CSFs for KM by rating each of these areas on a 5-point Likert scale.
- Study seeks to examine relationships between variables, so correlational design was used Specifically, sought to determine relationship of variables (org size, industry background, etc.) to the CSFs deemed as most crucial by participants to see if they affected the participants’ perceptions of CSFs