Knowledge Management Adoption, Capability, and Assessment for SMEs

中文摘要論文主要是一開始是透過提出一套整體性知識管理成熟度模型，調查各個組織知識管理的現狀。這套理論模型是階段型表現方式(Staged Representation)。研究模型中皆包含三大元件：成熟度元件、知識管理流程元件以及促成要素元件。乃是基於SEI軟體工程協會「能力成熟度模型(CMM)」的成熟度階層，以持續流程改善的概念，建構出知識管理流程的五個成熟度階層。此外，依知識管理流程的四個主要次流程:知識創造、知識儲存、知識分享及知識應用，清楚地描繪組織在每個次流程中的成熟度表現。將知識管理促成要素整合進模型中，描述知識管理促成要素如何在每個成熟度階層裡支援組織達到成熟度階層所規範的目標。然後接下來，調查這些中小企業公司反映在知識管理成熟度模型矩陣上的績效值。另外再邀請三批專家進行不同產業領域，包含知識管理流程、文化、管理制度元件，請專家問卷項目來調查這些元件的因果關係(DEMATEL)。一個步驟，我們是以DEMATEL(Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) 法進行專家版產業問卷調查，不同產業邀請不同產業專家進行元件因果重要程度調查。將DEMATEL因果關係矩陣結果，分別在三個不同的座標軸上表現出此三個產業內，知識管理元件間彼此重要程度關係。二個步驟，透過DEMATEL矩陣值，進行整體權重計算，與一連串相乘，再透過矩陣計算、正規化、重複自乘後，得到一個收斂的矩陣。這個也就是後來ANP各元件整體權重，用來表示領域專家所重視的組織知識管理各元件重要程度。三個步驟，我們透過KMMM知識管理階層模型，表現在不同階層的績效矩陣，個事先邀請中小企業業主，進行知識管理現狀績效調查，計算各個公司的知識管理績效值。這份績效問卷，依照知識管理理論與實務經驗，將不同問卷項目，歸類表現在不同階層上面。我們可以算出進行問卷的該公司，目前在那一個階層上面。這項KMMM模型是參考CMMI與米其林餐廳星級評比精神，透過階層模式，以激勵公司力爭上游改善公司績效與品質水準臻於至善。四步驟，將績效值正規化矩陣與整體權重矩陣進行矩陣相乘，並算出加權後績效值矩陣。我們透過整理得以知道，在這個加權後績效值矩陣有些元件落後這個階層門檻值，導致公司知識管理的成熟度無法達到下一個層次。這個有可能是組織知識管理瓶頸的所在。五個步驟，我們透過修正後VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje in Serbian)矩陣計算法找出最迫切修改元件所在，並且建議企業業主進行該元件之確認，後續進行追蹤，幫助正在中小企業公司，提供他們最迫切需要的幫助，進入下一道關卡。Abstract The global economic trend has shifted from “red-oceans” competition to “blue-oceans” innovation, but most companies are suffering because of low profits caused by hyper competition and OEM dead-end. Moreover, since the middle of 2008, the financial tsunami has caused serious damage to the global economy.ince 80% of the enterprises in Taiwan fall into the category of “Small and Medium Enterprises”, they lack the financial and systematic basis to introduce knowledge management practices and make innovations. The industrial structure and the size of companies are the major obstacles to companies internationalizing and strengthening their competitive advantages. Several researchers have explored the gaps in the knowledge management activities of enterprises. Their studies reveal that corporate performance is significantly influenced by those gaps. Knowledge management systems are not the first priority for SMEs. Senior managers do not see implementing KMS as the first “must-do” project. Our research aimed to clarify the misunderstanding of high expenditure on knowledge management systems adoption, and provided a novel approach for the most emergent knowledge management components to catch up the paces of their rival for the late adopter of knowledge management systems. How did we deal with them? The procedures of emergent knowledge management adoption were to:. Survey the present situation and actual state of knowledge management implementations by Knowledge Management Maturity Model (KMMM). Find out where are the bottlenecks (KM Gaps). Construct the KM adoption strategy by multiple criteria group decision-making approaches. (MCDM). Examine several alternatives with conflicting and non-commensurable criteria to reduce the gaps and progress to the next KM stage as soon as possible. (Revised VIKOR) Our contributions were to survey the gaps of KMMM achievements, and to provide an approach for the ranking of KM aspects by most-urgent aspects to reach the next stage as soon as possible. Group decision-making, the essence of KM, lets one considers multi-dimensional problems for the decision-maker, sets priorities for each decision factor, and assesses rankings for all alternatives.Table of Contents文口試委員審定書 i 辭 ii文摘要 iiibstract ivable of Contents viist of Figures ixist of Tables xihapter One. Introduction 1.1 Rationale 1.2 Research Background 2.3 Problem statement and Research objectives 4.4 Our Research Framework 5.5 Research Architecture 6hapter Two. KM processes and KM Capabilities 7.1 Knowledge Management Life Cycle Models 7.2 Organizational Knowledge Creation 9.3 The Spiral of Knowledge 9.4 Knowledge Management Processes 10.5 KM Capability 11hapter Three. CMMI and KMMM 13.1 Grounded Theory and Knowledge Management Gaps 13.2 Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) 16.3 Knowledge Management Maturity Model 19.3.1 KPMG Surveys 19.3.2 Gabor Klimko - Knowledge management and Maturity Models 22.3.3 Karsten Ehms and Dr. Manfred Langen Methodology of KMMM 23.3.4 INFOSYS KM Initiative and KMMM 26.3.5 Knowledge Management Maturity Model Staged Representation 28.4 Procedures of KMMM Assessment 29.5 KMMM Performance Survey Questionnaire 31hapter Four. Our KMMM Survey 36.1 Five Maturity Levels of Knowledge Management 37.2 Knowledge Management Capabilities 38.3 KMM from Perspectives of Maturity, Capability, and KM Process 39.4 Research Method 41.5 Case Studies and Interview Participants 42.6. The Delphi Method 51.6.1. The rational of Delphi method 51.6.2. The Delphi Method Procedures 52.6.3. The focus group of performing Delphi Method 52hapter Five. Multiple Criteria Decision Making 53.1 MCDM Methodology 53.2 AHP and ANP 56.2.1 AHP 56.2.2 ANP 59.3 DEMATEL 62.3.1 The DEMATEL Method 62.3.2 Linguistic Variables 64.3.3 The DEMATEL Method Procedures 65.3.4 Result of Case A 68.4 VIKOR 69.5 Simple Additive Weighting Method (SAW) 74hapter Six. A novel MCDM model with ANP, DEMATEL, and VIKOR for SMEKM Adoption 75.1. The DEMATEL for Constructing a NRM 75.2. The ANP for Calculating Weights of Criteria Based on the NRM 80.3. The VIKOR for Ranking and Improving the Alternatives 82.3.1 Assessing the KM maturity of the IC Design, Banking, and services industries 85.3.2 Research Background and problem descriptions 86.4. Data collection and Representation 88.4.1 Constructing the NRM by DEMATEL 88.4.2 Calculating Weights of Each Criterion by ANP 91.4.3 Compromise Ranking by VIKOR 94hapter Seven. Managerial Implications and Discussions 99.1 The contribution of this study 99.2 The novel approach for emergent knowledge management adoption 102.3 The research finding and managerial implication 104.4 Contributions and Future work 117ppendix 120.1 The consultants of SMEKM project 120.2 The goals of promoting the small and medium size enterprise knowledge management plan: 121eference 12