The Relationship among Knowledge Management, Organizational Learning, and Organizational Performance

Abstract

Knowledge management (KM) and organizational performance are believed to be essential of the success in business. The different results in literatures which declare KM affects organizational performance positively. But there are still some confusing relations between KM and organizational learning (OL). Accordingly, we propose some hypotheses to verify relationships among KM, organizational performance, and organizational learning (OL). Base on a sample of Taiwan knowledge-intensive firms engaged in manufacturing, and financial sectors, data are collected using a mail survey, and hypotheses are tested using structural equation modeling. This paper presents OL as a coordinating mechanism, and the results support it in these samples. Empirical evidence also supports the perspective that KM affects organizational performance through OL. This paper is one of the empirical supports for the role of OL as a mediator between KM and organizational performance. Therefore, the positioning of OL as a mediator is also an important contribution to our thinking on this topic.

The Practice of Knowledge Management in Private Higher Education Institutions in Egypt: The Demographics Effect

“…It is the stage where knowledge gaps are identified based on the level of knowledge expertise and the strategic capabilities of the organization. Knowledge from this point of view can be discovered by either individual employees or organizations (Liao & Wu, 2009;Darroch, 2005). It is crucial to identify the knowledge gap correctly to be able to support the staff daily work effectively.…”

“…These processes include acquisition, innovation, protection, dissemination and integration (Lee & Yang, 2000); acquisition, conversion, application, and protection (Gold, Malhotra & Segars, 2001); development, utilization, and capitalization (Kalling, 2003); creation, accumulation, sharing, utilization, and internalization (Lee, Lee & Kang, 2005); identification, collection, organizing, storage, sharing, and evaluation (Kiessling, et al, 2009). A detailed examination of these different views made researchers able to group them into five groups: Knowledge identification, acquisition, storage, sharing, and application (Liao & Wu, 2009;Kiessling et al, 2009;Daud & Abdul Hamid, 2006;Gold et al, 2001;Lee & Yang, 2000).…”

“…According to Botthillier and Sheare (2002), the success of any KM process in any organization highly depends on how effective knowledge sharing is. There is a common problem in organizations, they are not aware of the valuable knowledge stored inside the organization due to departments and employees not discussing it together (Kiessling et al, 2009;Liao & Wu, 2009). Therefore, it is very crucial to keep knowledge sharing as a vital support of KM in higher-education context (Daud & Abdul Hamid, 2006).…”

“…Organization learning takes an essential part in knowledge capturing since the organization is required to improve its performance continuously. Furthermore, it focuses on how important it is for organizations to decide the best practices to be implemented in order to attain excellent performance (Liao & Wu, 2009;Asoh, Belardo & Crnkovic, 2010;McKeen et al, 2006).…”

A Road Map for Knowledge Management Systems Design Using Axiomatic Design Approach

“…Liao & Wu [38] introduced the other indicators, including: processes for acquiring knowledge about customers and suppliers, use feedback from projects to improve subsequent projects, exchanging knowledge with business partners, acquiring knowledge about new product/services within their industry, acquiring knowledge about competitors, benchmarking performance, and formation of teams devoted to identifying best practice.…”