The document summarizes a study on developing a framework of critical success factors (CSFs) for knowledge management. The study used a survey to gather perspectives from KM scholars and practitioners on an initial framework consisting of 44 CSFs grouped into 5 categories. The survey assessed the framework's effectiveness and identified the most important CSFs. Differences in perspectives based on participant background were also examined. Key findings included support for several hypotheses regarding background differences and a proposal for an updated CSF framework that accounts for contextual influences. The top 3 most important CSFs identified for each category were also listed.

1. TOWARD A FRAMEWORK OF CRITICAL SUCCESS
FACTORS FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Presented to KM Chicago
Curtis A. Conley
02.07.12

2. Agenda
Background of Study
 Overview of the Study
 Findings
 Implications

2

3. Introduction
3
Northern Illinois University
Curtis Conley Ed.D.
curtisconley.com
Deloitte Consulting

4. 4
Introduction

5. 5
Background of study

6. Background
6
Given limited time and resources, how do you maximize the
possibility of success for your knowledge management effort?

7. Background
7
Given limited time and resources, how do you maximize the
possibility of success for your knowledge management effort?
“CSFs are the limited number of areas in which satisfactory
results will ensure successful competitive performance for the
individual, department or organization.”
(Bullen & Rockart, 1981)

8. Background

Top 10 lists are easily digestible, but not always appropriate
VS

9. Background

Other approaches to CSFs?
Lists of CSFs
 Ranked/Ordered lists of CSFs
 Grouping of factors (by type, area, etc.)
 CSFs by implementation stage
 Interrelationships of CSFs


While CSF approach to KM offers insight, more study needed
The study offers a deeper dive into CSFs for KM
 Final product a framework that re-imagines list approach to CSFs for KM


10. Background

Issues with a CSF approach to KM
Context of study ignored, overgeneralized results
 Studies often theoretically derived
 Conclude with a limited list of factors, arbitrary numbers of factors
 Ignore external environment


11. 11
The study

12. Research Questions & Hypotheses
1.
12
Based on existing literature, what would a framework of
integrated CSFs for KM look like?
a.
b.
How do KM scholars and practitioners gauge the completeness,
accuracy, clarity, and conciseness of the framework developed by
this study?
What are the most important CSFs for KM that KM scholars and
practitioners identify as having an impact on KM initiatives?

13. Research Questions & Hypotheses
2.
13
What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM
identified by participants with varying backgrounds?
H1:
H2:
H3:
H4:
H5:
Industry Background of the participants
Internal / External focus of participant
Organization size
Participant being either a scholar or practitioner
Geographic location of participants

14. Method

Survey research method, correlational design
Frequency and descriptive statistics
 Kruskal-Wallis independent-samples tests
 Nonparametric independent sample tests
 Thematic analysis for open-ended questions


One survey instrument, three components
Survey Instrument
1
2
3
Identify participant background
Participants rate/rank CSFs for KM
Framework effectiveness
Adapted from Holsapple and Joshi (2000)
14

15. Participants

Stratified sampling, two sampling frames established


KM scholars & KM practitioners
Accessible population
KM scholars: 716 individuals
 KM practitioners: estimated ~5,000 individuals


Response rate
KM scholars: 67 (12.5%)
 KM practitioners: 187 (4.7%)

15

16. 44 Factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Effective monitoring, control, and measurement
Training and Education
Clear Goals and Objectives
Knowledge Strategy
Link to Corporate/Business Strategy
Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value
KM Champion
User/Client Acceptance and Commitment
Motivation
Ability to Delegate Authority
Ability to Trade-off
Ability to Coordinate
Perception of his/her role and responsibilities
Effective Leadership
Having Relevant Past Experience
Change Management Skills
Commitment
Trust
Education
Strategy and Objective Setting
Full-time / Dedicated Staff
KM Background
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trouble Shooting
Monitoring and Feedback
Commitment
Trust
Knowledge Sharing Processes and Culture
Technology Infrastructure
Top Management Support
Organizational Structure and Culture
Systematic Processes
Knowledge Creation and Innovation
Transfer of Knowledge/Information
Knowledge Infrastructure
Competition
Fashion
Markets
Technology
Time
Governmental Climate
Economic Climate
Political Climate
Social Climate
Educational Climate
16

17. Factor groups
Factors related to the KM Initiative:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Effective monitoring, control, and measurement
Training and Education
Clear Goals and Objectives
Knowledge Strategy
Link to Corporate/Business Strategy
Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value
KM Champion
User/Client Acceptance and Commitment
Motivation
Factors related to the KM Team
Members:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Factors related to the Organization:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ability to Delegate Authority
Ability to Trade-off
Ability to Coordinate
Perception of his/her role and responsibilities
Effective Leadership
Having Relevant Past Experience
Change Management Skills
Commitment
Trust
Education
Strategy and Objective Setting
Factors related to the Environment:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Factors related to the KM
Manager/Leadership:
Full-time / Dedicated Staff
KM Background
Trouble Shooting
Monitoring and Feedback
Commitment
Trust
•
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge Sharing Processes and Culture
Technology Infrastructure
Top Management Support
Organizational Structure and Culture
Systematic Processes
Knowledge Creation and Innovation
Transfer of Knowledge/Information
Knowledge Infrastructure
17
•
•
Competition
Fashion
Markets
Technology
Time
Governmental Climate
Economic Climate
Political Climate
Social Climate
Educational Climate

18. Proposed framework
1.
18
Based on existing literature, what would a framework of
integrated CSFs for KM look like?

19. 19
Findings

20. Findings
20
1a. How do KM scholars and practitioners gauge the completeness, accuracy,
clarity, & conciseness of the framework developed by this study?
Framework Effectiveness Measures
KM Scholars
Identifies
Accurately Characterizes
Clearly Presents and Describes
Concisely Presents
Mean
SD
3.2000
3.1833
3.1695
3.2000
.60506
.59636
.62014
.65871
KM Practitioners
Identifies
Accurately Characterizes
Clearly Presents and Describes
Concisely Presents
3.1686
3.0706
3.0899
3.0756
.60268
.63036
.62238
.62134
Mean scale ranges from 1 to 4 (1 = Very Unsuccessful, 2 =
Unsuccessful, 3 = Successful, 4 = Very Successful)
No statistically significant difference found between groups
 Participants identified +87 additional factors (bringing the total to 131 possible CSFs)
 Factors characterized as too general, not enough description
 Mixed results on conciseness, equal number say too complex/simple
 Clearly presents, but lacks visual for factor interactions


21. Findings
21
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 Rated by Participants
Critical Success Factors
Factors Related to the KM Initiative
Link to Corporate / Business Strategy
KM Champion
Z
Sig.
Significant Differences of CSFs for KM Ranked by Participants
Z
Sig.
-3.317 .001
-2.876 .004
Critical Success Factors
Factors Related to the KM Initiative
Effective Monitoring, Control, and Measurement
Link to Corporate / Business Strategy
-2.268
-2.167
.023
.030
Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader
Ability to Trade-off
Effective Leadership
Change Management Skills
Education
-2.147
-3.444
-2.645
-2.099
Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader
Ability to Delegate Authority
Change Management Skills
Trust
Education
Strategy and Objective Setting
-2.238
-2.582
-3.173
-2.437
-2.520
.025
.010
.002
.015
.012
Factors Related to the KM Team Members
Full-time / Dedicated Staff
-2.161 .031
Factors Related to the KM Team Members
KM Background
Other
-3.087
-2.211
.002
.027
Factors Related to the External Environment
Governmental Climate
Political Climate
Educational Climate
-2.115 .034
-2.106 .035
-3.138 .002
Factors Related to the Organization
Top Management Support
-2.539
.011
Factors Related to the External Environment
Technology
Time
Political Climate
Educational Climate
-2.592
-2.073
-2.100
-2.538
.010
.038
.036
.010
.032
.001
.008
.036

22. Findings
22
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
Factors Related to the External Environment
Factors Related to the KM Initiative
Factors Related to the KM Manager / Leader
Factors Related to the KM Team Members
Factors Related to the Organization
Scholars
Mean
SD
3.6418
1.67605
2.9701
1.49717
2.8955
1.24480
2.8358
1.12273
2.6567
1.30909
Practitioners
Mean
SD
4.0267
1.57068
2.5668
1.19568
2.6310
1.19033
3.3155
.97381
2.4599
1.41886
Mean scale ranges from 1 to 4 (1 = Very Unimportant, 2 = Unimportant, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important)

23. Findings
2.
23
What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM
identified by participants with varying backgrounds?
Results:
Hypotheses
Supported?
H1: Industry
H2: Internal /
External
H3: Org Size
H4: Scholar /
Practitioner
Yes
H5: Geography

24. Findings
2.
24
What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM
identified by participants with varying backgrounds?
Results:
Hypotheses
Supported?
H1: Industry
Yes
H2: Internal /
External
Yes
H3: Org Size
No
H4: Scholar /
Practitioner
Yes
H5: Geography
Yes

25. Findings
25
H1: Industry Background of the participants
Supported
Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level
among groups for six different CSFs (Appendix M)

Groups
Critical Success Factors
 Academia
 Construction
 Consulting
 Information Systems
 Legal
 Manufacturing
 Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value
 Ability to Coordinate
 Change Management Skills
 Governmental Climate
 Social Climate
 Educational Climate

26. Findings
26
H2: Internal / External focus of participant
Supported
Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level
between groups for three different CSFs

Variable
Trust
(KM Manager / Leader)
Between Groups
Internal KM Initiatives and Combination of
Internal & External KM Initiatives
Mean Rank
102.20 / 120.46
Z
-2.555
Sig.
.011
Markets
Internal KM Initiatives and Combination of
Internal & External KM Initiatives
99.66 / 122.81
-2.857
.004
Social Climate
Internal KM Initiatives and Combination of
Internal & External KM Initiatives
External KM Initiatives and Combination of
Internal & External KM Initiatives
99.50 / 116.15
-2.086
.037
49.88 / 66.96
-2.412
.016

27. Findings
H3: Organization size
Not supported

No statistically significant differences identified based on org size
27

28. Findings
28
H4: Participant being either a scholar or practitioner
Supported
As discussed in response to research question 1b
 Significant differences found between groups for both rating & ranking


29. Findings
29
H5: Geographic location of participants
Supported
Statistically significant differences between the mean rating at the .05 level
between groups for seven different CSFs

Groups
Critical Success Factors
 Asia
 Combination
 Central/South America
 Europe
 North America
 Oceania
 Effective Monitoring, Control and Measurement
 Link to Perceived/Anticipated Value
 KM Champion
 KM Background
 Knowledge Infrastructure
 Technology
 Social Climate

30. Findings
Organizational Reality Bias

The grass is always greener?
30

31. Findings
31
Organizational Reality Bias
The grass is always greener?
 In 3 CSF categories, low perceived org reality group rated CSFs lower

KM Team Members
Organizational
External Environment
 Trouble Shooting
 Commitment
 Trust
 Technology Infrastructure
 Knowledge Creation & Innovation
 Transfer of Knowledge/Information
 Knowledge Infrastructure
 Competition
 Fashion

32. Implications
2.
32
What differences in opinions may exist among CSFs for KM
identified by participants with varying backgrounds?
Hypotheses
Supported?
H1: Industry
Yes
H2: Internal /
External
Yes
H3: Org Size
No
H4: Scholar /
Practitioner
H5: Geography
Yes
Lists or “top” CSFs for KM should not be treated as static
 CSFs for KM are context dependent, support Savary’s (1999) assertion
 Wong’s (2005) suggestion of org size as influencer not supported
 Mason’s (2003) assertion of North American bias supported

16 of 27 differences between groups, North America vs. others
 Key issue, may lead to improper focus for practitioners outside of North America

Yes

33. Implications
33
Organizational Reality Bias
Participants who perceive their org as effective at something, likely to view it
as important; vice versa
 Potential positive bias


34. Implications
34
Framework of CSFs for KM
Initial framework proposed a synthesis of existing literature
 While well received by participants, updated to reflect study implications
 New framework of CSFs for KM should:
 reflect reality of contextual influence (participant background factors)
 be capable of producing unique list of factors based on individual


35. Implications
Framework of CSFs for KM
35

36. Findings

37. Findings
37
“I realize that a list of top factors isn’t all that helpful… but…
what are the top factors that you found?”

38. Findings

38
Top 3 factors in each CSF grouping
KM Initiative
Organization
1. Link to corporate/business strategy
2. Clear goals and objectives
3. KM Champion
1. Knowledge sharing processes/culture
2. Top management support
3. Transfer of knowledge/information
KM Manager/Leader
KM Team
External Environment
1. Effective leadership
2. Change management skills
3. Commitment
1. Commitment
2. Trust
3. Full-time/dedicated staff
1. Competition
2. Technology
3. Time

39. Contributions

39
To Research
Integrates concepts from other literature bases dealing w/ CSFs
 Validated components of a framework of CSFs for KM
 Uncovered contextual differences influencing importance of CSFs
 Proposed revised framework of CSFs for KM that would overcome
criticisms of CSF approach identified in review of literature
 Identified potential for org reality to bias participant responses


To Practice
Identifying contextual differences will help practitioners focus on factors
that apply more specifically to their background
 Participants suggested tool could be used as tool for guiding KM
initiative, or used in strategic planning
 Framework can be used as a benchmark or audit tool, allowing
practitioners to identify CSFs that they could improve


40. Limitations

40
Sample size
While every attempt was made to obtain a large sample size, some
groups not adequately represented in study


Type of initiative
This study focused on CSFs for KM as they apply to formal KM initiatives
 “Stealth” or non-formalized KM initiatives may have different CSFs


North American bias
CSFs identified drew heavily from North American publications
 A North American bias may be present in CSFs identified


41. Future Research

41
Framework of CSFs for KM
Future studies should conduct case studies in organizations that have
implemented a KM initiative, comparing level of success with how KM
practitioners perceive they match up against list of CSFs for KM that
match their org. background.


Investigate North American bias
Future research should study the similarities and differences of CSFs for
KM by geographic region. Gaining a better understanding of KM outside
of North America would be valuable to both research and practice.


Move beyond lists
Future studies should investigate the interrelationships and interactions
among factors. Understanding what factors are critical is important, but
how those factors interact may provide additional insight into successful
KM practices.


42. 42
Questions