Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Economics, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran

Abstract

1.Introduction
Universities need to manage their knowledge assets and work creatively to maximize the enablers and minimize the barriers associated with knowledge management processes. Globally, universities are considered key drivers of the economy and have significant potential to act as engines of economic growth and development. However, universities face a wide range of challenges, including the emergence of the knowledge society, the globalization and internationalization of universities, reduced funding and government support, increasing undergraduate enrollment, and expanding access (Ramjeawon & Rowley, 2020). Effective knowledge management practices help universities improve their efficiency and effectiveness, become more competitive, and contribute to the wealth of their countries (Fussy, 2018).
The purpose of the present research is to examine the status of the infrastructural indicators of the successful implementation of knowledge management at Golestan University at three levels: managers, faculty members, and scientific assistants, and design a predictive model for it. For this purpose, the status of various infrastructure dimensions such as management, information technology, human resources, organizational culture, and organizational structure for the successful implementation of knowledge management in the university was examined, and then based on the knowledge management infrastructure indicators and using artificial neural networks, an optimal predictive model was presented.

2.Literature Review

Previous studies have identified several enablers (factors that enhance knowledge management) and barriers (factors that have an adverse effect on knowledge management). Many of these factors can have a positive or negative impact on knowledge management processes such as knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, and knowledge transfer. The most frequently identified factors include culture, rewards and incentives, technology, leadership, organizational structures, and university-industry linkages. Few studies have also identified the importance of strategies and policies, human resources, and resources and budget (Ramjeawon & Rowley, 2020). In past research, approaches to barriers to knowledge management implementation have varied. Wolf et al. (2024) identified three root challenges that frequently appear in the path of knowledge management implementation: 1- Organizational prerequisites for implementing a knowledge sharing culture 2- Use of ICT for knowledge transfer 3- Knowledge transformation. Remus (2012) distinguishes challenges to implementing knowledge management based on the stage of the implementation process in which they appear (such as knowledge creation, sharing, transfer, or retention).

3.Methodology

This research is based on the purpose of applied research and was conducted using a survey method and an analytical approach. The statistical population of the research was managers, faculty members, and scientific assistants. Due to the limited research population, the Morgan table was used. The sample size required for the present study was 187 based on the statistical population of 365 people, and on this basis, 190 questionnaires were collected. Data collection was carried out through a questionnaire using a relative stratified sampling method. In the first part of the questionnaire, the demographic information of the respondents, including gender, education, etc., was collected, and in the second part, the research variables were measured. In the first step, the status of Golestan University in terms of infrastructure indicators for maintaining and developing human resources knowledge was examined at three levels of managers, faculty members, and scientific assistants, and the results of each class were compared. In the second step, artificial neural networks were used to predict the maintenance and development of human resource knowledge based on infrastructure indicators.

4.Results

An examination of the status of human resource knowledge maintenance and development factors at the overall level of Golestan University shows that, in a general view, the level of management variables, organizational structure, and organizational culture is not in a desirable state and is below the average level, and the human resource and information technology variables are above the average level. In order to predict the success rate of human resource knowledge maintenance and development at Golestan University, artificial neural networks were used. The results showed that the present research model with three neurons in the hidden layer will reach the highest level of prediction accuracy, which is 0.893. The results of sensitivity analysis using artificial neural networks showed that all the infrastructural dimensions of human resource knowledge maintenance and development studied in the present study are important in the success of knowledge management and their existence is mandatory in the university complex, but the dimensions of reward, support, and knowledge sharing have been assigned the first, second, and third ranks, respectively, which indicates the greater importance of these dimensions than other dimensions based on the impact on the predictive power of the model.

5.Discussion

The results showed that in terms of the status of the human resources knowledge maintenance and development indicators at Golestan University at all three levels of managers, faculty members, and scientific assistants, the status of the two factors of human resources and information technology is above the average level, and the status of the three factors of organizational culture, organizational structure, and management is below the average level. In other words, there is consensus at each level studied at Golestan University regarding the identification of the most important obstacles to the implementation of knowledge management. On the other hand, although in terms of the status of the infrastructural indicators of knowledge management at Golestan University at all three levels of managers, faculty members, and scientific assistants, the two factors of human resources and information technology have obtained numbers above the average level, the numbers obtained are not so impressive and desirable that these two factors can be considered as strengths in the implementation of knowledge management and it can be inferred that the university is in a good position in these two factors and does not need any activity. In fact, the results of this step show that the infrastructural indicators at Golestan University, especially in the three factors of organizational culture, organizational structure, and management, require immediate attention and action.

6.Conclusion

The findings showed that in the barriers to maintaining and developing human resources knowledge, three factors of organizational culture, organizational structure, and management are below average, and two factors of information technology and human resources are slightly above average. Also, the use of artificial neural networks to predict the level of maintaining and developing human resources knowledge showed that the current research model with three neurons in the hidden layer will reach the highest level of prediction accuracy, which is 0.893, and the dimensions of reward, support, and knowledge sharing, respectively, have the highest role in the predictive power of the model. The results showed that the infrastructural indicators of knowledge management at Golestan University, especially in the three factors of organizational culture, organizational structure, and management, require immediate attention and action.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our deepest gratitude to Golestan University for participating in this research and covering the costs in the form of a customized research project.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Adhikari, D.R. (2010). Knowledge management in academic institutions. International Journal of Educational Management, 22 (2), 94-104. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ923128
Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311300831
Fussy, D.S. (2018). Policy directions for promoting university research in Tanzania. Studies in Higher Education, 43(9), 1573-1585. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1266611
Gaffoor, S. (2008). Assessing readiness for the implementation of knowledge management in local government: The case of Stellenbosch Municipality [Master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University] https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/2181
Hejazi, A., & Nazarpuri, A. H. (2017). Analyzing obstacles to the successful application of knowledge management in universities (case study: Farhangian University). Management of Organizations Education, 7(1), 169-203 [In Persian] https://journalieaa.ir/article-1-106-fa.html
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045756
Malik, H., & Al-Toubi, S. (2018). Knowledge management in the public sector. In J. Syed, P. A. Murray, D. Hislop, & Y. Mouzughi (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of knowledge management (pp. 515–538). Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71434-9
Margaryan, A., Boursinou, E., Lukic, D., & Zwart, H. D. (2015). Narrating your work: An approach to supporting knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(4), 391–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.58
Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2009). A knowledge management approach to organizational competitive advantage: Evidence from the food sector. European Management Journal, 27(2), 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.06.005
Mehrabi, N., Khorashadizadeh, S., & Karimian, R. (2023). Identifying the components of artificial intelligence in the implementation of knowledge management. Information Management Sciences and Techniques, 9(3), 351-390. https://doi.org/10.22091/stim.2023.8924.1906 [In Persian]
Peltokorpi, V. (2017). Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural context: Nordic expatriates in Japan. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(2), 138–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500095
Remus, U. (2012). Exploring the dynamics behind knowledge management challenges—an enterprise resource planning case study. Information Systems Management, 29(3), 188–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.687309
Rodríguez-Gómez, D., & Gairín, J. (2015). Unravelling knowledge creation and management in educational organisations: Barriers and enablers. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(2), 149–159. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321316349
Rokni Jo, S.M., Jafari, S.M.B., Yazdani, H.R., & Alwani, S.M. (2016). Analyzing obstacles to successful implementation of knowledge management in universities. Organizational Culture Management, 15(2), 445-464. https://doi.org/10.22059/jomc.2017.62527 [In Persian]
Sadri, A. (2017). Establishment of knowledge management in Iranian universities. Research in educational systems, 12(43), 41-63. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22034/jiera.2018.83763
Selgi, M., & Ghasminejad, Y. (2018). Identifying the limitations and barriers to creating and sharing knowledge. Organizational Knowledge Management, 2(1), 103-129 [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.47176/smok.2019.1013
Shafiipour, D., Aslani, F., & Salehi, N. (2022). Obstacles to implementing knowledge management and formulating an executive model. Innovation Management in Defense Organizations, 4(4), 163-182. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22034/qjimdo.2023.403299.1597
Siahsarani Kojuri, M.A., & CheragAli, M.R. (2024). Application of clustering technique in analyzing the situation of knowledge management in Golestan University. Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge, 7(24), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.47176/smok.2024.1697 [In Persian]
Taylor, W.A., & Wright, G.H. (2004). Organizational readiness for successful knowledge sharing: challenges for public sector managers. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 17(2), 22-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2004040102
Trivella, L., & Dimitrios, N.K. (2015). Knowledge management strategy within the higher education. The case of Greece. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 488-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1227
Veer Ramjeawon, P., & Rowley, J. (2020). Enablers and barriers to knowledge management in universities: perspectives from South Africa and Mauritius. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 72(5), 745-764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2019-0362
Vuori, V., Helander, N., & Mäenpää, S. (2018). Network level knowledge sharing: Leveraging Riege’s model of knowledge barriers. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(3), 253–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1557999
Wolf, P., Skov Madsen, E., & Steppe, J. A. (2024). Bridging the theory-practice gap: a genealogical perspective on the most debated knowledge management challenges. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 23(7), 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2024.2379922
Zarei, A., Maleki, M., Feiz, D., & Siahsarani Kojouri, M.A. (2018). Competitive Intelligence Text Mining: Words Speak. Journal of AI and Data Mining, 6(1), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.22044/jadm.2017.950