Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization

U Syed Aktharsha* and H Anisa** The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of Knowledge Management System (KMS) on learning organization. This paper also attempts to investigate the relationship between demographic profile and KMS and the relationship between demographic profile and learning organizations. A private engineering concern in a district has been chosen for conducting this study and a sample of 65 managers and engineers were chosen from the population of 180 managers and engineers together. A survey-based instrument is used to gather the responses from managers and engineers. Some variations were observed on KMS due to the factors such as innovation, different market entry and market share. Some variations were observed on the properties of learning organization due to factors such as knowledge application, KM process and shared vision. The study is limited to one particular organization. The results may not be applicable to other business organizations. KMS is an IT based system developed for managing knowledge in organizations which supports the creation, capture, storage and dissemination of information. Nowadays, many organizations especially knowledge-based organizations have started realizing the importance and benefits of KMS and also the contribution of KMS in learning organizations is well understood by the organizations.
Keywords: Knowledge, Knowledge Management System (KMS), Learning organization

Introduction
Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices that deal with how knowledge is acquired, transferred, and shared with all the members of the organization. Such strategies and practices seek to achieve the organizations objectives. Knowledge Management System (KMS) refers to a comprehensive information and communication technology platform used for managing knowledge in organizations for supporting creation, capture, storage and dissemination of information.

Review of Literature
Sense (2008) examined how people can conceive learning and KM processes within project teams and provided conceptual guidance on the most effective way to managerially approach these important and often neglected project issues. The conceptual paper by Andrew draws on and dissects a very broad and relevant literature on learning and KM. In this paper, he puts
* ** Associate Professor, Jamal Institute of Management, Jamal Mohamed College, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail: akthar_jmc@yahoo.com Assistant Professor, Jamal Institute of Management, Jamal Mohamed College, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail: anisa.akh@gmail.com The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

26 2011 IUP All Rights Reserved. .

forward a conceptually grounded argument for a greater practical emphasis to be placed on the social systems in learning and KM processes in projects. Here, he also provided a foundation for project practitioners to critically reflect on their current learning and KM attitudes and practices, and also encouraged their attention towards the management of their social system projects (Merx-Chermin and Nijhof, 2005). Through this study, we can gain a better understanding of the factors that influence the innovative power of organizations. They examined the concept of innovation and innovative power by analyzing the relationship between the construct of the learning organization, knowledge organization and innovative organization. The innovative process model drawn out by Mireille consists of three processesknowledge creation, innovation and learning to learn. He conducted an exploratory study on Oce Technologies, The Netherlands. Armstrong and Foley (2003) outline the results of current research carried out at Victoria University, Australia, into what is a learning organization, how organizations learn, and how to develop a learning organization. The objective of the study by Anona was to identify the components that underpin the development and operation of a learning organization, i.e., the foundations, or organizational learning mechanisms that support the development and maintenance of a learning organization. This research provided an instrument for systematically measuring and monitoring progress towards achieving a learning organization. Loermans (2002) had briefly looked at the overlaps and synergies between various knowledge concepts. He argued that the discipline of KM at a corporate level and the phenomenon of the learning organization are inextricably linked and should always be analyzed and discussed in concert. Rowley (2000) had established a clear link between learning and knowledge, and proposes a simple model, which made this relationship explicit. In the research paper he argued that indiscriminate knowledge creation will not lead to organizational learning, and that knowledge is not something that can be viewed as a neutral tool in the learning process. Pemberton and Stonehouse (2000) revealed that competitive success is governed by an organizations ability to develop new knowledge assets that create core competencies. The author stressed that organizational learning is an integral feature of any learning organization that exploits its knowledge resources to generate superior performance. In his research paper he also explored the ideas and links between organizational learning and KM, making reference to a number of sectors and companies, and specifically the airline industry, arguing that the culture, structure and infrastructure of an organization are essential elements that facilitate and nurture learning. Simonin (1997) revealed that experience alone is not sufficient for the achievement of greater results from collaboration. He had also emphasized the need and importance of internalizing experience in the view of developing collaborative know how for the purpose of contribution towards future collaborative benefits. Finnegan and Willcocks (2006) attempted to apply a processual analysis to the implementation of a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system from a knowledge management perspective to a contemporary (1999-2004) situation within a UK city council. This paper seeks to place a specific focus on the neglected areas in previous CRM studies such as sub-cultures, psychological contracts, how tacit knowledge can be surfaced and transferred, and with what will be the effect on implementation. The major findings of the study showed
Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization 27

that a rich picture emerges of sub-cultural silos of knowledge linked with psychological contracts and power-based relationships influencing and inhibiting adoption and acceptance of the CRM system. Klein and Heuser (2008) presented an expanded socialization content typology. Besides, two other components are added to this typology to reflect the fact that(a) each of those content dimensions needs to be learned relative to different organizational levels (e.g., job, work group, unit, organization) and (b) socialization occurs over several months and there are temporal considerations relating to the different socialization content dimensions. The conceptual measurement and research needs suggested by these extensions to the socialization literature, are identified. Dechant et al. (2000) presented a model of team learning. Two dissertation studies that affirm the model and provide additional insight into the nature of team learning in corporate settings were mainly highlighted by the authors. Fink and Ploder (2009) has proposed a theoretical framework as a layer concept to describe the special situation of knowledge management in SMEs. Based on this framework, empirical studies were conducted in German-speaking countries to find out the relevant methods and tools supporting knowledge management in SMEs. The major findings revealed that there are spime methods of knowledge management that support the four key knowledge processes in SMEs, i.e. knowledge identification, knowledge acquisition, knowledge distribution and knowledge preservation. The results are explained in the developed Technical Social Social Technical Model (TSST Model), which is a balanced system for technical and social knowledge applications. Crossan and Guatto (1996) analyzed the results of a keyword search of three databases using the terms organizational learning and learning organization to uncover patterns relating to(a) amount of publishing activity by year; (b) influential authors; (c) journals publishing organizational learning research; and (d) type of research published. Kyobe (2010) presented a multi-theoretical model that can be used to identify knowledge transfer impediments contributing to the crises in the IS discipline in a university. The literature on crisis management and crises in the IS discipline revealed that many crises are caused due to lack of appropriate knowledge development and sharing in research and education. Knowledge management research was reviewed and synthesized to create a comprehensive framework for identifying impediments to knowledge transfer in a university setting. Belsis et al. (2005) did a survey with five organizations (public and private) and five security experts and consultants. A model to illustrate the structure of IS security knowledge in an organization is then proposed. The major findings of the study revealed thatsuccessful security management largely depends on the involvement of users and other stakeholders in security analysis, design, and implementation as well as in actively defending the Information Systems (IS). However, there is a lack of lack required knowledge of IS security issues that would allow them to play an important role in IS security management among most stakeholders.
28 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

Yahya and Goh (2002) examined the linkages between four areas of human resource management (training, decision-making, performance appraisal, and compensation and reward) with five areas of knowledge management (knowledge acquisition, knowledge documentation, knowledge transfer, knowledge creation, knowledge application). The analysis suggest that a knowledge organization requires a different management approach than the non-knowledge organization. Hence, the role of human resource management is also unique. In terms of employee development, there must be a focus on achieving quality, creativity, leadership, and problem solving skill. Compensation and reward system should be designed on promoting group performance, knowledge sharing, and innovative thinking. They have also mentioned that the performance appraisal must be the base of evaluation of employee's knowledge management practices and an input for directing knowledge management efforts. Appelbaum and Goransson (1997) stated that organizational learning is currently a fashionable concept, and this is due to an attempt by many large organizations to develop structures and systems that are more adaptable and responsive to change. While reviewing the framework for organizational learning, they also examined learning organization with regard to twofold nature of organizational learning. Literatures were developed and presented by considering the learning organization from generative or transformational perspective and incremental or adaptive perspective. Conclusions were drawn by integrating the two perspectives on the learning organization into the reviewed framework for congruence. The aim of the research conducted by Buckler (1998) was to synthesize a learning process model from relevant learning theory, and to derive a practical model, which can be used by organizations to facilitate individual, team and organizational learning, resulting in continuous improvement and innovation in business processes.

Research Methodology
The present study is undertaken to find out the following: To investigate the relationship between demographic profile and KMS. To investigate the relationship between demographic profile and learning organization. To identify the variables and their grouping into factors that influence the KMS and learning organization.

Sampling Design

A private engineering concern was chosen for conducting this study. The study has taken into account the various aspects of KMS and its contribution to learning organization. The decision to choose this particular private company was taken because the senior administrators of the concern permitted to conduct this study on KM and learning organization. A sample of 65 managers and engineers has been chosen from the population of 180 managers and engineers together using stratified random sampling method. The tabulated description of demographic details of the sample is presented in Table 1.

Data Collection
The data was collected from the managers and engineers of the selected engineering enterprise through a questionnaire which had 3 major parts, namely;
Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization 29

Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Sample Demographics

S. No. 1. Variables Age Below 30 30-40 41-50 Above 50 2. Educational Qualification Diploma UG PG 3. Designation Engineer Manager 4. Department Engineering Production Quality Control 5. Experience Below 10 10-20 20-30 Above 30 6. Income Level Below 10,000 10,000-20,000 20,000-30,000 Above 30,000 7 25 16 17 11 39 24 26 29 23 6 7 45 35 9 11 21 21 23 33 32 35 45 20 69 31 35 25 5 54 38 8 23 18 15 9 35 28 23 14 Number Frequency (%)

1. 2. 3.

Demographic characteristics. Effects of KMS. Learning organization characteristics.

Measurement Scale
The questionnaire consisted of a series of statements, where the engineers and managers were requested to provide answers in the form of agreement or disagreement to express their perceptions
30 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

towards KMS and learning organization. A Likert scale was used so that the respondent can select a numerical score ranging from 1 to 5 for each statements where 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 denote strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree, respectively in part 2 and 3.

Data Analysis
Reliability Analysis
Pre-testing techniques, namely, Cronbachs Alpha and Hotelings t-square test were used to check the reliability and equivalence of the variables used for the research. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Reliability Analysis
Dimension Name Effects of Knowledge Management System (Part II) Learning Organization (Part III)
Note: * means differs at 1% level of significance.

No. of Cronbachs Hotelings df Items Alpha t-Square Test 13 11 0.798 0.695 491.263* 256.390* 12.53 10.55

The above results of Cronbachs Alpha indicate that the two dimensions, namely, effects of KMS (Part II) and characteristics of learning organization (Part III) achieved a high internal consistency of 79.8% and 69.5% respectively. Similarly, Hotelings t-squared test exhibits that the mean of items under all dimensions were significantly different at 1% level. Thus, it is clear that all items in the questionnaire conveyed different meaning to the respondents.

Chi-Square Analysis
Chi-Square Test of Significance (Age and KMS)
H0: There is no significant relation between age and KMS. H1: There is a significant relation between age and KMS.

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Qualifications and KMS)

H0: There is no significant relation between qualifications and KMS. H1: There is a significant relation between qualifications and KMS.

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Department and KMS)

H0: There is no significant relation between department and KMS. H1: There is a significant relation between department and KMS.

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Designation and KMS)

H0: There is no significant relation between designation and KMS. H1: There is a significant relation between designation and KMS.
Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization 31

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Experience and KMS)

H0: There is no significant relation between experience and KMS. H1: There is a significant relation between experience and KMS.

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Income Level and KMS)

H0: There is no significant relation between income level and KMS. H1: There is a significant relation between income level system and KMS. The values of chi-square statistics obtained from chi-square distribution table for all six combinations are 12.59, 9.49, 9.49, 5.99 , 12.59 and 12.59 in that order and the calculated chi-square statistics values are 5.484, 2.421, 3.853, 2.596, 4.975 and 5.983 in that order which lies in the acceptance region. Thus, the null hypotheses cannot be rejected, whereas alternative hypotheses are rejected. So, it can be concluded that demographic characteristics of managers and engineers and effects and usage of KMS are independent on the basis of statistical evidence at 5% level of significance. Results of chi-square are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Results of Chi-Square Analysis
S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Variables Age and KMS Qualifications and KMS Department and KMS Designation and KMS Experience and KMS Income Level and KMS Chi-Square Statistic 5.484 < 12.59 (Not Significant) 2.421 < 9.49 (Not Significant) 3.853 < 9.49 (Not Significant) 2.596 < 5.99 (Not Significant) 4.975 < 12.59 (Not Significant) 5.983 < 12.59 (Not Significant)

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Age and Learning Organization)

H0: There is no significant relation between age and learning organization. H1: There is a significant relation between age and learning organization.

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Qualifications and Learning Organization)

H0: There is no significant relation between qualifications and learning organization. H1: There is a significant relation between qualifications and learning organization.

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Department and Learning Organization)

H0: There is no significant relation between department and learning organization. H1: There is a significant relation between department and learning organization.

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Designation and Learning Organization)

H0: There is no significant relation between designation and learning organization. H1: There is a significant relation between designation and learning organization.
32 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Experience and Learning Organization)

H0: There is no significant relation between experience and learning organization. H1: There is a significant relation between experience and learning organization.

Chi-Square Test of Significance (Income Level and Learning Organization)

H0: There is no significant relation between income level and learning organization. H1: There is a significant relation between income level and learning organization. The values of chi-square statistics obtained from chi-square distribution table for all five combinations are 7.82, 5.99, 5.99, 3.84 , 7.82 and 7.82 in that order and the calculated chi-square statistics values are 2.554, 2.696, 3.436, 0.685, 1.099 and 3.235 in that order which lies in the acceptance region. Thus, the null hypotheses are accepted where as alternative hypotheses are rejected. So, it can be concluded that demographic characteristics of managers and engineers and learning organization are independent on the basis of statistical evidence at 5% level of significance. Results of chi-square are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Results of Chi-Square Analysis
S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Variables Age and Learning Organization Qualifications and Learning Organization Department and Learning Organization Designation and Learning Organization Experience and Learning Organization Income Level and Learning Organization Chi-Square Statistic 2.554 < 7.82 (Not Significant) 2.696 < 5.99 (Not Significant) 3.436 < 5.99 (Not Significant) 0.685 < 3.84 (Not Significant) 1.099 < 7.82 (Not Significant) 3.235 < 7.82 (Not Significant)

Factor Analysis
Dimensions: Effect of KM
Data validity for factor analysis was calculated using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. The minimum acceptable level is 0.5. Since calculated KMO (0.777) is greater than 0.5, so it is appropriate to do factor analysis. Hence, Bartletts test of sphericity value is 299.589, which is also a kind of chi-square and it is significant. The results of KMO and Bartletts test of sphericity are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: KMO and Bartletts Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartletts Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square df Sig.
Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization

0.777 299.589 78.000 0

33

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Table 6 reveals that four factors have been extracted out of 13 variables that exceed the Eigenvalue of one. The variables less than the Eigenvalue of one are not considered during extraction method.
Table 6: Total Variance Explained
Component 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Initial Eigenvalues Total 4.610 1.927 1.187 1.000 0.755 0.695 0.661 0.557 0.428 0.366 0.328 0.260 0.226 35.460 14.826 9.130 7.693 5.811 5.348 5.082 4.285 3.289 2.816 2.522 2.003 1.735 35.460 50.286 59.416 67.108 72.919 78.268 83.350 87.635 90.924 93.740 96.262 98.265 100.000 Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings 4.610 1.927 1.187 1.000 35.460 14.826 9.130 7.693 35.460 50.286 59.416 67.108 % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

Table 7 shows that factor 1, factor 2, Table 7: Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings factor 3 and factor 4 explain a variation of Total % of Variance Cumulative % 21.793, 18.715, 14.353, and 12.247, 21.793 21.793 respectively and together show the variance 2.833 of 67.108. It is inferred that Factor 1 consists 2.433 18.715 40.508 of five variables, of which collaboration and 1.866 14.353 54.861 innovation are found to be significant with 1.592 12.247 67.108 a variation of 21.793%. Factor 2 consists of three variables of which different market types is significant with a variation of 18.715%. Factor 3 consists of three variables of which delegation of authority and accountability is significant with a variation of 14.353%. Factor 4 consists of two variables of which better staff attraction is significant with a variation of 12.247%. Based on the results of factor loading (Table 8), the factors are named which is given in Table 9.

Dimensions: Learning Organization

Data validity for factor analysis was calculated using KMO measure of sampling adequacy. The minimum acceptable level is 0.5. Since calculated KMO (0.670) is greater than 0.5, so it is appropriate to do factor analysis. Hence Bartletts test of sphericity value is 117.040 it is
34 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

Table 8: Rotated Component Matrix

Component 1 Collaboration Innovation Adaptation Capability Addressing of Communication Gap Better ROI Entry of Different Market Types Enhanced Productivity or Service Quality Sharing of Best Practices Delegation of Authority and Accountability Transformation of Individual Learning Fast and Better Decision Making Better Staff Attraction Increased Market Share 0.761 0.731 0.680 0.655 0.627 0.129 0.147 0.410 0.247 0.018 0.215 0.343 0.052 2 0.063 0.131 0.213 0.033 0.073 0.852 0.748 0.704 0.261 0.032 0.487 0.153 0.499 3 0.379 0.185 0.291 0.242 0.415 0.084 0.332 0.015 0.793 0.612 0.495 0.012 0.074 4 0.108 0.031 0.041 0.474 0.165 0.242 0.171 0.062 0.065 0.581 0.025 0.727 0.602

Table 9: Naming of Factors

Factor 1 Innovation Through Collaboration Collaboration Factor 2 Different Market Entry Through Enhanced Productivity Entry of Different Market Types Enhanced Productivity or Service Quality Factor 3 Better Decision Making Through Delegation Factor 4 Increase Market Share

Innovation

Delegation of Better Staff Attraction Authority and Accountability Transformation of Increased Market Individual Learning Share Fast and Better Decision Making

Adaptation Capability Sharing of Best Practices Addressing of Communication Gap Better ROI

also a kind of chi-square and it is significant. The results of KMO and Bartletts test of sphericity are shown in Table 10.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Table 11 reveals that 4 factors have been extracted out of 11 variables that exceed the Eigenvalue of one. The variables less than the Eigenvalue of one are not considered during the extraction method.
Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization 35

Table 10: KMO and Bartletts Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Approx. Chi-Square Bartletts Test of Sphericity df Sig. 0.670 117.040 55.000 0

Table 11: Total Variance Explained

Component 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Initial Eigenvalues Total 2.905 1.377 1.254 1.133 0.880 0.748 0.714 0.646 0.564 0.478 0.300 Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 26.406 12.516 11.400 10.304 8.002 6.803 6.490 5.876 5.130 4.345 2.729 26.406 38.921 50.321 60.625 68.626 75.429 81.919 87.796 92.926 97.271 100.000 2.905 1.377 1.254 1.133 26.406 12.516 11.400 10.304 26.406 38.921 50.321 60.625

Table 12 shows that factor 1, factor 2, factor 3 and factor 4 explain a variation of 16.597%, 16.372%, 15.268%, and 12.388%, respectively and together show the variance of 60.625%.

Table 12: Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1.826 1.801 16.597 16.372 16.597 32.969

15.268 48.237 It is also inferred that factor 1 consists 1.680 of two variables of which easy uploading into 1.363 12.388 60.625 database is found to be significant with a variation of 16.597%. Factor 2 consists of three variables of which sharing and acting upon knowledge is significant with a variation of 16.372%. Factor 3 consists of three variables of which sharing of experience and information is significant with a variation of 15.268%. Factor 4 consists of two variables of which sharing best practices are significant with a variation of 12.388%. Based on the results of factor loading (Table 13), the factors are named which is given in Table 14.
36 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix

Component 1 Easy Uploading into database Ready Availability of Information Sharing and Acting upon Knowledge Incentives for Learning Continuous Learning Sharing of Experience and Information Technologically Enabled Learning Well-defined KM Process Sharing Best Practices Learning Through Communication Sharing Powerful Vision of the Organization Across the Workforce 0.844 0.796 0.014 0.239 0.037 0.176 0.234 0.283 0.028 0.270 0.427 2 0.240 0.011 0.766 0.676 0.674 0.048 0.009 0.338 0.162 0.312 0.076 3 0.101 0.369 0.033 0.025 0.192 0.715 0.706 0.525 0.067 0.401 0.211 4 0.015 0.033 0.218 0.155 0.232 0.281 0.024 0.194 0.784 0.514 0.490

Table 14: Naming of Factors

Factor 1 Better Information Collaboration Easy Uploading into Database Ready Availability Information Factor 2 Application of Knowledge Sharing and Acting upon Knowledge Incentives for Learning Continuous Learning Factor 3 Knowledge Management Process Sharing of Experience and Information Technologically Enabled Learning Well-defined KM Process Factor 4 Shared Vision

Sharing Best Practices

Learning Through Communication Sharing Powerful Vision of the Organization Across the Workforce

Conclusion
The conclusions derived in empirical analysis are summarized below: Most of respondents are aware of what KM is. The KM activities of an organization are greatly influenced by the demographic characteristic of employees. The ability of an organization to learn mainly depends on the individual characteristic of an employee. The factors like innovation through collaboration, different market entry through enhanced productivity, better decision making through delegation, increased market share causes variance in KMS.
Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization 37

 The factors like better information, application of knowledge, KM process, and shared vision contributes greatly to the properties of learning organization. Knowledge management in the organization enables better staff retention. Knowledge management in the organization strengthens the workers to accomplish the task quickly. Knowledge management leads the business into different market types. Knowledge management in the organization reduces the communication gap between employees. Knowledge management in the organization raises the adaptation capability among the employees. Knowledge management in the organization smoothens the progress of learning. Knowledge management in the organization augments the continuous transformation of individual learning. Knowledge management in the organization affords readymade information to the employees. Knowledge management in the organization strengthens the collaboration among employees within the organization. Knowledge management makes every effort for learning and re-learning through training modules in the organization. The practice of KM in the organization makes way for sharing the best practices among employees which results in enhanced collaboration among employees. Based on the findings, few suggestions are offered by the authors which are summarized below: This study should be made every year to evaluate the new practices that can bring in changes in the organization. Attention should be given to those people who are innovative and are always ready to offer new ideas. There should be coordination among employees such that they think they are working for the same goals and objectives. Management should care more about the staffs communication by giving time for sharing informally and give a high priority to KM on the agenda. There should be exchanges of experiences and knowledge among people of different organizations by creating online communities for the purpose. It is concluded that the KMS helps the organization in improving its performance in terms of innovation and better decision making. Also it paves the pathway for an organization
38 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

to transform into a learning organization. So the organization should continuously focus its efforts on KM. Limitations: The results obtained in this study could be subject to some limitations. The study is restricted only to a particular engineering firm in a district. The population belongs to only managers and engineers and samples were drawn from particular departments of a selected organization. Identifying managers and engineers who are really familiar and experienced with KMS was found to be difficult. Some avenues for further research are as follows: The relationship between KMS and organizational culture; the relationship between KMS and knowledge sharing; the relationship between KMS and knowledge seeking practices; the relationship between KMS and intellectual capital; the relationship between KMS and task characteristics.

References
1. Appelbaum Steven H and Goransson Lars (1997), Transformational and Adaptive Learning within the Learning Organization: A Framework for Research and Application, The Learning Organization, Vol. 4, pp. 115-128. 2. Armstrong Anona and Foley Patrick (2003), Foundations for a Learning Organization: Organization Learning Mechanisms, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10, pp. 74-82. 3. Belsis Petros, Kokolakis Spyros and Kiountouzis Evangelos (2005), Information Systems Security from a Knowledge Management Perspective, Information Management & Computer Security, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 189-202. 4. Buckler Bill (1998), Practical Steps Towards a Learning Organization: Applying Academic Knowledge to Improvement and Innovation in Business Processes, The Learning Organization, Vol. 5, pp. 15-23. 5. Crossan Mary and Guatto Tracy (1996), Organizational Learning Research Profile, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 9, pp. 107-112. 6. Dechant Kathleen, Marsick Victoria and Kasl Elizabeth (2000), Team learning: A Model for Effectiveness in High Performing Teams, Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, Vol. 7, pp. 1-19. 7. Fink Kerstin and Ploder Christian (2009), Balanced System for Knowledge Process Management in SMEs, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 22, pp. 36-50. 8. Finnegan David and Willcocks Leslie (2006), Knowledge Sharing Issues in the Introduction of a New Technology, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19, pp. 568-590. 9. Klein Howard J and Heuser Aden E (2008), The Learning of Socialization Content: A Framework for Researching Orientating Practices, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 27, pp. 279-336.
Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization 39

10. Kyobe Michael (2010), A Knowledge Management Approach to Resolving the Crises in the Information Systems Discipline, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 12, pp. 161-173. 11. Loermans Jozef (2002), Synergizing the Learning Organization and Knowledge Management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, pp. 285-294. 12. Merx-Chermin Mireille and Nijhof Wim J (2005), Factors Influencing Knowledge Creation and Innovation in an Organization, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 29, pp. 135-147. 13. Pemberton Jonathan D and Stonehouse George H (2000), Organizational Learning and Knowledge Assets: An Essential Partnership, The Learning Organization, Vol. 7, pp. 184-194. 14. Rowley Jennifer (2000), From Learning Organization to Knowledge Entrepreneur, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4, pp. 7-15. 15. Sense Andrew J (2008), Conceptions of Learning and Managing the Flow of Knowledge in the Project-Based Environment, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 1, pp. 33-48. 16. Simonin Bernard L (1997), The Importance of Collaborative Know-How: An Empirical Test of the Learning Organization, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 150-1174. 17. Yahya Salleh and Goh Wee-Keat (2002), Managing Human Resources Toward Achieving Knowledge Management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, pp. 457-468.

40

The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

Appendix
Questionnaire
Part 1: Demographic Profile Gender: Age: Designation: Department: Experience: Income Level: Male Below 30 Years Engineer Engineering Below 10 Years Below 10,000 20,000-30,000 Female 30-40 Years Diploma Manager Production 10-20 Years Quality Control 21-30 Years Above 30 Years 41-50 Years UG Above 50 Years PG

Educational Qualifications:

10,000-20,000 Above 30,000

Part 2: The Effects of Knowledge Management System (KMS) Please put tick mark in the appropriate box matching your opinion
Q. Questions No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The KMS helps in fast and better decision making. KM helps in enhanced productivity or service quality. Implementing KM results in sharing best practices. KM makes it easy to enter different market types. KM helps in increased innovation by the employees. Application of KMS results in increased market share. KM increases the learning/adaptation capability of employees. KM helps in better staff attraction/ retention. KM results in enhanced collaboration within the organization. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

10. KM helps to address the communication gap in the organization.

Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization 41

Appendix (Cont.)
Q. Questions No. 11. KM helps in constant and continuous transformation of individual learning to organizational learning and vice versa. 12. KM results in increased delegation of authority and accountability to individuals. 13. KM helps to achieve better ROI. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

Part 3: Learning Organization Characteristics Please put tick mark in the appropriate box matching your opinion
Q. Questions No. 1. Information is readily available on required topics from current publications to industry specific processes. Information regarding process description can be uploaded in organizations database. Personal best practices can be shared with other employees. Enabling hardware and software technologies are available to support learning rather than control it. There are well defined processes for creation, capture, and acquisition of knowledge. Useful knowledge can be easily shared and acted upon. A cohering and powerful vision of the organization is shared across the workforce to promote need for strategic thinking at all levels. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

2.

3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

42

The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

Appendix (Cont.)
Q. Questions No. 8. There are enabling structures in terms of hierarchy and communication flows that facilitates learning. There are cohesive teams in organization which facilitates sharing of experiences and information among employees. The organization provides incentives to motivate users to learn from experiences and use KM system. The organization continuously strives for learning, unlearning and re-learning for its employees. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

9.

10.

11.

Reference # 29J-2011-04-02-01

Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization

43

Copyright of IUP Journal of Knowledge Management is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.