Strategic knowledge management in aerospace
industries: a case study
Mostafa Jafari, Jalal Rezaeenour, Peyman Akhavan and Mehdi N. Fesharaki
Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Purpose – The objective of this paper is to develop a model for planning and establishment of knowledge management (KM) strategy in one of the
Iranian Sub-stream Aerospace Industries Organization to improve company’s performance.
Design/methodology/approach – This research tries to use multi-method approach by integrating balanced score card, which is a renowned
strategic management approach, and Nonaka and colleagues’ knowledge creation process (socialization, externalization, combination, and
internalization model), which is a well-known knowledge creation and conversion model, being adopted as the foundations of strategic knowledge
management model (SKMM).
Findings – The analytical approach identifies eight issues as critical success factors of the knowledge strategy map in this case study. The overall
results from the case study are positive as well, thus reflecting the appropriateness of the suggested SKMM model.
Research limitations/implications – SKMM can be used to help forward the plan, establishment and evaluation of KM strategies and initiatives. This
helps to ensure that the essential issues are covered during design and implementation phases of KM strategies.
Originality/value – This paper further provides an integrated perspective of KM metrics in high-tech industries including the aerospace industry. It
gives valuable information and guidelines that hopefully will help leaders to consider important issues during performance measurement of KM
strategies in organizations.
Keywords Knowledge management, Strategic planning, Aerospace industry, Iran
Paper type Case study
equipped with expensive machinery and a large number of
experts. Consequently, practical know-how should be totally
precise. Like other corporations, majority of aerospace firms are
trying to outsource more and focus on their own core
competencies. Therefore, it seems that KM is in the center of
attention in most of these companies (Jafari et al., 2007a). It is
striking that, providing an environment which promotes
organizational learning and encourages positive changes
towards it has been reported as core component in
knowledge-intensive organizations (Akhavan et al., 2006;
Lin and Kuo, 2007).
Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO) is a serious
component of Iran industrial core, since it employs a large
number of highly paid, highly skilled workers in knowledgeintensive jobs. AIO have a valuable source of knowledge,
product, and process technologies and complicated
manufacturing. Design and development of products in AIO
rely on the productive use of a lot of employees who have
combinations of education, skills, and experience. Having said
that, AIO can be categorized as a knowledge-intensive
organization. From past ten years, Iran has been seeking a
master plan to capture the space by launching national satellites.
AIO leaders have faith in KM to prevent them from reiterating
their mistakes. Also, they believe that it can help them to learn
from their achievements and grasp their vision about capturing
the space. Considering aforementioned reasons, a KM program
has been initiated in various sub-stream companies of AIO.
In this way, one of the most important aims of this study is to
provide an explanation about strategic management of
knowledge in such a knowledge-intensive organization.
Despite the fact that too much literature has been published
about KM as a whole, and many recommendations exist about
linkage between KM, corporate strategy and organizational
performance (Bontis et al., 1999; Bose, 2004), not enough
Introduction
“Knowledge is power”, particularly in the current era. No
matter what you name it as cooperation, decision support,
knowledge management (KM) or some other thing – that is
the fundamental principle which supports nowadays’ corporate
strategies ( Jafari et al., 2009). There are various definitions
about KM in the literature. Quintas et al. (1997) state that:
Knowledge management is the process of continually managing knowledge
of all kinds to meet existing and emerging needs, to identify and exploit
existing and acquired knowledge assets and to develop new opportunities.
There are various models for management of knowledge and
intellectual capital (IC) (Mertins et al., 2003; Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995; Wiig, 1997). But, they have some
shortcomings in describing the way KM can be established
in real world. In other words, they show an extremely general
manner while they have inadequate tools for effective KM
strategy development (Tat and Hase, 2007).
In addition to contributions to the economic and national
pride of any country, the aerospace industry manufactures highvalue-added artifacts and works as a knowledge base for other
industries. KM in aerospace systems, can be found in
communities and groups, that are acting diverse functions in
design and development activities (Holm, 2005). Recently,
aerospace firms are characterized by complicated technology
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1748-8842.htm
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
82/1 (2010) 60– 74
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842]
[DOI 10.1108/00022661011028128]
60
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
theory can be found about the influences of measurement on
KM. Although there are many KM cases, a considerable
number of them has been unsuccessful at effective management
of knowledge (Choo and Bontis, 2002). Lacking a descriptive
measurement report about KM programs, leaders cannot make
sure about their effectiveness and obstacles to their progress. So,
directors seek ways to assess the influences of KM attempts on
firm’s performance. It is necessary to use acceptable universal
measures in order to express the outcomes of KM and to
persuade directors about its value. Despite advancement of KM
measurement approaches during these years, it is necessary to
pay more attention to this subject and try to develop and
standardize these methods (Bose, 2004; Mertins et al., 2003).
It is time to define the core research question which is:
tackle this problem. Also, Nonaka and Konno (1998)
recommend an impressive equivalent concept namely Ba.
Knowledge strategy includes considerations about the future
knowledge needs and a plan for filling the gaps between current
knowledge and required knowledge. Knowledge needs here
may refer to the knowledge resources and desired knowledge for
organization. There are different KM strategies such as:
knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, knowledge
protection, knowledge strategy as business strategy,
intellectual asset management strategy and personal
knowledge strategy (Bloodgood and Salisbury, 2001; Wiig,
1997). Each of these strategies above has its own advantage and
disadvantage, but the knowledge creation strategy is the
perquisite of the others. Knowledge creation acts like a vital
armor in the globalized economy. In other words, it seems that
knowledge creating is the most significant determinant of
organizational efficiency degree (Nonaka et al., 2000, 2005;
Song, 2008). Because of this enormous consideration,
knowledge creation is at the center of attention, and plenty of
academic models have been conducted in accordance with it.
So, we pursue this notion and are in agreement with SECI
model about knowledge creation process (Nonaka, 1991). This
model has been repeatedly utilized in various academic and
practical situations (Chou, 2005).
Nonaka, in collaboration with some authors developed a
comprehensive model to demonstrate process of knowledge
creation in organizations in the early 1990s. The SECI model
was initially presented in Nonaka (1991). But it was modified
and developed for an extensive usage in his book in Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995). This model represents a dynamic interaction
between two types of knowledge (i.e. tacit and explicit) in a
spiral process, which helps knowledge to be improved by the
way of interaction between individuals, groups, and
organizations. In other words, cooperation between
individuals and groups inside an encouraging organizational
background creates knowledge and develops its value. A bit
later, Nonaka and Konno (1998) also recommended the
necessity to construct a suitable space where knowledge
creation and transfer take place, namely Ba.
From Nonaka’s viewpoint, knowledge is created and
developed in a nonstop cycle of SECI (Figure 1).
Socialization refers to creation of novel tacit knowledge by
way of shared experiences. Instances of such a knowledge are
skills and shared mental models. The outcome of such a process
is named “experiential knowledge”. Externalization refers to
conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit one, so-called
“conceptual knowledge”. Examples are models, hypotheses,
concepts, analogies or metaphors. Combination refers to
RQ1. In which way a corporation can establish a KM
strategy to advance firm’s performance?
Useful knowledge strategy can assist aerospace industry in
collecting key knowledge, enhancing firm intelligence and
improving its core competencies. So, a KM strategy was
scheduled in one of the Iran Sub-stream Aerospace Industries
Organization (SAIO). This paper is to discuss management of
knowledge strategy in one of the SAIO. Core objectives of this
research are:
.
Developing a model for planning and implementing KM
strategy in combination with balanced scorecard (BSC)
approach (Kaplan and Norton, 1992) and socialization,
externalization, combination, and internalization (SECI)
model (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
.
Implementation and analysis of the developed model in
one of the SAIO.
Knowledge management
It is time to identify the differences between data, information
and knowledge. Data are raw happenings, with no meaning.
Information can be considered as data with given meaning via
relational link and context. Knowledge can be seen as
information with direction for action on the basis of insight
and experience (Lillrank, 2002). Considering the differences
between data, information and knowledge, this paper takes
ideas from Polanyi (1966) to define tacit and explicit
knowledge. Tacit knowledge is related to individuals’ private
skills, backdrop, and learning characteristics, and so it is
difficult to record. Explicit knowledge denotes knowledge
which can be easily articulated, transmitted, and documented.
We define KM as a collection of organizational activities which
assists forward identification, catch, organization, storage,
transfer, application, and measurement of knowledge and
speeds up knowledge creation with respect to organizational
strategy.
Management science is well-known due to its fashions and
fads. Some researchers believe that KM can be seen like other
management fads (Wilson, 2002; Ponzi and Koenig, 2002).
Also some others emphasized that KM will never be a fad just
in the circumstance that it can be correctly supported (Jain,
2009; Laycock, 2005). Also, some authors have criticized KM
and/or suggested new directions for research. For instance,
Wilson’s (2002) perspective about KM just turns around hard
features of KM like information management. In contrast
with Wilson, some authors like Hildreth and Kimble (2002)
argue that communities of practices (COPs) can be used to
Figure 1 The SECI process
Externalization
Socialization
Experiential
knowledge
Conceptual
knowledge
Routine
knowledge
Systemic
knowledge
Internalization
Source: Adapted from Nonaka et al. (2000)
61
Combination
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Performance measurement methods for
KM strategies
conversion of explicit knowledge into more organized and
complicated collection of explicit knowledge, so-called
“systemic knowledge”. Samples are classifying, linking,
adding and sorting explicit knowledge. And finally,
internalization refers to changing explicit knowledge into tacit
knowledge of individuals. Internalization creates “routine
knowledge”. Exercise, training and learning by doing are
essential to adopt explicit knowledge. The SECI model, while
widely used, has also been criticized. For instance, Hildreth and
Kimble (2002) claim: “the flaw in Nonaka’s spiral of knowledge
is in the tacit-explicit stage.” Some authors (Teece, 1998)
believe that this is not a trouble and have a certain opinion that
tacit knowledge is only hard to articulate. This paper tries to
strengthen the impact of the knowledge creation theory and
concentrates on social viewpoint of knowledge that simply exists
in Nonaka SECI model.
KM literature represents an extensive spectrum of KM
measurement tools. Fairchild (2002) reviewed KM
measurement methods and talked about the employment of
BSC to define a relationship between KM utilization and IT
strategy. Mitri (2003) noticed the difficulty level of tacit
knowledge evaluation and its performance in education centers,
and developed a decision support system for evaluation of tacit
knowledge in a KM context. Smits and de Moor (2004)
proposed an extensive approach to identify performance indices
for KM in COPs. They provided an approach for measuring
performance of COPs within a KM program. Hong-bing and
Lei (2007) introduced a set of input/output measures for
efficiency analysis of KM for project-based firms using data
envelopment analysis (DEA) method. Chen et al. (2008)
developed a method for appraising KM performance based on
linguistic variables and fuzzy sets theory.
Knowledge evaluation approaches consist of a variety of
methods and models for recognition, categorization and
assessment of organizations’ knowledge. Especially, IC can be
used as a major notion to examine organizational knowledge
assets. There are also a variety of methods and tools for
evaluating IC. In the well-known categorization recommended
by Sveiby (2001-2005), the available approaches to assess IC
divide into four taxonomies including market capitalization
methods (MCM), return on assets (ROA), SC and direct
intellectual capital (DIC) Methods. MCM approaches are used
to financially appraise the overall value of intangible resources.
These methods evaluate IC in general, usually by way of the gap
between the book and market value of the organization. ROA
tools, assess the intangible assets by means of typical financial
indices on the organizational level similar to the first group. The
SC methods try to represent intangibles by way of non-financial
indices. DIC models, likewise assess various IC taxonomies
distinctly by means of financial measures (Sveiby, 2001,
2001-2005).
The monetary-based approaches like MCM and ROA are
suitable for comparisons among firms in the same industry. In
other words, these methods can be used to represent the
monetary value of IC. In addition, since they are based on
accepted accounting regulations, they are simply adopted
between accounting practitioners. Their problematic condition
is that by transforming anything into monetary values, the results
will be superficial. Strength points of the SC and DIC tools refer
to their abilities to represent a better inclusive depiction of
organizational status than monetary-based measures.
Furthermore, these approaches can be simply implemented at
all levels of organizations while they represent more precise
picture than financial indices. A variety of organizations
including private, public, non-profit and non-governmental
organizations, and also internal sections of organizations have
found these methods useful. Their weaknesses refer to their
contextual measures which change for every company and every
intention, and this issue makes comparisons a little hard. Also,
their emersion refers to a few years ago, and so they cannot be
simply accepted by directors and practitioners who get used to
analyze all performances financially (Sveiby, 2001-2005). Table I
shows the comparisons between the explained four categories.
In addition to considerable advantages of SC methods which
are shown in Table I, there are other considerations to adopt
BSC for assessing KM strategy. First, BSC is a progressively
Research methodology
Each research has its characteristics that help researcher to
select an appropriate methodology. Based on the points
discussed above, the authors’ recent researches on KM
(Akhavan et al., 2006; Jafari et al., 2007a, b), the research
framework of this study has been developed on three main
stages as shown in Figure 2.
In this way, at the first stage of this research, some
measurement approaches and categories of KM and IC will
be introduced. Then, we will focus on scorecard (SC) category
based on its advantages among the other measurement
approaches. The BSC method seems good for usage in the
rest of research, so in the second stage the strategic KM model
will be developed by integrating BSC with the SECI model.
Note that in this model we want to replace the traditional four
BSC perspectives with the four dimensions of the SECI model.
The developed model is too complicated and so, it needs to
describe in an explanatory manner. Also, we try to discuss
verification of the proposed model, and seek to indicate the
suitability of the model for the SAIO. In this way, a
questionnaire will be designed to evaluate beliefs of AIO
experts about basic elements of the proposed model. In the third
stage, the proposed model will be implemented in the SAIO in a
six-month period, and we seek to analyze the outcomes of its
implementation. Finally, the results of research will be
concluded in the end part and further studies will be proposed
for all KM interesting organizations.
Figure 2 Research framework
Literature
review
1-Reviewing
KM metrics
models
2-Evaluating
KM metric
models
3-Model
selection &
description
SKMM
developing
4-Developing
SKMM
5-Describing
SKMM stages
6-Verification
of SKMM
SKMM
establishment
7-SKMM
establishment
in the SAIO
8-Mapping
knowledge
strategy
9-Analysis of
results
62
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Table I Intellectual capital assessment approaches
Direct IC Market capitalization Return on assets SC methods Criterion
U
U
X
U
U
U
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
X
X
X
U
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
U
U
U
U
U
Ability to monetary appraisal (Sveiby, 2001-2005)
Ability to compare similar companies (Sveiby, 2001-2005)
Insensitivity to interest rate (Sveiby, 2001-2005)
Ability to use on any organizational level (Sveiby, 2001-2005)
Ability to represent knowledge status (Sveiby, 2001-2005)
Applicability for non-profit firms (Bose, 2004; Salterio and Webb, 2003)
Being user friendly and flexible (Sveiby, 2001-2005; Groene et al., 2009; Steele, 2001)
Being popular (Bose, 2004; Salterio and Webb, 2003)
well-liked method for assessing organizational performance,
and also it is broadly accepted in KM literature (Bose, 2004;
Salterio and Webb, 2003). Second, BSC can be customized to
carry out specific organizational strategic objectives (Groene
et al., 2009; Steele, 2001). Third, since BSC was presented in
the early 1990s, numerous firms have been using it for
systematically performance enhancement (Bose, 2004; Salterio
and Webb, 2003). Fourth, BSC has been frequently
incorporated in the other performance approaches, that can
help us to use their experiences (Smits and de Moor, 2004;
Groene et al., 2009). Fifth, the resemblances between KM and
BSC, make authors like Petty and Guthrie (2000) and Bontis
et al. (1999), and another ones recommend that BSC must be an
essential part of IC.
In the early 1990s, the BSC was just a performance
assessment method (Kaplan and Norton, 1992). Then it
upgraded to a strategy implementation approach in Kaplan and
Norton (1996, 1997). At last, it raised to a higher standard
which was a strategy management method (Kaplan and
Norton, 2001, 2004). In other words, first, the concentration
was on the basis of measure developments in four perspectives.
These perspectives include “internal business processes”,
“customer”, “financial”, and “learning and growth”. Then
BSC progressively advanced and became a strategic
management approach directed towards depicting “the
process for transforming intangible assets into tangible
customer and financial outcomes” providing “a framework for
describing and managing strategy in the knowledge economy”
(Kaplan and Norton, 2001). A standard BSC approach has
stages like what comes after (Mountain State Group, 2005;
Niven, 2003):
1 Preparation evaluation. Recognizing requirements and
resources, and also verifying commitment of management.
2 Programming. Assigning workgroup’s leader and
participators; performing an examination about
organization’s mission, vision and strategy; allocating
objectives to perspectives; creating strategy map;
recognizing indices and taking collective agreement about
the indices; and building execution program.
3 Execution. Entering objectives/critical success factors
(CSFs) and indices into system by way of training or
software; creating SCs; determining warning levels and
criteria, data integration regulations; describing report
templates; bringing in data; and producing reports.
4 Incorporation. Merging BSC with other supportive
processes; communicating with personnel; assigning and
empowering responsible persons for data gathering;
explaining BSC aims; updating strategy; upgrading
5
reporting system; and conducting some modifications to
reward system.
Routine function. Upgrading data; analyzing and reporting
in a regular process; upgrading measures; evaluating
outcomes; preparing and distributing outcomes; and
modifying process.
Developing SKMM
Explicit and tacit are two types of knowledge. Resemblance
can be found between tacit knowledge and human capital.
Also, there are similarities between explicit knowledge and
structural capital. Experiential and routine knowledge are the
main components of human capital. It is striking that, both of
them are sub-classes of tacit knowledge. As well, systemic and
conceptual knowledge are the major parts of structural
capital. This and that together are instances of explicit
knowledge. Structural capital includes intangible assets ready
for use while personnel exit the organization like internal
process/systems knowledge, procedures, knowledge bases, etc.
Therefore, for setting up knowledge creation strategy, it is
needed to expand knowledge in its whole dimensions,
containing: routine, systemic, conceptual, and experiential
knowledge (Smits and de Moor, 2004).
In this paper, authors have applied the four dimensions of
SECI model instead of BSC terms for development of the
new approach for measuring performance of knowledge
creation strategies as shown in Figure 3. In the following,
the activities of each stage of strategic knowledge management
model (SKMM) will be defined (Kaplan and Norton, 1996;
Mountain State Group, 2005; Niven, 2003).
Preparation evaluation
Includes recognizing requirements, identifying resources and
verifying commitment of management. The first domain must
think over is recognizing the necessity for establishing a
SKMM. Some evaluations about existing performance indices
can assist to recognize troublesome domains. There are some
other issues which must be taken into account including
existing resources in connection with available information
technology infrastructure, proficiency and time of personnel,
and cost of professional aid if necessary. Eventually, an
important subject to consider is to make sure about the
powerful commitment of management. It is obvious that,
establishment of every performance enhancement process will
denote change. Lacking a perfect management commitment,
almost certainly all endeavors for alteration will be
unsuccessful. SKMM establishment can cause important
cultural alteration.
63
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Figure 3 Strategic knowledge management model
EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE
PERSPECTIVE
CSFs
Measures
Criterion
Action
needed
CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE
PERSPECTIVE
ROUTINE KNOWLEDGE
PERSPECTIVE
CSFs
Measures
Criterion
STRATEGY OF
KNOWLEDGE
CREATION
Action
needed
CSFs
Measures
Criterion
Action
needed
SYSTEMIC KNOWLEDGE
PERSPECTIVE
CSFs
Measures
Criterion
Action
needed
can explain the particular objects an organization is supposed
to do well to implement its KM strategy. Action verbs like
raise, decrease, enhance, obtain, and those of the same type,
are frequently used to describe CSFs. After formal approval of
CSFs, and subsequent to KM strategy mapping, the following
questions should be answered (Mountain State Group, 2005):
.
Have all the essential components been considered? Does
the KM strategy map show a sufficient cause and effect
reasoning?
.
Have all the components set up rationally? Does the
reasoning seem abstractly logical?
.
Do the CSFs guide us to successful implementation of the
KM strategy?
.
Is there a balance in our attempts to attain the KM
strategy?
Programming
Consists of assigning leader and participators for SKMM
workgroup; performing an evaluation about mission, vision and
strategy; allocating objectives/CSFs to SKMM perspectives,
creating KM strategy map, recognizing indices and taking
collective agreement about KM indices; and building execution
program. While the SKMM workgroup is identified, an
examination about the vision, mission, objectives, and
strategies (include process or functional strategies) must be
done. When the strategic plan is developed, KM strategy is
checked to decide how it can make ready for the four SKMM
perspectives. Maybe, a number of corporations find it necessary
to supplement some other perspectives. However, we preferred
to concentrate on these four perspectives. For instance, two
comprehensive objectives “increase in internal systematic
knowledge” and “increase in external systematic knowledge”,
can be categorized to fit in systemic knowledge perspective.
Taking KM strategy into account, then it is necessary to
recognize CSFs of KM strategy and build a strategy map of KM.
Rockart (1979) defined CSFs as “the limited number of areas in
which satisfactory results will ensure successful competitive
performance for the individual, department or organization”.
A KM strategy map depicts how a corporation generates
knowledge and represents CFSs in every KM perspective.
A KM strategy map shows a chain of CSFs in order to achieve
organizational KM strategy. It prepares an illustrative picture
which displays the cause and effect relationship among different
KM CSFs. The quantity of CSFs in a KM strategy map does not
follow any strict and fixed standard. But it seems that fewer
CSFs are usually better (Mountain State Group, 2005).
According to Niven’s (2003) suggestion, a limited number of
CSFs especially more than ten and less than 20, seems good for
a BSC process establishment.
Appropriate CSFs can give accurate explanation of the
intention. A good selection can delineate for what reason the
CSFs are essential, and also can explain in what way the CSFs
join in the cause and effect chain. In addition, succinct CSFs
Akhavan et al. (2006) and Jafari et al. (2007a) by examining
various references, identified some critical dimensions that
can be used in selecting KM CSFs as showed in Table II.
With no KM strategy map, it is really hard to explain KM
strategy modifications. Figure 4 is a diagrammatical depiction to
illustrate how a KM strategy map can be built. Every organization
should first consider its KM objectives and strategy, and then
create a suitable map. After the creation of map, it is time to
identify particular indices which can be utilized to follow
achievement of KM CSFs. A SKMM is supposed to contain a
mixture of lead and lag indices. Lag indices measure the
outcomes of process, when lead indices measure improvement in
the direction of the process (Mountain State Group, 2005).
The fundamental purpose in choosing particular indices for a
SC is detection of the indicators which are best suited for the
KM strategy. After the indicator selection, the SKMM
workgroup had to expend time to purify the indicators,
allocate responsible persons, and determine data necessities.
In this stage, it seems fine to collect personnel opinions about
the suitability, feasibility, and rationality of the indicators
(Mountain State Group, 2005).
64
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Table II KM CSFs
Experiential knowledge
Conceptual knowledge
Routine knowledge
Systemic knowledge
Internal interactions
External interactions
Trust and organizational culture
Employee’s involvement and
understanding – awareness
Support and commitment of
CEO (leadership)
Benchmarking
Team working
Collaboration and communication
Specialized meetings and seminars
Communities of practice
Knowledge sharing
Risk-taking climate in the organization
Flexible and dynamic organizational
structure
Integration of KM and current systems
Specialized training man-hours
Number of experience years
Utilization of knowledge repository
Employees training and educations
Continuous learning
Job enrichment
Job security
Human resources management and
motivation
Internal systemic knowledge
External systemic knowledge
Knowledge repositories
Knowledge architecture
KM systems
Knowledge structure
IT infrastructure
Systematic approach to KM
Sources: Adapted from Akhavan et al. (2006); Jafari et al. (2007b)
Figure 4 Knowledge creation strategy map
Strategy of
knowledge
creation
Systemic
knowledge
Conceptual
knowledge
Experiential
knowledge
Routine
knowledge
Providing a program for SKMM implementation is final
step in the programming stage. This program must represent
activity costs, anticipated milestones, risk assessment, a
declaration of IT, SKMM components, and obvious
recognition allocated persons. Also, the program must show
in what way the SKMM data is exchanged all over the firm
and how critiques of personnel can be acquired and
incorporated. The program should represent the foundation
for the execution and incorporation endeavors.
Strategy of knowledge creation
To establish knowledge creation strategy, how we can create
systemic knowledge based on conceptual knowledge?
To create a basis for systemic knowledge, how we can express
conceptual knowledge and externalize it?
To create conceptual knowledge, how we can create experiential
knowledge based on socialization?
Execution
An obviously well-made program must determine
organization’s information technology infrastructure, and
also its abilities and restrictions. For better data collection,
it is necessary to make required modifications in your IT
infrastructure based on risk assessment outcomes. Purchasing
a BSC software package is a choice for organizations which
are preparing for the execution stage. A number of packages
can be found with the purpose of BSC which can support the
whole process. A list consisting of 15 different BSC packages
can be found at 2GC Company’s web site (www.2gc.co.uk/).
Also, applications of MS Office software like Access and Excel
can really help those organizations which do not have enough
budget for purchasing standard BSC software packages.
A SC is a table which illustrates perspectives, CSFs,
measures, targets, warning points, and initiatives or actions
needed. A good SC should help users to identify information
integration regulations, design diagrams and reports, and
bring in past data. Various reports should be provided for
different organizational audiences. For instance, it is best to
present all information about SKMM perspectives in a
graphical report for management level. Personnel report
should contain any information connected with knowledge
processes like knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.
Reports for board of directorates are more concise than the
manager’s report. It is obvious that, the SKMM workgroup
has a responsibility to help different departments and groups
to define their reports and SCs (Mountain State Group,
2005). An illustrative report for top manager of SAIO can be
seen in Figure 6.
To create a basis for experiential knowledge, how we can
internalize routine knowledge in minds?
After general agreement on the indicators, SKMM workgroup
should try to set up targets for the indicators. A lot of KM
indicators are available for organizations to choose.
Considering four SKMM perspectives, these indicators may
be like those in Table III. Indicators must be selected for each
of the perspectives agreed upon. Owing to time-consuming
nature of data gathering for each measure, it is necessary to
reduce the number of measures to less crucial ones which
have the following characteristics (Mountain State Group,
2005):
.
connected with the organizational KM strategy;
.
not difficult to understand;
.
can be joined together in an action and reaction chain;
.
can be upgraded regularly;
.
draw a factual depiction of the process which you are
trying to control; and
.
reachable, measurable, and practical.
Table IV is an easy way to evaluate if your indicators are fine
nominees for a SKMM establishment. Table IV can be also
supposed as a work sheet for evaluating the appropriateness of
selected KM measures. So, you should assign a score between
1 and 10 for each item listed in Table IV. Then, the sum of
scores for each measure should be calculated. Finally
measures with the best scores can be selected for each CSF.
The scores of measures for each CSF could be between 5
and 50. As mentioned before, if ever consensus on the indices
has been obtained, the SKMM workgroup can establish
targets for the indicators.
Incorporation
It seems that communicating is the most important feature of
the incorporation stage. In this stage, all participants in
SKMM workgroup and the whole managers and personnel
65
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Table III Sample measures for SKMM
Experiential knowledge
Routine knowledge
Systemic knowledge
Conceptual knowledge
Direct communication links
Non-assigned working time
Regulated socialization
Investment in IT
Length of relationship
Partner satisfaction index
Customer satisfaction index
Customer retention
Number of customers
Customer lost
Average duration of customer
relationship
Customer visits to the company
Days spent visiting customer
Service expense/customer
IT literacy of customers
Network capability/employee
Relationship investment/customer
Direct communications to customer/
year
New markets development
investments
Contribution in projects
Investment in training
Training expense/administrative
expense
Training expense/employee
Average age of employees
Average age of full-time or
permanent employees
Percentage of company managers
with advanced degree
Percentage of employees with
advanced degrees
Employee turnover
Frequency of use of knowledge
repository or knowledge base
Number of training man-hours
Average duration of employment
Educational investment
Share of training hours
Number of part-time employees
Hours of training/employee
Number of bytes of project
documents
Number of registered experiences of
personnel in knowledge repository
Number of patents
Number of ISI journals articles
Number of scientific conferences or
journals articles
Number of new products
Number of patents field
Savings from implemented employee
suggestions
Average age of company patents
Ratio of new products
Number of new solutions
Patents pending
Number of processes changed
Number of bytes of project meetings
records
Percentage of hours assigned to
project meetings
Number of specialized seminars or
workshops
Number of ideas collected from
suggestion box
New processes suggested
R&D invested in basic research
R&D invested in product design
Investments in new product design
R&D resources/total resources
Sources: Adapted from CMA (1999); Roos et al. (1998); Bose (2004); Smits and de Moor (2004)
Table IV A template for measure selection
Dimensions
CSFs
Systemic
knowledge
CSF 1-1
Conceptual
knowledge
Experiential
knowledge
Routine
knowledge
..
.
CSF 2-1
..
.
CSF 3-1
..
.
CSF 4-1
..
.
Measures/
indicators
Coordination
with strategy
Scores (assign a grade between 1 and 10 for each item)
Coordination
Specific and
with the CSF
Measurability
Accessibility
intelligible
Sum of
scores
Measure1-1-1
...
...
Measure2-1-1
...
...
Measure3-1-1
...
...
Measure4-1-1
...
...
Source: Adapted from Niven (2003)
personnel to contribute to firm’s KM objectives (Mountain
State Group, 2005).
should be aware of the SKMM process. All responsibilities for
collecting, entering and evaluating the data, and producing
the reports should be communicated through this stage. It is
best to prepare worksheet for each measure and submit it to
related data collector. This process can help organizations to
find those reports and indices that are not helpful. It is highly
recommended that all levels create their own SCs according
to the KM CSFs and indicators they may affect. This means
“cascading” which is the process of creating arranged SCs in
every part of a firm. The act of cascading permits all the
Routine function
This stage is a continuous process and consists of regular data
inputting, information evaluation, and reporting by way of
standard procedures. Also some other regular functions such
as overall outcome evaluation and modification of the whole
process take place during this stage. Considering the existence
of a lot of data, the cause and effect relationships can be easily
66
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
assessed to decide whether indicators are truly joined to the
determined KM strategy. Also, it is required to review CSFs
to make sure about their logical relationships in the cause and
effect diagram, and also to make sure that they are supporting
the KM strategy. It is noteworthy that, the purification
process must conduct for the SKMM process continuously
during its life (Mountain State Group, 2005).
experience in combination with technical know-how can help
AIO personnel to try for approaching the wish of capturing the
space. Considering AIO as a knowledge-intensive organization,
and also considering a huge sum of knowledge in it, the AIO
leaders conclude to plan and implement a KM process all over
the organization. AIO was considered as a significant park of
research in Iran and endeavors were concentrated on making
the organization less central. In the new organizational
structure, there are various process and improvement
workgroups which can collaborate easily with each other all
over the organization. Nowadays, each of AIO’s sub-stream
companies (i.e. SAIOs), has its specific and unique research and
development (R&D) department. Sharing of knowledge was
defined as a fundamental characteristic of these research
centers. Each of these R&D departments was equipped with a
KM division to organize knowledge and assist forward
knowledge transfer within the organization ( Jafari et al.,
2007a, b).
In addition to AIO’s concerns about KM, there were some
other worries in the SAIO. The SAIO has numerous specialists
and experts in various scientific subjects such as aerodynamics,
propulsion, avionics, guidance and control, thermal, satellite,
etc. A large problem of the SAIO was losing the knowledge
workers. This problem was considerable because the
average years of the technical employees were less than seven
years. In this way, KM initiatives were started in 2006 in the
SAIO. First of all, a “KM department” was organized in the
SAIO by integrating three different sections, including: library,
public relations office, and training and education office, and a
CKO was appointed in order to supervise it.
Usually, new managerial systems cause some opposition
versus change in personnel. The same event took place
against the KM in some design functions. In this way, the KM
department planned and held some introductive seminars and
forums about the KM. Several issues like SAIO’s knowledgebased feature, mission requirements, significance of
knowledge and KM in SAIO and human developmental
programs for the future were discussed in these forums.
Several pamphlets and brochures were advertized in order to
promote personnel and directors awareness about KM and its
influences in different aerospace organizations all over the
world. These forums and meetings helped SAIO to accept
alterations and to adopt KM as a new process.
Then, organizational process map was modified to adapt
with the new process. A number of organizational procedures
and instructions were updated and some new instructions
were added to existing organizational regulations. Afterwards,
an experts’ network was shaped in the SAIO and knowledge
portal was established. The characteristics and experience
fields of all technical employees are recorded in this portal.
This portal also contains some features for receiving lessons
learned and experiences from all members, and for reviewing
them. Progressively, various knowledge committees in
different knowledge areas formed in the SAIO. Example of
knowledge committees were aerodynamics, avionics, adaptor
and satellite, ground equipments, tele-command, etc. It is
striking that, these committees have a close relationship with
the higher level committees in the AIO. In order to acquire
the SAIO’s knowledge, project meetings and specialized
seminars of projects are planned in project schedules, and
they occur during or at the end of projects phases.
Scientific and practical relationships with some Iranian
top-ranked universities were started to facilitate
SKMM verification
Before implementation of SKMM, each of its five stages was
introduced in a descriptive manner with enough templates and
cases. Then, a questionnaire was designed to verify the proposed
model by AIO experts’ judgments. The participants in this survey
were members of the AIO including managers, senior experts
and effective staff in decision making who were involved in KM
efforts. It is important to say that this survey was to identify the
opinions of AIO experts about SKMM and verify the basic
elements of model. For confirming this default, nine questions
were configured and placed in the questionnaire. After a pre-test
of questionnaire, the questionnaire with a guideline was sent to
the experts via e-mail. The number of questionnaires sent out was
71; the number returned true questionnaires was 42, which
showed a return rate of 59.15 percent of the total sent out. After a
reliability analysis of the questionnaire and confirming it, since
the distribution of the collected data was not normal, the
Binomial non-parametric test was used to determine the
difference between agree and disagree results. In this case,
based on test results most of the participants reached consensus
on the model. The ratio expressing strongly agree and agree on
questions was over 70 percent, showing significant consensus.
This representative sample expressed the opinion that “almost all
of the basic elements of SKMM were verified”.
SKMM establishment in the SAIO
This research will be continued by the explanations about the
establishment of strategic KM process as the preliminary steps
of KM program in the SAIO based on SKMM. The SAIO has a
matrix organizational structure which consists of four design
functions which collaborate to access the SAIO missions. The
SAIO is project-based and its products are the drawings and
documents of design and development projects. Usually,
newcomers who enter the SAIO, before tossing into
maelstrom of projects, are expected to pass some precede
training and have a three-month internship in the SAIO.
A top-level designer is appointed as administrator of new
employees. New employees will be selected for projects only
after confirmation of the administrative designer. Number of
personnel of the SAIO is 175 by now and from this, 55 members
are supportive staff and the others are technical knowledge
workers of the SAIO. Note that, a project control department
also helps design functions for better initiation, planning,
execution, control, and finalization of the SAIO projects.
KM initiatives at AIO and the SAIO
Before evaluating the establishment of SKMM at the SAIO, it is
necessary to get more familiar with KM initiatives both at AIO
and at the SAIO. Considering knowledge and its holders
(i.e. human capital) as the most expensive organizational
properties, and also taking the short life of technology into
account in today’s economy, AIO directives realized that they
should try to sustain their knowledge assets inside. Individuals’
67
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
intra-organizational collaboration. Each knowledge
committee has at least one academic member from the
universities who has an active role in the meetings. One of the
most important roles of the academic members is their
cooperation in defining various PhD and master’s theses in
collaboration with the other members of the committees.
In addition to aforementioned initiatives, a comprehensive
document management system (DMS) has been established
in the SAIO. Different templates for documentation were
designed and spread over the SAIO. In order to increase
the volume of knowledge repositories of the SAIO,
the knowledge creation strategy is selected for the SAIO.
This section is to discuss management of knowledge creation
strategy in the SAIO. Following steps are an example of how
one organization can establish a SKMM process.
defined as: “creating systemic knowledge for developing SAIO’s
products and services” which was a knowledge creation
strategy. Subsequently, a meeting was held between CEO,
department managers, and SKMM workgroup. The intention
of this meeting was to make some decisions about CSFs based
on Brainstorming. In this meeting, all the CSFs in Table II were
introduced to the participants. Then, participants were invited
to express their beliefs about each of the CSFs. Finally after 2
hours discussions, from all CSFs in Table II, eight CSFs were
extracted and assigned to the four perspectives of SKMM and a
knowledge strategy map was created as shown in Figure 5.
It is noteworthy that, SKMM workgroup approach in
selecting CSFs was a social viewpoint of knowledge. As a
result, most of the CSFs were in connection with social
activities.
Following the development of the KM strategy map, some
appropriate measures from Table III were entered into the
worksheet shown in Table IV and sent to the CEO and
department managers in order to assign scores to the measures.
After collection of the worksheets, by calculating each measure
final score, 11 measures were extracted as shown in Table VI.
Once consensus on the measures obtained, SKMM workgroup
proposed targets for the measures and released them to CEO
and department managers in order to confirm them. After some
interactions between SKMM workgroup and managers, the
targets for the measures were identified as depicted in Table VI.
The last activity in the programming phase was
development of a plan for implementation. This plan can be
seen as a base for the execution and incorporation endeavors
that will be happen. Table VII shows the execution or
implementation program for the SAIO.
Preparation evaluation
For this, two sessions were held with chief executive officer
(CEO) achieve his commitment within the SKMM
establishment. In these two sessions, preliminaries of SKMM
process were presented to him and resources needed were
explored. Another seminar was held for the department
managers to introduce preliminaries of SKMM model. After
ensuring the commitment of the CEO and department
managers, an examination of preparation was done based on
the subsequent worksheet (Table V).
This worksheet was utilized to evaluate if the SAIO can be
an appropriate nominee for a SKMM establishment.
The succeeding worksheet can be seen as an instance for
using it in real world. Scores in the second column can be
assigned by SKMM workgroup after evaluation of
organization’s current situation. The weight column can be
scored after Pairwise Comparisons (Saaty, 1980). As stated by
Niven (2003) a sum of total scores 5.5 will lead to further
attention about weak domains which have marks less than
five. Usually, after “management commitment”, “availability
of organizational strategy” and “availability of resources” are
two domains which have highest priority before SKMM
establishment. Note that there was a pre-defined strategy
about launching Iranian satellites to capture the space, and
also IT infrastructure was adequately good for the SKMM
establishment.
Execution
Based on SKMM execution program, top-level SCs were
designed for each SKMM perspective by SKMM workgroup,
and the initiatives for each CSF and measure were defined.
Then the top-level SCs were submitted to all the departments.
In this stage, all departments were obliged to cascade the SCs to
all of their sub-departments. Through cascading the top-level
SCs, any section of departments defined their own SCs in
cooperation with SKMM workgroup and their department
manager. Top-level SCs for all the SKMM perspectives can be
seen in Tables VIII-XI.
Note that, Microsoft Excel was selected for SKMM
establishment in the SAIO. Subsequently, in accordance
with defined SCs, the reporting templates were made by
SKMM workgroup in Microsoft excel format, and were sent
to all departments. For instance, a report template for the
management report has been shown in Figure 6.
Programming
A five-person-workgroup was selected, while the workgroup
leader was CKO and the active members were four persons from
the KM department. Then a review was conducted about the
strategy of the SAIO. Afterwards, knowledge functional strategy
Table V SKMM preparation evaluation worksheet
Area
Commitment of management
Availability of organizational strategy
Need for KM strategy establishment
Availability of resources
Participant’s support
Data availability
Sum
Incorporation
It must be said that before implementing SKMM process in the
SAIO, there was a systematic approach for process management
in the SAIO based on ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management
standard. Hence, key and supportive processes had previously
been defined, and so they were measured and managed
periodically in each month based on process owners’ reports.
So, it was clear to integrate SKMM process with the process
management system as a new supportive or managerial process.
In this way, new process map for the SAIO was generated and
the new process (i.e. SKMM process) was clearly defined and
documented according to ISO 9001 requirements. Then the
quality manual of quality management system was modified in
Score
Total
(out of 10) Weight scores
9
5
9
6
4
3
0.3
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.05
1
2.7
1.25
1.35
0.9
0.4
0.15
6.75
Source: Adapted from Niven (2003)
68
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Figure 5 SAIO KM strategy map
KM strategy
Creating knowledge for developing SAIO's products
Increase in external systemic
knowledge
Increase in internal systemic
knowledge
Conceptual knowledge dimension
To create a basis for systemic
knowledge, how we can express
conceptual knowledge and externalize it?
Increase in specialized meetings
and seminars
Increase in external
interactions
Increase in utilization of
knowledge repository
Increase in internal
interactions
Increase in number of
experience years
Systemic knowledge dimension
For knowledge creation strategy, how
we can create systemic knowledge
based on conceptual knowledge?
Increase in specialized
training man-hours
Experiential knowledge dimension
To create conceptual knowledge, how
we can create experiential knowledge
based on socialization?
Routine knowledge dimension
To create a basis for experiential
knowledge, how we can internalize
routine knowledge in minds?
Table VI Nominated measures for the SAIO
Perspective
CSF/objective
Measure
Criteria/target
Systemic knowledge
Increase in internal systemic
knowledge
Number of mega bytes of project
documents
Number of registered experiences
Number of registered patents
Number of accepted scientific articles
Number of specialized seminars
Number of mega bytes of project
meetings records
Percentage of working time without
meetings
Social interactions per employee
Incremental trend
Conceptual knowledge
Experiential knowledge
Increase in external systemic
knowledge
Increase in specialized meetings and
seminars
Increase in internal interactions
Increase in external interactions
Routine knowledge
Contribution in projects per employee
Average cascade-training man-hours
Increase in specialized training
man-hours
Increase in number of experience
years
Increase in utilization of knowledge
repository
Average months of employee
experiences
Frequencies of utilization of
knowledge repository
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
trend
trend
trend
trend
trend
Greater than or equal to 70 percent
Greater than or equal to four
man-month
Greater than or equal to two projects
Incremental trend
Greater or equal to 96 months
Incremental trend
described. In the next movement, some introductory seminars
were presented for the other personnel, and in these seminars
enough guidelines were given to them. In this case, it is stated
that the “start time for monitoring SKMM process and data
gathering is April 1, 2007.”
order to contain the new process. The next activity in this phase
was to define who is responsible for collecting, inputting and
analyzing data, generating reports, and communicating the
results with stakeholders.
In this way, in contribution with the department managers,
responsible persons were selected for gathering, inputting, and
analyzing data; then data gathering templates were sent to them.
An example of data gathering template has shown in Figure 7.
As previously mentioned, the most significant feature of the
Incorporation stage is communication. In this way, some
technical orientation seminars were implemented for the
responsible persons in each department, and objectives,
activities, and executing tasks of SKMM were clearly
Routine function
Data gathering was started from April 1, 2007 in the SAIO
and the first SKMM report was made at April 30, 2007. CKO
was responsible for integrating the reports, preparing CEO’s
report, and making decisions about rewarding policies for
departments with best practices. Data gathering, data
reporting and analysis of results continued regularly within a
69
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Table VII SKMM execution program for the SAIO
Phase
Responsible
person/
department
Activities
Execution
Generating top-level SCs and initiatives for each
perspective
Generating sub-level SCs and initiatives for each section
Defining the format of charts and reports and entering
strategy, objectives and measures in software
Incorporation Integrating BSC with the other processes
Assigning responsible persons for collecting, analysis
and reporting
Describing the goals of SKMM to responsible persons
Describing the goals of SKMM to the other personnel
Operation/
Data collection
modification Data analysis and corrective actions
Reporting to related responsible person/department
Overall review to assure alignment of system with KM
strategy
Cooperator
person/
department
SKMM workgroup Design functions
Start time
End time
January 1, 2007
January 21, 2007
Design functions SKMM workgroup January 1, 2007
SKMM workgroup Design functions January 22, 2007
January 21, 2007
February 6, 2007
SKMM workgroup –
SKMM workgroup –
February 7, 2007 February 14, 2007
February 15, 2007 February 28, 2007
SKMM workgroup
SKMM workgroup
Design functions
Design functions
SKMM workgroup
SKMM workgroup
March 1, 2006
March 11, 2007
April 1, 2007
April 1, 2007
April 1, 2007
October 1, 2007
–
–
SKMM workgroup
SKMM workgroup
Design functions
Design functions
March 10, 2007
March 31, 2007
September 30, 2007
September 30, 2007
September 30, 2007
October 14, 2007
Table VIII Systemic knowledge SC for the SAIO
CSF
Measure
Criteria
Initiatives
Increase in
internal
systemic
knowledge
Increase in
external
systemic
knowledge
Number of mega bytes of
project documents
Number of registered
experiences
Number of registered
patents
Number of accepted
scientific articles
Incremental trend
All persons and departments must document reports of all phases of
projects based on documentation templates
All persons and departments must send their experiences in projects to
knowledge portals and follow it up to register them
All persons and departments must send their patents to Iranian defense
patent (IDP) and follow it up until registration
All persons and departments must document their case studies in projects
in scientific articles and send them to scientific journals and conferences
and follow it up until acceptance received
Incremental trend
Incremental trend
Incremental trend
Table IX Conceptual knowledge SC for the SAIO
CSF
Measure
Criteria
Initiatives
Increase in
specialized
meetings and
seminars
Number of specialized
seminars
Number of mega bytes of
project meetings records
Incremental trend
All departments must present the outputs of all phases of projects in
specialized seminars after coordination with the CKO
All departments, according to progress of projects and before
accomplishment of project phases, must contribute to specialized meetings
with the project members, after coordination with the CKO
All departments must document the outputs of these sessions in meeting’s
elaborative minutes and send them to the CKO
Incremental trend
Table X Experiential knowledge SC for the SAIO
CSF
Measure
Criteria
Initiatives
Increase in
internal
interactions
Increase in
external
interactions
Percentage of working
time without meetings
Greater than or
equal to 70
percent
Greater than or
equal to four
man-month
Greater than or
equal to two
projects
All departments make a balance for personnel time, qua at least 70 percent
of personnel time not used for meetings
Social interactions per
employee
Contribution in projects
per employee
All departments must dispatch their personnel for attending in the
professional interaction such as seminars and conferences
All persons must contribute to at least two projects at the same time.
All departments and persons must be aware of this situation
70
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Table XI Routine knowledge SC for the SAIO
CSF
Measure
Criteria
Initiatives
Increase in
specialized
training
man-hours
Average cascade-training
man-hours
Incremental trend
Increase in
number of
experience years
Increase in
utilization of
knowledge
repository
Average months of
employee experiences
Greater or equal
to 96 months
Frequencies of utilization
of knowledge repository
Incremental trend
All departments must consider some times for the experienced personnel to
train the others
All experienced personnel must fulfill the training ability form and send it to
the chief knowledge office. Then they must train each other based on CKO
scheduled program
All departments must adjust their average months of employee experience
equal or above the pre-defined level. So they must protect the experienced
personnel from lay-off
All departments must consider some times for employees to refer to the
knowledge portal and learn new concepts
All personnel must use the knowledge portal to learn new concepts and use
them in their activities
five or more mouse clicks. In this way, it was necessary to remove
the out of date content, modify the structure of folders to a more
rational arrangement. Also some other changes were necessary.
Examples were adjustment of posting permissions, and also
developing appropriate taxonomy to enhance the search engine
performance. The SKMM workgroup defined an objective to
create a novel structure for the portal with the following
attributes:
.
Ability to approach objects by maximum four mouse
clicks.
.
Ability to prepare more than one search avenue for
approaching objects.
.
Ability to allocate alias or hyperlink for documents in new
“topic-based” subfolders for easier access to the functional
folder which contains the document.
.
Ability to add alias names to appropriate “topic” folders,
after posting new objects to departmental folders.
routine process up to September 31, 2007. For instance,
Figure 6 shows a management report after six months of the
starting time of the routine function phase in the SAIO. After
six months from the starting time of the routine function
phase, it was necessary to review the established process
according to the KM strategy. So, we paid some attention to
Figure 6 as an overall picture of the SKMM process
performance.
In order to analyze the results, we can assess the outputs
from a down-top view. In this case, it is so clear that two out
of three measures of routine knowledge, all the three measures
of experiential knowledge, all the two measures of conceptual
knowledge and all the four measures of systemic knowledge,
approximately had an incremental trend. As a result, it seems
that, approximately all the CSFs had positive effects on the
SKMM perspectives and therefore had positive effect on
knowledge creating strategy.
Approximately, all the trends show well-defined cause and
effect relationships between the CSFs. But in some cases these
relationships had illogical behaviors. For instance, “increase in
utilization of knowledge repository” and “increase in internal
systemic knowledge” showed opposite behaviors; also
behaviors of the “increase in utilization of knowledge
repository” and “increase in internal systemic knowledge”
were not suitable.
SAIO’ portal started with a collection of searchable best
practices, plus a section for field guides, project reports, and
presentations. It was linked to all IT applications and the DMS
software of the SAIO. Portal usage statistics indicated a
relatively small number of users. The workgroup understood
that a corrective action should be done to increase the portal
usage within the SAIO. Instead of counting on omniscience, the
workgroup directed a web survey to be familiar with employees’
need. Also, this survey was to prepare a guide for amendments
needed to the portal. Based on the survey, we realized that the
portal had not been well kept. For instance, permission updates
had really bad status. In other words, permissions had not been
updated for many permission owners after their movements to
new place. Besides, lacking an appropriate taxonomy, search
terms had not been commonly attached while the search engine
was working. In other words, the search engine performance
was not suitable.
Furthermore, the SKMM workgroup conducted an
examination about the folder structure of portal. The
workgroup recognized that almost all of the folders needed
According to above discussions, SKMM workgroup decided
to maintain current CSFs, knowledge strategy map and
measures for the next period.
Conclusion
Considering plenty of papers, books, and web sites about the
KM concerns and influences of KM on organizational
success, it seems that KM is transforming from a
managerial tool to an essential weapon for today’s world.
Importance of KM has resulted in developing some
models and approaches for assessment of KM
initiatives and strategies in various organizations. For a
reasonable assessment, it is necessary to have quantitative
methods.
This research tried to develop and represent a method for
planning, establishment and control of KM strategies.
Though SKMM is not proven all around the world, it can
prepare a basis for quantitative performance assessment of
KM strategy and initiatives in organizations. This method
prepares a variety of tools by which an organization can assess
its KM strategy outcomes along with the effects of its
particular KM initiatives in accordance with the
organization’s performance. This method makes directors
and leaders capable of assessing their corporation’s KM
strategy. It seems that, the model has helpful effects on
managers’ decisions about selecting appropriate KM
initiatives. Although we tried to represent the SKMM
71
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Figure 6 SKMM management report for the SAIO
Creating knowledge for developing SAIO's products and services
Increase in internal systemic
knowledge
85
0.5
0
Inn.
20
15
Number of registered
experiences
75
65
Apr May Jun
0
1
0
55
Jul Aug Sep
0
0
1
Lea.
165
Number of accepted scientific
articles
Apr May Jun
61 72 68
155
Jul Aug Sep
75 76 81
Number of mega bytes of
project documents
Systemic knowledge
Increase in external systemic
knowledge
1.5
Number of registered patents
1
145
10
135
0.40
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Lea. 132 137 141 150 152 153
Increase in specialized meetings and seminars
15
Number of specialized
Number of mega bytes of
seminars
project meeting records
10
0.30
5
0.20
0.10
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Pro. 0.25 0.19 0.21 0.27 0.33 0.33
0
Sem.
Apr May Jun
6
6
5
Jul Aug Sep
9
10 11
Increase in external interactions
7
5
Social interactions per
employee
2.5
2
Increase in internal
interactions
Contribution in projects
per employee
3
1
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
3.11 2.93 3.56 3.91 3.9 4.05
Soc.
Criteria 4
4
4
4
4
4
Increase in utilization of
knowledge repository
225
215
205
195
185
175
Frequencies of utilization of
knowledge repository
Apr May Jun
Fre. 181 195 213
1.5
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
1.6 1.75 1.7 1.9 2.05 2.1
Mul.
Criteria 2
2
2
2
2
2
Increase in number of
experience years
115
105
Average months of
employee experiences
95
85
Jul Aug Sep
201 200 196
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
103 102 103 104 105 106
Exp.
Criteria 96 96 96 96 96 96
establishment in an Iranian sub-stream aerospace industry, its
capabilities make it useful for any other business and industry
case that needs a KM strategy assessment tool.
In spite of model’s capabilities, it really requires extra study
to verify its analytical and practical status. Apart from model’s
validity, it needs additional formulation and modification for
utilization at national level. By way of further study, SKMM’s
advantages and strengths can be illustrated, and then it can be
utilized in a lot of business and industry cases.
An important research that should be considered is to
evaluate cause and effect relationships between the variables
85
80
75
70
65
Int.
Criteria
Percentage of working
time without meetings
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
71 72 68.5 73 74.5 75
70 70 70 70 70 70
Increase in specialized training
man-hours
65
Average cascade-training
60
man-hours
55
50
45
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Tra. 48 54 55 55 56 56
Conceptual knowledge
0.50
125
Jul Aug Sep
12 11 13
Experiential knowledge
Apr May Jun
Art. 9
11 11
Routine knowledge
5
in the model by using system dynamic tools (Forrester, 1958).
In this way, different scenarios can be simulated and evaluated
based on adjusting different variables in the model. System
dynamics is a good simulation tool which can help to roughly
predict the future behavior of the system. Usually, system
dynamics begins from a situation that requires a solution, a
problem that should to be comprehended in a good manner.
Another important consideration for future research is to
compare KM efficiencies of various departments and
knowledge committees. This comparison can be done by
using an efficiency evaluation method like DEA (Charnes
72
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Figure 7 A sample data collection template for the SAIO
Consideration
Graphical representation
Measure name: Number of registered experiences
Measure definition: Number of experiences in projects that send to knowledge portal and registered by
knowledge management office after peer reviewing and accepting by the specialized expert team
Responsible person/department: Design function A
Measurement period: each month
Related perspective: Systemic knowledge perspective
Related CSF: Increase in internal systemic knowledge
Measured Result
No. Measurement
Target/criteria
Improvement action needed
Ok Nok
period
value
1
April
Incremental trend
14
-- -2
May
Greater than 14
16
3
June
Greater than 16
15
Go to consideration (hint 1)
4
July
Greater than 16
18
5
August
Greater than 18
19
6
September
Greater than 19
21
Hint 1: Section 1 of the design function A received
21
a warning because of its weak performance in
Number of registered
19
sending and registering new experiences in
experiences
knowledge portal
17
15
13
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Lea. 14
16
15
18
19
21
et al., 1978). DEA is a Linear Programming tool by which
decision makers can assess relative efficiencies of various
decision-making units in a particular set of members.
One domain for further research is to evaluate customers’
impact on SKMM. Another area can be examining the impact
of organizational extent on SKMM endeavors. A strategic
alignment between SKMM and organizational strategy seems
a good issue for future studies.
The impacts of the establishment of SKMM on
organizational performance can be addressed as a subject
for further research.
Chou, S. (2005), “Knowledge creation: absorptive capacity,
organizational mechanisms, and knowledge storage/retrieval
capabilities”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 453-65.
CMA (1999), Focus SAIO Draft: Measuring Knowledge Assets,
Canadian Management Accountants, Mississauga, April 16.
Fairchild, A. (2002), “Knowledge management metrics via a
balanced scorecard methodology”, Proceedings of the 35th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS’02), Big Island, Hawaii, Vol. 8, p. 243.
Forrester, J.W. (1958), “Industrial dynamics – a major
breakthrough for decision makers”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 37-66.
Groene, O., Brandt, E., Schmidt, W. and Moeller, J. (2009),
“The balanced scorecard of acute settings: development
process definition of 20 strategic objectives and
implementation”, International Journal for Quality in Health
Care, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 259-71.
Hildreth, P.M. and Kimble, C. (2002), “The duality of
knowledge”, Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1.
Holm, J. (2005), Effective Techniques for Capturing, Creating and
Management Knowledge at NASA, NASA Knowledge
Management Team, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA,
Pasadena, CA, available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2014/38041
Hong-bing, L. and Lei, L. (2007), “DEA-based project
knowledge
management
performance
evaluation”,
International Conference on Management Science and Engineering
(ICMSE 2007), Harbin, August 20-22, pp. 1561-6.
Jafari, M., Akhavan, P. and Nouraniour, E. (2009),
“Developing an architecture model for enterprise
knowledge: an empirical study based on the Zachman
framework in Iran”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 5,
pp. 730-59.
Jafari, M., Akhavan, P. and Rezaeenour, J. (2007a), “An
application of factor analysis for change resolution: the
preliminaries of knowledge management establishment”,
The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture & Change
Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 89-102.
References
Akhavan, P., Jafari, M. and Fathian, M. (2006), “Critical success
factors of knowledge management systems: a multi case
analysis”, European Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 97-113.
Bloodgood, J.M. and Salisbury, W.D. (2001), “Understanding
the influence of organizational change strategies on
information technology and knowledge management
strategies”, Decision Support System, Vol. 31, pp. 55-69.
Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N.C., Jacobsen, K. and Roos, G.
(1999), “The knowledge toolbox: a review of the tools
available to measure and manage intangible resources”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 391-402.
Bose, R. (2004), “Knowledge management metrics”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 6, pp. 457-68.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E. (1978),
“Measuring the efficiency of decision making units”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, pp. 429-44.
Chen, R., Liu, P. and Tang, S. (2008), “An evaluation
method for enterprise knowledge management performance
based on linguistic variable”, paper presented at
International Seminar on Business and Information
Management, Wuhan, December 19.
Choo, C.W. and Bontis, N. (2002), The Strategic Management
of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
73
Strategic KM in aerospace industries: a case study
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Mostafa Jafari et al.
Volume 82 · Number 1 · 2010 · 60 –74
Jafari, M., Akhavan, P., Fesharaki, M.N. and Fathian, M.
(2007b), “Iran aerospace industries’ KM approach based on
a comparative study: a benchmarking on successful
practices”, Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace Technology,
Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 69-78.
Jain, P. (2009), “Knowledge management for 21st century
information professionals”, Journal of Knowledge
Management Practice, Vol. 10 No. 2.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced
scorecard – measures that drive performance”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-9.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), “Using the balanced
scorecard as a strategic management system”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 75-85.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1997), “Why does business
need a balanced scorecard”, Journal of Cost Management,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 5-10.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001), The Strategy-focused
Organization, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2004), Strategy Maps:
Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Laycock, M. (2005), “Collaborating to compete: achieving
effective knowledge sharing in organizations”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 523-38.
Lillrank, P. (2002), “The quality of information”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 691-703.
Lin, C.-Y. and Kuo, T.-H. (2007), “The mediate effect of
learning and knowledge on organizational performance”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 7,
pp. 1066-83.
Mertins, K., Heisig, P. and Vorbeck, J. (2003), Knowledge
Management: Concepts and Best Practices, Springer, Berlin.
Mitri, M. (2003), “Applying tacit knowledge management
techniques for performance assessment”, Computers &
Education, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 173-89.
Mountain State Group (2005), Balanced Scorecards for Small
Rural Hospital: Concept Overview & Implementation Guidance,
United States Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC, pp. 1-61.
Niven, P.R. (2003), Balanced Scorecard Step-by-step for
Government and Nonprofit Agencies, Wiley, New York, NY.
Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge-creating company”,
Harvard Business Review, Reprint 91608, November/
December.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), “The concept of ‘Ba’:
building a foundation for knowledge creation”, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating
Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of
Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Nonaka, I., Peltokorpi, V. and Tomae, H. (2005), “Strategic
knowledge creation: the case of Hamamatsu photonics”,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 30
Nos 3/4, p. 248.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000), “SECI, Ba
and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge
creation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-34.
Petty, R. and Guthrie, J. (2000), “Intellectual capital literature
review: measurement, reporting and management”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 Nos 2/3, pp. 155-76.
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London.
Ponzi, L.J. and Koenig, M. (2002), “Knowledge management:
another management fad?”, Information Research, Vol. 8
No. 1.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997), “Knowledge
management: a strategic agenda”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 385-91.
Rockart, J.F. (1979), “Chief executives define their own data
needs”, Harvard Business Review, March/April, pp. 81-93.
Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N. and Edvinsson, L. (1998),
Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business
Landscape, New York University Press, New York, NY.
Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGrawHill, New York, NY.
Salterio, S. and Webb, A. (2003), “The balanced scorecard”,
CA Magazine, August, pp. 39-41.
Smits, M. and de Moor, A. (2004), “Effective knowledge
management in knowledge-intensive organizations”,
Proceedings of Organizational Knowledge, Learning and
Capabilities, Innsbruck, April.
Song, J.H. (2008), “The key to organizational performance
improvement: a perspective of organizational knowledge
creation”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 87-102.
Steele, J. (2001), “Transforming the balanced scorecard into
your strategy execution system”, Manage, Vol. 53 No. 1,
pp. 22-4.
Sveiby, K.E. (2001), Frequently Asked Questions, Sveiby
Knowledge Associates, Brisbane, available at: www.sveiby.
com.au/faq.html
Sveiby, K.E. (2001-2005), “Methods for measuring intangible
assets”, available at: www.sveiby.com/articles/intangible
methods.html ( accesed January 2001, updated April 2001,
May 2002, October 2002, 2005).
Tat, L.W. and Hase, S. (2007), “Knowledge management in
the Malaysian aerospace industry”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 143-51.
Teece, D.J. (1998), “Research directions for knowledge
management”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 89-292.
Wiig, K.M. (1997), “Integrating intellectual capital and
knowledge management”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 399-405.
Wilson, T.D. (2002), “The nonsense of ‘knowledge
management’”, Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1.
Further reading
McInerney, C. (2002), “Hot topics: knowledge management –
a practice still defining itself”, Bulletin of the American Society for
Information Science, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 14-15.
Corresponding author
Jalal Rezaeenour can be contacted at: rezaeenour@iust.ac.ir
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
74