Implications of National Culture on Knowledge Management A cross-cultural analysis of Italian and American perceptions by Francesco de Leo M.S.

Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, The George Washington University B.S. Mechanical Engineering, The George Washington University

A Dissertation submitted to The faculty of The School of Engineering and Applied Science of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation directed by Michael Stankosky Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering

UMI Number: 3386951

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3386951 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

The School of Engineering and Applied Science of The George Washington University certifies that Francesco de Leo has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy or Doctor as of November 23, 2009. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Implications of National Culture on Knowledge Management A cross-cultural analysis of Italian and American perceptions Francesco de Leo

Dissertation Research Committee: Michael Stankosky, Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Dissertation Director E. Lile Murphree, Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Committee Member Thomas Mazzuchi, Professor and Chair of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Committee Member Gregory Shaw, Associate Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Committee Member Francesco Calabrese, Associate Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Committee Member Sharjil M. Hasan, Associate Professor of Business Management, American University, Committee Member

ii

Copyright 2009 by Francesco de Leo All rights reserved.

iii

Dedication

To my Beloved Family

iv

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following people for their help and support: Michael Stankosky, D.Sc. Francesco Calabrese, D.Sc. For review, mentoring and guidance of the dissertation For review, mentoring and guidance of the dissertation

Simona Collina in Pederzoli, Ph.D. For review, mentoring and guidance of the dissertation and for survey instrument and survey campaign translation Frank Fiedrich, D.Sc. Vincent Ribiere, D.Sc., Ph.D Michele Santamaria, Ph.D. Philip Ellis, M.S. Bizhan Beiramee, M.S., Esq. Final Examination Committee: Francesco Calabrese, D.Sc. Managing Director, Institute for Knowledge & Innovation and Associate Professor at The George Washington University Associate Professor and Director of Project Management for the Office of Information Technology at American University Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, The George Washington University Professor and Chair of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, The George Washington University Associate Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, The George Washington University Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, The George Washington University v For review and mentoring during the dissertation proposal stage For review and mentoring during the dissertation proposal stage For survey instrument and survey campaign translation For review and editorial guidance For review and editorial guidance

Sharjil M. Hasan, D.Sc.

E. Lile Murphree, Ph.D.

Thomas Mazzuchi, D.Sc.

Gregory Shaw, D.Sc.

Michael Stankosky, DSc.

Abstract of Dissertation
Implications of National Culture on Knowledge Management A cross-cultural analysis of Italian and American perceptions Knowledge management (KM) has become an increasingly important aspect for achieving and maintaining competitive advantage across all types of organizations and businesses worldwide. However only limited research is available to understand how KM may be influenced by national culture. This research focuses on the differences and similarities between Italian and American workers beliefs, expectations, and practices of knowledge management and how these relate to Hofstedes national culture dimensions. This study is part of a multi-country set of research studies, undertaken by The George Washington Universitys Institute for Knowledge and Innovation, aimed at understanding how KM may be influenced by national culture. For continuity and comparative purposes we replicate a previous study, which compared KM perceptions between American and Taiwanese knowledge workers (Wang 2004). The subjects of our study are Italian and American employees and managers expected to be involved in KM activities at all levels. Statistical comparisons on the 474 study participants (237 from each country) do not show statistically significant differences between Italian and American perceptions of knowledge management beliefs, expectations and practices. Both countries gave a relatively high importance score to all factors believed to contribute to successful knowledge management initiatives. Similarly consensus was found on the expected benefits such initiatives bring to an organization. Comparably lower scores were recorded on the actual implementation of KM bestpractices by the participants organizations. For individual variables within our constructs where differences are observed between the two countries, we propose empirical evidence that high uncertainty avoidance traits of the Italian society may explain such differences.

vi

This research provides insights which will help companies or units within a company select KM tools and practices that are more likely to succeed in the national culture setting in which these are to be implemented.

vii

Table of Contents
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. v Abstract of Dissertation ..................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiii List of Charts.................................................................................................................. xviii Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Research Initiative Motivation ........................................................................................ 3 Knowledge Economy, Technology and Globalization ................................................... 5 Global Diversity .............................................................................................................. 8 Culture Implications........................................................................................................ 9 The World Wide Web ................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................. 13 Knowledge Management .............................................................................................. 13 Knowledge ................................................................................................................ 14 Knowledge Management defined ............................................................................. 16 Country Profiles: Italy and the United States ............................................................... 21 Economic Climates ................................................................................................... 21 Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) ........................................................................... 23 Investments in Knowledge ........................................................................................ 27 National Cultures .......................................................................................................... 30 Hofstedes National Culture Dimensions ................................................................. 30 Chapter 3 Research Method .............................................................................................. 33 Question to be Answered .............................................................................................. 33 Method .......................................................................................................................... 36 Subjects ......................................................................................................................... 38 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 39 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 39 Expected contributions to the body of knowledge ........................................................ 39 Chapter 4 Survey Results .................................................................................................. 41 Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 41 Frequencies of Respondents for All Usable Responses ............................................ 42 Country of Organization Headquarters ................................................................. 43 Participants Country of Nationality ..................................................................... 44 Percent of Responses by Number of Employees .................................................. 46 Percent of Responses by Annual Business Revenue ............................................ 47 Percent of Responses by Business Activity .......................................................... 48 Percent of Responses by Industry Type ................................................................ 49 Percent of Responses by Job Position Level......................................................... 51 Percent of Responses by KM Stage ...................................................................... 51 Percent of Responses by Organizational Level That Promotes KM..................... 53 Percent of Responses by Departmental or Functional Budget that Contributes the Most to KM ........................................................................................................... 54 viii

Frequencies of Respondents for KM Beliefs ............................................................ 55 Improvements in IT infrastructure ........................................................................ 56 Organizational buy-in and support........................................................................ 57 Leadership involvement, support, and advocating ............................................... 58 Rewards system based on employee KM participation and support .................... 59 Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box" ............................................ 60 Continuous education of employees ..................................................................... 61 KM advocates and champions within the enterprise ............................................ 62 Identify enterprise core competencies and necessary knowledge domains to support those core competencies .......................................................................... 63 Gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise knowledge ...................... 64 Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge ..................... 65 Developing an enterprise repository and database of information and knowledge ............................................................................................................................... 66 Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge ......................................... 67 Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees .... 68 Developing and promoting employee sharing and collaboration ......................... 69 Frequencies of Respondents for KM Expectations ................................................... 70 Stimulation and motivation of employees ............................................................ 71 Formalized knowledge transfer system established .............................................. 72 Better on-the-job training of employees ............................................................... 73 Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity ..................................................... 74 Improved overall enterprise performance ............................................................. 75 Enhanced client relations - better client interaction .............................................. 76 Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success .... 77 Improved employee retention ............................................................................... 78 Improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage ............................................ 79 Enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee to another ......................... 80 Means to identify industry best practices.............................................................. 81 Better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving............................................ 82 Enhance the development of business strategies .................................................. 83 Enhance business development and the creation of enterprise opportunities ....... 84 Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes ............................... 85 Frequencies of Respondents for KM Practices ......................................................... 86 The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization ......................................................... 87 Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization .............................. 88 Our organization has a clear and strong commitment to knowledge management initiatives from senior management ...................................................................... 89 Our organization has sufficient financial resources to support knowledge management initiatives ......................................................................................... 90 Our organizational culture encourages knowledge sharing .................................. 91 People in our organization have the time to share information ............................ 92 Teamwork is a critical component of our organization's culture, structure and processes ............................................................................................................... 93

ix

Our organizational strategies, structures, policies, procedures, processes and reward systems focus on long-term growth .......................................................... 94 Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a processoriented structure .................................................................................................. 95 Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies ............. 96 Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network ............................................................................. 97 People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing ................................................................................................ 98 Data Collection Summary ......................................................................................... 99 Chapter 5 Analysis of Results & Hypotheses Testing .................................................... 101 Descriptive Statistics of KM Variables for Entire Sample ......................................... 101 Descriptive Statistics of KM Variables by Country ................................................... 105 Descriptive Statistics of KM Indexes ......................................................................... 107 Hypotheses Testing ..................................................................................................... 108 Restatement of the Hypotheses ............................................................................... 110 Hypothesis 1 Finding .......................................................................................... 112 Hypothesis 2 Finding .......................................................................................... 112 Hypothesis 3 Finding .......................................................................................... 112 Exceptions to our Hypotheses Findings .................................................................. 112 Impact of Control Variables........................................................................................ 115 Summary of Chapter 5 ................................................................................................ 122 Chapter 6 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 123 Brief Review of the Purpose of our Study .................................................................. 123 Overview of our Research Methodology .................................................................... 124 Overview of our Research Findings ........................................................................... 125 Exceptions ............................................................................................................... 126 Impact of Uncertainty Avoidance in KM Perceptions ................................................ 130 Factors of Successful KM (KMF) affected by UA ................................................. 132 Improvements in IT infrastructure to support KM ............................................. 132 Organizational buy-in and support...................................................................... 132 Leadership involvement, advocacy and support ................................................. 132 Climate of openness and thinking outside the box .......................................... 133 Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge ................... 133 Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy, and value to the enterprise .................................................................................. 134 Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees .. 134 KM Expectations (KME) affected by UA .............................................................. 134 Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity ................................................... 135 Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success .. 135 Means to identify industry best practices............................................................ 135 Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes ............................. 136 KM Practice (KMP) affected by UA ...................................................................... 136 The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization. ...................................................... 136 Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization. ........................... 136 x

Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a processoriented structure ................................................................................................ 137 Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies ........... 137 Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network ........................................................................... 137 People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing .............................................................................................. 138 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 138 Future Research .......................................................................................................... 139 References ....................................................................................................................... 141 Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 145 Appendix 1: Survey Instrument in English Language ................................................ 146 Appendix 2: Survey Instrument in Italian Language .................................................. 156 Appendix 3: Search Engine Marketing ....................................................................... 165 Appendix 4: Additional Bonferroni Tests................................................................... 167

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1: The Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom value chain .................................. 14 Figure 2: Four modes of knowledge conversion (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) ............... 16 Figure 3: The Four pillars of Knowledge Management (Stankosky, Calabrese, Baldanza 1999) ................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 4: Knowledge indexes comparison between Italy and the United States (World Bank 2008) ........................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 5: Knowledge Economy Index Comparison between Italy, the United States, G7 Countries, Western Europe, high income countries, and the World (World Bank 2008). Note. Figure adapted from Cross-country Comparison (KAM 2009) at www.worldbank.org/KAM. .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 6: Investment in knowledge, as a percentage of GDP, 2004 (OECD 2007) ......... 29 Figure 7: Hofstede's Country Clusters dendrogram diagram (Hofstede 1984) ............... 35

xii

List of Tables
Table 1: Example of the data, information, knowledge, and wisdom relationship (Similar to the example provided by Kavouras and Kokla 2008)................................................... 14 Table 2: Knowledge management activities and associated knowledge-value chain (Schreiber 2000)................................................................................................................ 17 Table 3: Description of the four KM pillars (Stankosky 2005) ........................................ 19 Table 4: Italy and US ranks in economic statistics (CIA 2008) ....................................... 21 Table 5: Statistical comparison between Italy and the United States (CIA 2008)............ 21 Table 6: Ease of Doing Business rank (out of 181 economies) for Italy and United States ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 7: Mapping of the four knowledge economy pillars to the 12 knowledge indicators (World Bank 2008) ........................................................................................................... 24 Table 8: Comparative data between Italy and United States (World Bank 2008) ............ 25 Table 9: Ranking of Italy and the United States among the 140 countries evaluated by the KAM (World Bank 2008) ................................................................................................. 26 Table 10: Investment in knowledge, as a percentage of GDP, 2004 (OECD 2007)......... 28 Table 11: Hofstede's five cultural dimensions .................................................................. 31 Table 12: Hofstede's national culture dimension index values and rankings for Italy and the USA (Hofstede 1997; 2001) ....................................................................................... 34 Table 13: Culture dimension gaps between Italy and the USA, and data set mean and standard deviation (Hofstede 2001). ................................................................................ 36 Table 14: Survey Access Keys Generated by the Survey Application ............................. 42 Table 15: Survey Response Rates ..................................................................................... 42 Table 16: Country of Organization Headquarters ............................................................. 43 Table 17: Participants Country of Nationality................................................................. 44 Table 18: Participants Country of Nationality at Birth ................................................... 45 Table 19: Percent of Responses by Number of Employees .............................................. 46 Table 20: Company Annual Business by Revenue ........................................................... 47 Table 21: Percent of Responses by Business Activity ...................................................... 48 Table 22: Percent of Responses by Industry Type............................................................ 49 xiii

Table 24: Percent of Responses by Industry Type (business consolidated in a single category) ........................................................................................................................... 50 Table 25: Percent of Responses by Job Position Level .................................................... 51 Table 26: Percent of Responses by KM Stage within the Organization ........................... 52 Table 27: Percent of Responses by Organizational Level That Promotes KM ................ 53 Table 28: Percent of responses by departmental/functional budget that contributes the most to KM ....................................................................................................................... 54 Table 29: Factors of Successful KM (KMF) Variables .................................................... 56 Table 30: Frequency of Responses: Improvements in IT infrastructure........................... 57 Table 31: Organizational buy-in and support ................................................................... 58 Table 32: Leadership involvement, support, and advocating ........................................... 59 Table 33: Rewards system based on employee KM participation and support ................ 60 Table 34: Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box" ........................................ 61 Table 35: Continuous education of employees ................................................................. 62 Table 36: KM advocates and champions within the enterprise ........................................ 63 Table 37: Identify enterprise core competencies and necessary knowledge domains to support those core competencies ...................................................................................... 64 Table 38: Gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise knowledge .................. 65 Table 39: Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge ................. 66 Table 40: Developing an enterprise repository and database of information and knowledge ......................................................................................................................... 67 Table 41: Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy and value to the enterprise - ability to eliminate old, outdated, incorrect, or unnecessary information and knowledge .............................................................................................. 68 Table 42: Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees 69 Table 43: Developing and promoting employee sharing and collaboration ..................... 70 Table 44: Knowledge Management Expectations (KME) Variables ............................... 71 Table 45: Stimulation and motivation of employees ........................................................ 72 Table 46: Formalized knowledge transfer system established (best practices, lessons learned) ............................................................................................................................. 73 Table 47: Better on-the-job training of employees ........................................................... 74 xiv

Table 48: Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity ................................................. 75 Table 49: Improved overall enterprise performance ......................................................... 76 Table 50: Enhanced client relations - better client interaction ......................................... 77 Table 51: Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success 78 Table 52: Improved employee retention ........................................................................... 79 Table 53: Improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage ....................................... 80 Table 54: Enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee to another ..................... 81 Table 55: Means to identify industry best practices ......................................................... 82 Table 56: Better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving ....................................... 83 Table 57: Enhance the development of business strategies .............................................. 84 Table 58: Enhance business development and the creation of enterprise opportunities... 85 Table 59: Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes ........................... 86 Table 60: Knowledge Management Practices (KMP) Variables ...................................... 87 Table 61: The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization ..................................................................... 88 Table 62: Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization ......................... 89 Table 63: Our organization has a clear and strong commitment to knowledge management initiatives from senior management ............................................................ 90 Table 64: Our organization has sufficient financial resources to support knowledge management initiatives ..................................................................................................... 91 Table 65: Our organizational culture encourages knowledge sharing .............................. 92 Table 66: People in our organization have the time to share information ........................ 93 Table 67: Teamwork is a critical component of our organization's culture, structure and processes ........................................................................................................................... 94 Table 68: Our organizational strategies, structures, policies, procedures, processes and reward systems focus on long-term growth ...................................................................... 95 Table 69: Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a processoriented structure .............................................................................................................. 96 Table 70: Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies ......... 97 Table 71: Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network ...................................................................... 98 xv

Table 72: People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing ............................................................................................................ 99 Table 73: Ranked mean values of KMF variables for US and Italian responses ........... 102 Table 74: Ranked mean values of KME variables for US and Italian responses ........... 103 Table 75: Ranked mean values of KMP variables for US and Italian responses ........... 104 Table 76: Means of KMF variables for Italian and US respondents .............................. 105 Table 77: Means of KMF variables for Italian and US respondents .............................. 106 Table 78: Means of KMP variables for Italian and US respondents .............................. 107 Table 79: Means of KMF, KME, and KMP Indexes for Italian and US respondents .... 108 Table 80: LeveneTest of Homogeneity of Variances ..................................................... 110 Table 81: ANOVA of KM Indexes Between Country Group ........................................ 111 Table 82: ANOVA of KMF Variables by Country ........................................................ 113 Table 83: ANOVA of KME Variables by Country ........................................................ 114 Table 84: ANOVA of KMP Variables by Country ........................................................ 115 Table 85: Bonferroni Analysis of KMF Index by Country by Job Position Level ......... 116 Table 86: Bonferroni Analysis of KMF Index by Country by Industry Type ................ 117 Table 87: Bonferroni Analysis of KMF Index by Country by Business Focus .............. 117 Table 88: Bonferroni Analysis of KMF Index by Country by Company Size (Number of Employees) ..................................................................................................................... 117 Table 89: Bonferroni Analysis of KME Index by Country by Job Position Level......... 118 Table 90: Bonferroni Analysis of KME Index by Country by Industry Type ................ 118 Table 91: Bonferroni Analysis of KME Index by Country by Business Focus.............. 119 Table 92: Bonferroni Analysis of KME Index by Country by Company Size (Number of Employees) ..................................................................................................................... 119 Table 93: Bonferroni Analysis of KMP Index by Country by Job Position Level ......... 120 Table 94: Bonferroni Analysis of KMP Index by Country by Industry Type ................ 120 Table 95: Bonferroni Analysis of KMP Index by Country by Business Focus .............. 121 Table 96: Bonferroni Analysis of KMP Index by Country by Company Size (Number of Employees) ..................................................................................................................... 121 Table 97: KM Variables with p < 0.05 scores for ANOVA by Country ........................ 126

xvi

Table 98: Significant differences of KMP Index by Country by Industry Type (from Table 94 p. 117) .............................................................................................................. 129 Table 99: Key differences between low and high UAI societies (From Hofstede 2001 p. 169-168) .......................................................................................................................... 131 Table 100: Bonferroni Analysis of KMF Index by Country by Industry Type .............. 167 Table 101: Bonferroni Analysis of KME Index by Country by Industry Type .............. 170 Table 102: Bonferroni Analysis of KMP Index by Country by Industry Type .............. 172 Table 103: Bonferroni - The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization ................................................. 175 Table 104: Bonferroni - Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization. 175 Table 105: Bonferroni - Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a process-oriented structure ........................................................................................ 175 Table 106: Bonferroni - Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies .................................................................................................................... 176 Table 107: Bonferroni - Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network................................................. 176 Table 108: Bonferroni - People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing ........................................................................................ 176

xvii

List of Charts
Chart 1: Percent of Responses by Number of Employees ................................................ 46 Chart 2: Company Annual Business by Revenue ............................................................. 47 Chart 3: Percent of Responses by Business Activity ........................................................ 48 Chart 4: Percent of Responses by Industry Type .............................................................. 49 Chart 5: Percent of Responses by Industry Type (business consolidated in a single category) ........................................................................................................................... 50 Chart 6: Percent of Responses by Job Position Level....................................................... 51 Chart 7: Percent of Responses by KM Stage within the Organization ............................. 52 Chart 8: Percent of Responses by Organizational Level That Promotes KM................... 53 Chart 9: Percent of responses by departmental/functional budget that contributes the most to KM ................................................................................................................................ 55 Chart 10: Frequency of Responses: Improvements in IT infrastructure ........................... 57 Chart 11: Organizational buy-in and support.................................................................... 58 Chart 12: Leadership involvement, support, and advocating ........................................... 59 Chart 13: Rewards system based on employee KM participation and support ................ 60 Chart 14: Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box" ........................................ 61 Chart 15: Continuous education of employees ................................................................. 62 Chart 16: KM advocates and champions within the enterprise ........................................ 63 Chart 17: Identify enterprise core competencies and necessary knowledge domains to support those core competencies ...................................................................................... 64 Chart 18: Gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise knowledge .................. 65 Chart 19: Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge ................. 66 Chart 20: Developing an enterprise repository and database of information and knowledge ......................................................................................................................... 67 Chart 21: Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy and value to the enterprise - ability to eliminate old, outdated, incorrect, or unnecessary information and knowledge .............................................................................................. 68 Chart 22: Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees 69 Chart 23: Developing and promoting employee sharing and collaboration ..................... 70 xviii

Chart 24: Stimulation and motivation of employees ........................................................ 72 Chart 25: Formalized knowledge transfer system established (best practices, lessons learned) ............................................................................................................................. 73 Chart 26: Better on-the-job training of employees ........................................................... 74 Chart 27: Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity ................................................. 75 Chart 28: Improved overall enterprise performance ......................................................... 76 Chart 29: Enhanced client relations - better client interaction .......................................... 77 Chart 30: Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success 78 Chart 31: Improved employee retention ........................................................................... 79 Chart 32: Improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage ........................................ 80 Chart 33: Enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee to another ..................... 81 Chart 34: Means to identify industry best practices.......................................................... 82 Chart 35: Better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving........................................ 83 Chart 36: Enhance the development of business strategies .............................................. 84 Chart 37: Enhance business development and the creation of enterprise opportunities ... 85 Chart 38: Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes ........................... 86 Chart 39: 1.The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization ..................................................................... 88 Chart 40: Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization .......................... 89 Chart 41: Our organization has a clear and strong commitment to knowledge management initiatives from senior management ............................................................ 90 Chart 42: Our organization has sufficient financial resources to support knowledge management initiatives ..................................................................................................... 91 Chart 43: Our organizational culture encourages knowledge sharing .............................. 92 Chart 44: People in our organization have the time to share information ........................ 93 Chart 45: Teamwork is a critical component of our organization's culture, structure and processes ........................................................................................................................... 94 Chart 46: Our organizational strategies, structures, policies, procedures, processes and reward systems focus on long-term growth ...................................................................... 95 Chart 47: Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a processoriented structure .............................................................................................................. 96 xix

Chart 48: Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies ......... 97 Chart 49: Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network ...................................................................... 98 Chart 50: People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing ............................................................................................................ 99 Chart 51: KMF Index Homogeneity of Variance ........................................................... 109 Chart 52: KME Index Homogeneity of Variance ........................................................... 109 Chart 53: KMP Index Homogeneity of Variance ........................................................... 110 Chart 54: KM success factors where significant changes where found between Italy and USA................................................................................................................................. 128 Chart 55: KM expectations where significant changes where found between Italy and USA................................................................................................................................. 128 Chart 56: KM practices where significant changes where found between Italy and USA ......................................................................................................................................... 129

xx

Whereas at one time the decisive factor of production was the land, and later capital, today the decisive factor is increasingly man himself, that is, his knowledge. Pope John Paul II Centesimus Annus (nos. 32, 33)

Chapter 1 Introduction

In todays competitive global marketplace it is imperative that organizations manage not only tangible resources but also intangible ones. This realization has produced great interest among the business and academic communities in developing ways for capturing, creating, integrating, applying, communicating, assessing, and evolving the intellectual capital available to the organization by implementing and sustaining knowledge management (KM) programs. Extensive literature has been published to attest to the value of knowledge as an organizations best source for obtaining and retaining competitive advantage (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Davenport and Prusak 1998; Drucker 2001; Nishiguchi and Nonaka 2001; Desouza and Evaristo 2003). According to a survey by KPMG Consulting (2000) knowledge management programs provide organizations with the following benefits:
Better decision making, better customer handling, faster response to key business issues, improved employee skills, improved productivity, increased profits, the sharing of best practices, reduced costs, new ways of working, increased market share, creation of additional business opportunities, improved new product development, better staff attraction and retention, and increased share price (KPMG 2000).

Knowledge management has reached maturity and organizations should be pursuing KM in some way (Mann 2007). 1

We have reached a new phase of social development where the new economic currency is human capital. Intangible assets are replacing natural (land and unskilled labor) and tangible assets (buildings, equipment machinery, and finance) as the main source of wealth in industrial societies (Dunning 2000). We have entered a knowledge-based economy, where an organizations business and technical know-how are directly or indirectly shown on a corporations financial statements and are becoming one of the main determinants for mergers, acquisitions and strategic alliances. In its early implementations, knowledge management was often primarily focused on information technology (IT). Today, practitioners realize that knowledge management is a multi-disciplinary science where technology can be an enabler, but not the main driver. Since knowledge is socially produced and reproduced, greater focus is being placed on understanding the activities necessary for managing knowledge resources and managing knowledge in the context of social activity. In particular, knowledge manipulating processes are constrained by the social and cultural contexts in which they are embedded (Abou-Zeid 2003). Recent research suggests that organizational culture can be a major barrier to leveraging knowledge (Davenport and Prusak 1998; KPMG 2000), but only limited research attention has been given to cross-cultural issues (Diemers 2000; Holden 2002; Desouza and Evaristo 2003; Ford and Chain 2003; Pauleen 2007). As noted by Hofstede (1980) an organizations culture is nested within a national culture. Todays global business environment, of multinational corporations and international networking, has created a more complex multicultural workforce. Understanding the interrelation between national specific values and the adoption of knowledge management initiatives plays a critical role for selecting KM tools and practices that will improve the organizations performance. Our research compares KM beliefs, expectations, and practices in Italy and the United States. These two countries have relatively small cultural gaps, and hence may have

similar perceptions about KM; the deviations are expected to be smaller than previous similar studies where countries with large cultural gaps were analyzed.

Research Initiative Motivation

My research motivations emerged from my business interactions, contacts, and experience with Italian industry and my experience in the United States. In April of 2006, I co-founded the Confederation of Italian Entrepreneurs Worldwide (Confederazione degli Imprenditori Italiani nel Mondo) (CIIM), a non-profit organization which aggregates Italian entrepreneurs to find synergies between Italy and abroad, and I have served as CIIMs Vice-President for the USA. CIIM is the by-product of the first Convention of Italian Entrepreneurs Worldwide, held in Rome in October of 2003, and hosted by the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Italians Living Abroad. The institutional character of the organization has given me the privilege of collaborating with Italian businesses, government and business advocacy associations at the highest levels to promote learning and develop a global business network for Italian entrepreneurs. Since its inception, CIIM has achieved significant progress towards its mission of developing a global business network linking Italian business communities abroad with businesses operating in Italy. The organization has reached over one-thousand members throughout the North American chapters of Washington D.C., New York, Cleveland, San Francisco, Toronto and Vancouver. CIIM established a web portal allowing its members to promote their company and share business opportunities, and organized various events such as roundtables discussions, workshops and seminars to promote networking and exchange of ideas. Today the CIIM is an important reference for businesses and for regional and national government initiatives. My involvement with CIIM and the Italian business community has enabled me to understand the overlap between the business cultures of Italian industry and that of the 3

U.S. Holding dual citizenship from both Italy and the United States, I have worked and studied in the United States for the last seventeen years, and have been in a management role of web, data management, and emerging technologies for institutions of higher education institutions for the last twelve years. During this tenure, I have witnessed and participated in the development and implementation of new business processes and practices to enhance the flow and use of information. Because of the opportunities offered by KM, and my ongoing experience with both Italian and American organizations, it is of great interest to me to analyze the similarities and differences between the KM perceptions of Italian and American organizations, to understand how to effectively use those perceptions to enhance the organization.

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas. George Bernard Shaw

Knowledge Economy, Technology and Globalization

The world has undergone an important socioeconomic transformation; from adding value by producing things, which is ultimately limited, to adding value by creating and utilizing knowledge, which can grow indefinitely. In fact, while most other resources depreciate over time, knowledge increases in value with use; once discovered and made public, knowledge expands, defying the law of scarcity that governs most commodity markets. Since knowledge investments are characterized by increasing (rather than decreasing) returns, they are essential to long-term economic growth (OECD 1996). Today knowledge is the primary wealth-producing asset for a countrys economy (Drucker 1969; Drucker 2001). International organizations, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), are paying close attention to assessing a countrys investment in knowledge and developing economic theories and models to relate such investments to economic performance (See OECD 2001; OECD 2007; Revilak 2006; World Bank 2008). In particular, econometric tests by the World Bank reveal a statistically significant causal relationship between a countrys knowledge economy index and future economic growth (World Bank 2008). Technology and globalization have produced new demands and opportunities for the knowledge economy. The ability to create, distribute and exploit knowledge is increasingly central to achieving and maintaining competitive advantage, wealth creation, and better standards of living.

In most advanced and developed countries, technological advances have decreased the need for workers who are skilled with their hands and work in repetitive and sometimes physically demanding jobs. Information and communication technologies allow for more rapid knowledge creation and distribution, which in turn increases the rate of innovation, but also changes the competitive scenario. In fact, any advantage of one company can be eliminated by competitive improvements overnight. To compete in this new scenario, companies must fine tune their processes of knowledge management and innovation; combining market and technology know-how with the creative talents of knowledge workers, their ideas, concepts and information. National governments are addressing this changing economic trend with new public policies, from subsidies and procurement to alternative instruments such as research and development tax relief and reinforcement of industry-science linkages (cooperation between firms and universities). In addition to technological advances, globalization has an important role in the development of the knowledge economy. The continued globalization of trade and investments has increased flows of knowledge from within and across national borders, as shown by growing co-operation in science and innovation and greater international mobility of highly-skilled workers (OECD 2001; Friedman 2007). For most of human history, an individuals daily life remained close to his or her birthplace. Money did not move far. Most people lived the majority of their lives within a radius of one hour of whatever the dominant mode of transportation was. Hence when the mode of transportation was by foot the radius extended to only a couple of miles, when it was on horseback or by a horse-drawn carriage the radius expanded, and so on. As the mode of transportation evolved (automobiles, trains and planes), peoples mobility increased linearly, while their know-how increased exponentially. In the last few decades, with the advent of new information and communication technologies the mobility of peoples knowledge has grown at unprecedented rates. If we think of globalization as mobility and flows of people, goods, information, and money, historically people have been the least mobile. The sudden acceleration in mobility of

people and their knowledge (experiences, ideas, concepts, and information) has brought new and exciting possibilities for innovation and growth.

We need diversity of thought in the world to face the new challenges. Tim Berners Lee

Global Diversity
Todays global business environment is increasingly complex. Companies not only have to deal with language differences and varied political, economic and regulatory systems, but also with the cultural values, attitudes, beliefs, and norms shared at the national level by the individuals of a country. Understanding the cultural differences that exist between countries is an important prerequisite for companies that want to successfully introduce their products and services in foreign markets, effectively coordinate operations with foreign subsidiaries and business partners, establish effective multinational business networks, and leverage the overall capabilities of their workforce (Gundling, Zanchettin et al. 2007). Such cultural differences are embedded in the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another (Hofstede 1980); the set of shared beliefs and values that distinguish people of one nationality from those of another. According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, understanding our own culture and our own assumptions and expectations about how people should think and act is the basis for success (Trompenaars 1994). Many management theories are no longer universally applicable; but rather, need to be understood and evaluated in the cultural context in which they are to be implemented (Trompenaars 1994). For example, participative schemas like Management by Objectives (MBO) will not work in countries where there is a large power distance, because it presupposes some form of negotiation between superiors and subordinates with which neither party will feel at ease (Hofstede 2005). Moreover, management in an individualist society requires attention to the individual (e.g. incentives and bonuses should be linked to an individuals performance); on the other hand, management in a collectivist society will focus more on the group (Hampden-Turner, Trompenaars et al. 8

2000; Hofstede 2005). Consequently, global managers must take into consideration all aspects of their business and acclimate to the culture of a particular country, which may require different practices from what they are accustomed in their home country. They must develop a much broader perspective when implementing management practices, which includes estimating how local policies, actions, or changes may influence intended outcomes (Ferraro 2002).

Culture Implications
Organizational culture, which describes the attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values of an organization, has been shown to influence the successful adoption of knowledge management practices (Davenport, De Long et al. 1998; Davenport and Prusak 1998; Ribire 2001; Holsapple 2003; Stankosky 2005). According to Hofstede (1980; 2005) organizational culture is not independent of national culture. Therefore, knowledge management tools and practices that are appropriate in one culture may not work in another (Holden 2002; Stankosky 2005; Pauleen 2007; Stary, Barachini et al. 2007). In fact, research using a variety of frameworks has shown that national cultural values are related to workplace behaviors, attitudes and other organizational outcomes. (Kirkman, Lowe et al. 2006; Wei et al. 2008). Perhaps the most influential and most cited framework for evaluating national culture is that of Geert Hofstede, which proposes five main cultural dimensions: (1) individualism vs. collectivism, (2) uncertainty avoidance, (3) power distance, (4) masculinity vs. femininity, and (5) long-term vs. short-term orientation. These dimensions have since been associated with outcomes in various management domains, including: change management, conflict management, decision making, human resource management, leadership, work-related attitudes, business negotiations, reward allocation, social networks, foreign direct investments, and business joint ventures and alliances (Kirkman, Lowe et al. 2006). Only limited research has been conducted to find relationships between cross-cultural factors and knowledge management (Diemers 2000; Choo and Bontis 2002; Desouza and Evaristo 2003; Ford and Chan 2003; Wang 2004).

The World Wide Web

Technologies in general and the World Wide Web in particular have greatly contributed to the agility of an organization to rapidly gather and share information and knowledge within and across the enterprise. Some examples follow: Wikis, Web pages designed to enable anyone to contribute or modify content, have revolutionized the way in which companies document policies, processes and procedures and enable corporate knowledge exchange processes (Muller, Meuthrath et al. 2008; Andriole 2009). Blogs, either used internally to enhance the communication and culture in a corporation or externally for marketing, branding or public relations purposes provide an efficient way to vet ideas, strategies, projects, and programs (Andriole 2009). Blogs help capture, annotate, organize and exchange personal knowledge and receive feedback and form communities of practices and interests (Lytras, Tennyson et al. 2009). Folksonomies, the practice and method of collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content, allow non-expert users to collectively classify and find information. Folksonomies allow for the annotation of web content; recording how the data relates to real world objects within a given knowledge domain (Al-Khalifa and Davis 2007). Users tag interesting information for each other and find people with similar interests (Lytras, Tennyson et al. 2009). Podcasts, a series of audio or video digital-media files that can be syndicated, subscribed to, and downloaded automatically when new content is added, can contribute to institutional memory of the organization (Andriole 2009). RSS, a family of standardized Web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works (such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, and video) can be used to facilitate information flows to employees, customers, suppliers, and partners (Andriole 2009).

10

Crowdsourcing, the act of taking a task traditionally performed by an employee or contractor, and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people. Through the contribution of the crowd, an organization can tap a wider range of talent than might be present in its own organization and reduce costs associated with exploring new ideas and concepts (Howe 2008). Corporate Portals, a framework for integrating information, people and processes across the enterprise, can integrate and make otherwise disperse applications integrated and interoperable via a single point of access. Corporate portals can provide information and knowledge personalized to the specific needs and access rights of the knowledge worker. Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), a group of reusable and interoperable methods for systems development and integration is rapidly becoming a standard approach for enterprise information systems (Andriole 2009). SOA allows for connecting and sharing resources and data in a flexible and standard manner. Web services (XML, SOAP, WSDL, UDDI) make use of the SOA approach to integrate heterogeneous and distributed business functions and services (e.g. enterprise resource planning, business intelligence/reporting systems, social software, Blogs, Wikis, web-based training) and hence surface and organize existing information and knowledge (Abou-Zeid 2008).

Today, Web 2.0, the concept of the proliferation of interconnectivity and interactivity of web-based content and its supporting technologies (which include social-networking sites, video sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies) have led to the development and evolution of organic communities of knowledge. With the same spirit of Web 2.0, companies are embracing the concept of Enterprise Social Software, also known as Enterprise 2.0, to allow for spontaneous, knowledge-based collaboration within and across the enterprise (Mcafee 2006). Many of the above mentioned technologies foster bottom-up community building. To embrace the new paradigm brought by these technologies in the context of knowledge sharing, companies must foster a participatory and trusting culture that allows knowledge 11

to flow (Lytras, Tennyson et al. 2009); it is necessary to create a receptive culture in order to prepare the way for these new practices (Mcafee 2006). Hodgson (Allen 2008) describes several studies where a positive correlation between social networking and Hofstedes cultural dimensions can be observed and measured.

12

An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest. Benjamin Franklin

Chapter 2 Literature Review

This chapter presents selected summaries of literature reviews on knowledge management, national culture, and relevant comparative data and information on economic and cultural profiles for Italy and the United States. As such it augments the literature reviewed and cited in Chapter 1.

Knowledge Management
We are now an information society in a knowledge economy where knowledge management is essential. While the realization of the need for a systematic strategy for knowledge management may be relatively new, the concept may be as old as mankind. Companies have always managed knowledge (Davenport and Prusak 1997). The creativity and innovation required in todays competitive global environment, the increasing employee turnover (resulting in higher knowledge loss), and the expansion of markets of knowledge (patenting, licensing, intellectual property), make the need for formalizing KM far more urgent. To understand why managing knowledge provides sustainable advantage, we must first understand what knowledge is, and how knowledge management differs from information management. 13

Knowledge
What constitutes knowledge has been debated since the early philosophers and continues to be a matter of on-going debate in the field of epistemology (Wallace 2007). For the purpose of this study we cite Davenport and Prusak (1998), who define knowledge as a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. Authors have provided distinctions and relationships between data, information, and knowledge. Some placed knowledge on top of the data-information-knowledge chain, and in some cases added wisdom on top of knowledge (Wallace 2007).

Figure 1: The Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom value chain

Data is the raw material to be interpreted with information (e.g. contextual and transactional facts), which when combined with other information, insights, experience and reasoning produces knowledge. The accumulated knowledge provides wisdom for addressing future actions (Kavouras and Kokla 2008). We provide an example of the data-information-knowledge-wisdom relationship in Table 1.
Table 1: Example of the data, information, knowledge, and wisdom relationship (Similar to the example provided by Kavouras and Kokla 2008)

Data = Facts as symbols without additional meaning P1=(38 14 81N, 15 65 36E) P2=( 38 12 46N, 15 65 36E) Information = Data + Meaning Latitude and longitude coordinates, describing the position of two points on earth, expressed in meters. Knowledge = Information + other information + insights, experience and reasoning Using the Haversine formula we calculate the distance between the two points to be 4.788 kilometers. The calculated distance P2 is south of P1. There is no information on the elevation of these points, or an estimate of the accuracy of this position. Wisdom = Accumulated knowledge for addressing future actions 14

I need the altitude of the two points to calculate the exact distance between the two points. The coordinates of the two points can be converted to and plotted on my custom map reference system. Limitations include the earth curvature. An individual or an organization can have different types of knowledge: tacit or explicit. Explicit knowledge is defined as factual, objective knowledge that can readily be stored, accessed, understood within its contexts, and more easily transmitted (Nonaka 1994). It can readily be stored electronically (e.g. in databases, manuals, documents and procedures) and transmitted to others. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is subjective and since it resides within the individual it is more difficult to articulate and codify. In order to transfer tacit knowledge effectively, personal contact and trust are necessary (Ribire 2001). Tacit knowledge represents internalized knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of as he or she performs a task. For an organization to be successful, it must capitalize on individual knowledge and turn it as much as possible into organizational knowledge. This includes not only converting internalized tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge in order to share, but also permitting individuals to internalize codified knowledge and make it personally meaningful.

15

Tacit knowledge

To

Explicit knowledge

Tacit Knowledge

Socialization

Externalization

From Explicit knowledge

Internalization

Combination

Figure 2: Four modes of knowledge conversion (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995)

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) describe four modes of knowledge conversion ( Figure 2): socialization (from individual tacit knowledge to another individual tacit knowledge), externalization (from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge), combination (the exchange and combining of different bodies of explicit knowledge; from explicit knowledge to systemic explicit knowledge), and internalization (from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge). Knowledge management practices try to close the gap between what the individual knows and what the organization knows. But, what is knowledge management more precisely?

Knowledge Management defined

There are many definitions of knowledge management; we selected the following three, which provide important insights:

16

Knowledge management (KM) covers any intentional and systematic process or practice of acquiring, capturing, sharing and using productive knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance learning and performance in organizations. (OECD 2003) Knowledge management (KM) is a discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, capturing, retrieving, sharing and evaluating an enterprise's information assets. These information assets may include databases, documents, policies and procedures as well as the uncaptured, tacit expertise and experience resident in individual workers. (James Bair 1996) Knowledge management is a framework and tool set for improving the organizations knowledge infrastructure, aimed at getting the right knowledge to the right people in the right form at the right time. (Schreiber 2000) KM must be a deliberate and conscious strategy by an organization to follow knowledge supporting activities - with a systems thinking approach. The activities described in Table 2 are suggested by various authors (Schreiber 2000):
Table 2: Knowledge management activities and associated knowledge-value chain (Schreiber 2000)

KM Activity Identify Plan Acquire Develop Distribute Foster Use Maintain Control quality Dispose

Description Identify internally and externally existing knowledge Plan what knowledge will be needed in the future Acquire and/or develop needed knowledge Distribute knowledge to where it is needed Foster the application of knowledge in the business processes of the organization Control the quality of knowledge and maintain it Dispose of knowledge when it is no longer needed 17

Knowledge management frameworks have been developed to sustain the activities described in Table 2. In early 1999, Stankosky proposed a framework where various elements are grouped in four principal areas; the four pillars of KM (see Table 3 and Figure 3): (1) Leadership/management, (2) Organization, (3) Technology, and (4) Learning, and (4) Technology. Calabrese (Calabrese 2000) validated this framework and the key elements defining effective KM programs.

18

Table 3: Description of the four KM pillars (Stankosky 2005)

KM Pillar Leadership/ management

Description Concerns the environment, strategic, and enterprise level decisionmaking process involving the values, objectives, knowledge requirements, knowledge sources, prioritization, and resource allocation of an organizations knowledge assets. It stresses the need for integrative management principles and techniques, primarily based on systems thinking and approaches.

Organization

Concerns the operational aspects of knowledge assets, including functions, processes, formal and informal organizational structures, control measures and metrics, process improvement, and business process reengineering. Underlying this pillar are system engineering principles and techniques to ensure a flow down, tracking, and optimum utilization of all an organizations knowledge assets.

Technology

Concerns the various information technologies peculiar to supporting and/or enabling KM strategies and operations. One taxonomy used relates to technologies that support the collaboration and codification of KM strategies and functions.

Learning

Concerns organizational behavioral aspects and social engineering. The learning pillar focuses on the principles and practices to ensure that individuals collaborate and share knowledge to the maximum. Emphasis is given to identifying and applying the attributes necessary for evolving and institutionalizing robust learning organizations.

Note. Description of pillars of KM taken from Stankosky 2005 (pp. 4-5).

19

Figure 3: The Four pillars of Knowledge Management (Stankosky, Calabrese, Baldanza 1999) Note. Figure reproduced based on Figure 1-4 in Stankosky 2005 (p. 6).

The four pillars created a theoretical construct and a research platform for examining correlations between and among key factors, elements and dozens of disciplines. The four pillar framework has matured, evolved and retained its relevance throughout the decade since its creation.

20

Country Profiles: Italy and the United States

This section compares Italy and the United States on various statistical, economic, business and knowledge related aspects.

Economic Climates
Despite the recent financial crisis, the United States continues to be the most competitive economy in the world (World Economic Forum 2008). The United States has the largest and most technologically powerful economy and enjoys greater flexibility than its counterparts in Italy in decisions to raise capital, to create physical facilities, to hire and lay off workers, and to develop new products. Conversely, over the years, Italy has promoted and firmly established its Made in Italy trademark as a synonym for highquality, good taste and innovation; initially focused on the food, fashion, furniture, and luxury vehicles, but now the recognition has encompassed other industries, including high precision machinery, as well as aerospace and defense technologies.
Table 4: Italy and US ranks in economic statistics (CIA 2008)

Italy Largest GDP Largest GDP per capita (PPP) Largest public debt (% of GDP) Largest Exporter Largest Importer 7th 38th 7th 6th 7th

United States 1st 10th 27th 5th 1st

Table 4 and 5 report some general statistical data (CIA 2008). Italy has a large public debt, the 7th largest in the world as a percentage of GDP.
Table 5: Statistical comparison between Italy and the United States (CIA 2008)

Italy
Land Area Population 301,230 sq km (116,305 sq miles) 58,145,320 (July 2008 est.)

United States
9,826,630 sq km (3,794,083 sq miles) 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.)

21

Italy
GDP GDP per capita (PPP) Public debt Exports Imports $2.105 trillion (2007 est.) $30,900 (2007 est.) 104% of GDP (2007 est.) $502.4 billion (2007 est.) $498.1 billion (2007 est.)

United States
$13.84 trillion (2007 est.) $45,800 (2007 est.) 60.8% of GDP (2007 est.) $1.148 trillion (2007 est.) $1.968 trillion (2007 est.)

The Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009 of the World Economic Forum (2008) ranked the United States as the most competitive worldwide, while Italy ranked 49th, down by three places since 2007. In the same report, Italy is ranked 21st for its business sophistication; it produces high value goods with the latest production processes. On the other hand Italy continues to lack in efficiency and flexibility in its labor market; ranking 129th out of 134 countries, creating a large hindrance to job creation. A survey included in the Global Competitiveness Report shows that respondents from Italy and the United States perceive the inefficient government bureaucracy, tax rates and tax regulations as the most problematic factors for doing business in their country. The World Banks Doing Business (2008) report is closely correlated to the Global Competitiveness Report and further highlights the areas of necessary improvements. Table 6 provides comparative data for Italy and the United States.
Table 6: Ease of Doing Business rank (out of 181 economies) for Italy and United States

Ease of
Doing Business Starting a Business Dealing with Construction Permits Employing Workers Registering Property Getting Credit Protecting Investors Paying Taxes

Italy
65 53 83 75 58 84 53 128

United States
3 6 26 1 12 5 5 46

22

Ease of
Trading Across Borders Enforcing Contracts Closing a Business

Italy
60 156 27

United States
15 6 15

The above rankings show net differences in the ease of doing business in Italy versus the United States. In particular, the ease of employing workers, getting credit, protecting investors, trading across borders, and enforcing contracts are optimal in the United States, but very disadvantageous in Italy. On a positive note, Renato Brunetta, Italian Minister for Public Administration and Innovation, has vowed to modernize government offices and procedures. Moreover, the current Berlusconi government has dedicated a (noncabinet) Minister for Legislative Simplification to review and simplify government bureaucracies. These initiatives, if carried out successfully, may improve the ease of doing business, which will allow for more agile entrepreneurship and a more business friendly environment for attracting foreign investors. The economic and global competitive challenges described above require that countries assess their readiness for the knowledge economy and design initiatives, policies and practices to shape and capitalize their knowledge advantage. In the next section, we will review factors that positively influence a country's ability to generate, adopt and diffuse knowledge and present a comparative analysis between Italy and the United States.

Knowledge Economy Index (KEI)

The World Bank Institutes Knowledge for Development Program has created the Knowledge Assessment Methodology (KAM), an interactive benchmarking tool that reports the strengths and weaknesses, and relative performance of countries on the knowledge economy (World Bank 2008). The KAM evaluates countries against a fourpillar knowledge-economy framework made up of 12 knowledge indicators (Table 7). 23

Table 7: Mapping of the four knowledge economy pillars to the 12 knowledge indicators (World Bank 2008)

Pillar Economic and institutional regime

The countrys economic and institutional regime must provide incentives for the efficient use of existing and new knowledge and the flourishing of entrepreneurship.

Indicators
Tariff and non-tariff barriers Regulatory quality Rule of law

Education and skill of population

The countrys people need education and skills that enable them to create and share, and use it well.

Adult literacy rate Gross secondary enrollment rate Gross tertiary enrollment rate

Information infrastructure
A dynamic information infrastructure is needed to facilitate the effective communication, dissemination, and processing of information.

Telephones per 1,000 people Computers per 1,000 people Internet users per 1,000 people

Innovation System
The countrys innovation system firms, research centers, universities, think tanks, consultants, and other organizations must be capable of tapping the growing stock of global knowledge, assimilating and adapting it to local needs, and creating new technology.

Royalty payments and receipts, US$ per person Technical journal articles per million people Patents granted to nationals by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office per million people

Note. Table adapted from Figure 1 and Table 1 of the World Bank KAM Report 2008 (p. 1, 3).

The KAM includes two additional indicators for overall economic growth: (1) Annual GDP growth and (2) Human Development Index1 (HDI).

HDI provides information on the human development aspect of economic growth. The HDI is based on three indicators: longevity, as measured by life expectancy at birth; educational attainment, as measured by a combination of adult literacy rate and the combined gross primary, secondary and tertiary school enrollment ratio; and standard of living, as measured by GDP per capita

24

Comparative data from the KAM between Italy and the United States on the knowledge indexes and relative pillars is reported in Table 8.
Table 8: Comparative data between Italy and United States (World Bank 2008)

Variable
actual Annual GDP Growth (%), 2002-2006 Human Development Index, 2005 Tariff & Non tariff Barriers, 2008 Regulatory Quality, 2006 Rule of Law, 2006 Economic Incentive and Institutional Regime Total Royalty Payments and receipts (US$/pop.) Scientific and Technical Journal Articles / Mil. People, 2005 Patents Granted by USPTO / Mil. People, avg 2002-2006 Innovation System Adult Literacy Rate (% age 15 and above), 2007 Gross Secondary Enrollment, 2006 Gross Tertiary Enrollment, 2006 Education and skill of population Total Telephones per 1,000 People, 2006 Computers per 1,000 People, 2005 Internet Users per 1000 People, 2006 Information infrastructure 98.87 100.28 66.99 52.43 420.51 32.97 0.66 0.94 81.00 0.84 0.37

Italy
normalized 0.36 8.62 6.67 7.50 6.36 6.84 7.50 8.35 8.29 8.04 6.88 8.09 8.60 7.86 1,650.00 370.00 490.00 8.68 9.50 8.12 8.43

United States
actual 3.00 0.95 86.80 1.47 1.57 9.16 296.25 692.46 324.12 9.45 100.00 93.89 81.77 8.77 1,350.00 760.00 690.00 8.93 7.64 9.64 9.50 10.00 6.69 9.61 9.29 9.06 10.00 normalized 2.45 9.20 9.56 9.07 8.86

Note. Table adapted from Table 2 of the World Bank KAM Report 2008 (p. 1, 3).

Data from Table 8 is plotted in Figure 4.

25

Figure 4: Knowledge indexes comparison between Italy and the United States (World Bank 2008) Note. Figure obtained from Cross-country Comparison (KAM 2009) at www.worldbank.org/KAM.

From the comparative data of the KAM it is evident that the United States is investing more than Italy in human capital, effective institutions, information and communication technologies, and innovative and competitive enterprises. Table 9 provides the country ranking on the four pillars of the knowledge economy for Italy and the United States among 140 countries evaluated by the KAM.
Table 9: Ranking of Italy and the United States among the 140 countries evaluated by the KAM (World Bank 2008)

Italy
Economic Incentive and Institutional Regime Innovation System Education and skill of population Information infrastructure Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) 47 27 31 18 27

United States
14 7 13 13 9

The United States is ranked as ninth, preceded from first to eighth by Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The Knowledge Economy Index ranking for Italy and the United States relative to the 26

averages of the G7 countries, Western Europe, high income countries, and the world, is reported in Figure 5. Here the United States is shown to be above average compared to said country groupings, while Italy performs below average for all listed world subsets.

Figure 5: Knowledge Economy Index Comparison between Italy, the United States, G7 Countries, Western Europe, high income countries, and the World (World Bank 2008).
Note. Figure adapted from Cross-country Comparison (KAM 2009) at www.worldbank.org/KAM.

Investments in Knowledge
A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development2 (OECD 2007), reports that in 2004 the ratio of investment in knowledge to GDP was 4.18 percentage points higher in the United States than in Italy; the US invested 2.75 times more as a percentage of its GDP towards R&D, higher education, and investment in software (See Table 10). Moreover, Italys ratio of investment in knowledge to GDP is considerably lower than the average from the European Union and OECD member countries, respectively 1.23 and 2.52 percentage points; Italy spends one third of the European Union and half of the OECD countries averages.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is an international organization of thirty countries that share the principles of democracy and free-markets. Most members are high-income economies.

27

Table 10: Investment in knowledge, as a percentage of GDP, 2004 (OECD 2007)

R&D United States Sweden

1

Software 1.46 1.54 1.31 1.19 1.36 1.08 0.83 1.16 0.99 0.64 1.10 0.80 1.01 0.67 0.59 0.64 0.57 0.19 0.26 0.13

Higher Education 2.36 0.93 1.11 0.83 1.16 1.42 1.60 0.95 1.14 0.73 0.80 0.79 0.70 0.54 0.90 0.92 0.68 0.89 0.96 0.83

Investment in Knowledge 6.56 6.44 5.92 5.33 5.10 4.91 4.45 4.31 3.94 3.90 3.75 3.62 3.50 3.43 3.41 2.68 2.38 2.27 1.85 1.74

2.74 3.98 3.49 3.31 2.58 2.41 2.02 2.20 1.81 2.54 1.84 2.02 1.80 2.21 1.92 1.12 1.14 1.19 0.64 0.78

Finland1 Japan Denmark1 OECD2 Canada France Australia Germany Netherlands1 EU3 United Kingdom1 Austria1 Belgium1 Spain Italy1 Ireland1 Greece1 Portugal1

Note: For all countries, investment on educations refers to 2003. For Belgium, Australia and Austria the period of reference is 1998-2003. 1. Data from 2003 2. OECD excludes Greece, Australia and Austria from the group of reporting countries. 3. EU: excludes Greece from the group of reporting countries.

The investment in knowledge is the sum of the percentages in GDP expenditures in R&D, software, and higher education. For ease of visualization of the data from Table 10 see Figure 6.

28

R&D

Software

Higher Education
United States Sw eden (1) Finland (1) Japan Denmark (1) OECD (2) Canada France Australia Germany Netherlands (1) EU (3) United Kingdom (1) Austria (1) Belgium (1) Spain Italy (1) Ireland (1) Greece (1) Portugal (1)

8 %

Note: For all countries, investment on education refers to 2003. For Belgium, Australia and Austria the period of reference is 1998-2003. 1. Data from 2003 2. OECD excludes Greece, Australia and Austria from the group of reporting countries. 3. EU: excludes Greece from the group of reporting countries. Figure 6: Investment in knowledge, as a percentage of GDP, 2004 (OECD 2007)

An OECD policy brief describing the significance of knowledge management in the business sector reported that knowledge management practices matter for innovation and productivity performance (OECD 2004). The authors presented a French study of 5,500 companies and demonstrated that of these, the ones that had knowledge management policies in place innovated more and filed more patents than those which did not. The same study revealed that companies that actively promoted a culture of knowledge sharing had higher labor productivity levels than the ones which did not. 29

To be successful, knowledge management policies and practices must take into consideration the culture of the organization and the culture of the country. In a field study of 31 knowledge management efforts in 24 global companies, Davenport et al. (1998) identified eight key aspects for creating, sharing and using knowledge effectively, including culture and process, developing a common purpose, and a clear purpose and common language.

National Cultures
As argued in the Culture Implications section of Chapter 1, national culture influences human resource practices and organizational behavior. When considering the adoption of management practices that have proven to be successful in a different country, Hofstede (1984) warns that there are no universal solutions to organization and management problems. He goes on to say, though, that countries can and should learn from each other; in fact, looking across the border is one of the most effective ways of getting new ideas in the area of management, organization, or politics, but this must be done with prudence and judgment.

Hofstedes National Culture Dimensions

Hoftedes taxonomy is based on his survey at IBM, which was held in 40 countries, once in 1968 and once in 1972, producing a total of over 116,000 responses, and on an additional survey (Bonds Chinese Value Survey) held in 23 countries (not including Italy) in the 1980s, which validated the results from the previous study and added the fifth dimension (Hofstede 1984). The five dimensions of culture in his study of national work related values are presented in Table 11.

30

Table 11: Hofstede's five cultural dimensions

Dimension Power Distance (PDI) Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)

Description Power Distance Index (PDI) represents the degree of inequality among people, which the population of a country accepts and expects; from relatively equal to unequal. Individualism (IDV) on the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, is the degree to which individuals in a country prefer to act as individuals or as members of groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after him/herself. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people are integrated into groups, which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. Masculinity (MAS) versus its opposite, femininity refers to the degree to which individuals in a country exhibit very assertive and competitive behaviors (generally associated with men), versus the more gentle values like quality of life, maintaining good relationships and solidarity (generally associated with women). The IBM studies revealed that women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries they are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men. Therefore these countries show a gap between mens values and womens values. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) deals with a societys tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. It indicates to what extent an individual feels either comfortable or uncomfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations contain unknowns and surprises that some cultures will try to mitigate through strict rules and regulations, while other cultures that are more tolerant to novelty and change will have as few rules as possible. Long-Term Orientation (LTO) versus short-term orientation represents a countrys preference to plan ahead and practice long term future-oriented values (e.g. persistence, thrift, and having a sense of shame), versus shortterm past-oriented values (respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting ones face). Both the positively and the negatively rated values of this dimension are found in the teachings of Confucius, the most influential Chinese philosopher who lived around 500 B.C.; however, the dimension also applies to countries without a Confucian heritage.

Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)

Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)

Long term/ short term (Confucian Dynamism)

Note. Description of cultural dimensions are direct citations from Hofstedes website ww.geerthofstede.com

The indices derived from Hofstedes research represent aggregate values at the national level; corporate culture was kept constant and professional culture can be considered a 31

random variable due to the large sample population of his study (Hofstede 1984). Hofstedes pioneering attempt to create quantifiable dimensions with both direction and intensity (low vs. high scores) allowed for detailed quantitative analysis of the cultural dimensions. Replications of Hofstedes study over the years have confirmed his findings (Sndergaard 1994). Moreover, several studies have been developed not as replications, but along similar lines, to test the relevancy of Hofstedes research methodology (Sndergaard 1994). Despite some criticism of Hofstedes methodology and the fact that results may have been sensitive to the specific timeframe of the survey, Hofstedes cultural dimensions remain the most widely known, accepted, improved upon, and used approach for comparing cross-cultural influences (Pauleen 2007). Consequently, this research also utilizes Hofstedes methodology and country specific data for Italy and the United States as its baseline.

32

To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge. Nicolaus Copernicus

Chapter 3 Research Method

In this chapter we present three hypotheses for determining if the cultural attributes of Italy and the USA influence the respective perceptions of knowledge management. Hofstedes country data for Italy and the USA are reviewed and a case is made for comparing results between our study to Wangs (2004) findings, which found a positive relationship between large gaps in national culture values and knowledge management. Finally, we present our survey instrument and research analysis methodology.

Question to be Answered
The primary question is: Do Italian and American cultural attributes influence the respective beliefs, expectations and practices of their citizens regarding Knowledge Management? This primary question will be answered by measuring the differences between Italian and American beliefs, expectations, and practices about knowledge management, as stated in the following hypotheses: 33

H1: There is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their beliefs about factors influencing successful knowledge management. H2: There is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their expectations about the benefits of knowledge management. H3: There is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their knowledge management practices.

Our hypotheses have been stipulated based on literature review and previous research contributions by Po-Jeng Wang (2004) who compared the knowledge management beliefs, expectations and practices of Taiwanese and Americans. While the gaps between Taiwanese and American national culture dimensions are considerably large for the dimensions of individualism and long-term orientation indexes, the gaps on all available dimensions between Italian and American indexes are relatively small (See Table 12).
Table 12: Hofstede's national culture dimension index values and rankings for Italy and the USA (Hofstede 1997; 2001)

Country

Power Distance Index Rank 34 38 29-30

Individualism Masculinity Index 76 91 17 Rank 7 1 44 Index 70 62 45 Rank 4-5 15 32-33

Uncertainty Avoidance Index 75 46 69 Rank 23 43 26

Confucian Dynamism Index NA 29 87 Rank NA 14 2

Italy USA Taiwan

50 40 58

The similarities between Italy and the USA in the scores and ranks are reflected in Hofstedes country clusters framework (Figure 7). Italy and the USA are part of two adjacent country clusters with relatively low cluster distance; by comparison Taiwan and the USA belong to two clusters that have the greatest cluster distance. 34

TAI

Figure 7: Hofstede's Country Clusters dendrogram diagram (Hofstede 1984)

Various studies have demonstrated that clustering of countries using an integration of cultural dimensions allows for greater predictability of which management practices may or may not be effective across national borders (Ronen and Shenkar 1985). 35

The largest difference between Italian and American dimensions is that of uncertainty avoidance (see Table 13). Hofstedes distribution of the index values for the uncertainty avoidance dimension suggests a mean of 65 and a standard deviation of 24 (Hofstede 2001). Therefore, the difference in uncertainty avoidance scores of 29 between Italy and the USA is above a full standard deviation, and could potentially account for country effects on knowledge management perceptions.
Table 13: Culture dimension gaps between Italy and the USA, and data set mean and standard deviation (Hofstede 2001).

Dimension Italy Power Distance Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty Avoidance 10 (15) 12 29

Gap USA (10) 15 (12) (29)

Mean*

Standard Deviation* 22 25 18 24

57 43 49 65
*

Based on 53 countries

Method
We have surveyed a sample of US and Italian nationals to assess the differences and similarities between their knowledge management beliefs, expectations and practices. The results were then to be correlated to the indexes of Hofstedes culture dimensions. The survey was administered in English for US nationals and in Italian for Italian nationals. The adopted questionnaire is based on Po-Jeng Wangs (2004) survey, which used the Lickert five-point scale to evaluate an individuals agreement or disagreement on a set of attitude statements. This survey uses previously validated measures from Dr. Charles Bixler (2000), and Dr. Francesco Calabrese (2000). The survey instrument contains four parts: 36

1. Demographics: to capture the organization profile and the respondent profile. 2. Belief: an individuals rating of critical factors for developing and sustaining successful knowledge management. 3. Expectations: an individuals rating of expected benefits obtained by an organization through knowledge management. 4. Practices: an assessment of knowledge management practices within an individuals organization. The survey was translated into Italian for use with the Italian sample population. To validate the translation, a third party reverse translated the Italian version back to English and later verified that the meaning of the questions matched that of the original survey. Both the English and Italian questionnaires were tested on a small group of individuals to make sure all questions were properly understood and interpreted in the intended context. Furthermore, such test runs revealed that the survey could be completed in 10 minutes or less. The survey tool and its planned implementation were then submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), which given the nature of the study and the anonymity of the survey tool, approved its execution as exempt from IRB committee review. The survey was then published online on our research website at www.km-research.com. The survey was programmed to default to the English version except for users whose web browser language was set to Italian. Users had the option to toggle between languages. To prevent duplicate submissions, the survey application required a Survey Key, which was individually assigned to prospective participants (one key per participant tied to his/her email address). Prospective respondents received a personalized email invitation containing the assigned Survey Key (appended to the web URL address e.g. http://www.km-research.com/?KEY=12345ABCDE67890FGHIJ). Additionally, prospective participants who did not have an individually assigned key had the option to 37

request one online; upon submission of a valid email address, the system instantaneously assigned and emailed a key to the requestors email address. The survey application recorded the time it took for each respondent to complete each of the four parts; response records included a start and end date and time. This allowed us to later see if participants responded according to an expected time period; hence reduce the possibility of bogus submissions. To assure anonymity of responses, survey answers were automatically disassociated from the participants key upon survey submission; keys were managed in a separate database table where each record was updated to indicate survey completion and to prevent multiple submissions by the same key. Therefore, from the time of submission there was no way to match keys with survey responses.

Subjects
Participation in our study was intended for employees and managers that were expected to be involved in knowledge management initiatives at any level, and within companies and organizations where an IT infrastructure was in place, and their employees were capable of using it. We did not restrict our study to a specific industry or company profile. But, company demographics were collected to allow for data analysis on homogeneous company profiles and to provide additional comparative analysis. Participation in our study was solicited through a number of direct and indirect channels to individuals who had the above mentioned profile. Channels included: 1. Friends and colleagues. 2. Referrals from friends and colleagues. 3. Postings on Knowledge Management related web forums and electronic distribution lists. 4. Direct emails to members of Knowledge Management and business related communities of interest. 38

5. Search engine marketing (paid placements through Googles advertising program). 6. Email referrals from individuals who completed the online questionnaire. Upon survey submission participants were asked to refer friends and colleagues for a chance to win a prize. Upon receipt, we reviewed each referral and sent a customized electronic invitation.

Data Analysis
We replicated Po-Jeng-Wangs (2004) approach using descriptive statistics and analysis of variance (ANOVAs) for analyzing the survey data; allowing for a direct comparison of our research results with Wangs. We used PASW Statistics version 18 by SPSS (an IBM company) for our analyses.

Limitations
The following are limitations of the research method: Data collected represents the perception of the sample population, as opposed to an objective measurement of data. The population of this study is composed of employees and managers, which were expected to be involved in knowledge management initiatives at any level. We did not restrict our study to a specific industry or company profile. But, company information was collected to focus our data analysis on homogeneous company profiles and to provide additional comparative analysis. The US and Italian sample populations is not a probability sample because the sample is voluntary and hence it may have a self-selection bias.

Expected contributions to the body of knowledge

Our research identifies cross-cultural aspects between Italian and American respondents that influence the perceived beliefs, expectations, and practices about knowledge management (KM) initiatives. More broadly, this research is part of a multi-country study undertaken at The George Washington University designed to help companies or 39

units within a company select KM tools and practices that are more likely to succeed in the national culture setting in which these are to be implemented. Moreover, our research will aid future cross-cultural comparative research in the field of KM.

40

Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so. Galileo Galilei

Chapter 4 Survey Results

This chapter describes our data collection methodology and provides quantitative analysis of our survey responses.

Data Collection
All surveys were completed and recorded online. Participation in our study was solicited via email, referrals by participants who completed the survey, postings on KM related web forums and electronic distribution lists, and search engine marketing (US and Italian regional paid placements through Googles advertising program see Appendix 3). Survey participation solicitations can be divided into two types: direct and indirect. Direct solicitations are those where the participant received via email an individual access key directly from us (or from us through the referral system). Indirect solicitations are those where a prospective participant reached our website by following links on KM related web forums, electronic distribution lists, and search engine paid advertisements. The distribution of direct and indirect access keys is summarized in Table 14.

41

Table 14: Survey Access Keys Generated by the Survey Application

Italian Language Access Keys Sent Out Direct Indirect 867 659 208

English Language 1068 902 76

Total 1,935 1,651 284

Since the survey was accessible to anyone from anywhere, we received responses also from countries other than Italy and the USA. Table 15 reports the survey response rates. Note that to mitigate the effect of population variances inequality in our analysis of variance (ANOVA), which is most pronounced when the sample sizes are unequal, we selected responses until the two country groups reached equal numbers of responses. Since our study compares residents of Italy and the USA, responses from individuals resident in other countries were not accepted. All usable responses were completed within a reasonable timeframe; the minimum time of completion recorded by the survey application was six minutes, which based on our test runs was an acceptable timeframe.
Table 15: Survey Response Rates

Respondents Country of Residence Italy Total Responses Incomplete Responses Usable Responses Selected Responses 312 28 284 237 USA 265 28 237 237 Other 60 3 0 0 Total 637 59 521 474

The following sections provide an analysis of all responses; aggregate responses from the Italian and the US sample populations.

Frequencies of Respondents for All Usable Responses

The first part of our survey collected demographic information, including country data, job position level, and company industry type, size and business focus. Additionally, the 42

survey collected information about the stage of Knowledge Management initiatives within the organization, the organizational level that promotes KM, and which departmental or functional budget contributes the most to KM.

Country of Organization Headquarters

In addition to the respondents country of residence, the survey recorded the country of organizations headquarters. As shown in Table 16, almost 95% of the responses included companies whose headquarters was either in the USA or in Italy. This high percentage further homogenizes the population samples; reducing the possibility of nonItalian or non-US organization national culture influences.
Table 16: Country of Organization Headquarters
Valid Frequency Valid USA Italy Germany United Kingdom Switzerland France Japan Sweden Spain Ireland Iran Macedonia Netherlands San Marino Total 258 192 5 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 474 Percent 54.4 40.5 1.1 1.1 .4 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 100.0 Percent 54.4 40.5 1.1 1.1 .4 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 54.4 94.9 96.0 97.0 97.5 97.9 98.3 98.7 98.9 99.2 99.4 99.6 99.8 100.0

43

Participants Country of Nationality

The survey included two questions about the participants country of nationality, one about the current nationality and one about the nationality at birth. As shown in Table 17 95.4% of the responses included individuals whose country of nationality was either the USA or Italy. The high percentage of Italian and US nationals in our study further homogenizes our population sample.
Table 17: Participants Country of Nationality
Valid Frequency Valid Italy USA India France Russia Switzerland China Czech Republic Germany Dominican Republic Jamaica South Korea Macedonia Netherlands Peru Pakistan Puerto Rico Turkey Vietnam South Africa Total 250 202 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 474 Percent 52.7 42.6 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 100.0 Percent 52.7 42.6 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 52.7 95.4 96.0 96.4 96.8 97.0 97.3 97.5 97.7 97.9 98.1 98.3 98.5 98.7 98.9 99.2 99.4 99.6 99.8 100.0

As shown in Table 18, as much as 90.7% of the participants indicated that their country of nationality at birth was either Italy or the USA. 44

Table 18: Participants Country of Nationality at Birth

Valid Frequency Valid Italy USA India Germany Russia United Kingdom Vietnam France Argentina Botswana Belarus Switzerland China Dominican Republic Ecuador Ethiopia Greece Ireland Israel Iran Jamaica Japan South Korea Macedonia Malaysia Nigeria Netherlands Peru Pakistan Puerto Rico Syria Turkey South Africa Total 250 180 5 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 474 Percent 52.7 38.0 1.1 .6 .6 .6 .6 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 100.0 Percent 52.7 38.0 1.1 .6 .6 .6 .6 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 52.7 90.7 91.8 92.4 93.0 93.7 94.3 94.7 94.9 95.1 95.4 95.6 95.8 96.0 96.2 96.4 96.6 96.8 97.0 97.3 97.5 97.7 97.9 98.1 98.3 98.5 98.7 98.9 99.2 99.4 99.6 99.8 100.0

Considering the fact that the USA attracts professional talent from all over the world, the percentage of participants who indicated other nationalities at birth is relatively low and further indicates a homogeneous nationality within our population sample.

45

Percent of Responses by Number of Employees

Table 19, also depicted in Chart 1, shows the frequency of responses by the number of employees. We notice that almost one quarter of the respondents indicated a very large organization (more than 10,000 employees) and slightly more than one quarter belonged to a very small firm (less than 100 employees). The remaining in between categories shared about one sixth each.
Table 19: Percent of Responses by Number of Employees
Cumulative Frequency Valid <100 100-999 1,000-5,000 5,000-10,000 >10,000 Total 120 90 79 70 115 474 Percent 25.3 19.0 16.7 14.8 24.3 100.0 Valid Percent 25.3 19.0 16.7 14.8 24.3 100.0 Percent 25.3 44.3 61.0 75.7 100.0

Chart 1: Percent of Responses by Number of Employees

46

Percent of Responses by Annual Business Revenue

Table 20 and Chart 2, show the frequency of responses by annual revenue. Almost 44% of the respondents indicated annual revenues greater than 250 million USD, about 24% between 25 and 250 million USD, and almost 32% less than 25 million USD.
Table 20: Company Annual Business by Revenue
Cumulative Frequency Valid >250M <25M 25-250M Total 208 151 115 474 Percent 43.9 31.9 24.3 100.0 Valid Percent 43.9 31.9 24.3 100.0 Percent 43.9 75.7 100.0

Chart 2: Company Annual Business by Revenue

47

Percent of Responses by Business Activity

According to Table 21 and Chart 3, 83.3% of the responses came from individuals that worked for a service-focused organization or organizations that focused both on products and services. Product focused organizations made up only 16.7% of the sample population.
Table 21: Percent of Responses by Business Activity
Cumulative Frequency Valid Services Products & Services Products Total 295 100 79 474 Percent 62.2 21.1 16.7 100.0 Valid Percent 62.2 21.1 16.7 100.0 Percent 62.2 83.3 100.0

Chart 3: Percent of Responses by Business Activity

48

Percent of Responses by Industry Type

According to Table 22, also depicted in Chart 5, 18.4% of the responses came from individuals that worked for education, 8.6% for government and most of the rest for various business industries.
Table 22: Percent of Responses by Industry Type
Valid Frequency Valid IT/Telecommunications Education Other Consulting Government Manufacturing & Process Industries Software Development Financial/Banking/Accounting Healthcare/Pharmaceutical Constructions/Architecture/Engineering Total 97 87 79 67 41 37 28 21 9 8 474 Percent 20.5 18.4 16.7 14.1 8.6 7.8 5.9 4.4 1.9 1.7 100.0 Percent 20.5 18.4 16.7 14.1 8.6 7.8 5.9 4.4 1.9 1.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 20.5 38.8 55.5 69.6 78.3 86.1 92.0 96.4 98.3 100.0

Chart 4: Percent of Responses by Industry Type

49

In Table 23, also depicted in Chart 5, we consolidate all business related industry types into a single business category. This will allow us later in Chapter 5 to use industry type as a control variable with meaningful frequencies.
Table 23: Percent of Responses by Industry Type (business consolidated in a single category)
Cumulative Frequency Valid Business Education Other Government Total 267 87 79 41 474 Percent 56.3 18.4 16.7 8.6 100.0 Valid Percent 56.3 18.4 16.7 8.6 100.0 Percent 56.3 74.7 91.4 100.0

Chart 5: Percent of Responses by Industry Type (business consolidated in a single category)

50

Percent of Responses by Job Position Level

According to Table 24, also depicted in Chart 6, 37.1% of the participants were managers or directors and 12% were executives, for a total of 39.1%. Technical and support staff were respectively 26.8% and 11.2% of the sample population.
Table 24: Percent of Responses by Job Position Level
Cumulative Frequency Valid Manager/Director Technical Staff Other Executive Support Staff Total 176 127 61 57 53 474 Percent 37.1 26.8 12.9 12.0 11.2 100.0 Valid Percent 37.1 26.8 12.9 12.0 11.2 100.0 Percent 37.1 63.9 76.8 88.8 100.0

Chart 6: Percent of Responses by Job Position Level

Percent of Responses by KM Stage

According to Table 25, also depicted in Chart 7, over 71% of the participants organizations were involved at different stages of KM implementations (40.1% had a KM program in place, 15.8% were in the process of setting up KM, and 15.2 were examining the need for a KM program). Slightly over 18% of the respondents indicated that their 51

organization either had considered and decided against a KM program or had no KM program. Only four of the 474 respondents (0.8%) stated that they had considered and decided against setting up a KM program.
Table 25: Percent of Responses by KM Stage within the Organization
Valid Frequency Valid Knowledge Management program is in place No program/Not considered one Currently setting up such program Examining need for such program Do not know Considered and decided against program Total 190 82 75 72 51 4 474 Percent 40.1 17.3 15.8 15.2 10.8 .8 100.0 Percent 40.1 17.3 15.8 15.2 10.8 .8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.1 57.4 73.2 88.4 99.2 100.0

Chart 7: Percent of Responses by KM Stage within the Organization

10.8% of the respondents indicated that they did not know if their organization had a KM program in place.

52

Percent of Responses by Organizational Level That Promotes KM

According to Table 26, also depicted in Chart 8, over half of the participants (51.3%) indicated that KM is promoted primarily by senior (25.9%) and middle (25.3%) management. 8% of KM initiatives resulted to be mandated at the board level.
Table 26: Percent of Responses by Organizational Level That Promotes KM
Cumulative Frequency Valid Senior Management Middle management Do not know Grass roots/employees Across the spectrum Board level Total 123 120 93 54 46 38 474 Percent 25.9 25.3 19.6 11.4 9.7 8.0 100.0 Valid Percent 25.9 25.3 19.6 11.4 9.7 8.0 100.0 Percent 25.9 51.3 70.9 82.3 92.0 100.0

Chart 8: Percent of Responses by Organizational Level That Promotes KM

Over one-fifth of the population sample indicated that KM is primarily promoted at the grassroots (11.4%) level or across the spectrum (9.7%). Those who did not know which level in the organization promoted the most the use of KM accounted for 19.6%. 53

Percent of Responses by Departmental or Functional Budget that Contributes the Most to KM

According to Table 27, also depicted in Chart 9, almost one third of the respondents (31%) indicated that the IT budget contributed the most to KM initiatives. Other participants indicated Training, learning and development (8.4%), Operations (7.8%), Human Resources (7.6%), Research and Development (4.6%), Marketing (4%), Consumer Services Sales (1.9%), Finance (0.8%), and others (7.4%). Over one-quarter of the population sample (26.4%) did not know which departmental or functional budget contributed the most to KM programs.
Table 27: Percent of responses by departmental/functional budget that contributes the most to KM
Valid Frequency Valid IT Do not know Training, learning & development Operations Human Resources Others R&D Marketing Consumer Services Sales Finance Total 147 125 40 37 36 35 22 19 9 4 474 Percent 31.0 26.4 8.4 7.8 7.6 7.4 4.6 4.0 1.9 .8 100.0 Percent 31.0 26.4 8.4 7.8 7.6 7.4 4.6 4.0 1.9 .8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 31.0 57.4 65.8 73.6 81.2 88.6 93.2 97.3 99.2 100.0

54

Chart 9: Percent of responses by departmental/functional budget that contributes the most to KM

Frequencies of Respondents for KM Beliefs

In the second part of the survey, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that the statements reported in Table 28 are critical factors for developing successful knowledge management within the enterprise.

55

Table 28: Factors of Successful KM (KMF) Variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Improvements in IT infrastructure Organizational buy-in and support Leadership involvement, support, and advocating Rewards system based on employee KM participation and support Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box" Continuous education of employees KM advocates and champions within the enterprise Identify enterprise core competencies and necessary knowledge domains to support those core competencies 9. Gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise knowledge 10. Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge 11. Developing an enterprise repository and database of information and knowledge 12. Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy and value to the enterprise - ability to eliminate old, outdated, incorrect, or unnecessary information and knowledge 13. Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees (automating information and knowledge to be easily accessible to employees) 14. Developing and promoting employee sharing and collaboration Each attitude statement was measured on a five-point Lickert scale: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. We will now look at the combined US and Italian responses for each of the variables in Table 28.

Improvements in IT infrastructure
According to Table 29, whose values are also represented in Chart 10, three quarters of the participants either agreed (51.1%) or strongly agreed (24.1%) that improvements in IT infrastructure are critical to the success of KM. The remaining quarter of the respondents were either neutral (18.6%), disagreed (5.7%) or strongly disagreed (0.6%).

56

Table 29: Frequency of Responses: Improvements in IT infrastructure

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 242 114 88 27 3 474 Percent 51.1 24.1 18.6 5.7 .6 100.0 Valid Percent 51.1 24.1 18.6 5.7 .6 100.0 Percent 51.1 75.1 93.7 99.4 100.0

Chart 10: Frequency of Responses: Improvements in IT infrastructure

Organizational buy-in and support

According to Table 30, whose values are also represented in Chart 11, almost 92% of the participants either strongly agreed (55.5%) or agreed (36.3%) that organizational buy-in and support are critical to the success of KM. The other responders were either neutral (6.8%), disagreed (1.3%) or strongly disagreed (0.2%).

57

Table 30: Organizational buy-in and support

Cumulative Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 263 172 32 6 1 474 Percent 55.5 36.3 6.8 1.3 .2 100.0 Valid Percent 55.5 36.3 6.8 1.3 .2 100.0 Percent 55.5 91.8 98.5 99.8 100.0

Chart 11: Organizational buy-in and support

Leadership involvement, support, and advocating

According to Table 31, whose values are also represented in Chart 12, more than 93% of the participants either strongly agreed (59.7) or agreed (33.8%) that leadership involvement, support, and advocating are critical to the success of KM. The other responders were either neutral (5.7%), disagreed (0.6%) or strongly disagreed (0.2%).

58

Table 31: Leadership involvement, support, and advocating

Cumulative Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Total 283 160 27 3 1 474 Percent 59.7 33.8 5.7 .6 .2 100.0 Valid Percent 59.7 33.8 5.7 .6 .2 100.0 Percent 59.7 93.5 99.2 99.8 100.0

Chart 12: Leadership involvement, support, and advocating

Rewards system based on employee KM participation and support

According to Table 32, whose values are also represented in Chart 13, almost 60% of the participants either agreed (41.8) or strongly agreed (17.3%) that rewards system based on employee KM participation and support are critical to the success of KM initiatives. A considerable percentage (31.6%) expressed neutrality on this topic. The other respondents either disagreed (8.2%) or strongly disagreed (1.1%).

59

Table 32: Rewards system based on employee KM participation and support

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 198 150 82 39 5 474 Percent 41.8 31.6 17.3 8.2 1.1 100.0 Valid Percent 41.8 31.6 17.3 8.2 1.1 100.0 Percent 41.8 73.4 90.7 98.9 100.0

Chart 13: Rewards system based on employee KM participation and support

Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box"

According to Table 33, whose values are also represented in Chart 14, over 82% of the participants either strongly agreed (42.2%) or agreed (40.3%) that a climate of openness and thinking "outside the box" is critical to the success of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (15.2%), disagreed (1.7%) or strongly disagreed (0.6%).

60

Table 33: Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box"

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 200 191 72 8 3 474 Percent 42.2 40.3 15.2 1.7 .6 100.0 Valid Percent 42.2 40.3 15.2 1.7 .6 100.0 Percent 42.2 82.5 97.7 99.4 100.0

Chart 14: Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box"

Continuous education of employees

According to Table 34, whose values are also represented in Chart 1, almost 87% of the participants either agreed (49.6%) or strongly agreed (37.1%) that continuous education of employees is critical to the success of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (11.6%) or disagreed (1.7%).

61

Table 34: Continuous education of employees

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Total 235 176 55 8 474 Percent 49.6 37.1 11.6 1.7 100.0 Valid Percent 49.6 37.1 11.6 1.7 100.0 Percent 49.6 86.7 98.3 100.0

Chart 15: Continuous education of employees

KM advocates and champions within the enterprise

According to Table 35, whose values are also represented in Chart 16, 80% of the participants either agreed (43.7%) or strongly agreed (36.3%) that KM advocates and champions within the enterprise are critical to the success of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (18.8%), disagreed (0.8%) or strongly disagreed (0.4%).

62

Table 35: KM advocates and champions within the enterprise

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Total 207 172 89 4 2 474 Percent 43.7 36.3 18.8 .8 .4 100.0 Valid Percent 43.7 36.3 18.8 .8 .4 100.0 Percent 43.7 80.0 98.7 99.6 100.0

Chart 16: KM advocates and champions within the enterprise

Identify enterprise core competencies and necessary knowledge domains to support those core competencies
According to Table 36, whose values are also represented in Chart 17, more than 83% of the participants either agreed (54.9%) or strongly agreed (28.5%) that identifying enterprise core competencies and necessary knowledge domains to support those core competencies are critical to the success of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (14.3%), disagreed (2.1%) or strongly disagreed (0.2%).

63

Table 36: Identify enterprise core competencies and necessary knowledge domains to support those core competencies
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 260 135 68 10 1 474 Percent 54.9 28.5 14.3 2.1 .2 100.0 Valid Percent 54.9 28.5 14.3 2.1 .2 100.0 Percent 54.9 83.3 97.7 99.8 100.0

Chart 17: Identify enterprise core competencies and necessary knowledge domains to support those core competencies

Gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise knowledge

According to Table 37, whose values are also represented in Chart 18, more than 86% of the participants either agreed (50.2%) or strongly agreed (36.3%) that gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise knowledge are critical to the success of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (11.4%) or disagreed (2.1%).

64

Table 37: Gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise knowledge

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Total 238 172 54 10 474 Percent 50.2 36.3 11.4 2.1 100.0 Valid Percent 50.2 36.3 11.4 2.1 100.0 Percent 50.2 86.5 97.9 100.0

Chart 18: Gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise knowledge

Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge

According to Table 38, whose values are also represented in Chart 19, more than 66% of the participants either agreed (49.8.9%) or strongly agreed (16.5%) that gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge are critical to the success of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (28.3%) or disagreed (5.5%).

65

Table 38: Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree Total 236 134 78 26 474 Percent 49.8 28.3 16.5 5.5 100.0 Valid Percent 49.8 28.3 16.5 5.5 100.0 Percent 49.8 78.1 94.5 100.0

Chart 19: Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge

Developing an enterprise repository and database of information and knowledge

According to Table 39, whose values are also represented in Chart 20, more than 85% of the participants either agreed (46.6%) or strongly agreed (38.8%) that developing an enterprise repository and database of information and knowledge is critical to the success of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (10.8%), disagreed (3.4%) or strongly disagreed (0.4%).

66

Table 39: Developing an enterprise repository and database of information and knowledge
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 221 184 51 16 2 474 Percent 46.6 38.8 10.8 3.4 .4 100.0 Valid Percent 46.6 38.8 10.8 3.4 .4 100.0 Percent 46.6 85.4 96.2 99.6 100.0

Chart 20: Developing an enterprise repository and database of information and knowledge

Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge

According to Table 40, whose values are also represented in Chart 21, more than 80% of the participants either agreed (42.4%) or strongly agreed (38.4%) that allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy and value to the enterprise (ability to eliminate old, outdated, incorrect, or unnecessary information and knowledge) is critical to the success of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (14.3%), disagreed (4.4%) or strongly disagreed (0.4%).

67

Table 40: Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy and value to the enterprise - ability to eliminate old, outdated, incorrect, or unnecessary information and knowledge
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 201 182 68 21 2 474 Percent 42.4 38.4 14.3 4.4 .4 100.0 Valid Percent 42.4 38.4 14.3 4.4 .4 100.0 Percent 42.4 80.8 95.1 99.6 100.0

Chart 21: Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy and value to the enterprise - ability to eliminate old, outdated, incorrect, or unnecessary information and knowledge

Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees

According to Table 41, whose values are also represented in Chart 22, more than 87% of the participants either agreed (45.6%) or strongly agreed (41.8%) that effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees (automating information and knowledge to be easily accessible to employees) is critical to the success of KM.

68

The remaining respondents were either neutral (11.6%), disagreed (0.8%) or strongly disagreed (0.2%).
Table 41: Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 216 198 55 4 1 474 Percent 45.6 41.8 11.6 .8 .2 100.0 Valid Percent 45.6 41.8 11.6 .8 .2 100.0 Percent 45.6 87.3 98.9 99.8 100.0

Chart 22: Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees

Developing and promoting employee sharing and collaboration

According to Table 42, whose values are also represented in Chart 23, more than 94% of the participants either strongly agreed (56.3%) or agreed (37.8%) that developing and promoting employee knowledge sharing and collaboration is critical to the success of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (5.1%), disagreed (0.4%) or strongly disagreed (0.4%).

69

Table 42: Developing and promoting employee sharing and collaboration

Cumulative Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 267 179 24 2 2 474 Percent 56.3 37.8 5.1 .4 .4 100.0 Valid Percent 56.3 37.8 5.1 .4 .4 100.0 Percent 56.3 94.1 99.2 99.6 100.0

Chart 23: Developing and promoting employee sharing and collaboration

Frequencies of Respondents for KM Expectations

In the third part of the survey, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that the statements reported in Table 43 are expected benefits to their enterprise from knowledge management.

70

Table 43: Knowledge Management Expectations (KME) Variables

1. Stimulation and motivation of employees 2. Formalized knowledge transfer system established (best practices, lessons learned) 3. Better on-the-job training of employees 4. Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity 5. Improved overall enterprise performance 6. Enhanced client relations - better client interaction 7. Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success 8. Improved employee retention 9. Improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage 10. Enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee to another 11. Means to identify industry best practices 12. Better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving 13. Enhance the development of business strategies 14. Enhance business development and the creation of enterprise opportunities 15. Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes Each attitude statement was measured on a five-point Lickert scale: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. We will now look at the combined US and Italian responses for each of the variables in Table 43.

Stimulation and motivation of employees

According to Table 44, whose values are also represented in Chart 24, almost 60% of the participants either agreed (49.6.1%) or strongly agreed (10.1%) that stimulation and motivation of employees are expected benefits of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (32.5%), disagreed (7.2%) or strongly disagreed (0.6%).

71

Table 44: Stimulation and motivation of employees

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 235 154 48 34 3 474 Percent 49.6 32.5 10.1 7.2 .6 100.0 Valid Percent 49.6 32.5 10.1 7.2 .6 100.0 Percent 49.6 82.1 92.2 99.4 100.0

Chart 24: Stimulation and motivation of employees

Formalized knowledge transfer system established

According to Table 45, whose values are also represented in Chart 25, 85% of the participants either agreed (55.3.1%) or strongly agreed (29.7%) that having formalized knowledge transfer system established (best practices, lessons learned) is an expected benefits of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (12.7%), disagreed (2.1%) or strongly disagreed (0.2%).

72

Table 45: Formalized knowledge transfer system established (best practices, lessons learned)
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 262 141 60 10 1 474 Percent 55.3 29.7 12.7 2.1 .2 100.0 Valid Percent 55.3 29.7 12.7 2.1 .2 100.0 Percent 55.3 85.0 97.7 99.8 100.0

Chart 25: Formalized knowledge transfer system established (best practices, lessons learned)

Better on-the-job training of employees

According to Table 45, whose values are also represented in Chart 25, almost 80% of the participants either agreed (53.6%) or strongly agreed (25.7%) that better on-the-job training of employees is an expected benefit of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (18.4%) or disagreed (2.3%).

73

Table 46: Better on-the-job training of employees

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Total 254 122 87 11 474 Percent 53.6 25.7 18.4 2.3 100.0 Valid Percent 53.6 25.7 18.4 2.3 100.0 Percent 53.6 79.3 97.7 100.0

Chart 26: Better on-the-job training of employees

Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity

According to Table 47, whose values are also represented in Chart 27, almost 75% of the participants either agreed (46.8%) or strongly agreed (27.8%) that enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity is an expected benefit of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (21.5%), disagreed (3.2%), or strongly disagreed (0.6%).

74

Table 47: Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 222 132 102 15 3 474 Percent 46.8 27.8 21.5 3.2 .6 100.0 Valid Percent 46.8 27.8 21.5 3.2 .6 100.0 Percent 46.8 74.7 96.2 99.4 100.0

Chart 27: Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity

Improved overall enterprise performance

According to Table 48, whose values are also represented in Chart 28, more than 84% of the participants either agreed (54.6%) or strongly agreed (29.7%) that improved overall enterprise performance is an expected benefit of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (14.1%), disagreed (1.1%), or strongly disagreed (0.4%).

75

Table 48: Improved overall enterprise performance

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 259 141 67 5 2 474 Percent 54.6 29.7 14.1 1.1 .4 100.0 Valid Percent 54.6 29.7 14.1 1.1 .4 100.0 Percent 54.6 84.4 98.5 99.6 100.0

Chart 28: Improved overall enterprise performance

Enhanced client relations - better client interaction

According to Table 49, whose values are also represented in Chart 29, more than 68% of the participants either agreed (48.1%) or strongly agreed (20.3%) that enhanced client relations (better client interaction) are expected benefits of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (25.9%), disagreed (5.3%), or strongly disagreed (0.4%).

76

Table 49: Enhanced client relations - better client interaction

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 228 123 96 25 2 474 Percent 48.1 25.9 20.3 5.3 .4 100.0 Valid Percent 48.1 25.9 20.3 5.3 .4 100.0 Percent 48.1 74.1 94.3 99.6 100.0

Chart 29: Enhanced client relations - better client interaction

Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success

According to Table 50, whose values are also represented in Chart 30, more than 58% of the participants either agreed (39.9%) or strongly agreed (18.6%) that development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success is an expected benefit of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (32.7%), disagreed (7.8%), or strongly disagreed (1.1%).

77

Table 50: Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 189 155 88 37 5 474 Percent 39.9 32.7 18.6 7.8 1.1 100.0 Valid Percent 39.9 32.7 18.6 7.8 1.1 100.0 Percent 39.9 72.6 91.1 98.9 100.0

Chart 30: Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success

Improved employee retention

According to Table 51, whose values are also represented in Chart 31, just over 40% of the participants either agreed (29.1%) or strongly agreed (11%) that improved employee retention is an expected benefit of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (the highest at 44.5%), disagreed (13.7%), or strongly disagreed (1.7%).

78

Table 51: Improved employee retention

Cumulative Frequency Valid Neutral Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Total 211 138 65 52 8 474 Percent 44.5 29.1 13.7 11.0 1.7 100.0 Valid Percent 44.5 29.1 13.7 11.0 1.7 100.0 Percent 44.5 73.6 87.3 98.3 100.0

Chart 31: Improved employee retention

Improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage

According to Table 52, whose values are also represented in Chart 32, more than 79% of the participants either agreed (55.3%) or strongly agreed (24.1%) that improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage is an expected benefit of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (17.3%), disagreed (3.2%), or strongly disagreed (0.2%).

79

Table 52: Improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 262 114 82 15 1 474 Percent 55.3 24.1 17.3 3.2 .2 100.0 Valid Percent 55.3 24.1 17.3 3.2 .2 100.0 Percent 55.3 79.3 96.6 99.8 100.0

Chart 32: Improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage

Enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee to another

According to Table 53, whose values are also represented in Chart 33, more than 87% of the participants either agreed (49.4%) or strongly agreed (38.2%) that enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee to another is an expected benefit of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (10.3%), disagreed (1.7%), or strongly disagreed (0.4%).

80

Table 53: Enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee to another

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 234 181 49 8 2 474 Percent 49.4 38.2 10.3 1.7 .4 100.0 Valid Percent 49.4 38.2 10.3 1.7 .4 100.0 Percent 49.4 87.6 97.9 99.6 100.0

Chart 33: Enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee to another

Means to identify industry best practices

According to Table 54, whose values are also represented in Chart 34, more than 77% of the participants either agreed (53%) or strongly agreed (24.5%) that acquiring means to identify industry best practices is an expected benefit of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (19.4%), disagreed (2.7%), or strongly disagreed (0.4%).

81

Table 54: Means to identify industry best practices

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 251 116 92 13 2 474 Percent 53.0 24.5 19.4 2.7 .4 100.0 Valid Percent 53.0 24.5 19.4 2.7 .4 100.0 Percent 53.0 77.4 96.8 99.6 100.0

Chart 34: Means to identify industry best practices

Better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving

According to Table 55, whose values are also represented in Chart 35, 80% of the participants either agreed (51.3%) or strongly agreed (28.7%) that better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving is an expected benefit of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (17.1%), or disagreed (3%).

82

Table 55: Better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Total 243 136 81 14 474 Percent 51.3 28.7 17.1 3.0 100.0 Valid Percent 51.3 28.7 17.1 3.0 100.0 Percent 51.3 80.0 97.0 100.0

Chart 35: Better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving

Enhance the development of business strategies

According to Table 56, whose values are also represented in Chart 36, 66% of the participants either agreed (49.8%) or strongly agreed (16.2%) that enhanced development of business strategies is an expected benefit of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (28.3%), disagreed (5.3%), or strongly disagreed (0.4%).

83

Table 56: Enhance the development of business strategies

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 236 134 77 25 2 474 Percent 49.8 28.3 16.2 5.3 .4 100.0 Valid Percent 49.8 28.3 16.2 5.3 .4 100.0 Percent 49.8 78.1 94.3 99.6 100.0

Chart 36: Enhance the development of business strategies

Enhance business development and the creation of enterprise opportunities

According to Table 57, whose values are also represented in Chart 37, over 60% of the participants either agreed (48.9%) or strongly agreed (15.2%) that enhanced business development and the creation of enterprise opportunities are expected benefits of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (30.8%), disagreed (4.9%), or strongly disagreed (0.2%).

84

Table 57: Enhance business development and the creation of enterprise opportunities
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 232 146 72 23 1 474 Percent 48.9 30.8 15.2 4.9 .2 100.0 Valid Percent 48.9 30.8 15.2 4.9 .2 100.0 Percent 48.9 79.7 94.9 99.8 100.0

Chart 37: Enhance business development and the creation of enterprise opportunities

Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes

According to Table 57, whose values are also represented in Chart 37, over 54% of the participants either agreed (40.3%) or strongly agreed (13.9%) that enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes are expected benefits of KM. The remaining respondents were either neutral (36.1%), disagreed (9.1%), or strongly disagreed (0.6%).

85

Table 58: Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 191 171 66 43 3 474 Percent 40.3 36.1 13.9 9.1 .6 100.0 Valid Percent 40.3 36.1 13.9 9.1 .6 100.0 Percent 40.3 76.4 90.3 99.4 100.0

Chart 38: Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes

Frequencies of Respondents for KM Practices

In the fourth and last part of the survey, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that the knowledge management practices reported in Table 59 were followed by their organization.

86

Table 59: Knowledge Management Practices (KMP) Variables

1. The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization 2. Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization 3. Our organization has a clear and strong commitment to knowledge management initiatives from senior management 4. Our organization has sufficient financial resources to support knowledge management initiatives 5. Our organizational culture encourages knowledge sharing 6. People in our organization have the time to share information 7. Teamwork is a critical component of our organization's culture, structure and processes 8. Our organizational strategies, structures, policies, procedures, processes and reward systems focus on long-term growth 9. Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a processoriented structure 10. Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies (i.e. intranet, database, email and digital libraries) 11. Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network 12. People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing Each attitude statement was measured on a five-point Lickert scale; (1) strongly disagree, (2) strongly agree, (3) neutral, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. We will now look at the combined US and Italian responses for each of the variables in Table 59.

The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization
According to Table 60, whose values are also represented in Chart 39, only little over 26% of the participants either agreed (21.5%) or strongly agreed (5.3%) that everyone in their organization clearly understands the benefits of knowledge-centric organization. The remaining respondents were either neutral (21.9%), disagreed (with the greatest number of responses at 39.5%) or strongly disagreed (11.8%).

87

Table 60: The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization
Cumulative Frequency Valid Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Total 187 104 102 56 25 474 Percent 39.5 21.9 21.5 11.8 5.3 100.0 Valid Percent 39.5 21.9 21.5 11.8 5.3 100.0 Percent 39.5 61.4 82.9 94.7 100.0

Chart 39: 1.The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization

Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization

According to Table 61, whose values are also represented in Chart 40, only little over 27% of the participants either agreed (21.3%) or strongly agreed (5.9%) that knowledge management is a top priority in their organization. The remaining respondents were either neutral (30.6%), disagreed (29.1%) or strongly disagreed (13.1%).

88

Table 61: Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization

Cumulative Frequency Valid Neutral Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Total 145 138 101 62 28 474 Percent 30.6 29.1 21.3 13.1 5.9 100.0 Valid Percent 30.6 29.1 21.3 13.1 5.9 100.0 Percent 30.6 59.7 81.0 94.1 100.0

Chart 40: Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization

Our organization has a clear and strong commitment to knowledge management initiatives from senior management
According to Table 62, whose values are also represented in Chart 41, only little over 29% of the participants either agreed (24.5%) or strongly agreed (5.3%) that their organizations have a clear and strong senior management commitment to knowledge management initiatives. The remaining respondents were either neutral (31.4%), disagreed (25.5%) or strongly disagreed (13.3%).

89

Table 62: Our organization has a clear and strong commitment to knowledge management initiatives from senior management
Cumulative Frequency Valid Neutral Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Total 149 121 116 63 25 474 Percent 31.4 25.5 24.5 13.3 5.3 100.0 Valid Percent 31.4 25.5 24.5 13.3 5.3 100.0 Percent 31.4 57.0 81.4 94.7 100.0

Chart 41: Our organization has a clear and strong commitment to knowledge management initiatives from senior management

Our organization has sufficient financial resources to support knowledge management initiatives
According to Table 63, whose values are also represented in Chart 42, little over 47% of the participants either agreed (32.9%) or strongly agreed (10.5%) that their organizations have sufficient financial resources to support knowledge management initiatives. The remaining respondents were either neutral (30.4%), disagreed (21.5%) or strongly disagreed (4.6%).

90

Table 63: Our organization has sufficient financial resources to support knowledge management initiatives
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Total 156 144 102 50 22 474 Percent 32.9 30.4 21.5 10.5 4.6 100.0 Valid Percent 32.9 30.4 21.5 10.5 4.6 100.0 Percent 32.9 63.3 84.8 95.4 100.0

Chart 42: Our organization has sufficient financial resources to support knowledge management initiatives

Our organizational culture encourages knowledge sharing

According to Table 64, whose values are also represented in Chart 43, little less than 47% of the participants either agreed (35.7%) or strongly agreed (11.2%) that their organizations culture encourages knowledge sharing. The remaining respondents were either neutral (24.5%), disagreed (20.3%) or strongly disagreed (8.4%).

91

Table 64: Our organizational culture encourages knowledge sharing

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Total 169 116 96 53 40 474 Percent 35.7 24.5 20.3 11.2 8.4 100.0 Valid Percent 35.7 24.5 20.3 11.2 8.4 100.0 Percent 35.7 60.1 80.4 91.6 100.0

Chart 43: Our organizational culture encourages knowledge sharing

People in our organization have the time to share information

According to Table 65, whose values are also represented in Chart 44, just over 32% of the participants either agreed (29.3%) or strongly agreed (3.2%) that people in their organization have the time to share information. The remaining respondents were either neutral (30.2%), disagreed (30%) or strongly disagreed (7.4%).

92

Table 65: People in our organization have the time to share information
Cumulative Frequency Valid Neutral Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Total 143 142 139 35 15 474 Percent 30.2 30.0 29.3 7.4 3.2 100.0 Valid Percent 30.2 30.0 29.3 7.4 3.2 100.0 Percent 30.2 60.1 89.5 96.8 100.0

Chart 44: People in our organization have the time to share information

Teamwork is a critical component of our organization's culture, structure and processes

According to Table 66, whose values are also represented in Chart 45, over 69% of the participants either agreed (43.9%) or strongly agreed (25.5%) that teamwork is a critical component of their organization's culture, structure and processes. The remaining respondents were either neutral (15.2%), disagreed (11.2%) or strongly disagreed (4.2%).

93

Table 66: Teamwork is a critical component of our organization's culture, structure and processes
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 208 121 72 53 20 474 Percent 43.9 25.5 15.2 11.2 4.2 100.0 Valid Percent 43.9 25.5 15.2 11.2 4.2 100.0 Percent 43.9 69.4 84.6 95.8 100.0

Chart 45: Teamwork is a critical component of our organization's culture, structure and processes

Our organizational strategies, structures, policies, procedures, processes and reward systems focus on long-term growth
According to Table 67, whose values are also represented in Chart 46, little less than 44% of the participants either agreed (34.4%) or strongly agreed (9.5%) that their organizational strategies, structures, policies, procedures, processes and reward systems focus on long-term growth. The remaining respondents were either neutral (31.2%), disagreed (16.5%) or strongly disagreed (8.4%).

94

Table 67: Our organizational strategies, structures, policies, procedures, processes and reward systems focus on long-term growth
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Total 163 148 78 45 40 474 Percent 34.4 31.2 16.5 9.5 8.4 100.0 Valid Percent 34.4 31.2 16.5 9.5 8.4 100.0 Percent 34.4 65.6 82.1 91.6 100.0

Chart 46: Our organizational strategies, structures, policies, procedures, processes and reward systems focus on long-term growth

Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a processoriented structure
According to Table 68, whose values are also represented in Chart 47, little over 30% of the participants either agreed (24.7%) or strongly agreed (5.7%) that their organizations evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a process oriented structure. The remaining respondents were either neutral (36.3%), disagreed (24.1%) or strongly disagreed (9.3%).

95

Table 68: Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a process-oriented structure
Cumulative Frequency Valid Neutral Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Total 172 117 114 44 27 474 Percent 36.3 24.7 24.1 9.3 5.7 100.0 Valid Percent 36.3 24.7 24.1 9.3 5.7 100.0 Percent 36.3 61.0 85.0 94.3 100.0

Chart 47: Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a process-oriented structure

Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies

According to Table 69, whose values are also represented in Chart 48, 64% of the participants either agreed (47.5%) or strongly agreed (16.5%) that their organizations have invested in knowledge management technologies (e.g. intranet, database, email and digital libraries). The remaining respondents were either neutral (20.7%), disagreed (11.4%) or strongly disagreed (4%).

96

Table 69: Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies

Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 225 98 78 54 19 474 Percent 47.5 20.7 16.5 11.4 4.0 100.0 Valid Percent 47.5 20.7 16.5 11.4 4.0 100.0 Percent 47.5 68.1 84.6 96.0 100.0

Chart 48: Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies

Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network
According to Table 70, whose values are also represented in Chart 49, almost 62% of the participants either agreed (45.1%) or strongly agreed (16.7%) that their organizations have the human resources necessary to support their information technology systems, software and network. The remaining respondents were either neutral (20.3%), disagreed (13.7%) or strongly disagreed (4.2%).

97

Table 70: Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network
Cumulative Frequency Valid Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 214 96 79 65 20 474 Percent 45.1 20.3 16.7 13.7 4.2 100.0 Valid Percent 45.1 20.3 16.7 13.7 4.2 100.0 Percent 45.1 65.4 82.1 95.8 100.0

Chart 49: Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network

People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing
According to Table 71, whose values are also represented in Chart 50, little over 29% of the participants either agreed (24.5) or strongly agreed (4.9%) that people in their organizations are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing. The remaining respondents were either neutral (31%), disagreed (25.7%) or strongly disagreed (13.9%).

98

Table 71: People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing
Cumulative Frequency Valid Neutral Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Total 147 122 116 66 23 474 Percent 31.0 25.7 24.5 13.9 4.9 100.0 Valid Percent 31.0 25.7 24.5 13.9 4.9 100.0 Percent 31.0 56.8 81.2 95.1 100.0

Chart 50: People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing

Data Collection Summary

In summary, we accepted 474 responses, half of which came from individuals resident in Italy and the other half from individuals resident in the USA. 95.4% of the respondents country of nationality was either the USA or Italy; 90.7% since birth. Almost 95% of the responses included companies whose headquarters were either in the USA or in Italy. Almost half of the responses were from individuals within small (24.3%) and very large (25.3%) organizations. 83.3% of the responses came from 99

individuals that worked for a service-focused organization or organizations that focused both on products and services. 18.4% of the responses came from individuals that worked for education, 8.6% for government, and most of the rest for various business industries. 37.1% of the participants were managers or directors and 12% were executives, for a total of 39.1%. Technical and support staff were respectively 26.8% and 11.2% of the sample population. Over 71% of the participants indicated that their organizations were involved at different stages of KM implementations. More than half of the participants (51.3%) indicated that KM is promoted primarily by senior (25.9%) and middle (25.3%) management, but also at the grassroots (11.4%) level and across the spectrum (9.7%). Almost one third of the respondents (31%) indicated that the IT budget contributed the most to KM initiatives. Most participants agreed or strongly agreed with the KM success factors (KMF) and KM expected benefits (KME). The results about the state of KM practices (KMP) within the participants organization show that not all organizations follow best practices. In the next chapter we will compare the means of the KMF, KME, and KMP variables between Italian and US participants. Also, descriptive statistics, analysis of variance to test our hypotheses, and linear regression will be performed on the data.

100

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

Chapter 5 Analysis of Results & Hypotheses Testing

In this chapter we will provide descriptive statistics for all factors of successful KM (KMF), KM expectations (KME), and KM practices (KMP). In order to quantify trends, we will develop a statistical index for each of the three factors: a single number derived from the average of the individual variables statistics.

Descriptive Statistics of KM Variables for Entire Sample

We now provide aggregate descriptive statistics for the entire sample.

101

Table 72: Ranked mean values of KMF variables for US and Italian responses
Std. N 1 Leadership involvement, support, and advocating 2
nd rd th st

Mean 4.52 4.49 4.46 4.28

Deviation .654 .654 .697 .714

474 474 474 474

Developing and promoting employee sharing and collaboration

3 Organizational buy-in and support 4 Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees (automating information and knowledge to be easily accessible to employees) 5 Continuous education of employees 6 Gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise knowledge 7 Developing an enterprise repository and database of information and knowledge 8 Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box" 9 KM advocates and champions within the enterprise 10 Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy and value to the enterprise - ability to eliminate old, outdated, incorrect, or unnecessary information and knowledge 11 Identify enterprise core competencies and necessary knowledge domains to support those core competencies 12 Improvements in IT infrastructure 13 Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge 14 Rewards system based on employee KM participation and support Valid N (listwise)
th th th th th th th th th th

474 474 474 474 474 474

4.22 4.21 4.20 4.20 4.15 4.14

.712 .721 .794 .801 .776 .851

474 474 474 474 474

4.09 3.92 3.77 3.66

.724 .840 .785 .894

As shown in Table 72 the three most important factors for successful KM are (1) leadership involvement, support, and advocating, (2) developing and promoting employee sharing and collaboration, and (3) organizational buy-in and support. On the other hand, the least important factors are (1) rewards systems, (2) acquisition of external enterprise knowledge, and (3) improvements in IT infrastructure. Overall respondents give a relatively high ranking to all variables, with a range of 3.66 to 4.52 in a scale of 1 to 5. Moreover, the low standard deviation in each variable indicates that the responses tended to be close to the mean.

102

Table 73: Ranked mean values of KME variables for US and Italian responses
Std. N 1 Enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee to another 2 3
nd st

Mean 4.23 4.12 4.12 4.06 4.03 4.00 3.98 3.98 3.82 3.76 3.74 3.67 3.61 3.58 3.34

Deviation .733 .717 .711 .758 .731 .748 .766 .824 .826 .799 .779 .902 .789 .862 .906

474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474

Formalized knowledge transfer system established (best practices, Improved overall enterprise performance

lessons learned)
rd th th th th th th

4 Better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving 5 Better on-the-job training of employees 6 Improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage 7 Means to identify industry best practices 8 Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity 9 Enhanced client relations - better client interaction 10 Enhance the development of business strategies 11 Enhance business development and the creation of enterprise opportunities 12 Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success 13 Stimulation and motivation of employees 14 Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes 15 Improved employee retention Valid N (listwise)
th th th th th th

As shown in Table 73 the three most important benefits of knowledge management are (1) enhanced knowledge transfer from one employee to the other, (2) formalized knowledge transfer (best practices, lessons learned), and (3) improved overall enterprise performance. On the other hand, the least benefits are (1) improved employee retention, (2) enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes, and (3) stimulation and motivation of employee. Respondents gave lower rankings to KME compared to KMF, but overall we find relatively high ranking for all variables, with a range of 3.34 to 4.23 (scale of 1 to 5). Moreover, we also find a low standard deviation in each variable which indicates that also for KME variables responses tended to be close to the mean.

103

Table 74: Ranked mean values of KMP variables for US and Italian responses
Std. N 1 Teamwork is a critical component of our organization's culture, structure and processes 2
nd st

Mean 3.75 3.61 3.56 3.23 3.21 3.20 2.93 2.91 2.83 2.81 2.78 2.69

Deviation 1.084 1.019 1.053 1.049 1.141 1.090 1.041 1.004 1.103 1.104 1.103 1.095

474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474 474

Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies

(i.e. intranet, database, email and digital libraries) 3 Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network 4 Our organization has sufficient financial resources to support knowledge management initiatives 5 Our organizational culture encourages knowledge sharing 6 Our organizational strategies, structures, policies, procedures, processes and reward systems focus on long-term growth 7 Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a process-oriented structure 8 People in our organization have the time to share information 9 Our organization has a clear and strong commitment to knowledge management initiatives from senior management 10 People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing 11 Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization 12 The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization Valid N (listwise)
th th th th th th th th th rd

As shown in Table 74, respondents indicated that within their organizations the three most followed KM practices are (1) teamwork, (2) KM technology investments, and (3) human resources for supporting technology. On the other hand, the least followed practices are (1) making sure all within the firm understand the benefits of a knowledge centric organization, (2) making KM a top priority for the organization, and (3) rewarding for continuous learning or knowledge sharing. Respondents gave the lowest rankings to KMP compared to KME and KMF, with a range of 2.69 to 3.75 (scale of 1 to 5). The standard deviation is higher than in the previous two cases, indicating a larger spread out over a larger range of values.

104

Descriptive Statistics of KM Variables by Country

Here we provide descriptive statistics grouped by country for all KM variables. Table 75, Table 76, and Table 77 provide a quick reference for comparing scores between the Italian and US sample populations.
Table 75: Means of KMF variables for Italian and US respondents
Std. Mean Improvements in IT infrastructure Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total 4.02 3.83 3.92 4.39 4.52 4.46 4.45 4.59 4.52 3.64 3.68 3.66 4.31 4.09 4.20 4.23 4.22 4.22 3.98 4.31 4.15 4.08 4.11 4.09 4.17 4.24 4.21 3.66 3.88 3.77 4.17 4.23 4.20 4.01 4.27 4.14 4.19 4.37 4.28 4.54 4.44 4.49 N 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 Deviation .683 .965 .840 .690 .699 .697 .666 .635 .654 .835 .951 .894 .709 .871 .801 .712 .713 .712 .739 .778 .776 .666 .779 .724 .725 .717 .721 .810 .744 .785 .811 .776 .794 .892 .788 .851 .738 .680 .714 .600 .703 .654

Organizational buy-in and support

Leadership involvement, support, and advocating

Rewards system based on employee KM participation and support

Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box"

Continuous education of employees

KM advocates and champions within the enterprise

Identify enterprise core competencies and necessary knowledge domains to support those core competenciesdimension0 Gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise knowledge

Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge

Developing an enterprise repository and database of information and knowledge

Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy and value to the enterprise - ability to eliminate old, outdated, incorrect, or unnecessary information and knowledge Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees (automating information and knowledge to be easily accessible to employees) Developing and promoting employee sharing and collaboration

105

Table 76: Means of KMF variables for Italian and US respondents

Std. Mean Stimulation and motivation of employees Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total 3.66 3.57 3.61 4.13 4.11 4.12 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.08 3.88 3.98 4.15 4.10 4.12 3.85 3.80 3.82 3.78 3.56 3.67 3.27 3.41 3.34 4.01 3.98 4.00 4.20 4.27 4.23 4.12 3.84 3.98 4.01 4.11 4.06 3.71 3.81 3.76 3.72 3.76 3.74 3.34 3.82 3.58 N 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 Deviation .752 .824 .789 .660 .770 .717 .703 .759 .731 .791 .845 .824 .676 .744 .711 .843 .809 .826 .855 .935 .902 .891 .919 .906 .710 .786 .748 .724 .743 .733 .699 .806 .766 .719 .793 .758 .777 .819 .799 .752 .806 .779 .805 .852 .862

Formalized knowledge transfer system established (best practices, lessons learned) Better on-the-job training of employees

Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity

Improved overall enterprise performance

Enhanced client relations - better client interaction

Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success

Improved employee retention

Improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage

Enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee to another

Means to identify industry best practices

Better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving

Enhance the development of business strategies

Enhance business development and the creation of enterprise opportunities

Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes

106

Table 77: Means of KMP variables for Italian and US respondents

Std. Mean The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total Italy USA Total 2.90 2.48 2.69 2.92 2.63 2.78 2.82 2.84 2.83 3.16 3.30 3.23 3.19 3.23 3.21 2.90 2.92 2.91 3.76 3.74 3.75 3.29 3.11 3.20 3.08 2.78 2.93 3.49 3.73 3.61 3.67 3.46 3.56 2.60 3.01 2.81 N 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 Deviation 1.051 1.099 1.095 1.106 1.084 1.103 1.084 1.124 1.103 1.045 1.050 1.049 1.160 1.124 1.141 .982 1.028 1.004 1.071 1.099 1.084 1.099 1.076 1.090 1.078 .983 1.041 1.060 .962 1.019 1.062 1.035 1.053 1.087 1.085 1.104

Our organization has a clear and strong commitment to knowledge management initiatives from senior management Our organization has sufficient financial resources to support knowledge management initiatives Our organizational culture encourages knowledge sharing

People in our organization have the time to share information

Teamwork is a critical component of our organization's culture, structure and processes Our organizational strategies, structures, policies, procedures, processes and reward systems focus on long-term growth Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a processoriented structure Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies (i.e. intranet, database, email and digital libraries) Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing

Descriptive Statistics of KM Indexes

For the purpose of providing a quantitative measure of the relative importance each country group gives to KM factors, expectations and practices we compute individual index scores by averaging the means of the responses for each variable within each category. The descriptive statistics for such indexes are reported in Table 78.

107

Table 78: Means of KMF, KME, and KMP Indexes for Italian and US respondents
95% Confidence Interval for Std. N KMF Index Cronbachs Alpha=0.798 KME Index Cronbachs Alpha=0.887 KMP Index Cronbachs Alpha=0.866 USA Italy Total USA Italy Total USA Italy Total 237 237 474 237 237 474 237 237 474 Mean 4.1983 4.1311 4.1647 3.8692 3.8712 3.8702 3.1034 3.1491 3.1262 Deviation .42966 .36542 .39983 .54515 .43489 .49259 .69981 .66820 .68385 Std. Error .02791 .02374 .01836 .03541 .02825 .02263 .04546 .04340 .03141 Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 4.1433 4.0843 4.1286 3.7994 3.8155 3.8257 3.0138 3.0636 3.0645 4.2533 4.1779 4.2008 3.9390 3.9268 3.9146 3.1929 3.2346 3.1880

To validate our assumption that the variables scored together within each category measure the same construct, we calculated Cronbach's Alpha to determine the internal consistency (average correlation) of the three sets of variables. The higher the Cronbachs Alpha value, the more reliable the generated index is. Our alpha values reported in Table 78 are greater than 0.7, which is considered to be an acceptable reliability coefficient (Nunnally 1981); therefore the derived indexes can be considered to be representative of the KME, KMF and KMP constructs. In the next section, we will perform analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the hypothesis that several means within each index are equal. This type of analysis will provide a statistical test of whether the means of the two country groups are all equal.

Hypotheses Testing
In this section we will test our research hypotheses using ANOVA. An important first step in the analysis of variance is establishing that the variances of the groups are equivalent. To test this assumption, we plot the means and standard errors and perform a Levene's homogeneity-of-variance test for each of the three indexes. According to Chart 51, Chart 52, and Chart 53, not only the means, but also variations in scores between the two country groups are very close for all three indexes. 108

Chart 51: KMF Index Homogeneity of Variance

Chart 52: KME Index Homogeneity of Variance

109

Chart 53: KMP Index Homogeneity of Variance

We report test results of Levenes homogeneity of variance test in Table 79 where we note that homogeneity of variance can be assumed for the KMF Index (0.056>0.05) and for the KMP Index (0.449>0.05), but not for the KME Index (0.003<0.05). Nevertheless, ANOVA is robust to this violation since the group sample size used in the test is equal; the F statistic is robust to unequal variances when sample sizes are equal or nearly equal (Cardinal 2006).
Table 79: LeveneTest of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic KMFIndex KMEIndex KMPIndex 3.682 9.113 .575 df1 1 1 1 df2 472 472 472 Sig. .056 .003 .449

Restatement of the Hypotheses

As discussed previously, the Italian and U.S. cultures belong to adjacent country clusters (See Figure 7 on page 35); Hofstedes culture dimensions scores are relatively similar. Since dissimilar cultures have shown significant differences in beliefs, expectations, and 110

practices of knowledge management indexes (Wang 2004), we anticipated that the similar cultures of Italy and the USA would show similarities, as stated in our hypotheses:

H1: There is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their beliefs about factors influencing successful knowledge management. H2: There is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their expectations about the benefits of knowledge management. H3: There is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their knowledge management practices.

Beliefs are quantified by the KMF Index, a computed value of averaged scores on all KM factor variables. Expectations are quantified by the KME Index, a computed value of averaged scores on all KM expectation variables. And practices are quantified by the KMP Index, a computed value of averaged scores on all KM factor variables. The results of our analysis of variance fail to reject our hypotheses. The results factored by country shown in Table 80 do not indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) in beliefs, expectations, and practices of knowledge management indexes between Italian and American respondents.
Table 80: ANOVA of KM Indexes Between Country Group

Hypothesis H1 H2 H3

KM Index KMF Index KME Index KMP Index

F 3.365 .002 .529

Sig. .067 .965 .467

111

Hypothesis 1 Finding
With p = 0.067 > 0.05, we accept the hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their beliefs about factors influencing successful knowledge management.

Hypothesis 2 Finding
With p = 0.965 > 0.05, we accept the hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their expectations about the benefits of knowledge management.

Hypothesis 3 Finding
With p = 0.529 > 0.05, we accept the hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their knowledge management practices.

Exceptions to our Hypotheses Findings

Although the data within the aggregate values of our indexes fails to reject our research hypotheses, some variables when looked at individually are statistically different. Table 81, Table 82, and Table 83 present the ANOVA results for the KMF, KME, and KMP variables respectively. Variables that are significantly different between country groups are marked in bold.

112

Table 81: ANOVA of KMF Variables by Country

Sum of Squares Improvements in IT infrastructure Between Groups Within Groups Total Organizational buy-in and support Between Groups Within Groups Total Leadership involvement, support, and advocating Between Groups Within Groups Total Rewards system based on employee KM participation Between Groups and support Within Groups Total Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box" Between Groups Within Groups Total Continuous education of employees Between Groups Within Groups Total KM advocates and champions within the enterprise Between Groups Within Groups Total Identify enterprise core competencies and necessary Between Groups knowledge domains to support those core Within Groups competencies Total Gathering and formalizing existing internal enterprise Between Groups knowledge Within Groups Total Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise Between Groups knowledge Within Groups Total Developing an enterprise repository and database of Between Groups information and knowledge Within Groups Total Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge Between Groups as to relevance, accuracy and value to the enterprise - Within Groups ability to eliminate old, outdated, incorrect, or Total unnecessary information and knowledge Effective and efficient methodology of distributing Between Groups knowledge to employees (automating information and Within Groups knowledge to be easily accessible to employees) Total Developing and promoting employee sharing and Between Groups collaboration Within Groups Total 4.272 329.840 334.112 1.899 227.671 229.570 2.297 199.992 202.289 .171 378.143 378.314 5.705 297.654 303.359 .019 239.722 239.741 13.167 271.789 284.956 .135 247.781 247.916 .540 245.198 245.738 5.705 285.688 291.392 .475 297.485 297.960 8.110 334.700 342.810 3.722 237.519 241.241 1.116 201.350 202.466 df 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 Mean Square F 4.272 .699 1.899 .482 2.297 .424 .171 .801 5.705 .631 .019 .508 6.113 Sig. .014*

3.936

.048*

5.422

.020*

.213

.644

9.046

.003*

.037

.847

13.167 22.866 .000* .576 .135 .525 .540 .519 5.705 .605 .475 .630 8.110 .709 3.722 .503 1.116 .427 .257 .612

1.040

.308

9.425

.002*

.753

.386

11.436 .001*

7.395

.007*

2.616

.106

* Significant at p < 0.05

113

Table 82: ANOVA of KME Variables by Country

Sum of Squares Stimulation and motivation of employees Between Groups Within Groups Total Formalized knowledge transfer system established Between Groups (best practices, lessons learned) Within Groups Total Better on-the-job training of employees Between Groups Within Groups Total Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity Between Groups Within Groups Total Improved overall enterprise performance Between Groups Within Groups Total Enhanced client relations - better client interaction Between Groups Within Groups Total Development of an entrepreneurial culture for Between Groups enterprise growth and success Within Groups Total Improved employee retention Between Groups Within Groups Total Improved ability to sustain a competitive advantage Between Groups Within Groups Total Enhanced transfer of knowledge from one employee Between Groups to another Within Groups Total Means to identify industry best practices Between Groups Within Groups Total Better methods for enterprise-wide problem solving Between Groups Within Groups Total Enhance the development of business strategies Between Groups Within Groups Total Enhance business development and the creation of Between Groups enterprise opportunities Within Groups Total Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative Between Groups processes Within Groups Total .930 293.418 294.348 .034 242.869 242.903 .002 252.641 252.643 4.660 316.169 320.829 .304 238.599 238.903 .357 322.110 322.466 5.705 378.954 384.658 2.027 386.287 388.314 .103 264.895 264.998 .540 253.932 254.473 9.190 268.675 277.865 1.116 270.346 271.462 1.116 300.945 302.061 .171 286.911 287.082 27.418 324.194 351.612 df 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 Mean Square F .930 .622 .034 .515 .002 .535 4.660 .670 .304 .506 .357 .682 5.705 .803 2.027 .818 .103 .561 .540 .538 9.190 .569 1.116 .573 1.116 .638 .171 .608 1.497 Sig. .222

.066

.798

.004

.950

6.957

.009*

.601

.439

.522

.470

7.105

.008*

2.477

.116

.184

.668

1.004

.317

16.144 .000*

1.948

.163

1.750

.186

.281

.596

27.418 39.918 .000* .687

* Significant at p < 0.05

114

Table 83: ANOVA of KMP Variables by Country

Sum of Squares The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric Between Groups organization are clearly understood by everyone in our Within Groups organization Total Knowledge management is a top priority in our Between Groups organization Within Groups Total Our organization has a clear and strong commitment Between Groups to knowledge management initiatives from senior Within Groups management Total Our organization has sufficient financial resources to Between Groups support knowledge management initiatives Within Groups Total Our organizational culture encourages knowledge Between Groups sharing Within Groups Total People in our organization have the time to share Between Groups information Within Groups Total Teamwork is a critical component of our Between Groups organization's culture, structure and processes Within Groups Total Our organizational strategies, structures, policies, Between Groups procedures, processes and reward systems focus Within Groups on long-term growth Total Our organization has evolved from a rigid Between Groups hierarchical structure to a process-oriented Within Groups structure Total Our organization has invested in knowledge Between Groups management technologies (i.e. intranet, database, Within Groups email and digital libraries) Total Our organization has the human resources to Between Groups support our information technology systems, Within Groups software and network Total People in our organization are often rewarded for Between Groups continuous learning or knowledge sharing Within Groups Total 21.521 545.890 567.411 10.044 565.696 575.741 .053 575.105 575.158 2.439 518.034 520.473 .255 616.068 616.323 .053 477.046 477.099 .053 556.068 556.120 3.901 558.059 561.960 10.635 502.338 512.973 7.344 483.451 490.795 5.487 519.114 524.601 19.443 556.700 576.143 df 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 1 472 473 Mean Square F Sig.

21.521 18.608 .000* 1.157 10.044 8.381 1.199 .053 1.218 2.439 1.098 .255 1.305 .053 1.011 .053 1.178 3.901 1.182 .043 .004*

.835

2.222

.137

.196

.659

.052

.819

.045

.833

3.299

.070

10.635 9.993 1.064 7.344 1.024 5.487 1.100 7.170

.002*

.008*

4.989

.026*

19.443 16.485 .000* 1.179

* Significant at p < 0.05

Impact of Control Variables

We will now investigate the effects of our control variables on the means of the two country groups for each of the KM indexes. In particular we will focus on the following variables: Job Type Company Size Industry Type Business Focus 115

We present a General Linear Model procedure to test for the null hypotheses about the effects of our control variables on the means of various groupings for each KM index. This allows us to investigate interactions between factors as well as help determine the significance of each individual factor. For each control variable we perform a Bonferroni test to evaluate the KM index significance level with multiple comparisons. We begin by evaluating the effects of the control variables on the KMF Index.
Table 84: Bonferroni Analysis of KMF Index by Country by Job Position Level
(I) Position Level: Executive
d i m e n s i o n 3

(J) Position Level: Manager/Director Other Support Staff Technical Staff Executive Other Support Staff Technical Staff Executive Manager/Director Support Staff Technical Staff Executive Manager/Director Other Technical Staff Executive Manager/Director Other Support Staff

Mean Difference (I-J) -.0819 -.1046 -.1007 -.0301 .0819 -.0226 -.0187 .0518 .1046 .0226 .0039 .0745 .1007 .0187 -.0039 .0705 .0301 -.0518 -.0745 -.0705

95% Confidence Interval Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.000 -.2529 .0890 1.000 -.3112 .1021 1.000 -.3147 .1134 1.000 -.2089 .1487 1.000 -.0890 .2529 1.000 -.1893 .1440 1.000 -.1945 .1570 1.000 -.0788 .1824 1.000 -.1021 .3112 1.000 -.1440 .1893 1.000 -.2067 .2146 1.000 -.1003 .2492 1.000 -.1134 .3147 1.000 -.1570 .1945 1.000 -.2146 .2067 1.000 -.1129 .2540 1.000 -.1487 .2089 1.000 -.1824 .0788 1.000 -.2492 .1003 1.000 -.2540 .1129

Manager/Director
d i m e n s i o n 3

Other
d i m e n s i o n 3 dimension2

Support Staff
d i m e n s i o n 3

Technical Staff
d i m e n s i o n 3

Based on Table 84, where we report the results of the Bonferroni test (post hoc test), we find no significant differences in model-predicted means for each pair of factor levels. Therefore there do not appear to be significant differences in the moderating factor of the participants job position level. Similarly Table 85, Table 86, and Table 87 indicate no significant differences in the moderating factor of the company industry type, business focus, and size (number of employees), respectively. 116

Table 85: Bonferroni Analysis of KMF Index by Country by Industry Type

95% Confidence Interval Mean Difference Lower Upper (I-J) Sig. Bound Bound Business Education -.0561 1.000 -.1871 .0749 Government -.0619 1.000 -.2399 .1160 Other .0302 1.000 -.1057 .1661 Education Business .0561 1.000 -.0749 .1871 Government -.0058 1.000 -.2068 .1951 Other .0863 .997 -.0786 .2512 Government Business .0619 1.000 -.1160 .2399 Education .0058 1.000 -.1951 .2068 Other .0922 1.000 -.1121 .2964 Other Business -.0302 1.000 -.1661 .1057 Education -.0863 .997 -.2512 .0786 Government -.0922 1.000 -.2964 .1121 For the Bonferroni test of the extended list of business sectors, see Appendix 4 (Table 99 on page 167) (I) Industry Type (J) Industry Type

Table 86: Bonferroni Analysis of KMF Index by Country by Business Focus

(I) Business focus: Products Services Products & Services (J) Business focus: Services Products & Services Products Products & Services Products Services Mean Difference (I-J) -.0585 -.0039 .0585 .0545 .0039 -.0545 Sig. .743 1.000 .743 .714 1.000 .714 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.1798 .0629 -.1482 .1403 -.0629 .1798 -.0563 .1654 -.1403 .1482 -.1654 .0563

Table 87: Bonferroni Analysis of KMF Index by Country by Company Size (Number of Employees)
(I) Number of Employees: <100 (J) Number of Employees: >10,000 5,00010,000 1,000-5,000 100-999 <100 5,00010,000 1,000-5,000 100-999 <100 >10,000 1,000-5,000 100-999 <100 >10,000 5,00010,000 100-999 <100 >10,000 5,00010,000 1,000-5,000 Mean Difference (I-J) -.0687 -.0611 -.0607 -.1083 .0687 .0076 .0079 -.0396 .0611 -.0076 .0003 -.0473 .0607 -.0079 -.0003 -.0476 .1083 .0396 .0473 .0476 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 .521 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .521 1.000 1.000 1.000 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.2156 .0782 -.2303 .1082 -.2238 -.2653 -.0782 -.1630 -.1565 -.1980 -.1082 -.1783 -.1844 -.2266 -.1023 -.1724 -.1851 -.2211 -.0486 -.1188 -.1321 -.1259 .1023 .0486 .2156 .1783 .1724 .1188 .2303 .1630 .1851 .1321 .2238 .1565 .1844 .1259 .2653 .1980 .2266 .2211

>10,000

5,000-10,000

1,000-5,000

100-999

117

We report the same type of Bonferroni test on the KME Index on Tables 89, 90, 91 and 92 where again we find no significant differences in the moderating factor of the participants job position level, and the company industry type, business focus, and size (number of employees), respectively.
Table 88: Bonferroni Analysis of KME Index by Country by Job Position Level
(I) Position Level: Executive (J) Position Level: Manager/Director Other Support Staff Technical Staff Executive Other Support Staff Technical Staff Executive Manager/Director Support Staff Technical Staff Executive Manager/Director Other Technical Staff Executive Manager/Director Other Support Staff Mean Difference (I-J) .0282 -.0694 .1541 .1351 -.0282 -.0976 .1259 .1069 .0694 .0976 .2235 .2045 -.1541 -.1259 -.2235 -.0190 -.1351 -.1069 -.2045 .0190 Sig. 1.000 1.000 .973 .819 1.000 1.000 .990 .594 1.000 1.000 .147 .072 .973 .990 .147 1.000 .819 .594 .072 1.000 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.1808 .2371 -.3219 .1832 -.1075 .4157 -.0834 .3537 -.2371 .1808 -.3013 .1061 -.0889 .3407 -.0527 .2666 -.1832 .3219 -.1061 .3013 -.0340 .4809 -.0091 .4181 -.4157 .1075 -.3407 .0889 -.4809 .0340 -.2431 .2052 -.3537 .0834 -.2666 .0527 -.4181 .0091 -.2052 .2431

Manager/Director

Other

Support Staff

Technical Staff

Table 89: Bonferroni Analysis of KME Index by Country by Industry Type

95% Confidence Interval Mean Difference Lower Upper (I-J) Sig. Bound Bound Business Education .0568 1.000 -.1051 .2187 Government -.0351 1.000 -.2551 .1850 Other .0364 1.000 -.1316 .2044 Business -.0568 1.000 -.2187 .1051 Education Government -.0919 1.000 -.3404 .1566 Other -.0204 1.000 -.2243 .1834 Business .0351 1.000 -.1850 .2551 Government Education .0919 1.000 -.1566 .3404 Other .0714 1.000 -.1810 .3239 Other Business -.0364 1.000 -.2044 .1316 Education .0204 1.000 -.1834 .2243 Government -.0714 1.000 -.3239 .1810 For the Bonferroni test of the extended list of business sectors, see Appendix 4 (Table 100 on page 170) (I) Industry Type (J) Industry Type

118

Table 90: Bonferroni Analysis of KME Index by Country by Business Focus

(I) Business focus: Products Services Products & Services (J) Business focus: Services Products & Services Products Products & Services Products Services Mean Difference (I-J) -.0232 -.0443 .0232 -.0211 .0443 .0211 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.1736 .1273 -.2230 .1345 -.1273 .1736 -.1585 .1164 -.1345 .2230 -.1164 .1585

Table 91: Bonferroni Analysis of KME Index by Country by Company Size (Number of Employees)
(I) Part 1/Q 7: Number of Employees: <100 (J) Part 1/Q 7: Number of Employees: >10,000 5,000-10,000 1,000-5,000 100-999 <100 5,000-10,000 1,000-5,000 100-999 <100 >10,000 1,000-5,000 100-999 <100 >10,000 5,000-10,000 100-999 <100 >10,000 5,000-10,000 1,000-5,000 Mean Difference (I-J) .0121 .0803 .0713 -.0770 -.0121 .0682 .0592 -.0891 -.0803 -.0682 -.0091 -.1574 -.0713 -.0592 .0091 -.1483 .0770 .0891 .1574 .1483 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .458 1.000 1.000 1.000 .517 1.000 1.000 .458 .517 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.1694 .1935 -.1288 .2895 -.1302 .2727 -.2710 .1169 -.1935 .1694 -.1426 .2791 -.1440 .2624 -.2848 .1066 -.2895 .1288 -.2791 .1426 -.2373 .2192 -.3790 .0643 -.2727 .1302 -.2624 .1440 -.2192 .2373 -.3627 .0661 -.1169 .2710 -.1066 .2848 -.0643 .3790 -.0661 .3627

>10,000

5,000-10,000

1,000-5,000

100-999

119

On the KMP Index we find no significant differences in the moderating factors of the participants job position level (Table 92), business focus (Table 94) and company size (Table 95), but we do find that significant differences between subset groups of the company industry type (Table 93).
Table 92: Bonferroni Analysis of KMP Index by Country by Job Position Level
(I) Position Level: Executive (J) Position Level: Manager/Director Other Support Staff Technical Staff Executive Other Support Staff Technical Staff Executive Manager/Director Support Staff Technical Staff Executive Manager/Director Other Technical Staff Executive Manager/Director Other Support Staff Mean Difference (I-J) .0902 .0110 .0817 .1448 -.0902 -.0792 -.0085 .0545 -.0110 .0792 .0707 .1338 -.0817 .0085 -.0707 .0631 -.1448 -.0545 -.1338 -.0631 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.2047 .3851 -.3455 .3674 -.2875 .4509 -.1637 .4532 -.3851 .2047 -.3667 .2082 -.3117 .2946 -.1707 .2798 -.3674 .3455 -.2082 .3667 -.2926 .4341 -.1676 .4352 -.4509 .2875 -.2946 .3117 -.4341 .2926 -.2534 .3795 -.4532 .1637 -.2798 .1707 -.4352 .1676 -.3795 .2534

Manager/Director

Other

Support Staff

Technical Staff

Table 93: Bonferroni Analysis of KMP Index by Country by Industry Type

(I) Industry Type Business (J) Industry Type Sig. Education .091 .001 Government Other 1.000 Education Business .091 Government .469 Other 1.000 .001 Business Government Education .469 .046 Other Other Business 1.000 Education 1.000 .046 Government *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. For the Bonferroni test of the extended list of business sectors, see Appendix 4 (Table 101 on page 172) Mean Difference (I-J) .2023 * .4272 .0809 -.2023 .2249 -.1214 * -.4272 -.2249 * -.3463 -.0809 .1214 * .3463 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.0177 .4223 .1283 .7261 -.1474 .3091 -.4223 .0177 -.1127 .5625 -.3984 .1555 -.7261 -.1283 -.5625 .1127 -.6893 -.0033 -.3091 .1474 -.1555 .3984 .0033 .6893

We note that

120

Table 93 reports significant differences when comparing responses from the government sector with the business (p = .001 < 0.05), and the non-classified sectors of other (p = 0.046 < 0.05).
Table 94: Bonferroni Analysis of KMP Index by Country by Business Focus
(I) Business focus: Products Services Products & Services (J) Business focus: Services Products & Services Products Products & Services Products Services Mean Difference (I-J) -.0459 -.0230 .0459 .0229 .0230 -.0229 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.2542 .1624 -.2705 .2245 -.1624 .2542 -.1674 .2131 -.2245 .2705 -.2131 .1674

Table 95: Bonferroni Analysis of KMP Index by Country by Company Size (Number of Employees)
(I) Number of Employees: <100 (J) Number of Employees: >10,000 5,000-10,000 1,000-5,000 100-999 <100 5,000-10,000 1,000-5,000 100-999 <100 >10,000 1,000-5,000 100-999 <100 >10,000 5,000-10,000 100-999 <100 >10,000 5,000-10,000 1,000-5,000 Mean Difference (I-J) .0733 .2127 .2417 .2537 -.0733 .1394 .1684 .1804 -.2127 -.1394 .0290 .0410 -.2417 -.1684 -.0290 .0120 -.2537 -.1804 -.0410 -.0120 Sig. 1.000 .366 .138 .073 1.000 1.000 .883 .581 .366 1.000 1.000 1.000 .138 .883 1.000 1.000 .073 .581 1.000 1.000 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.1750 .3217 -.0735 .4989 -.0340 .5175 -.0117 .5191 -.3217 .1750 -.1491 .4279 -.1097 .4465 -.0875 .4482 -.4989 .0735 -.4279 .1491 -.2834 .3414 -.2623 .3443 -.5175 .0340 -.4465 .1097 -.3414 .2834 -.2815 .3054 -.5191 .0117 -.4482 .0875 -.3443 .2623 -.3054 .2815

>10,000

5,000-10,000

1,000-5,000

100-999

121

Summary of Chapter 5
In Chapter 5 we provided descriptive statistics for all factors of successful KM (KMF), KM expectations (KME), and KM practices (KMP). Overall we found that the combined country group scores were relatively high for KMF and KME variables, but lower for KMP variables. Moreover, KMP scores had standard deviation values higher than those of KMF and KME variables, indicating a larger spread over a larger range of values. Descriptive statistics grouped by country for all KM variables were provided to compare scores between the Italian and U.S. sample populations. We found that mean score values were relatively close between the two country groups. Moreover, standard deviation values for each variable were comparatively close between country groups, indicating that the spread over the range of values was similar between country groups. We provided a quantitative measure of the relative importance each country group gave to KM factors, expectations and practices by computing individual index scores (KMF Index, KME Index, and KMP Index). Cronbachs Alpha values validated the use of the derived indexes for representing the KME, KMF, and KMP constructs. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the means between our U.S. and Italian responses to the KM indexes. Our ANOVA results confirmed our hypotheses that there would not be a significant difference in beliefs, expectations, and practices of knowledge management between Italian and American respondents. Although the data within the aggregate values of our indexes failed to reject our hypotheses, individual ANOVAs on all variables did find areas with significant differences. Generalized Linear Model (GLM) univariate tests were performed to look for differences within our control variables: participants job position level, company industry type, business focus, and size. The differences revealed by the individual ANOVAs and the GLM will be further explored in Chapter 6.

122

We can't have full knowledge all at once. We must start by believing; then afterwards we may be led on to master the evidence for ourselves. Saint Thomas Aquinas

Chapter 6 Conclusions

In this final chapter, we will review our research aim and draw conclusions from our findings. In particular, we will discuss the similarities in perceptions that were found between American and Italian participantswhich support our hypothesesand interpret the individual areas of knowledge management beliefs, expectations and practices where significant differences were found.

Brief Review of the Purpose of our Study

Extensive literature has been published in support of the importance of knowledge management for achieving and maintaining competitive advantage across all types of organizations. However only limited research is available to understand how KM may be influenced by national culture. The George Washington Universitys Institute for Knowledge and Innovation has undertaken KM-related research studies, and has completed, or is in the process of completing, findings from various parts of the world. In particular, in 2004 Wang completed a study, which compared KM perceptions between Taiwanese and American knowledge workers. In his study, Wang found that the two dissimilar cultures of Taiwan 123

and USA produced significant differences in beliefs, expectations, and practices of knowledge management. Since the dissimilar cultures of the U.S. and Taiwan have shown significant differences in KM perceptions, we anticipated through our hypotheses that the similar cultures of Italy and the USA would show primarily similarities. For the readers convenience we re-present our research question and stipulated hypotheses below. The primary question motivating our research was: Do Italian and American cultural attributes influence the respective beliefs, expectations and practices of their citizens regarding Knowledge Management? This primary question resulted in the following hypotheses:

H1: There is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their beliefs about factors influencing successful knowledge management. H2: There is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their expectations about the benefits of knowledge management. H3: There is a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of Italian and US respondents and their knowledge management practices.

Overview of our Research Methodology

For continuity and comparative purposes we used Wangs research methodology as a starting point, including the usage of a previously validated survey instrument for assessing an individuals perception of KM beliefs, expectations, and practices (from Bixler 2000 and Calabrese 2000). We have solicited participation in our study to Italian 124

and American knowledge workers; the subjects of our study were employees and managers expected to be involved in knowledge management activities. Questionnaires were completed online at www.km-research.com in English by U.S. nationals and in Italian by the Italian nationals. We sent out at various points during our data collection phase a total of 1,935 survey invitations, which included an individually assigned access key to prevent duplicate submissions. We received a total of 637 responses, of which 474 were accepted; 237 for the U.S. and 237 for the Italian sample population. Almost 95% of the responses included companies whose headquarters were either in the USA or in Italy. Demographical data, including participants job level position, and company industry type, size (number of employees) and focus (products vs. services) were collected for use as control variables.

Overview of our Research Findings

Overall the combined country group scores were relatively high for success factors of KM (KMF) and KM expectations (KME), but lower for the KM practices (KMP) variables. Moreover, KMP scores had standard deviation values higher than those of KMF and KME variables, indicating a larger spread over a larger range of values. Descriptive statistics grouped by country for all KM variables show that mean score values were relatively close between the two country groups. Moreover, standard deviation values for each variable were comparatively close between country groups, indicating that the spread over the range of values was similar between country groups. We provided a quantitative measure of the relative importance each country group gave to KM factors, expectations and practices by computing individual index scores (KMF Index, KME Index, and KMP Index). Cronbachs Alpha values validated the use of the derived indexes for representing the KME, KMF, and KMP constructs. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on such indexes confirmed our hypotheses that there would not be a significant difference in beliefs, expectations, and practices of knowledge management 125

between Italian and American respondents (Table 80 on page 111 reports low scores for the F value and p values above 0.05, indicating no significant differences between country groups).

Exceptions
Although the data within the aggregate values of our indexes failed to reject our hypotheses, individual ANOVAs on all variables did find areas with significant differences between Italian and American respondents (See Table 96 below).
Table 96: KM Variables with p < 0.05 scores for ANOVA by Country

Variables Improvements in IT infrastructure Organizational buy-in and support Leadership involvement, support, and advocating Climate of openness and thinking "outside the box" KM advocates and champions within the enterprise KMF index Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy and value to the enterprise Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise KME Index growth and success Means to identify industry best practices Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization Knowledge Management is a top priority in our organization Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a process-oriented structure KMP Index Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing
* Denotes that variable was affected by the industry type control variable

Index

p Scores .014 .048 .020 .003 .000 .002 .001 .007 .009 .008 .000 .000 .000* .004* .002* .008 .026 .000

126

Chart 54, Chart 55, and Chart 56 provide an illustration of the means for each of the significantly different variables from Table 96. From these charts we notice relatively small differences in mean values between Italy and the USA. While the mean values may appear to be close between the two country groups, such observation cannot be considered statistically significant; the ANOVA test has determined that the means between the two groups are significantly different.

127

Chart 54: KM success factors where significant changes where found between Italy and USA

Chart 55: KM expectations where significant changes where found between Italy and USA

128

Chart 56: KM practices where significant changes where found between Italy and USA

In Chapter 5 we investigated the effects of our control variables (job position level, company size, industry type, and focus) for the two country groups. For each control variable we performed a Bonferroni test to evaluate for significant differences for each of the three KM indexes. The test revealed no significant differences on all control variables for the KMF and KME indexes, but found some differences on the industry type control variable for the KMP index. Table 97 re-proposes the cross-evaluation of industry types where such differences (p < 0.05) were calculated.
Table 97: Significant differences of KMP Index by Country by Industry Type (from Table 93 p. 120)

Industry (I) Government Government

Industry (J) Business Other

p Score .001 .046

Additional Bonferroni tests for the cross-evaluation by country and by industry type are proposed from Table 102 to Table 107.

129

Impact of Uncertainty Avoidance in KM Perceptions

As stated earlier, Italy and the U.S. are part of two adjacent country clusters; their index scores for power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance are relatively close. The largest difference between Italian and American dimensions is that of uncertainty avoidance (UA); Italys UA was higher. In Chapter 3, we observed that the difference in uncertainty avoidance between the two countries was greater than one full standard deviation, and hence could account for country effects on knowledge management perceptions. Societies that score high in uncertainty avoidance seek orderliness, formal business meetings, meticulous records, consistency, structure, procedures and written rules and regulations to alleviate the unpredictability of events and situations in their daily life (House 2004). The aversion to uncertainty makes high UA societies take additional measures to reduce risks. While the additional overhead may slow down innovation, new product implementations tend to be easier because of the additional controls and documented procedures (House 2004). In Table 98 we present a list of key differences between low and high uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) societies that are expected to be either a barrier or an enabler for knowledge management. This list is drawn from a longer list of key differences discussed by Hofstede (2001).

130

Table 98: Key differences between low and high UAI societies (From Hofstede 2001 p. 169-168)

Low UA In Motivation Hope for success. Preference for tasks with uncertain outcomes, calculated risks, and requiring problem solving. Weak loyalty to employer; short average duration of employment. Preference for smaller organizations but little self-employment. Skepticism towards technological solutions. Innovators feel independent of rules. Renegade championing. Top managers involved in strategy. Fear of Failure.

High UA

Preference for tasks with sure outcomes, no risks, and following instructions.

In the Work Situation Strong loyalty to employer, long average duration of employment. Preference for larger organizations but at the same time much self-employment. Strong appeal of technological solutions. Innovators feel constrained by rules. Rational championing. Top managers involved in operations.

Power of superiors depends on position and Power of superiors depends on control of relationships. uncertainties. Tolerance for ambiguity in structures and procedures. Appeal of transformational leader role. Innovations welcomed but not necessarily taken seriously. Belief in generalists and common sense. Superiors optimistic about employees ambition and leadership capacities. Highly formalized conception of management. Appeal of hierarchical control role. Innovations resisted, but, if accepted, applied consistently. Belief in specialists and expertise. Superiors pessimistic about employees ambition and leadership capacities.

Next, we will review each of the KMF, KME, and KMP variables where areas of significant differences were found.

131

Factors of Successful KM (KMF) affected by UA

We begin by looking at the differences that relate to critical factors for developing successful knowledge management within the enterprise. We will report the mean scores and standard deviations for each affected variable for each country. While the ANOVA for these variables did find significant differences in variance between the two distinct sample populations, descriptive statistics report relatively small differences; the gap in country means is less than a single standard deviation of the total population sample (see Table 75 on page 105).

Improvements in IT infrastructure to support KM

For this variable Italys mean score was slightly higher than that of the U.S. (4.02 vs. 3.92) and greater consensus was found within the Italian sample population than in that of the U.S. (0.683 vs. 0.965 standard deviations). Here, the American sample population may be expressing skepticism towards technological solutions, not in discarding technology per se, rather, in the sense that creativity is favored over rote adherence to rule-derived results. Conversely, the Italian sample population may initially resist the adoption of IT, but once accepted it will apply it consistently in support of KM initiatives.

Organizational buy-in and support

For this variable the U.S. mean score was slightly higher than that of Italy (4.52 vs. 4.39), consensus within the two sample population was relatively similar (0.699 vs. 0.690 standard deviations). The ANOVA significance for this variable was at p = 0.048 < 0.05, which barely accounts for a significant difference. Most barriers to success with knowledge management are highly related to the culture and structure of the organization. For both countries, promoting a collaborative culture right from the beginning will more likely allow for organizational buy-in and support. For Italians a rational championing of KM initiatives may increase buy-in and support.

Leadership involvement, advocacy and support

For this variable the U.S. mean score was slightly higher than that of Italy (4.59 vs. 4.45), consensus within the two sample populations was relatively similar (0.635 vs. 0.666 132

standard deviations). The higher uncertainty avoidance of Italy, which results in appeal for hierarchical control, may hinder the free-flow of knowledge. Therefore, companies should make sure that senior management is receptive to ideas from employees and thus fostering internal relationships across the hierarchy.

Climate of openness and thinking outside the box

For this variable Italys mean score was relatively higher than that of the U.S (4.31 vs. 4.09) and greater consensus was found within the Italian sample population than for the U.S. (0.709 vs. 0.871 standard deviations). Knowledge workers may be too busy to share knowledge or may intentionally not want to share, under the notion that knowledge is power and for job preservation. In the typically less structured approach of low uncertainty avoidance societies may benefit from more formalized sharing by, for example, requiring knowledge workers to find the time to share. KM must be a priority at the organizational level. The high employee turnover of countries with low uncertainty avoidance makes knowledge capturing even more critical for preventing employee knowhow to leave with the employee.

Gathering and formalizing existing external enterprise knowledge

For this variable the U.S. mean score was slightly higher than that of Italy (3.88 vs. 3.66), consensus within the two sample population was relatively similar (0.744 vs. 0.810 standard deviations). Overall this factor received the second lowest score within the KMF variables. U.S. and Italian knowledge workers may need to better understand the importance of acquiring external knowledge. Such knowledge can be acquired through online resources (e.g. online communities of interest and communities of practice), conferences and training, and collaborating on projects with business partners and so on. At least in part, the fact that today English is the most used business language, gives U.S. knowledge workers an advantage when seeking external knowledge. In fact, the lower score on the part of the Italians may be due in part to not having access to the same amount of information in the Italian language.

133

Allocating resources to manage enterprise knowledge as to relevance, accuracy, and value to the enterprise
For this variable the U.S. mean score was slightly higher than that of Italy (4.27 vs. 4.01), consensus within the two sample population was higher for the U.S. (0.788 vs. 0.892 standard deviations). The ability to eliminate old, outdated, incorrect, or unnecessary information and knowledge is perceived as more important to the American knowledge worker. Supporting technologies must be designed to allow content to be versioned, annotated, rated, and archived in an easy and intuitive way. The lower Italian score can be partially explained by the high proportion of small and medium business which tend to have fewer resources at disposal for such projects.

Effective and efficient methodology of distributing knowledge to employees

For this variable the U.S. mean score was slightly higher than that of Italy (4.37 vs. 4.19), consensus within the two sample population was higher for the U.S. (0.680 vs. 0.738 standard deviations). Automating information and knowledge for easy access and making interfaces that interconnect information and knowledge from within commonly used applications (e.g. document repositories, database, and company web portals) will overall increase the value and hence the acceptance by high uncertainty avoidance societies.

KM Expectations (KME) affected by UA

We will now look at the differences between Italian and U.S. expected benefits from knowledge management initiatives. Also here, we will report the mean scores and standard deviations recorded for each variable by each country. While the ANOVA for these variables did find significant differences in variance between the two sample populations, descriptive statistics report relatively small differences; the gap in country means is less than a single standard deviation of the total population sample (see Table 76 on page 106).

134

Enhanced enterprise innovation and creativity

For this variable Italys mean score was slightly higher than that of the U.S (4.08 vs. 3.88) and more consensus was found within the Italian sample population than in that of the U.S. (0.791 vs. 0.845 standard deviations). The higher score of the Italian sample population can be explained from the higher appeal that technological solutions have to high UA societies. Hence, the expected benefit of having KMwhich may be perceived as a technological solutionis greater for Italians. Additionally, high UA societies will tend to favor the presence of more accessible information because this would tend to minimize risks for innovative efforts.

Development of an entrepreneurial culture for enterprise growth and success

For this variable Italys mean score was slightly higher than that of the U.S (3.78 vs. 3.56) and greater consensus was found within the Italian sample population than in that of the U.S. (0.855 vs. 0.935 standard deviations). Both countries did not score this highly; indicating that KM is not perceived as a substitute for genuine entrepreneurial breakthroughs. However, the higher Italian score points to the cultural preferences that Italians have for having more information available to minimize potential problems and risks associated with entrepreneurial activity and enterprise growth initiatives. For example, the American might approach a business opportunity more readily without having all the facts; an Italian, might be more cautious, but with additional information, may go forward.

Means to identify industry best practices

For this variable Italys mean score was slightly higher than that of the U.S (4.12 vs. 3.84) and greater consensus was found within the Italian sample population than in that of the U.S. (0.699 vs. 0.806 standard deviations). Because high UA societies tend to place more importance on leadership or specialist positions, having access to expert knowledge is equivalent to obtaining best practices. Low UA societies tend to be more skeptical of formalized approaches and hence may not view KM as a conduit to best practice as much.

135

Enhanced and streamlined internal administrative processes

For this variable the U.S. mean score was slightly higher than that of the Italy (3.82 vs. 3.34) and greater consensus was found within the American sample population than in that of the Italian (0.852 vs. 0.805 standard deviations). High UA societies may already have highly structured administrative processes due to the increased bureaucratic and regulatory environment; hence, KMs impact may be perceived as less of an enabler.

KM Practice (KMP) affected by UA

Overall the mean scores for all KMP variables are lower than that of the KME and KMF. Moreover the standard deviations are higher than in KME and KMF, indicating fewer consensuses within the individual ratings of knowledge management practices. To visualize the complete descriptive statistics for the KMP variables the reader may refer back to Table 78 on page 118. In Chapter 5 we reported significant differences within the KMP Index scores when performing multiple-comparisons on the participants industry type control variable, in particular when evaluating differences between government and business sectors. Such finding indicates that the ANOVA differences in KM practices for each KMP variable may at least in part due to differences by country within the business sectors.

The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization.
For this variable Italys mean score was higher than that of the U.S (2.90 vs. 2.48) and slightly less consensus was found within the Italian sample population than in that of the U.S. (1.051 vs. 1.099 standard deviations). As KM is a relatively new phenomenon, this in itself may explain the low scores. Organizations should implement awareness programs (e.g. posters, brown bag lunches, webinars, round table discussions, etc.) to heighten the awareness of the benefits of KM.

Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization.

For this variable Italys mean score was higher than that of the U.S (2.92 vs. 2.63) and slightly more consensus was found within the Italian sample population than in that of the 136

U.S. (1.106 vs. 1.084 standard deviations). As above, low scores are probably due to the relative newness of KM. This is unfortunate due to the significant gains that any organization can obtain through the controlled sharing of vital knowledge among its work force. Organizations that make KM a priority will see the fruits of this effort sooner than those that put it offit takes time for the gains to become apparent. Additionally, organizations are not used to putting a monetary value on their knowledge base; hence it is more complex to assign budgets and priorities to implement KM initiatives. Companies should develop ways to value their knowledge to better anchor KM investment decisions and priorities.

Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a processoriented structure
For this variable Italys mean score was higher than that of the U.S (3.08 vs. 2.78), but less consensus was found within the Italian sample population than in that of the U.S. (1.078 vs. 0.983 standard deviations). Italys higher score may be explained as follows. Since high UA societies start from a more rigid hierarchical structure, their change from these rigid hierarchical structures to process-based ones are more apparent and impactful.

Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies

For this variable the U.S. mean score was higher than that of the Italy (3.73 vs. 3.49) and greater consensus was found within the American sample population than in that of the Italian (0.962 vs. 1.060 standard deviations). The higher U.S. score is most likely due to the fact that KM initiatives have been around longer in the U.S. than in Italy. But companies in both nations need to more fully understand how to value their knowledge base to justify KM investment. Additionally, Italians, as high UA individuals, tend to resist innovation initially, but will embrace it more consistently once it is accepted. Hence there could be a lag before wide-spread adoption occurs.

Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network
For this variable Italys mean score was higher than that of the U.S (3.67 vs.3.46), but less consensus was found within the Italian sample population than in that of the U.S. 137

(1.062 vs. 1.035 standard deviations). Both countries seem to be saying that staff exists presently to support technology and information systems in general. Hence, the implementation of a KM solution is not hindered by the lack of human resources.

People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing
For this variable the U.S. mean score was higher than that of the Italy (3.01 vs. 2.60). The level of consensus between the American and Italian sample populations was almost equal (standard deviations were 1.085 for U.S. and 1.087 for Italy). Recognition and rewards are important enablers of KM, but must be carefully administered. If an organization rewards employees for the number of contributions to the organizations knowledge (e.g. number of entries within a KM system), this may cause employees to record as much as they can, regardless of the usefulness of what is being recorded, just to get the reward. Knowledge contributions must, when possible, be tied to outcomes (e.g. new products, patents, or lessons learned). Organizations should reward employees who contribute the best-quality knowledge entered. Rewarding employees with training may also be a good way to further foster learning; most high performing employees will gladly accept the opportunity to receive additional training.

Conclusions
As global markets become increasingly local, and national boundaries become less meaningful, it is precisely the cultural differences between business actors that will become increasingly significant. While knowledge management itself is well documented in the literature, the important characterization of how it is perceived under a culture-specific lens is less so. Our study contributes to the need of approaching knowledge management initiatives in light of cultural differences. Our exploratory study found that Italian and American knowledge workers do not have significant differences in belief, expectations and practices of knowledge management indexes. Therefore, for the most part, knowledge management and its organizational aspects (strategies, policies and procedures) should not vary much between the two countries. What works in the United States should work in Italy. 138

The survey scores on beliefs and expectations at the individual level were relatively high for both countries. Participants from both countries indicated a positive perception, both on the factors influencing successful knowledge management, and on the expected benefits of having a knowledge management initiative in place. On the other hand, participants from both countries scored relatively lower on the knowledge management practices being followed by their organizations. Therefore, while there is an overall positive perspective on knowledge management, participants felt that KM best-practices are not currently being adopted or followed to the extend that they could be. The lower that optimal adoption of KM best-practices requires that practitioners find ways to justify investments in KM initiatives. The impact that knowledge management has on an organizations bottom-line is not easy to quantify. Moreover, tangible and intangible results of a KM program are not immediately apparent; the fruits of such efforts may be seen only after some time. Tying knowledge management objectives to tangible and measurable outcomes may particularly benefit organizations operating in high uncertainty avoidance societies like Italy who may otherwise resist adoption.

Future Research
Being an exploratory study, our research did not focus on a specific business type or sector, or on tests from comparable company sizes. Future research may want to further explore differences within such control variables, particularly relating to knowledge management practices. We would be willing to partner with future researchers in the field of study, by facilitating replication of our study in different languages and for different countries through our online survey application. A considerable amount of effort was put in developing our online survey application, which to date continues to receive new survey submissions. Not only did the application facilitate the completion of the survey, but it included administrative tools for soliciting participation and most importantly for evaluating data as it was being collected. We are considering developing end-user tools for dynamically reporting the findings from our survey data; allowing web users to interact with our data (comparing subsets, slicing, 139

reporting, etc). We would also like to make the experience of completing the survey more interactive, for example once completed, the system could give the participant a personalized view of how his or her perceptions compare to others from the same country and/or from similar control variables. We would also like to allow organizations to use our tool as an internal KM assessment tool. Collected data for the organizations employees could be reported back to the organization and continue to enrich our data and help us further our insights into the field of study.

140

References
Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (2003). "Towards a Cultural Ontology for Interorganizational Knowledge Processes." Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 1: 8c. Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (2008). Knowledge management and business strategies : theoretical frameworks and empirical research. Hershey, Information Science Reference. Al-Khalifa, H. S. and H. C. Davis (2007). "Exploring the value of folksonomies for creating semantic metadata." International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 3(1): 12-38. Allen, S. (2008). The emergence of the relationship economy : the new order of things to come. Cupertino, CA, Happy About. Andriole, S. J. (2009). Best practices in business technology management. Boca Raton, CRC Press. Bixler, C. (2000). Creating a Dynamic Knowledge Management Maturity Continuum for Increased Enterprise Performance and Innovation, George Washington University, May 2000.: various leaves. Calabrese, F. A. (2000). A suggested framework of key elements defining effective enterprise knowledge management programs, George Washington University, May 2000.: various leaves. Cardinal, R. and Aitken M. (2006). ANOVA for the behavioural sciences researcher. Routledge. Choo, C. W. and N. Bontis (2002). The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press. CIA. (2008). "The World Factbook." from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/. Davenport, T. H., D. W. De Long, et al. (1998). "Successful knowledge management projects." Sloan Management Review 39(2): 43-+. Davenport, T. H. and L. Prusak (1997). Information ecology : mastering the information and knowledge environment. New York, Oxford University Press. Davenport, T. H. and L. Prusak (1998). Working knowledge : how organizations manage what they know. Boston, Mass, Harvard Business School Press. Desouza, K. and R. Evaristo (2003). "Global Knowledge Management Strategies." European Management Journal 21(1): 62-67. Diemers, D. (2000). Culture and Knowledge - Introducing the Cross-Cultural Dimension of Knowledge Management, University of St. Gallen. Drucker, P. (2001). "The next society: A survey of the near future." The Economist 3: 220. Drucker, P. F. (1969). The age of discontinuity : guidelines to our changing society. New York, Harper & Row. Dunning, J. H. (2000). Regions, globalization, and the knowledge-based economy. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press. Ferraro, G. P. (2002). Global brains : knowledge and competencies for the 21st century. Charlotte, N.C., Intercultural Associates. Ford, D. P. and Y. E. Chain (2003). "Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study." Knowledge Management Research & Practice 1: 11-27. 141

Ford, D. P. and Y. E. Chan (2003). "Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study." Knowledge Management Research &amp; Practice 1: 11-27. Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat : a brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, Picador/Farrar Distributed by Holtzbrinck Publishers. Gundling, E., A. Zanchettin, et al. (2007). Global diversity : winning customers and engaging employees within world markets. Boston, Nicholas Brealey International. Hampden-Turner, C., A. Trompenaars, et al. (2000). Building cross-cultural competence how to create wealth from conflicting values. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press: xi, 388 p. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences, international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, Calif., Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences, international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture's consequences : international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. H. (1997). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind. New York, McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences : comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. H. (2005). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind, McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G.H. (2009). "Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions" from http://www.geerthofstede.com/. Holden, N. (2002). Cross-cultural management : a knowledge management perspective. Harlow ; New York, Financial Times Prentice Hall. Holden, N. (2002). Cross-cultural management: a knowledge management perspective, Prentice Hall. Holsapple, C. W. (2003). Handbook on knowledge management. Berlin ; New York, Springer. House, R (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies - Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program, SAGE Howe, J. (2008). Crowdsourcing : why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. New York, Crown Business. James Bair, E. B. (1996). "Key Issues in Knowledge Management and IR." Gartner. Kavouras, M. and M. Kokla (2008). Theories of geographic concepts : ontological approaches to semantic integration. Boca Raton, CRC Press. Kirkman, B. L., K. B. Lowe, et al. (2006). "A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework." Journal of International Business Studies 37(3): 285-320. KPMG (2000). "Knowledge Management Research Report." Lytras, M. D., R. D. Tennyson, et al. (2009). Knowledge networks : the social software perspective. Hershey, PA, Information Science Reference. Mann, J. (2007). "Why Knowledge Management Is No Longer on the Gartner Hype Cycles." Gartner. 142

Mcafee, A. P. (2006). "Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration." Mit Sloan Management Review 47(3): 21-+. Muller, C., B. Meuthrath, et al. (2008). "Analyzing wiki-based networks to improve knowledge processes in organizations." Journal of Universal Computer Science 14(4): 526-545. Nishiguchi, T. and I. o. Nonaka (2001). Knowledge emergence : social, technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I. (1994). "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation." Organization Science 5(1): 14-37. Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995). The knowledge-creating company : how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I. o. and H. Takeuchi (1995). The knowledge-creating company : how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, Oxford University Press. Nunnally, J. (1981). Psychometric theory. New York, McGraw-Hill. OECD (1996). The Knowledge-Based Economy. Paris, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD (2001). OECD Science, Technology, and Industry Scoreboard : Benchmarking Knowledge-based Economics. Paris, France, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: v. OECD (2003). Measuring knowledge management in the business sector : first steps. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ; Statistics Canada. OECD (2004). The Significance of Knowledge Management in the Business Sector, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2007). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2007. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Pauleen, D. (2007). Cross-cultural perspectives on knowledge management. Westport, Conn., Libraries Unlimited. Revilak, A. F. (2006). " Knowledge Management And Innovation: What Must Governments Do To Increase Innovation?" Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 7, No. 4, December 2006 Ribire, V. M. (2001). Assessing knowledge management initiative successes as a function of organizational culture, George Washington University, May 2001.: xiv, 158 leaves. Ronen, S. and O. Shenkar (1985). "Clustering Countries on Attitudinal Dimensions - a Review and Synthesis." Academy of Management Review 10(3): 435-454. Schreiber, G. (2000). Knowledge engineering and management : the CommonKADS methodology. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Sndergaard, M. (1994). Hofstede's consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organizations Studies, 15(3), 447 Stankosky, M. (2005). Creating the discipline of knowledge management : the latest in university research. Amsterdam ; Boston, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

143

Stary, C., F. Barachini, et al. (2007). Knowledge management : innovation, technology and cultures : proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Knowledge Management, Vienna, Austria, 27-28 August 2007. Singapore, World Scientific. Trompenaars, A. (1994). Riding the waves of culture : understanding diversity in global business. Burr Ridge, Ill., Irwin Professional Pub. Wallace, D. P. (2007). Knowledge management : historical and cross-disciplinary themes. Westport, Conn., Libraries Unlimited. Wang, P.-J. (2004). An exploratory study of the effect of national culture on knowledge management factors, expectations and practices : a cross-cultural analysis of Taiwanese and U.S. perceptions, George Washington University, May 2004.: [xxi], 266 leaves. Wei J., F. Calabrese and M. Stankosky (2008). "A framework for studying the impact of national culture on knowledge sharing motivation in virtual teams", VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 38(2): 221 - 231. World Bank. (2008). "Doing Business 2009." from http://www.doingbusiness.org. World Bank, K. f. D. P. (2008). "Knowledge Assessment Methodology (KAM)." from http://www.worldbank.org/kam. World Bank, K. f. D. P. (2008). "Measuring Knowledge in the World's Economies." from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUNIKAM/Resources/KAM_v4.pdf. World Economic Forum, H. U. C. f. I. D. (2008). The global competitiveness report 2008-2009. Geneva, World Economic Forum: v.

144

Appendices

145

Appendix 1: Survey Instrument in English Language

146

147

148

149

Selection List Values from Web Survey

Position Level: Executive Manager/Director Technical Staff Support Staff Other, please specify

Industry Type: Constructions/Architecture/Engineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accounting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Software Development Other Please specify

Number of employees: <100 100-999 100-4999 5,000-10,000 >10,000

Annual Business by Revenue: <$25M $25-250M >$250M

150

151

152

153

154

155

Appendix 2: Survey Instrument in Italian Language

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

Appendix 3: Search Engine Marketing

Ads were targeted for (A) web users in the geographical location of Italy and whose web browser was set to the Italian language and (B) web users in the geographical location of the United States and whose web browser was set to the English language. (A) Italian Ads % used 52.24% Impressions 15,602 Clicks 34

27.06%

8,080

11

20.70% Total Google Search Total Google Network Content Total 18.99% 81.01% 100%

6,181 5,671 24,193 29,864

7 9 43 52

165

(B) USA Ads

% used 96.07%

Impressions 30,001

Clicks 35

3.93%

1,226

Total Google Search Total Google Network Content Total

19.62% 80.38% 100%

6,127 25,100 31,227

12 93 35

166

Appendix 4: Additional Bonferroni Tests

Table 99: Bonferroni Analysis of KMF Index by Country by Industry Type
(I) Industry Type: Constructions/Archite cture/Engineering (J) Industry Type: Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accountin g Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/E ngineering Education Financial/Banking/Accountin g Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/E ngineering Consulting Financial/Banking/Accountin g Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/E ngineering Consulting Education Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Mean Difference (I-J) .1362 .2148 .3782 .1230 .2565 .1296 .1678 .1944 .1440 -.1362 .0787 .2420 -.0132 .1203 -.0066 .0316 .0582 .0079 -.2148 -.0787 .1633 -.0919 .0416 -.0852 -.0471 -.0204 -.0708 -.3782 -.2420 -.1633 -.2552 -.1217 -.2485 -.2104 -.1838 -.2341 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.4733 .7457 -.3871 .8168 -.2988 1.0552 -.5068 -.5353 -.4697 -.4675 -.4101 -.5092 -.7457 -.1862 -.1655 -.3363 -.4582 -.2654 -.3021 -.2124 -.3588 -.8168 -.3435 -.2328 -.4005 -.5289 -.3258 -.3669 -.2737 -.4248 -1.0552 -.6495 -.5595 -.6925 -.7709 -.6407 -.6556 -.5838 -.7045 .7527 1.0482 .7290 .8031 .7990 .7973 .4733 .3435 .6495 .3099 .6988 .2523 .3653 .3288 .3745 .3871 .1862 .5595 .2168 .6122 .1554 .2727 .2328 .2832 .2988 .1655 .2328 .1820 .5275 .1436 .2348 .2163 .2362

Consulting

Education

Financial/Banking/Acc ounting

167

(I) Industry Type: Government

(J) Industry Type: Constructions/Architecture/E ngineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accountin g Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/E ngineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accountin g Government IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/E ngineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accountin g Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/E ngineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accountin g Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/E ngineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accountin g Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Software Development

Mean Difference (I-J) -.1230 .0132 .0919 .2552 .1335 .0067 .0448 .0714 .0211 -.2565 -.1203 -.0416 .1217 -.1335 -.1268 -.0887 -.0621 -.1124 -.1296 .0066 .0852 .2485 -.0067 .1268 .0382 .0648 .0144 -.1678 -.0316 .0471 .2104 -.0448 .0887 -.0382 .0266 -.0237 -.1944 -.0582 .0204 .1838 -.0714 .0621 -.0648 -.0266 -.0504

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.7527 .5068 -.3099 -.2168 -.1820 -.4663 -.2969 -.3246 -.2422 -.3784 -1.0482 -.6988 -.6122 -.5275 -.7333 -.6946 -.6943 -.6353 -.7368 -.7290 -.2523 -.1554 -.1436 -.3102 -.4409 -.2767 -.1822 -.3351 -.8031 -.3653 -.2727 -.2348 -.4143 -.5169 -.3530 -.2980 -.4319 -.7990 -.3288 -.2328 -.2163 -.3851 -.5112 -.3117 -.3512 -.4087 .3363 .4005 .6925 .7333 .3102 .4143 .3851 .4205 .5353 .4582 .5289 .7709 .4663 .4409 .5169 .5112 .5119 .4697 .2654 .3258 .6407 .2969 .6946 .3530 .3117 .3640 .4675 .3021 .3669 .6556 .3246 .6943 .2767 .3512 .3844 .4101 .2124 .2737 .5838 .2422 .6353 .1822 .2980 .3080

Healthcare/Pharmace utical

IT/Telecommunication s

Manufacturing & Process Industries

Other

168

(I) Industry Type: Software Development

(J) Industry Type: Constructions/Architecture/E ngineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accountin g Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other

Mean Difference (I-J) -.1440 -.0079 .0708 .2341 -.0211 .1124 -.0144 .0237 .0504

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.7973 .5092 -.3745 -.2832 -.2362 -.4205 -.5119 -.3640 -.3844 -.3080 .3588 .4248 .7045 .3784 .7368 .3351 .4319 .4087

169

Table 100: Bonferroni Analysis of KME Index by Country by Industry Type

(I) Industry Type: (J) Industry Type: Mean Difference (I-J) .2600 .1916 .2487 .1858 .1319 .2125 .3535 .2779 .3074 -.2600 -.0684 -.0113 -.0742 -.1281 -.0475 .0935 .0179 .0474 -.1916 .0684 .0571 -.0058 -.0597 .0209 .1619 .0863 .1158 -.2487 .0113 -.0571 -.0630 -.1168 -.0362 .1048 .0292 .0587 -.1858 .0742 .0058 .0630 -.0538 .0268 .1678 .0922 .1216 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.2312 .7512 -.2935 .6767 -.2968 .7943 -.3218 .6933 -.5061 .7700 -.2705 .6955 -.1584 .8655 -.2093 -.2190 -.7512 -.2818 -.3396 -.3346 -.5942 -.2560 -.1754 -.2002 -.2481 -.6767 -.1450 -.2621 -.2546 -.5194 -.1730 -.0958 -.1178 -.1695 -.7943 -.3171 -.3764 -.4153 -.6399 -.3522 -.2539 -.2932 -.3204 -.6933 -.1861 -.2429 -.2894 -.5372 -.2178 -.1300 -.1606 -.2003 .7651 .8338 .2312 .1450 .3171 .1861 .3381 .1611 .3625 .2360 .3429 .2935 .2818 .3764 .2429 .4001 .2148 .4196 .2904 .4011 .2968 .3396 .2621 .2894 .4064 .2798 .4635 .3516 .4377 .3218 .3346 .2546 .4153 .4295 .2714 .4655 .3449 .4436

Constructions/Architectu re/Engineering

Consulting

Education

Financial/Banking/Acco unting

Government

Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accounting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/Eng ineering Education Financial/Banking/Accounting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/Eng ineering Consulting Financial/Banking/Accounting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/Eng ineering Consulting Education Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/Eng ineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accounting Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development

170

(I) Industry Type:

(J) Industry Type: Mean Difference (I-J) -.1319 .1281 .0597 .1168 .0538 .0806 .2216 .1460 .1755 -.2125 .0475 -.0209 .0362 -.0268 -.0806 .1410 .0654 .0949 -.3535 -.0935 -.1619 -.1048 -.1678 -.2216 -.1410 -.0756 -.0461 -.2779 -.0179 -.0863 -.0292 -.0922 -.1460 -.0654 .0756 .0295 -.3074 -.0474 -.1158 -.0587 -.1216 -.1755 -.0949 .0461 -.0295 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Healthcare/Pharmaceuti cal

IT/Telecommunications

Manufacturing & Process Industries

Other

Software Development

Constructions/Architecture/Eng ineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accounting Government IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/Eng ineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accounting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/Eng ineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accounting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Other Software Development Constructions/Architecture/Eng ineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accounting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Software Development Constructions/Architecture/Eng ineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Accounting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceutical IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.7700 .5061 -.3381 -.4001 -.4064 -.4295 -.3769 -.2664 -.3160 -.3277 -.6955 -.1611 -.2148 -.2798 -.2714 -.5381 -.1127 -.1336 -.1868 -.8655 -.3625 -.4196 -.4635 -.4655 -.7096 -.3947 -.3372 -.3750 -.7651 -.2360 -.2904 -.3516 -.3449 -.6079 -.2644 -.1860 -.2593 -.8338 -.3429 -.4011 -.4377 -.4436 -.6786 -.3766 -.2828 -.3183 .5942 .5194 .6399 .5372 .5381 .7096 .6079 .6786 .2705 .2560 .1730 .3522 .2178 .3769 .3947 .2644 .3766 .1584 .1754 .0958 .2539 .1300 .2664 .1127 .1860 .2828 .2093 .2002 .1178 .2932 .1606 .3160 .1336 .3372 .3183 .2190 .2481 .1695 .3204 .2003 .3277 .1868 .3750 .2593

171

Table 101: Bonferroni Analysis of KMP Index by Country by Industry Type

(I) Part 1/Q 5: Industry Type: Constructions/Architecture /Engineering (J) Part 1/Q 5: Industry Type: Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Acco unting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceuti cal IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architect ure/Engineering Education Financial/Banking/Acco unting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceuti cal IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architect ure/Engineering Consulting Financial/Banking/Acco unting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceuti cal IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architect ure/Engineering Consulting Education Government Healthcare/Pharmaceuti cal IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Mean Difference (I-J) -.6367 -.2302 -.1791 -.0053 -.3762 -.4627 -.1669 -.3517 -.5223 .6367 .4064 .4576 .6313 .2605
*

Sig. .477 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .477 .008* .272 .000* 1.000 1.000 .027* .449 1.000 1.000 .008* 1.000 1.000 1.000 .811 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .272 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -1.4509 .1776 -1.0344 .5740 -1.0834 .7253 -.8467 -1.4339 -1.2634 -1.0157 -1.1593 -1.3950 -.1776 .0526 -.0868 .1997 -.5123 -.1719 .0239 -.0765 -.3755 -.5740 -.7602 -.4781 -.1874 -.9081 -.5539 -.3639 -.4597 -.7650 -.7253 -1.0020 -.5804 -.4104 -1.0643 -.8076 -.5826 -.7070 -.9716 .8360 .6815 .3380 .6818 .4560 .3503 1.4509 .7602 1.0020 1.0629 1.0333 .5197 .9156 .6465 .6042 1.0344 -.0526 .5804 .6373 .6163 .0889 .4905 .2169 .1809 1.0834 .0868 .4781 .7578 .6701 .2402 .6068 .3618 .2851

Consulting

.1739 * .4697 .2850 .1143 .2302 -.4064 .0512 .2249 -.1459 -.2325 .0633 -.1214 -.2921 .1791 -.4576 -.0512 .1737 -.1971 -.2837 .0121 -.1726 -.3433
*

Education

Financial/Banking/Account ing

172

(I) Part 1/Q 5: Industry Type: Government

(J) Part 1/Q 5: Industry Type: Constructions/Architect ure/Engineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Acco unting Healthcare/Pharmaceuti cal IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architect ure/Engineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Acco unting Government IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architect ure/Engineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Acco unting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceuti cal Manufacturing & Process Industries Other Software Development Constructions/Architect ure/Engineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Acco unting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceuti cal IT/Telecommunications Other Software Development

Mean Difference (I-J) .0053 -.6313 -.2249 -.1737 -.3708 -.4574 -.1616
* *

Sig. 1.000 .000* 1.000 1.000 1.000 .011* 1.000 .312 .071 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .811 1.000 .011* 1.000 .965 1.000 1.000 1.000 .027* 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .965 1.000 1.000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.8360 .8467 -1.0629 -.6373 -.7578 -1.1721 -.8629 -.6552 -.7653 -1.0506 -.6815 -1.0333 -.6163 -.6701 -.4304 -.8451 -.5998 -.7413 -.9802 -.3380 -.5197 -.0889 -.2402 .0519 -.6719 -.1248 -.2188 -.5266 -.6818 -.9156 -.4905 -.6068 -.3320 -1.0182 -.7164 -.6183 -.9006 -.1997 .1874 .4104 .4304 -.0519 .3320 .0727 .0167 1.4339 .5123 .9081 1.0643 1.1721 .6719 1.0182 .7903 .6879 1.2634 .1719 .5539 .8076 .8629 .8451 .7164 .4410 .4074 1.0157 -.0239 .3639 .5826 .6552 .5998 .1248 .2489 .1899

Healthcare/Pharmaceutica l

-.3463 -.5170 .3762 -.2605 .1459 .1971 .3708 -.0866 .2092 .0245 -.1462 .4627 -.1739 .2325 .2837 .4574 .0866 .2958 .1111 -.0596 .1669 -.4697 -.0633 -.0121
* *

IT/Telecommunications

Manufacturing & Process Industries

.1616 -.2092 -.2958 -.1847 -.3554

173

(I) Part 1/Q 5: Industry Type: Other

(J) Part 1/Q 5: Industry Type: Constructions/Architect ure/Engineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Acco unting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceuti cal IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Software Development Constructions/Architect ure/Engineering Consulting Education Financial/Banking/Acco unting Government Healthcare/Pharmaceuti cal IT/Telecommunications Manufacturing & Process Industries Other

Mean Difference (I-J) .3517 -.2850 .1214 .1726 .3463 -.0245 -.1111 .1847 -.1707 .5223 -.1143 .2921 .3433 .5170 .1462 .0596 .3554 .1707

Sig. 1.000 .449 1.000 1.000 .312 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .071 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -.4560 1.1593 -.6465 -.2169 -.3618 -.0727 -.7903 -.4410 -.2489 -.6494 -.3503 -.6042 -.1809 -.2851 -.0167 -.6879 -.4074 -.1899 -.3081 .0765 .4597 .7070 .7653 .7413 .2188 .6183 .3081 1.3950 .3755 .7650 .9716 1.0506 .9802 .5266 .9006 .6494

Software Development

* Significant at p < 0.05

174

Table 102: Bonferroni - The organizational benefits of a knowledge-centric organization are clearly understood by everyone in our organization
(I) Industry Type Business (J) Industry Type Education Government Other Business Government Other Business Education Other Business Education Government Mean Difference (I-J) * .43 * .81 .00 * -.43 .39 -.42 * -.81 -.39 * -.81 .00 .42 * .81 95% Confidence Interval Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound .008* .08 .77 .000* .34 1.29 1.000 -.36 .36 .008* -.77 -.08 .323 -.14 .92 .066 -.86 .02 .000* -1.29 -.34 .323 -.92 .14 .001* -1.35 -.27 1.000 -.36 .36 .066 -.02 .86 .001* .27 1.35

Education

Government

Other

* Significant at p < 0.05

Table 103: Bonferroni - Knowledge management is a top priority in our organization

(I) Industry Type Business (J) Industry Type Education Government Other Business Government Other Business Education Other Business Education Government Mean Difference (I-J) * .43 * .58 .10 * -.43 .15 -.33 * -.58 -.15 -.48 -.10 .33 .48 95% Confidence Interval Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound .008* .08 .78 .008* .10 1.06 1.000 -.26 .47 .008* -.78 -.08 1.000 -.39 .70 .307 -.77 .12 .008* -1.06 -.10 1.000 -.70 .39 .127 -1.03 .07 1.000 -.47 .26 .307 -.12 .77 .127 -.07 1.03

Education

Government

Other

* Significant at p < 0.05

Table 104: Bonferroni - Our organization has evolved from a rigid hierarchical structure to a process-oriented structure
(I) Industry Type Business (J) Industry Type Education Government Other Business Government Other Business Education Other Business Education Government Mean Difference (I-J) .27 * .74 -.11 -.27 .47 -.38 * -.74 -.47 * -.85 .11 .38 * .85 95% Confidence Interval Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound .185 -.06 .60 .000* .29 1.19 1.000 -.45 .24 .185 -.60 .06 .094 -.04 .98 .097 -.80 .04 .000* -1.19 -.29 .094 -.98 .04 .000 -1.36 -.33 1.000 -.24 .45 .097 -.04 .80 .000* .33 1.36

Education

Government

Other

* Significant at p < 0.05

175

Table 105: Bonferroni - Our organization has invested in knowledge management technologies
(I) Industry Type Business (J) Industry Type Education Government Other Business Government Other Business Education Other Business Education Government Mean Difference (I-J) .07 -.06 .03 -.07 -.13 -.04 .06 .13 .09 -.03 .04 -.09 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Sig. 1.000 -.26 .40 1.000 -.51 .39 1.000 -.32 .37 1.000 -.40 .26 1.000 -.64 .38 1.000 -.46 .37 1.000 -.39 .51 1.000 -.38 .64 1.000 -.43 .60 1.000 -.37 .32 1.000 -.37 .46 1.000 -.60 .43

Education

Government

Other

Table 106: Bonferroni - Our organization has the human resources to support our information technology systems, software and network
(I) Industry Type Business (J) Industry Type Education Government Other Business Government Other Business Education Other Business Education Government Mean Difference (I-J) .20 .26 .03 -.20 .06 -.17 -.26 -.06 -.23 -.03 .17 .23 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Sig. .699 -.14 .55 .814 -.20 .73 1.000 -.32 .39 .699 -.55 .14 1.000 -.47 .59 1.000 -.60 .26 .814 -.73 .20 1.000 -.59 .47 1.000 -.76 .31 1.000 -.39 .32 1.000 -.26 .60 1.000 -.31 .76

Education

Government

Other

Table 107: Bonferroni - People in our organization are often rewarded for continuous learning or knowledge sharing
(I) Industry Type Business (J) Industry Type Education Government Other Business Government Other Business Education Other Business Education Government Mean Difference (I-J) -.04 .37 .31 .04 .41 .35 -.37 -.41 -.06 -.31 -.35 .06 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Sig. 1.000 -.39 .32 .240 -.11 .85 .138 -.05 .68 1.000 -.32 .39 .277 -.13 .95 .221 -.09 .79 .240 -.85 .11 .277 -.95 .13 1.000 -.61 .49 .138 -.68 .05 .221 -.79 .09 1.000 -.49 .61

Education

Government

Other

176