Bstat Test

Knowledge Management: Inter Industry Comparison in India
Dr. Parag Sanghani

Asst. Professor and Endeavour Research Fellow
AES PG Institue of Business Mgmt., India
Queensland University of Technology ,Australia
E-mail : parag@aespgibm.ac.in , parag_sanghani@yahoo.com
Phone : +91 79 2630 0048
Abstract
During last 15 years there are lots of journals, magazines and conferences have published special
issues on knowledge management. Review of available literature on knowledge and knowledge
management revel us that majority of research work in Knowledge Management (KM) is either
focused on any one organizations or focused on any one industries. Till today comparative
knowledge management research are limited. Many Indian business houses have started
implementing knowledge management programs in their organizations.
This research paper tries to show status of knowledge management in different industries in
India. The research paper highlights differences among employee opinions in selected industries.
As IT industries are first mover in implementing knowledge management program in India, paper
tries to investigate status of KM in Banking, Pharmaceutical, Cement and Other Industries
compare to IT industries.
Introduction
In ever changing market place, where only certainty is uncertainty, corporate success come from
consistently creating, disseminating and using new knowledge. Globalisation, transformation of
the enterprise, emergence of digital firm, and transformation of industrial economies are four
powerful worldwide changes which have altered the business environment (Laudon, 2002).
Today business view is shifting from a product-centric to a knowledge-centric view. Companies
cannot afford to under invest in using, reusing and losing knowledge that they already have. In
this rapidly changing business environment, intellectual capital has become a key asset of the
enterprise. The ability of companies to exploit their intangible assets has become far more
decisive than their ability to invest and manage their physical assets (Davenport & Prusak,1998).
By managing its knowledge assets, an enterprise can improve its competitiveness and
adaptability and increase its chances of success. Organisations are discovering that they need to
do a better job of capturing, distributing, sharing, preserving, securing, and valuing this precious
knowledge in order to stay ahead of their competition (Liebowitz & Beckman ,1998).Changing
business environment has created need for the effective and efficient knowledge management.
India can not lag behind in this knowledge revolution hence many Indian companies have started
their knowledge management programs. This has initiated a basis for this study to be carried out
to understand knowledge management in Indian organisation. This paper is part of larger study
which I had undertaken to study KM in Indian organisations.
During last 15 years there are lots of journals, magazines and conferences have published special
issues on knowledge management. Review of available literature on knowledge and knowledge
management will lead us to conclude that the majority of the past experience and developments
in the area of KM have so far occurred in western industrialised countries. Much of the seminal
work on knowledge management features large multinational companies such as 3M, Hewlett-
Packard, Xerox, British Petroleum, IBM , McKinsey, Earnest & Yong , Buckmann Labs, etc.
(Bhatt, 2001). Many of the case studies are either based around particular technologies or written
by consultants working with high-level management in multinational organizations. Till today
comparative knowledge management research are limited.
Ghosh & Scott (2005) had compared knowledge management in health-care and technical
support organizations. Hutchinson and Quintas ( 2008) have tried to see KM from large scale
and small and medium size organisations perspective. Apart from this lots of author had tried to
study knowledge management in different industries like Hallin (2008) has studied KM in
Hospitality , Lakshman (2008) has studied KM from supplier perspective in automobile
industries. Giovanni and Flavia (2007) had studied KM in Brazilian car industry, Jinfu, Li &
yan (2007) have studied KM in aviation industry, Tsai & Chen (2007 ) have studied KM in
Tiwan’s High Tech Industries, Bob (2007) had studied KM in Oil and Gas Industry , Phillip & ,
Jeanne (2006 ) studied KM in space industries, Shankar ,Singh et al(2006), have studied KM in
Indian Manufacturing Industry, Karunakar (2005) has studied KM in IT industry , Kazi (2005)
had studied KM in construction industries, Hung (2005 )studied KM in Pharmaceutical industry ,
Wickramasinghe, Bali & Geisler ( 2007) have studied KM in healthcare organizations.
All this studies are done in different industries but there are no comparative studies available in
literature which talks about KM in different industries in one country. Based on this I have tried
to investigate inter industry comparison about starting of knowledge management program and
awareness status between various Indian industries.
Knowledge management is not an unknown phenomenon to organisations in India. With increase

in information technology usage, many organisations have started KM initiatives in India. There
are examples of Indian IT majors like Infosys winning prestigious Most Admired Knowledge
Enterprise (MAKE ) awards twice for better management of knowledge. There is high level of
acceptance of KM in Indian IT industries which is visible through their high presence in MAKE
awards list in last few years. This is the reason that I had taken IT industry as a benchmark. This
research paper examine opinion about knowledge management in other industries against IT
industries. I had selected Banking , Pharmaceutical , Cement and Engineering , Media and
Telecom Industries for this research , as these industries are considered to be more knowledge
intensive.
For this research purpose after reviewing literature I had adopted most admired and widely
accepted definition of knowledge from Davenport and Prusak (1998) which says that knowledge
is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that
provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It
originates and is applied in the minds of knower. For knowledge management I have accepted
definition of knowledge management form APQC (1996) which states that Knowledge
management is a conscious strategy of getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right
time and helping people share and put information into actions in ways that strive to improve
organisational performance.
Research Methodology
Research Approach: The knowledge management practices in Indian organization are in infancy
stage. KM is a relatively new business topic with much debate and little empirical data.
Therefore, the approach adopted here is to generate data, analyse them and reflect on the themes
related to the KM practices being offered by management thinkers. The study focuses on
exploring the difference in opinion regarding KM in various industries India.
Research Design: For this research descriptive research design and in particular, cross-sectional
research design is chosen . This is on account of its simplicity and understandability. It is also
quite flexible in nature, and can take care of simple analysis as well as complex statistical
methods for analysis.
Sampling Technique: Descriptive research design generally demands for probabilistic sampling
technique. We had tried to attempt stratified random sampling technique but due to constraints
such as insufficient resources, access restrictions to primary data, time restriction; the quota
sampling technique is used for the study. We had decided quota from each type of industry under
investigation and tried to collect the data accordingly. Quota sampling is one type of non
probabilistic convenience and judgmental sampling technique. This sampling technique is an
economical method for collecting data from a large geographical area. This method is cheaper
and also faster. However, there is a chance of sampling error. This constraint was overcome by
increasing the required sample size.
Sampling Unit: Sampling unit for this research are managers from selected industries.
Sample Size: The sample size consists of 207 respondents.
Research Instrument: The research instrument used is a questionnaire. The questionnaire was
designed to specifically answer the questions to support the corresponding hypothesis. First
section consists of questions regarding starting of KM program and awareness status. This
section includes dichotomy type of questions to know the current status of the KM in
respondents’ organisation. The latter part of the section includes question on knowledge
management tools and content available on knowledge management system in respondents’
organisation. Second Section consists of statements asking the respondents’ to state their
agreement/disagreement on the issues of knowledge management. Each question in this section
was scored using a five-point Likert scale. Here only some part of this larger research
questionnaire is presented.
Data Collection: The questionnaires were distributed and collected over a period of eight
months. For the purpose, website was developed and questionnaire was made available online.
This is to increase the reach of questionnaire to all managerial level in various organizations. This
has also increased convenience to respondents to participate in the survey. Many a time mail
conversation has also been done with the respondent by researcher for any query regarding the
questionnaire. To identify the respondents, the database has been prepared from various sources
like the executives who had visited for placement, participated in the executive development
program, or participated in conference & seminar at some of the premium management institutes
in India. Yahoo groups were included in this sample. Newsgroups were selected based on the
group description featured on their home page. Newsgroups contacted included those directly
interested in knowledge, knowledge management and knowledge work, and those that are
interested in knowledge management in India. On becoming a member an initial message,
introducing the researcher and detailing the research topic was posted. This message included a
description of research. Those who are interested had been provided the URL of our research
website. I have also sent unsolicited mails mentioning our research URL in various other India
specific managerial mailing list. This has increased the response rate for questionnaire.
Secondly, the questionnaire was printed and sent with covering letter to the 316 organisation’s
corporate head quarter. Organisations were selected from the database of Prowess and their
respective industry association’s membership list. Because of the emerging field, lot of interest
has been generated. The questionnaire actually stimulated interest from every third respondents.
They reported that the questionnaire was well constructed, straightforward and simple to
understand but large and exhaustive.
Sample Details : Out of our total sample two hundred and seven, 106 (51% ) samples are from
service sector and 101 (49% ) samples are from manufacturing sector,Of the total 48 (23%) are
from small organisations ( Turnover less than 100 Cr.) , 66 (32%) samples are from medium size
organisations (Turnover 101 to 1000 Cr.) and 93 (45%) are from large size organisations
(Turnover above 1000Cr.).
Table 1 Describes the Industry wise sample distribution. Of the total, 33 (16%) samples are from
IT industry, 43 (21%) from Pharma & Chemical industry, 37 (18%) from Banking & Insurance,
39 (19%) from Engineering and Cement industry and 55 (27 %) respondents are from other
industry.
Table 1
Industry wise Respondents
Percentage
Industry No.Of Sample of Total
Sample
IT 33 16
Pharma & Chemical 43 21
Banking & Insurance 37 18
Engg. & Cement 39 19
Others 55 27
Total 207 100
IT, 33, 16%
Others, 55, 26%
Pharma &
Chemical, 43,
21%
Engg. & Cement,
39, 19% Banking &
Insurance, 37,
18%
In the other industries category, 7 respondents from central, state and local government
department, 9 are from telecommunication, 5 are from healthcare, 17 are from media, 6 are from
consultancy and 11 are from other industries like FMCG, Textiles etc. Below mentioned graph
provides percentage wise representation of this.
Healthcare
Telecom 9%
16%
Media
31%
Govt.
13%
Other consultancy
20% 11%
Data Analysis and Interpretation
As predicted KM awareness is higher in IT companies. More than 87.9% respondents from IT

companies are aware about Knowledge Management. Compare to that, 65.1 % respondents from
Pharma & Chemical, 78.4 % respondents from Banking and Insurance 66.7 % respondents from
Cement & Engineering and 70.9 % respondents from other industry are aware about knowledge
management. This suggests that IT company executives are more aware about knowledge
management than other industry executives. Here it can be observed that 57.6 % of the
respondents from IT industry are not only aware but also using KM concepts, which is
significantly higher (25.6% of Pharma., 24.3% of Banking , 28.2 % of Cement and 29.1 % of
others). KM has been more popularised in last decade and more famous as an IT enabled
concepts. Because of high employee turnover and organisational knowledge losses, first
implementers of KM are IT organisations. IT industry is early adopters of KM In India this fact is
validated by this findings.
Table 2
Industry wise KM Awareness
Count % within Type Of Industry

Awareness Awareness
No Aware & No Aware &
Awareness Aware Practicing Total Awareness Aware Practicing Total
Type Of IT 4 10 19 33 12.1% 30.3% 57.6% 100.0%
Industry Pharma &
15 17 11 43 34.9% 39.5% 25.6% 100.0%
Chemical
Banking &
8 20 9 37 21.6% 54.1% 24.3% 100.0%
Insurance
Cement&
13 15 11 39 33.3% 38.5% 28.2% 100.0%
Engineering
others 16 23 16 55 29.1% 41.8% 29.1% 100.0%
Total 56 85 66 207 27.1% 41.1% 31.9% 100.0%
Industry wise KM Awareness Graph
30
23
20
20
19
Count
17
16 16
15 15
13 Awareness
10 11 11
10
9 No Awareness
8
Aware
4
0 Aware & Practicing
IT
ot
ha
an
em
her
r
ki
en
m
s
ng
a
t&
&
&
E
C
In
ng
he
su
in
m
ra
e
ic
er
nc
al
in
e
g
Type Of Industry
Hypothesis Testing
H01 = There is no significant association between Type of Industry and KM

awareness.
Chi-Square Test:
Value Asymp.df
Sig.
Pearson Chi-Square 15.629 8 0.048
Contingency Coefficient 0.265 Approx. Sig 0 .048
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.93.
Directional Measures Value Asymp.Std.Error Approx. Approx.

Lambda T Sig.
Symmetric .044 .036 1.192 .233
Awareness Dependent .074 .042 1.683 .092
Type of Industry Dependent .020 .039 .507 .612
Chi-Square Test provides the calculated chi - square value of 15.629 at 0.048 significance level,
which is less than significance level 0.05. Hence at 95 percent confidence interval the null
hypothesis is rejected. The results suggest that there is significant association between the type
of industry and KM awareness. Contingency Coefficient is 0.265 that is nearer to zero, which
means that association between this two variable is moderate. There is no strong correlation
between the type of industry and KM awareness. The directional measure “AWARENESS
DEPENDENT” Lambda is .074, which means there is 7.6 % reduction in error of predicting KM
awareness when we know the type of industry. We conclude that statistically there is significant
association between and type of industry but not strong enough to predict KM awareness based
on type of industry.
Table 3
Industry wise KM Program
KM Program Underway
% Within Type Of Industry
Count
YES No Don't Total YES No Don't Total
Know Know
IT 28 4 1 33 84.8% 12.1% 3.0% 100.0%
Pharma & 17 22 4 43 39.5% 51.2% 9.3% 100.0%
Chemical
Banking & 12 18 7 37 32.4% 48.6% 18.9% 100.0%
Type Of Insurance
Industry
Cement& 13 22 4 39 33.3% 56.4% 10.3% 100.0%
Engineering
others 21 30 4 55 38.2% 54.5% 7.3% 100.0%
Total 91 96 20 207 44.0% 46.4% 9.7% 100.0%
Industrywise KM Program
40
30
30
28
Count
20 22 22
21
17
18 KM Program Underway
13 YES
10 12
7 No
4 4 4 4
0 Don't Know
IT
ot
ha
an
em
he
rm
ki
en
rs
ng
a
t&
&
&
E
C
In
ng
he
su
in
m
ra
e
ic
er
nc
a
in
l
Type Of Industry
Above Table 3 and the graph, suggest that 84.8% respondents from IT industry have agreed that
their organisations have KM Program underway. Because of the boom in IT sector and high
employee turnover results in to starting of organisational knowledge management programs.
Compared to that, Pharma & Chemical (39.5%) , Banking and Insurance (32.4%), Cement &
Engineering (33.3%), other industries (38.2 %) have agreed that their organisations have KM
Program underway.
Hypothesis Testing :
H02 = There is no significant association between Type of Industry and Starting of KM
Program.
Chi-Square Test:
Value df Asymp. Sig.

4 cells (26.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.19.
Asymp.Std. Approx.
Directional Measures Lambda Value Approx. T
Error Sig.
Symmetric .129 .043 2.849 .004
Type of Industry Dependent .066 .049 1.296 .195
KM Program Underway Dependent .216 .045 4.440 .001
The chi-square test, provides the calculated chi –square value of 30.649 at 0.001 significance
level, which is less than significance level 0.05. Hence at 95 percent confidence interval we will
reject the null hypothesis. Our result suggests that there is significant association between the
type of industry and starting of KM program. Contingency Coefficient is 0.359, which is nearer
to 0; Hence It can be further inferred that the association is not strong. This leads us to conclude
that; there is no strong correlation between the type of industry and starting of KM program.
Same thing can be interpreted from the directional measure lambda. Here “KM Program
Underway Dependent” value of lambda is approx. 0.216, hence there is only 21.6 % reduction
in error of predicting KM Program underway when we know the type of industry. This is very
moderate value, hence we conclude that statistically there is a significant association between
starting of KM program and type of industry but not strong enough to predict one variable based
on another.
Table 4
Industry Sector wise KM Program
Count % within Industry Sector

KM Program Underway KM Program Underway
Don't Don't
YES No Know Total YES No Know Total
Industry Service
55 40 11 106 51.9% 37.7% 10.4% 100.0%
Sector Sector
Mfg.
36 56 9 101 35.6% 55.4% 8.9% 100.0%
Sector
Total 91 96 20 207 44.0% 46.4% 9.7% 100.0%
Industry Sectorwise KM Program
60
56
55
50
40
40
36
Count
30
20
KM Program Underway
YES
10
11
9 No
0 Don't Know
Service Sector Mfg. Sector
Industry Sector
Table 4 suggests that 51.9% respondents from service sector have agreed that their organisation
has KM Program underway. It is evident that as service sector includes industries like IT,
Media, Healthcare, and Communication, which are more knowledge intensive. This resulted in
starting of organisational KM program. Compare to that only 35.2 % respondent from
manufacturing sector has agreed that their organisation has KM Program underway.
Hypothesis Testing:
H03 = There is no significant association between Industry Sector and Starting of KM

Program.
Chi-Square Test:
Value df Asymp.Sig.
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.76.
Directional Measures Lambda Value Asymp.Std.Error Approx. T Approx.

Sig.
Symmetric .146 .074 1.899 .058
Type of Industry Sector Dep. .158 .089 1.644 .100
KM Program Underway Dep. .135 .082 1.548 .122
The calculated chi –square value is of 6.717 at 0.035 significance level, which is less than
significance level 0.05. Hence at 95 percent confidence interval shows that null hypothesis is
rejected. This is indicating that there is significant association between the industry sector and
starting of KM program. Contingency Coefficient is 0.177, which is nearer to 0; hence it can be
further inferred that the association is not strong. This leads to conclude that, there is no strong
correlation between the industry sector and starting of KM program. Same thing can be
interpreted from the directional measure lambda. Here “KM Program Underway Dependent”
value of lambda is approx. 0.135, hence there is only 13.5 % reduction in error of prediction.
This is very small value, hence statistically there is significant association between starting of
KM program and type of industry but not strong enough to predict one variable based on another.
Table 5 shows industry wise preference for source for problem solving information. Its evident
from the table that as per nature of business and available infrastructure preference of people for
the source is changing. In IT industry, there is a good IT infrastructure which leads to higher
usage of the sources like Outside sources (29%) and look in the corporate repository (18%).
Table 5
Industry wise preference for the source of problem solving information
Look in the
Type Of Contact a Read book Use outside
corporate Other Total
Industry coworker on topic sources
repository
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
IT 16 47 2 6 6 18 10 29 0 0 34 100
Pharma. &
32 74 1 2 1 2 3 7 6 14 43 100
Chemical
Banking &
24 65 3 8 5 14 2 5 3 8 37 100
Insurance
Cement&
23 59 1 3 6 15 6 15 3 8 39 100
Engineering
Others 31 57 6 11 8 15 5 9 4 7 54 100
Total 126 61 13 6 26 13 26 13 16 8 207 100
In the second part respondents were asked to provide their views on various knowledge
management aspects. They were asked to give their opinion between Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree on a five point Likert scale on the following statements.
Statement 1: Top Management in the firm is committed to knowledge management.

Statement 2: A knowledge management specialist like CKO is required for effective KM.
Statement 3: All Employees are co-operative and helpful when asked for some information or
advise.
Statement 4: Individuals are visibly rewarded for knowledge sharing and reuse in organisation.
Table 6
Independent Sample T test for Equality of Means between
IT Industry and Pharma & Chemical Industry
Std.
Mean
t df Sig. Error
Differ.
Differ.
Top Management in the firm is committed to KM EVA 2.53 75 0.01 0.64 0.25
EVNA 2.61 75 0.01 0.64 0.24
A knowledge management specialist like CKO is
0.87 75 0.39 0.25 0.29
required for effective KM EVA
EVNA 0.87 70 0.39 0.25 0.29
All Employees are co-operative and helpful when asked
-2.38 75 0.02 -0.64 0.27
for some information or advise EVA
EVNA -2.37 71 0.02 -0.64 0.27
Individuals are visibly rewarded for knowledge sharing
0.13 75 0.90 0.04 0.30
and reuse in organisation EVA
EVNA 0.13 74 0.90 0.04 0.29
H21 = There is no difference between mean value of statement one among IT industry and
Pharma & Chemical industry.
For this statement, the Equal variance not assumed t -value of 2.61 at significance of 0.01, which
is less than our desired value of 0.05 (95% confidence interval), Hence the null hypothesis is
rejected. This indicates that there is no statistical evidence, which supports that mean value for
the statement “Top Management in the firm is committed to knowledge management” among IT
industry and Pharma & Chemical are same.
H22 = There is no difference between mean value of statement two among IT industry and
Pharma & Chemical Industry.
For this statement, the Equal variance not assumed t -value is0.87 at significance of 0.39, which
is higher than our desired value of 0.05 (95% confidence interval), Hence the null hypothesis is
accepted. This indicates that there is statistical evidence, which supports that mean value for the
statement “A knowledge management specialist like CKO is required for effective KM” among
IT industry and Pharma & Chemical are same.
H23 = There is no difference between mean value of statement three among IT industry and
For this statement, the Equal variance not assumed t -value is -2.37 at significance of 0.02, which
is less than our desired value of 0.05 (95% confidence interval). Hence the null hypothesis is
the statement “All Employees are co-operative and helpful when asked for some information or
advise” among IT industry and Pharma & Chemical are same.
H24 = There is no difference between mean value of statement four among IT industry and
For this statement, the Equal variance not assumed t -value is 0.13 at significance of 0.90, which
statement “Individuals are visibly rewarded for knowledge sharing and reuse in organisation”
among IT industry and Pharma & Chemical are same.
Table 7 shows the equality of mean between IT Industry and Banking & Insurance Industry.
Here also statements are same as above. The Null Hypothesis is: There is no difference between
mean value of statements between IT industry and Banking & Insurance industry.
Table 7
IT Industry and Banking & Insurance Industry
Std.
Mean
t df Sig. Error
Diff.
Diff.
EVNA 2.92 69 0.00 0.70 0.24
EVA -0.22 69 0.83 -0.06 0.29
required for effective KM
EVNA -0.22 66 0.83 -0.06 0.29
All Employees are co-operative and helpful when
EVA 0.02 69 0.99 0.00 0.30
asked for some information or advise
EVNA 0.02 69 0.99 0.00 0.30
EVA 0.67 69 0.51 0.19 0.28
and reuse in organisation
EVNA 0.67 68 0.51 0.19 0.28
EVA: Equal Variance Assumed EVNA: Equal Variance Not Assumed
Banking & Insurance industry.
industry and Banking & Insurance are same.
For this statement , the Equal variance not assumed t -value of -0.22 at significance of0.83,
which is higher than our desired value of 0.05 (95% confidence interval), Hence the null
hypothesis is accepted. This indicates that there is statistical evidence, which supports that mean
value for the statement “A knowledge management specialist like CKO is required for effective
KM” among IT industry and Banking & Insurance are same.
statement “All Employees are co-operative and helpful when asked for some information or
advice” among IT industry and Banking & Insurance are same.
among IT industry and Banking & Insurance are same.
Table 8
IT Industry and Cement & Engineering Industry
Mean Std. Error

t df Sig.
Diff. Diff.
EVNA 1.49 67 0.14 0.40 0.27
EVA -0.14 71 0.89 -0.04 0.29
EVNA -0.14 67 0.89 -0.04 0.29
All Employees are co-operative and helpful
EVA -0.33 71 0.74 -0.10 0.29
when asked for some information or advise
EVNA -0.33 71 0.74 -0.10 0.29
Individuals are visibly rewarded for knowledge
EVA -0.05 71 0.96 -0.01 0.29
sharing and reuse in organisation
EVNA -0.05 70 0.96 -0.01 0.29
Cement & Engineering Industry.
statement “Top Management in the firm is committed to knowledge management” among IT
industry and Cement & Engineering are same.
For this statement, the Equal variance not assumed t -value of -0.14 at significance of 0.89, which
IT industry and Cement & Engineering are same.
statement “All Employees are co-operative and helpful when asked for some information or
advise” among IT industry and Cement & Engineering are same.
among IT industry and Cement & Engineering are same.
Table 9
IT Industry and Other Industry
Mean Std. Error

t df Sig.
Diff. Diff.
EVNA 2.03 75 0.04 0.42 0.21
EVA -0.17 86 0.86 -0.04 0.25
EVNA -0.16 60 0.87 -0.04 0.27
All Employees are co-operative and helpful when EVA -1.38 86 0.17 -0.33 0.24
EVNA -1.34 64 0.19 -0.33 0.25
Individuals are visibly rewarded for knowledge
EVA 0.79 86 0.43 0.18 0.23
sharing and reuse in organisation
EVNA 0.75 59 0.45 0.18 0.24
Table 9 shows the equality of mean between IT Industry and Other Industries. The Null
Hypothesis is: There is no difference between mean value of statements among IT industry and
Other Industries.
Other Industries.
industry and Banking & Insurance are same.
Other Industries.
IT industry and other industries are same.
other Industries.
For this statement , the Equal variance not assumed t -value of –1.34 at significance of 0.19,
which is higher than our desired value of 0.05 (95% confidence interval), Hence the null
hypothesis is accepted. This indicates that there is statistical evidence, which supports that mean
value for the statement “All Employees are co-operative and helpful when asked for some
information or advise” among IT industry and other industries are same.
Other Industries.
among IT industry and other industries are same.
These comparisons of mean give us an idea regarding the diversity of opinions between various
industries. It is evident from the above mentioned discussion that in majority of the statements
there is no significant difference between IT industry and Other Industries.
Conclusion
It is evident from the survey that there are considerable differences in starting of knowledge
management programs and establishing knowledge management systems in different industries.
There is not significant difference in opinions between employees of different industries. As it is
interesting to note that cement and engineering firms respondents has same type of opinion
regarding knowledge management as IT industries respondent. This may be due to emergence of
knowledge management (KM) as a natural evolution of the focus on quality in the 1980’s and
business process reengineering (BPR) in the 1990’s.
Table 10: Comparison of Other Industries opinion with IT Industry

Pharma. & Cement &
Banking & Other
Chemical Engg.
Insurance Industry
Opinion on Different KM aspects of Industry Industry
In Comparison to IT Industry are
Top Management in the firm is committed to KM Not Same Not Same Same Not Same
Same Same Same Same
All Employees are co-operative and helpful when
Not Same Same Same Same
Same Same Same Same
and reuse in organisation
In addition to validating the research hypotheses, the data serve to reinforce number of
assumptions. These findings will certainly bring more understanding regarding knowledge
management in India. This empirical survey will be a useful addition to the existing literature
because there has been little research of this kind, the hypotheses and methodology used are quite
novel and there has not been any research of this kind regarding the KM in developing country
like India. These results and the accompanying discussion give an interesting starting point for
the research community to perform further investigations. The result may form a basis and entry
point to other areas of interest on knowledge management in India. As one of the pioneering
attempts of knowledge management research in India, there are nevertheless some limitations.
Limitation of the Research: One of the major limitations is the number of organisations that
could be included in the study, and the generalisability of the findings. Though, the samples from
service to manufacturing and large to small size of organisation were taken, it would be difficult
to generalize the findings to large number of other industries. More than half of the respondents
were managers and executives from companies located in the western part of India with a
concentration in the Gujarat and Maharashtra state, this may have led to results that do not
necessarily reflect the status of all the business sectors in the country. Knowledge management is
comparatively new field, hence there are various terminologies, which may not be very clear to
the respondents. With a provision of Don’t Know option in questionnaire, an attempt was made
to reduce response biases due to unawareness about terminology. The data collected will
represent the perception of members of the research sample, as opposed to an objective
measurement of data.
Future Research: This work may form a basis for further research in the areas of knowledge
management. Several recommendations for additional research have emerged naturally from the
present study. Study of knowledge management in other industries will help practitioners and
researchers to understand the diversity of knowledge management in different business
environments. One question that requires further investigation is whether the findings in this
study are specific to the organisations studied or if this is a general phenomenon, which can be
observed in other organisations as well.
Finally, even though the results of this study can be generalised to other sectors or industry, it is
necessary to expand the study into a wider range of various industries and various management
levels to see whether are there any differences between the findings of the study. It is hoped that
the findings proposed in this study would help Indian companies to better organise their
knowledge management activities, as well as helping the country to create wealth and a
knowledgeable society. It is also hoped that additional research will be undertaken to build upon
this work, and to further develop and enhance our knowledge on differences in knowledge
management understanding between various industries.
Appendix
Statistical Sample Size Calculation:
• Sample size calculation when variable estimated is proportion or percentage
Sample size n = pq (z/e)2
Here p is the frequency of occurrence of something expressed as a proportion, like awareness,

knowledge management policy, knowledge management budget, Chief Knowledge Officer etc.
As there is no past evidence about KM survey, p equals to 0.5 is taken. Sample Size is highest
when p equals to 0.5. Non-occurrence of something expressed as a proportion is represented by q
and it is equal to 1- p, i.e 0.5 values.
Z: The' Z' value represents the Z score from the standard normal distribution for the confidence
level. Here 95 per cent confidence level is taken, which indicate (from a standard normal
distribution for a two-sided probability value of 0.95) a Z score of 1.96.
e is the tolerance level of error in estimating p . The tolerance error up to 7 percent is taken for
this research.
Putting all value in equation I get
No. Of Sample Required for Estimation = 0.5* 0.5 (1.96/0.07) 2 = 196
• Sample size calculation when variable estimated is continuous or interval scaled

(Estimating Means)
Sample size n = (zs/e) 2

Z: The' Z' value represents the Z score from the standard normal distribution for the confidence
level. Here 95 per cent confidence level is considered, which indicate (from a standard normal
distribution for a two-sided probability value of 0.95) a Z score of 1.96.
s: The 's' represents the population standard deviation for the variable. By definition, this is an
unknown quantity, since , the not taken a sample yet. So, the question of knowing the value
of’‘s’, the population standard deviation, does not arise. However, the use of rough estimate of
the population standard deviation for the variable being measured is possible. This estimate
can be obtained in the following ways:
If the minimum and maximum values of the variable can be estimated, then the range of the
variable's values is known. Range = maximum value - minimum value. Assuming that in
practically all variables, 99.7 per cent of the values of the variables would lie within +3 standard
deviations of the mean, we could get an approximate value of the standard' deviation by dividing
the range by 6. The logic of this is, that range is equal to 6 standard deviations for most variables.
Therefore, range, when divided by 6, should give a fairly good estimate of the standard deviation.
For our research minimum value is 1 (strongly disagree) and Maximum value is 5 (strongly
agree). Hence Range is 5-1 = 4 if we divide 4 by 6 we get S= 0. 6666.
e is the tolerance level of error in estimating the variable. The tolerable error is expressed in the
same units as the variable being measured or estimated. Here the scale is 1- 5 Therefore, 0.1
errors in estimating the mean is acceptable. If all these are put into a formula:
Sample size n = (zs/e)2 = (1.96*.0666)/0.1 = 171
Above calculation suggest that our sample size of 207 is a fairly enough sample
size for estimating various continuous and proportion variables in our questionnaire
References
• American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) (1996). Knowledge Management

Consortium Benchmarking Study, Final Report 1996. Available in
http://www.store.apqc.org/reports/ Summary/know-mng.pdf [Accessed May, 2003]
• Bhatt G. (2001). Knowledge Management in Organisations: Examining the Interaction
between Technologies, Techniques, and People. Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol.
5 No. 1, pp. 68-75.
• Chung-Hung, T. and Hwang-Yeh C.(2007). Assessing Knowledge Management System
Success: An Empirical Study in Taiwan's High-Tech Industry,Journal of American
Academy of Business, Cambridge; Hollywood Mar 2007. Vol.10, Iss.2;p.257.
• Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations
Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
• Ghosh, B.& Scott, J.E (2005). Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE
Transactions on Volume 9, Issue 2, June 2005 Page(s):162 – 168.
• Giovanni, B. & Flavia C.(2007). Global technology and Knowledge Management:
product development in Brazilian car industry, International Journal of Automotive
Technology and Management. Vol.7,Iss.2-3;p.135-152.
• Hallin, C. (2008). Knowledge management in the hospitality industry: A review of
empirical research,Tourism Management Vol.29,Iss.2;p.366-381
• Hung, Y. (2005). Critical factors in adopting a knowledge management system for the
pharmaceutical industry, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.105,Iss.1-2;p.164-
183.
• Hutchinson, V. & Quintas, P.(2008). Do SMEs do Knowledge Management?: Or Simply
Manage what they Know? International Small Business Journal; 26; 131.
• Karunakar P.(2005). Knowledge management: a challenge in IT industry,Electronics
Information and Planning, Vol.33,Iss.1-2;p.18-21.
• Kazi, A. (2005). Knowledge management in the construction industry: A socio-technical
perspective, Information Management, Vol.18,Iss.1-2;p.21-22.
• Lakshman, C. (2008). Supplier-focused knowledge management in the automobile
industry and its implications for product performance,Journal Of Management Studies.
Vol.45,Iss.2;p.317-342.
• Laudon K. C and Laudon J. P(2002) , Management Information Systems, 7th Edition,
New Delhi, Prentice-Hall India,
• Li, Z. Ye, J.and Zou, Y. (2007).An empirical study on the effect mechanism of
knowledge management on new product development in aviation industry, International
Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM
2007, p.5455-5458.
• Liebowitz, J. & Beckman, T. (1998). Knowledge organisations: What every manager
should know, Boca Raton: FL: St. Luice Press.
• Olla, P. and Holm, J. (2006).The role of knowledge management in the space industry:
important or superfluous? Journal of Knowledge Management Vol.10,Iss.2;p.3-7.
• Shankar, R. , Singh, M., Narain, R. and Kumar, A. (2006) .Survey of knowledge
management practices in Indian manufacturing industries, Journal of Knowledge
Management , Vol.10,Iss.6;p.110-128.
• Thomas, B. (2007). Knowledge Management and the Oil Industry, Oil, Gas & Energy
Quarterly, Vol.55,Iss.4;p.829-37.
• Wickramasinghe N. Bali, R and Geisler E.(2007).The major barriers and facilitators for
the adoption and implementation of knowledge management in healthcare operations,
International Journal of Electronic Healthcare , Vol.3,Iss.3;p.367-381.

Bstat Test

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bstat Test

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Knowledge Management: Inter Industry Comparison in India

Dr. Parag Sanghani

Knowledge management is not an unknown phenomenon to organisations in India. With increase

Sample Size: The sample size consists of 207 respondents.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

As predicted KM awareness is higher in IT companies. More than 87.9% respondents from IT

Count % within Type Of Industry

H01 = There is no significant association between Type of Industry and KM

Directional Measures Value Asymp.Std.Error Approx. Approx.

Value df Asymp. Sig.

Count % within Industry Sector

H03 = There is no significant association between Industry Sector and Starting of KM

Directional Measures Lambda Value Asymp.Std.Error Approx. T Approx.

Statement 1: Top Management in the firm is committed to knowledge management.

Mean Std. Error

Mean Std. Error

EVA: Equal Variance Assumed EVNA: Equal Variance Not Assumed

Table 10: Comparison of Other Industries opinion with IT Industry

Statistical Sample Size Calculation:

• Sample size calculation when variable estimated is proportion or percentage

Sample size n = pq (z/e)2

Here p is the frequency of occurrence of something expressed as a proportion, like awareness,

Putting all value in equation I get

No. Of Sample Required for Estimation = 0.5* 0.5 (1.96/0.07) 2 = 196

• Sample size calculation when variable estimated is continuous or interval scaled

Sample size n = (zs/e) 2

Sample size n = (zs/e)2 = (1.96*.0666)/0.1 = 171

• American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) (1996). Knowledge Management

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen