Quality Management Practices and Organizational Knowledge Management A Quantitative and Qualitative Investigation

Quality Management Practices and Organizational Knowledge Management:
A Quantitative and Qualitative Investigation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
with a Concentration in Organizational Behavior / Development
and a Specialization in Management
at the Graduate College of Union Institute & University
Cincinnati, Ohio
Anthony James Clarke
April 10,2006
Core Faculty Advisor: Elliot Robins, Ph.D.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3242040
Copyright 2007 by
Clarke, Anthony James
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3242040
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Quality Management Practices and Organizational Knowledge Management: A

Quantitative and Qualitative Investigation
By
Anthony James Clarke
Baccalaurate Degree: United States Military Academy
Institution
May 1983
Date
Masters Degree:
August 1993
Date
University of Chicago
Institution
A Project Demonstrating Excellence Approved on:
Date
by the following Doctoral Committee members:
First Core
Adjunct
Adjunct
By the Dean o f the Graduate College:
Dean
G r a d u a te C o l l e g e
Union Institute & University

Cincinnati, Ohio
ABSTRACT
Keywords: quality management, knowledge management, organizational context
This research used a quantitative and qualitative methodology to study the relationship
between quality management and knowledge management practices in for-profit
companies. Three quality management practices were examined - leadership, training
and process control. Leadership practices related to top managements role in an
organizations quality management efforts. Training was defined as the extent to which
an organization emphasized training within its quality management efforts. Process
control related to the extent to which an organization directed its quality management
efforts towards controlling internal processes. Knowledge management was divided into
structural and behavioral approaches. Knowledge management structural approaches
were defined as practices where an organization used information systems and other tools
to capture and disseminate knowledge. Knowledge management behavioral approaches
were defined as practices where an organization emphasized social interaction to share
knowledge.
The theory behind this research was twofold. First, the use of organizational
approaches to knowledge management is influenced by an organizations context. In this
research quality management was studied as the organizational context for the use of
knowledge management approaches. Second, quality management and knowledge
management can be divided into control or structural approaches and behavioral
approaches. It was hypothesized that companies that employ quality management control
practices would use knowledge management structural approaches. Conversely it was
hypothesized that companies that use quality management behavioral practices would
ii
employ knowledge management behavioral approaches. All correlations between quality

management practices and knowledge management approaches were found to be positive
and statistically different than zero. The correlation between knowledge management
structure and quality management process control [.58] was found to be statistically
different than the correlations between knowledge management structure and quality
management leadership and training. The qualitative interviews yielded results that
supported the existence o f all correlations and aided in their interpretation.
Overall it was determined that there is some correlation between quality management
practices and knowledge management approaches. For managers in quality management
companies this research suggested that the clearest path to successful knowledge
management is by linking the firms process control activities to the implementation of
structural and behavioral approaches to knowledge management.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One: Introduction

Background
Purpose of the Study
Research Question
Significance of the Study
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
Definitions of Terms
Overview of Chapters
1
1
3
3
5
5
7
10
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Quality
Quality Management
Deming
Juran
Crosby
Ishikawa
Summary and Definition
Knowledge Management
Knowledge as a Source of Competitive Advantage
Knowledge Dualisms
Knowledge Management Systems
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning
Knowledge Management Struggles for Recognition
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning Converge
A Synthesis o f the Literature
A Typology for Further Research
Typologies Underlying Quality and Knowledge Management
Theoretical Framework
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis Three
11
11
13
18
21
21
22
22
30
32
33
35
38
41
43
45
47
49
50
55
56
58
Chapter Three: Research Methodology

Research Design
Research Question with Hypotheses
Sample and Data Collection Procedures
Research Method
Quantitative Method
Qualitative Method
60
60
60
62
63
63
65
Chapter Four: Results and Analysis

Quantitative Results and Analysis
Reliability
Validity
68
68
68
70
iv
Descriptive Statistics
Correlations
Qualitative Results and Analysis
Quality Management Process Control and Knowledge Management
Structure
Quality Management Training and Knowledge Management Behavior
Quality Management Process Control and Knowledge Management Behavior
Quality Management Leadership and Knowledge Management Behavior
Summary
73
75
78
79
79
80
81
81
Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications

Overview
Implications of Quantitative Analysis
Reliability and Validity for Established Survey Items
Reliability and Validity for New Knowledge Management Items
Summary of Reliability and Validity
Correlations
Implications o f Qualitative Analysis
Integrated Findings
Contributions of the Study
Scholarly Contributions
Contributions to Managerial Action
Recommendations for Future Research
83
83
84
84
86
87
87
88
90
93
93
94
96
References
98
Appendices
108
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: TQM Thought Leaders Definitions of Quality and Quality Management
24
Table 2: Synthesis of Quality Management Practices
28
Table 3: Hypothesized Correlations Between Quality Management Practices and
61
Knowledge Management Approaches

Table 4: Cronbachs Alpha of Survey Constructs
69
Table 5: Factor Loadings from Varimax Rotation
72
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of Survey Items
74
Table 7: Correlation Matrix o f Survey Scales
76
Table 8: Comparison of Reliability and Validity between Saraph et al.s Survey
85
Items and Current Survey Items
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Survey Instrument

Appendix B: Interview Protocol and Participant Sheet
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form
viii
108
111
114
Chapter One: Introduction

Background
Business leaders are under a constant barrage of new concepts and programs for
improving organizational performance. Abrahamson and Fairchild (1999) traced the
lifecycle of management fashion beginning with a largely emotional appeal for the initial
adoption of a new program through its implementation with varying degrees of success to
a more critical evaluation that preceded a decline in usage. In an effort to differentiate
new concepts, proponents of new initiatives engaged in enthralling rhetoric (to) loosen
the grip of past practices and open many organizations and their managers to new
management approaches (p. 715). Managers that did not adopt new programs risked
being seen as ignoring new techniques that were at the forefront of rational management
progress (p. 711). However managers that constantly heeded the call to adopt new
initiatives by starting over ran the risk of appearing indecisive and alienating
organizational stakeholders, in particular, their employees who bear the brunt of
organizational change (p. 737).
An alternative to the need to start over with each new initiative is to build upon
existing initiatives. To maintain continuity managers can base their new efforts on the
competencies and capabilities that currently exist within their organization. To do so,
however, requires some understanding of the relationship between established
organizational efforts and emerging concepts (Duck, 1993; Euske & Player, 1996;
Hammer, 2002).
The contrast between starting over and building upon established capabilities is
evident in the current adoption of knowledge management. Since the early 1990s
organizational learning and knowledge management have been increasingly recognized

as sources of competitive advantage for firms. A common claim for knowledge
management and organizational learning is that they will be the source of competitive
advantage in todays business climate. Drucker (1991) called the raising of knowledge
and service worker productivity as the chief economic priority and most pressing social
challenge for developed countries. Senge (1990) claimed that learning organizations will
be the organizations that truly excel in the future (p. 4). Kogut and Zander (1992)
stated that if there are no barriers to entry then competition is based on the comparative
capabilities of firms to replicate and generate new knowledge (p. 393).
To avoid starting over when implementing knowledge management, managers must
recognize the relationship between knowledge management and current competencies.
The competency-based model of the firm views organizations as a collection of
competencies that can be developed, maintained, combined and discarded to create
competitive advantage (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Under the competency-based model
new concepts such as knowledge management may employ the same competencies as
current initiatives. These competencies form the basis for the implementation of shared
practices within current and future initiatives. Companies that recognize the practices
that are shared between current and new concepts will use their resources more
effectively and efficiently. By using shared practices as a foundation, companies can
base the implementation of new concepts upon current practices.
Purpose o f the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the possibility of statistically significant
relationships between quality management practices and knowledge management
approaches as perceived by managers and employees in for-profit companies. Quality
management, also referred to as Total Quality Management (TQM) or Total Quality
(TQ), is a recognized management philosophy that applies approaches, tools and
techniques to improve organizational performance. This research will study quality
management as the source of current practices that can serve as the foundation for
knowledge management in organizations.
Research Question
The overall research question was: How does the use of selected quality management
practices correlate with the use of organizational approaches to knowledge management
in for-profit companies? The results would provide direction for quality management
companies that want to implement knowledge management initiatives. The study used a
survey of managers and employees allowing for a correlation analysis to examine
statistically significant associations between quality management practices and
knowledge management approaches. The quantitative results were used as the basis for
qualitative interviews to obtain additional perspectives from managers and employees.
Significance o f the Study

This research is important for managers of quality management companies that want
to establish a knowledge management capability or improve their existing knowledge
management capabilities. By developing a deeper understanding of the relationship
between quality management and knowledge management, managers can focus their
efforts on practices that show the most promise for building competitive knowledge
management competencies.
Many companies are pursuing knowledge and learning activities to stay competitive.
Many of these same companies have established quality management efforts. If the
nature of the relationship between quality management and knowledge management can
be uncovered, these companies can build a competitive knowledge and learning
capability without starting over. They can build upon their quality management
foundation by leveraging current quality management practices to share knowledge.
Companies gain by not wasting resources through the abandonment of current
initiatives and by adopting a more even-handed approach to change and to building new
capabilities. Managers will increase their credibility as employees will be able to see the
linkage between new initiatives and current efforts (Euske & Player, 1996). Employees
will see a natural progression as the company builds upon current initiatives to create a
new capability for the future. Organizations will experience less waste; and employees
will experience less bumout, skepticism, fear and cynicism (Abrahamson & Fairchild,
1999; Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990; Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998; Duck,
1993; Hammer, 2002; Schaffer & Thomson, 1992, Schein, 1993). The financial, time,
emotional, and resource savings can be significant.
Limitations and Delimitations o f the Study

This study had some clear limitations. Many of these limitations stem from the
population studied and the conduct of the survey. The population consisted of managers
and employees in for-profit organizations across industries and levels within
organizations. Thus, some clear limitations of this studys generalizability are:
1. The survey did not limit participation by industry. Some variability may have
been introduced by different industry perspectives.
2. The breadth of the population includes people at different levels within
organizations. These people may have different perspectives of how their
company operates. This may add to the variability of the results.
3. The survey was anonymous and only type of organization and size of organization
were collected as demographic data. A more segmented quantitative analysis
based on the knowledge of other demographic categories may have yielded
different results.
Another limitation of this study is due to the chosen methodology. Even a strong
statistically significant correlation does not address causation. A practice and an
approach could be statistically correlated without any cause and effect relationship.
Although the statistically significant correlations that were found suggest that quality
management practices and knowledge management approaches relate to one another, one
cannot say that one causes the other. This was evident in the interviews where
participants described reciprocal causality. Interview participants described the same
correlation with quality management being the independent variable as others described
with knowledge management being the independent variable.
My choice of a quantitative approach as my dominant method is also a limiting factor.

Although this provides data for statistical analysis, the analysis is based upon
participants perceptions of what practices and approaches the organization is using. The
interpretation of high and low usage is not ironclad.
The number of interviews is another limitation. Since the qualitative approach was
the less-dominant design, the number of interviews was deemed to be sufficient for
exploratory research. The interviews provided a deeper understanding of the quantitative
data, but further qualitative study of this relationship would be beneficial.
Finally the study did not evaluate the effectiveness of the use of the quality
management practices or the knowledge management approaches. Organizations will
have varied degrees of success with the implementation of quality management practices
and knowledge management approaches. This may affect the participants perspectives
of the usage of the practices and approaches.
Any or all of these limitations could be enough for a person to decide that these results
are not relevant to their own situation. Perhaps they are not practicing quality
management. This is a real concern. This study is a snapshot in time of the participants
assessment of usage, which has been used to study correlations between quality
management practices and knowledge management approaches. It provides data to add
to the quality management and knowledge management bodies of knowledge. Its
usefulness goes beyond the limitations listed above but it is up to the individual manager
to determine how much.
The most important delimitation for this study was that the population only included
managers and employees in for-profit organizations. Non-profit and government
organizations were not included in the study. Since convenience sampling was used the
population for this study was also initially limited to individuals on the researchers
contact list and the contact list of the researchers employer, a local community college.
Although the contact lists contained a good mix of organization by type and size, the
geographic location tended to be in the area of greater Cincinnati, Ohio. Subsequent
contacts did broaden the list to a few other states although the exact location of each
participant is not known. Finally the survey was conducted on line and participants
needed an active e-mail address to participate.
Definitions o f Terms
For this study several terms must be defined. In the field of quality management
Reeves and Bednar (1994) defined quality in many ways. They noted that the most
widely accepted definition of quality is meeting and/or exceeding customer expectations.
In this study the terms quality management, Total Quality Management and Total Quality
were accepted as terms that defined the same construct and are used interchangeably.
This study used the term quality management unless the cited author or work used one of
the other terms. This studys definition of quality management was a set of practices
used by an organization to meet or exceed customer expectations and to continuously
improve its capability to do so.
This research divided quality management into control-oriented practices and
behavioral practices. Control-oriented quality management practices were defined as the
tools and techniques that use quantitative problem-solving and statistical tools to solve
problems. They have their roots in the belief that an objective analysis of the facts will
lead to the solution of the problem. Behavioral quality management practices emphasize
the human element in problem solving. The behavioral side o f quality management
focuses on employee involvement, cross-functional communication and teamwork to
solve problems.
In the field of knowledge management an authorative definition of knowledge was
beyond the scope o f this study. This study focused on knowledge in organizations and
defined knowledge management as how an organization uses its intellectual assets to gain
competitive advantage. Intellectual assets are the explicit intellectual material within an
organization as well as the knowledge and learning that is shared between individuals,
groups and their actions. A knowledge management system was defined as the
interrelated processes and norms that shape how an organization employs structural and
behavioral approaches to build, maintain and use its intellectual assets to gain
competitive advantage.
Knowledge management was also separated into structural and behavioral approaches.
Structural approaches treat knowledge as an object and attempt to capture knowledge for
future use and to know where knowledge resides in the organization. Structural
approaches would include best practices databases, organizational directories of experts,
and management reports that are available to employees.
Knowledge management behavioral practices related to the degree that the
organization managed its knowledge through behavioral approaches such as laying out
the facility, communicating strategy, and enabling people to work together. Examples
included holding special events that enable people to come together to share ideas, having
the technology tools to connect people with each other, designing facilities with meeting
spaces, and recognizing employees knowledge as a source of competitive advantage.
Here knowledge is treated as a process and human interaction is the source of new
knowledge. The goals are to allow knowledge to be freely shared so it can move to the
people that need it and to allow new knowledge to emerge through the serendipity of
people meeting each other and sharing their ideas.
Some terms needed to be defined outside of the fields of quality management and
knowledge management. Organizational context was defined as the total environment in
which an organization exists that influences organizational choices. It includes an
organizations competitive strategy, industry setting and corporate culture (Earl, 2001)
Shared practices are practices that are shared between current concepts and new concepts.
For this study shared practices were practices that are shared between quality
management and knowledge management.
Two theories need to be defined as they were critical in establishing knowledge's role
in a firm's strategy. Under the resource-based theory of the firm, firms possess very
specific resources, competencies and capabilities (Spender, 1996) that allow it to take
strategic action. Strategy is the organizations plan of action through which an
organization intends to achieve its goals (Daft, 2003). Strategic action therefore is the
specific actions that the organization takes when implementing its strategy. Thus the
resource-based theory of the firm sees an organizations ability to take strategic action to
accomplish its goals as based upon its unique set of resources, competencies and
capabilities. In academic research the resource-based theory of the firm was augmented
by a knowledge-based theory of the firm (Decarolis & Deeds, 1999). In the knowledgebased theory o f the firm, knowledge is the firms most strategically important resource.
Thomas, Sussman and Henderson (2001) describe the key to sustainable competitive
advantage as the firms ability to bundle critical resources in such a way at to distinguish
its knowledge base in particular areas (p. 331).
Overview o f Chapters
After this introduction Chapter Two provides a review of the quality management and
knowledge management literature. Based upon the literature review a theoretical
framework for the study is presented and the hypotheses are discussed. Chapter Three
covers the research methodology including the research design and the quantitative and
qualitative methods used to collect the data. Chapter Four discusses the quantitative
analysis of the data and the analysis of the supporting interviews with survey participants.
Chapter Five chapter concludes with the contribution of the study to both academic
research and practitioners.
10
Chapter Two: Literature Review

This literature review concentrates on the identification of generally recognized
quality management practices and the identification of generally recognized approaches
to knowledge management. To identify these practices and approaches a review of the
literature on quality, quality management, knowledge, organizational learning and
knowledge management was required. ABI/Inform Research, Business Source Premier,
JSTOR and FirstSearch WilsonSelectPlus databases were used to search the literature.
The literature review also included the most widely recognized books by quality
management and knowledge management experts and a widely acclaimed documentary,
I f Japan Can, Why Can't We? (Dobyns & Frank, 1980).
Quality
Quality is an ambiguous and multi-faceted term. The quality management thought
leaders differed on definitions and, given quality managements birth and rise in the
world of practitioners, a single generally recognized definition has not emerged though
there are some themes that exist when defining quality.
Crosby (1979) offered a definition of quality and quality management. Crosby quite
simply defined quality as conformance to requirements (p. 17). He defined quality
management as a systematic way of guaranteeing that organized activities happen the
way they are planned (p. 22).
Ishikawa (1985) used the term company-wide quality control. The company-wide
term was significant for Ishikawa as he emphasized that everyone in the company must
practice quality control. Ishikawa had two interpretations of quality.
11
Narrowly interpreted, quality means quality of product.
Broadly
interpreted, quality means quality of work, quality of service, quality of

information, quality o f process, quality of division, quality of people,
including workers, engineers, managers, and executives, quality of system,
quality of company, quality of objectives, etc. (p. 45)
Juran (1999) offered a more nuanced view of quality. He defined quality as having
two definitions that work in opposite directions. The first definition was those features
o f products which meet customer needs and thereby provide customer satisfaction (p.
2.1). In this view of quality providing more and/or better quality features usually
requires an investment and hence usually involves increases in costs. Higher quality in
this sense usually costs more (p. 2.1).
At the same time Juran (1999) saw that quality could also mean freedom from
deficiencies - freedom from errors that require doing work over again (rework) or that
result in field failures, customer dissatisfaction, customer claims, and so on (p. 2.2). In
this view of quality the meaning of quality is oriented toward costs, and higher quality
usually costs less (p. 2.2).
Jurans (1999) appreciation for multiple views of quality was echoed in other
treatments of quality definitions. Spencer (1994) and Reeves and Bednar (1994)
recognized the multiple meanings of quality. In the spirit of Ishikawas definition
Spencer noted, quality has many meanings. It is an attribute of the product or service, of
the work itself, and of the processes and systems surrounding the work (p. 463).
Reeves and Bednar (1994) provided the most comprehensive review of quality. They
identified and analyzed four primary definitions. Quality is: (a) excellence; (b) value; (c)
12
conformance-to-specifications; and (d) meeting and/or exceeding customers

expectations. They noted that conformance-to-specifications prevailed as the most
prevalent view o f quality until the middle of the 20th century when Juran introduced his
dual perspective. Since that time they found that meeting and/or exceeding customers
expectations was the most pervasive (p. 423) definition and the most relevant for
consumers (p. 435). Still they close by stating, We believe that such a global definition
(of quality) does not exist and that different definitions of quality are appropriate in
different circumstances (p. 440).
Quality Management
In the practitioners world quality management is recognized as a body of knowledge
that has grown into acceptance over the last 25 years (Gabor, 2000; Main, 1994; Stewart,
1999). Unfortunately, although practitioners recognize quality management as an
existing field of expertise, the exact definition of quality management will vary from
practitioner to practitioner. This has inhibited quality managements emergence as a
suitable field o f study for scholarly research.
Quality managements heritage can be traced to Egyptian papyrus scrolls that had
written quality specifications (Juran, 1995b). Juran (1995b) followed the history of
quality management from Ancient Egypt through the village marketplaces and guilds of
the Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution and the rise of international commerce to
the current global marketplace.
In the 20th century quality managements heritage can be traced along two tracks - a
technical or control-oriented approach to quality and a humanistic or a behavioral
approach to quality. On the technical side, scholars point to Frederick Winslow Taylors
13
(1998) work in improving organizational productivity, first published in 1911. Taylors

work was extremely influential in the development o f quality in the United States.
Taylors drive to break jobs into discrete tasks spawned the growth of inspection
departments that later evolved into quality control and quality assurance departments
(Juran, 1995b). Close behind Taylor most quality management advocates trace their
statistical heritage to Walter Shewharts work with the Western Electric Company where
he developed control charts as a tool to help workers identify unwanted variation (Grant,
Shani, & Krishnan, 1994; Juran, 1995b; Main, 1994). The continued application of
quantitative and planning techniques to solve management problems was fueled by the
militarys effort during World War II (Daft, 2003). The need to move men and
machinery on a global scale required the development of increasingly sophisticated tools.
From these efforts, management science emerged as a new field for management study
after the war (Daft, 2003). It strove to solve management problems through the
application of mathematics, statistics and other quantitative techniques. Operations
research, a subfield o f management science, also grew into a field of study after the war
(Daft, 2003). It focused on building mathematical models to solve management
problems. Operations researchers developed Program Evaluation Review Technique
(PERT) and Critical Path Method (CPM) in the 1950s to manage complex projects for
industry and the military (Heizer & Render, 2006). Management science shifted into the
business world through operations management (Daft, 2003, Heizer & Render, 2006).
Here managers of production and later service operations used mathematical models to
forecast future demand, manage inventory, optimize schedules and address other
management problems. The continued sophistication of planning and quantitative
14
analysis tools within management science was supported by the increasing sophistication
and power o f information technology (Daft, 2003).
Taylors scientific management, Shewharts statistical process control, management
science, operations research, operations management and information technology all
influenced the technical side of quality management. The technical side of quality
management emphasizes using quantitative analysis and statistical tools to solve
problems. It is a control-oriented approach that has its roots in the belief that an objective
analysis of the facts will lead to the solution of the problem. The technical side of quality
management employs statistical process control and other quality tools to analyze
processes.
Conceptually the technical side of quality management accepts the foundational
premise of these prior fields of study. The premise is that quantitative tools can be used
to analyze a problem or situation so that an appropriate solution or course of action can
be determined. What makes quality management different from these earlier fields of
study is that quality management also emphasizes the human component for solving
problems.
Quality management traces its behavioral roots to the human relations movement of
the 1920s. The most influential study of this time was Mayos work at the Hawthorne
factory of the Western Electric Company from 1927 - 1933 (Daft, 2003; Wagner &
Hollenbeck, 2005). Here Mayo discovered the positive impact that social factors, such as
managers concern for workers, can have on productivity (Daft, 2003; Wagner &
Hollenbeck, 2005). Although new analyses have questioned whether just taking care of
workers caused the increase in productivity, the studies began the human relations
15
movement (Daft, 2003; Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005). The human relations movements
basic premise was that employees will perform better when managers treat them in a
positive manner.
The human resource perspective built upon the human relations movement (Daft,
2003). The human resource perspective went beyond manager relations with employees
to job design and theories of motivation (Daft, 2003). McGregors Theory X and Theory
Y was a key theoretical development within this perspective that was adopted by quality
management thought leaders (Daft, 2003; Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005). McGregors
theory suggested that managers need to change their basic assumptions about workers.
According to McGregor, Theory X managers control workers because they assume
workers dislike work and do not want to work. McGregor suggested that a better way to
increase performance would be to adopt Theory Y assumptions. A Theory Y manager
creates the conditions so workers can perform to the best of their ability. Theory Y
managers assume that workers want to work and will perform well if they are given the
opportunity to commit to the organizations goals, assume responsibility and engage their
creativity and imagination.
As the human resource perspective increased in sophistication a new field emerged.
The behavioral science field applied scientific methods to develop theories about human
behavior to better understand employee behavior and interaction in organizations.
(Daft, 2003). The application of behavioral science theories in organizational settings
grew into the field of organizational development. In organizational development
specific interventions were conducted to improve the organizations health and
16
effectiveness through its ability to cope with change, improve internal relationships, and
increase problem-solving capabilities (Daft, 2003).
Quality management has been influenced by the focus on human behavior in
organizations. The behavioral side of quality management emphasizes the importance of
people and their ideas in problem solving. It adopts the Theory Y perspective and
focuses on employee involvement, cross-functional communication and teamwork to
solve problems. It accepts the premise that the world is too complex to be explained
solely by quantitative models and that the solutions are implemented best when people
have been involved in their development. So in the end quality management integrates
its technical and behavioral heritage into a single approach for improving organizational
performance.
Although quality management can trace its technical and behavioral heritage to earlier
efforts it did not emerge on the American business landscape as a field of management
practice until the 1970s and 1980s. The writings of several quality management thought
leaders, most notably W.E. Deming (1986, 2000), Joseph Juran (1995a, 1999), Kaoru
Ishikawa (1985), and Philip Crosby (1979), established quality management as a
reputable, though non-scholarly, body of knowledge. Although each brought his
individual perspective on quality management, together they helped form, communicate,
and establish some basic principles that are generally accepted by businesspeople as
essential to adhering to quality management.
Even so, for many business managers quality management burst on to the American
business scene in 1980 with the airing of the NBC documentary, I f Japan Can, Why
C ant We? (Dobyns & Frank, 1980). This documentary thrust W. Edwards Deming into
17
the spotlight as the man who led Japan through a quality and productivity revolution that
was overpowering American industry (Gabor, 2000; Grant, Shani, & Krishnan, 1994;
Ishikawa, 1985; Main, 1994) and fueled the interest of American business in quality
management. As American practitioners adopted various forms of quality management,
Deming (1986, 2000) and Juran (1995a, 1999) and to a lesser extent, Crosby (1979) and
Ishikawa (1985) grew to be generally recognized as the thought leaders for quality
management.
Deming.
Deming did not coin the words quality management and never saw his management
philosophy as equivalent to total quality management (Boardman, 1994; Senge, 1999).
He organized his philosophy into fourteen points, which he saw as the basis for
transformation o f American industry (Deming, 1986, p. 23). Demings fourteen points
were:
1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the
aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs (p. 23).
2. Adopt the new philosophy (p. 23).
3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality (p. 23).
4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag (p. 23).
5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve
quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs (p. 23).
6. Institute training on the job (p. 23).
7. Institute leadership (p. 23).
8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company (p. 23).
18
9. Break down barriers between departments (p. 24).

10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero
defects and new levels of productivity (p. 24).
1la. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor (p. 24).
1 lb. Eliminate management by objective (p. 24).
12a. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship
(P- 24).
12b. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their
right to pride o f workmanship (p. 24).
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement (p. 24).
14. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation (p. 24).
In his fourteen points Deming called for a new way of managing, not business as usual
(Deming, 1986; Gabor, 2000; Grant, Shani, & Krishnan, 1994). Points #1, #2, #5 and
#14 in particular made the call for companies to adopt a new way of managing to achieve
success. This new way o f managing took a long-term perspective toward managements
responsibility for organizational success based upon continuous improvement and
employee involvement. As noted by an executive at Ford Motor Company,
I distinctly remember some of Dr. Demings first visits. We wanted to
talk about quality, improvement tools, and which programs work.
He
wanted to talk to us about management, cultural change, and senior

managements vision for the company. It took time for us to understand
the profound cultural transformation he was proposing. (Omachonu &
Ross, 2004, p. 59)
19
In general Deming saw total quality management as limiting companies from truly
changing (Senge, 1999). Total quality management as it came to be practiced was too
tool focused and left the underlying structure of management unchanged. Therefore it is
not surprising that Deming does not define quality management.
Deming (2000) further articulated what he saw as the new philosophy of management
in his System o f Profound Knowledge. Demings System of Profound Knowledge
consisted of four parts:
1. Appreciation for a system
2. Knowledge about variation
3. Theory of knowledge
4. Psychology
Appreciation for a system (Deming, 2000) meant that managers must see their
organization as a system and direct their efforts towards managing the system. Deming
defined a system as a network of interdependent components that work together to try to
accomplish the aim of the system (p. 50) and emphasized that the entire system must be
managed.
Knowledge about variation (Deming, 2000) called for knowledge about stable and
unstable processes. Deming called for managers to understand their processes and the
data that they are gathering in order to improve their processes.
The theory of knowledge (Deming, 2000) called for managers to develop a theory of
how their organization functions because it is only through the modification of the theory
that learning could occur. With a theory, managers could then take new information and
experiences, compare them to what the theory postulated, and then modify the theory as
20
required to reflect the new experience. In this way management could learn. Otherwise
management was reacting to new experiences and might be successful, but without
modifying the theory to capture the new knowledge, learning could not occur.
Finally, psychology required managers to pay attention to their people. Deming
(2000) exhorted managers to manage their people based upon an understanding and
respect for them as individuals. Deming argued against forced rankings and challenged
managers to understand the extrinsic and intrinsic rewards that motivate the people that
work for them.
Juran.
Juran (1995a, 1999) also did not spend much time defining quality management.
Juran (1995a) did define the three elements of quality management: quality planning,
quality control and quality improvement. Quality planning was the activity of
establishing quality goals and developing the products and processes required to meet
those goals (p. 402). Quality control was developing and maintaining operational
methods for assuring that processes work as they are designed to work and that target
levels of performance are met (p. 401). Quality improvement was the discipline that
concerns itself with improving the level of performance of a process (p. 402). This
trilogy is known as Jurans Trilogy and defines the three key activities within quality
management (Juran, 1999).
Crosby.
Crosby (1979) offered a direct prescription for attaining quality. His concept of zero
defects - doing things right the first time was based on the fact that mistakes are
caused by two things: lack of knowledge and lack of attention (p. 171). He offered that
21
lack of knowledge can be addressed by training while lack of attention is an attitudinal

problem. Basically Crosby argued that people make mistakes because they accept that
mistakes are inevitable. This permeates through the organization so that management
accepts errors as normal operations. Managers and workers need to change their attitude
and no longer accept that errors are inevitable. This change in attitude will improve
quality.
Ishikawa.
Ishikawa (1985) used the term company-wide quality control. Ishikawa defined the
practice of quality control as to develop, design, produce and service a quality product
which is most economical, most useful, and always satisfactory to the consumer (p. 44).
His approach to quality control emphasized statistical tools to ascertain the facts,
company-wide involvement, and management responsibility.
Summary and Definition
When comparing these four widely recognized quality management thought leaders it
is evident that each takes a different perspective. Deming (1986, 2000) and Crosby
(1979) adopted a prescriptive approach for companies to implement quality management
while Juran (1995a, 1999) and Ishikawa (1985) took a conceptual approach and offered
models of quality management for managers to follow.
In his fourteen points Deming (1986) took a prescriptive approach by stating what
organizations need to do to implement quality management. He offered his fourteen
points as a new management philosophy that must start with management and permeate
throughout the organization. He went further with this System of Profound Knowledge
22
(Deming, 2000) which expanded his prescriptive fourteen points to a prescriptive model
of what organizations need to know and how they should learn.
Crosby (1979) was even more prescriptive than Deming. His fourteen steps for Zero
Defects was a step-by-step process for implementing a quality management program. It
included a specific order for each step, a detailed description of how to accomplish each
step, and identified specific events within the program such as kick-off events and
recognition ceremonies.
Juran (1995a, 1999) and Ishikawa (1985) were not as prescriptive. Jurans Trilogy
was focused on managements responsibility for planning, controlling and improving
performance in a never-ending cycle of continuous improvement. He offered many
ideas, tools and techniques for companies to follow to implement the steps within the
trilogy but did not prescribe a single list or step-by-step process that must be followed.
Similarly Ishikawas (1985) company-wide quality control was a model for quality
management to guide managers as opposed to a prescriptive list of things to do. Ishikawa
offered guidelines for implementing company-wide quality control and refrained from
offering a single list of things to do or a step-by-step process for implementation.
Table 1 summarizes the TQM thought leaders views on quality and quality management.
23
Table 1
TQM Thought Leaders Definitions o f Quality and Quality Management

Quality
Definition of
Quality
Quality Management
Management
Quality
Management
Approach
Thought Leader
Crosby (1979)
Concept
Conformance to
Zero Defects
requirements
A prescriptive step-bystep process for doing

things right the first
time
Deming (1986,
None
2000)
Fourteen points;
A prescriptive list of
System of
things to do; A
Profound
prescriptive model of
Knowledge
how organizations can

improve and learn
Ishikawa (1985)
Quality of product,
Company-wide
A conceptual model
work, service,
quality control
and guidelines for
information, process
implementing quality
division, people
management that
(workers, engineers,
emphasizes company-
managers and
wide involvement
executives), system,
company, objectives
Juran (1995a, 1999)
Jurans Trilogy
Features of products
A conceptual model for
and freedom from
managing for quality
deficiencies
which includes
planning, control and
improvement
In total the quality management thought leaders are not in agreement as to what
quality is and what quality management is. Below the surface, however, several themes
24
emerge. Scholars have analyzed the quality management construct to define its
components.
Saraph, Benson and Schroeder (1989), Hackman and Wageman (1995), Powell (1995)
and Anderson, Rungtusanatham and Schroeder (1994) defined the practices within
quality management.
Hackman and Wageman (1995) studied the existence of total quality management in
manufacturing and service organizations. They found a collection of five practices and
two enrichments that were most frequently employed in companies quality management
efforts. They distinguished between practices that were part of the quality management
thought leaders works and the two enrichments that were part of total quality
management efforts even though they were not explicitly in the works of the quality
management thought leaders. The five practices were: (1) the use of short-term
problem-solving teams, (2) employee training, (3) top-down implementation, (4)
developing relationships with suppliers and (5) obtaining data about customers. The two
enrichments were competitive benchmarking and employee involvement. In total they
concluded that total quality management exists as a distinct management approach. They
also warned that that total quality management suffers from so broad a definition that it
may disappear as a meaningful concept as more and more concepts are placed underneath
it.
Anderson et al. (1994) studied Demings fourteen points to ascertain an underlying
management philosophy. They found a management philosophy that focuses on seven
key areas: (1) visionary leadership, (2) internal and external cooperation / teamwork, (3)
learning / training, (4) process management, (5) continuous improvement, (6) employee
25
fulfillment and (7) customer satisfaction. For them Deming does offer a coherent
management philosophy that challenges managers to significantly change their approach
to management.
Saraph et al. (1989) also studied Deming, Juran, Ishikawa and other leading quality
management scholars and practitioners. They integrated these authors works and
distilled them eight critical factors of quality management, which they used to develop a
survey instrument to evaluate quality management in organizations. The eight critical
factors were: (1) the role of management leadership, (2) role of the quality department,
(3) training, (4) product / service design, (5) supplier quality management, (6) process
management, (7) quality data and reporting, and (8) employee relations. Each factor
consisted of 6-13 survey items, which were deemed to be internally consistent and valid.
Powell (1995) used the writings of Deming, Juran, and Crosby and the criteria from the
1992 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in his research. He developed a survey
instrument based upon his compilation of these quality management sources which
distilled them into twelve total quality management factors. The twelve factors were: (1)
committed leadership, (2) communication of TQM, (3) close customer relationships, (4)
close supplier relationships, (5) benchmarking, (6) training, (7) an open organization, (8)
employee empowerment, (9) zero defects mentality, (10) flexible manufacturing, (11)
process improvement and (12) measurement.
In total each researcher confirmed that quality management is a valid management
approach. Although the exact composition of concepts and practices within quality
management varied, some practices appeared in multiple research efforts.
26
Table 2 identifies nine practices that are within the set of practices for quality
management as defined by each researcher. Three practices appeared in all of the
research studies. First, leadership was recognized as essential to quality management.
Anderson et. al (1994) clearly identified visionary leadership as a key piece of Demings
philosophy. Similarly Powell (1995) and Saraph et. al (1989) identified top management
leadership and commitment as a key factor. Hackman and Wageman (1995) also
identified leadership within their recognition of top down implementation in quality
management efforts. They noted that since quality is ultimately the responsibility of top
management, most TQM programs begin with the training of top managers in the quality
philosophy (p. 316).
The second practice found in all research studies was process control aimed at
continuous improvement. This concept appeared under many different terms. Anderson
et. al (1994) identified process management as a key concept of Demings management
philosophy. Powell (1995) used the term process improvement while Saraph et. al (1989)
used the term process management. Hackman and Wageman (1995) identified the use of
problem-solving teams to simplify and streamline work practices. All of the researchers
focused their definitions o f these terms on controlling the process by removing variation
and errors from the process through statistical process control and process analysis.
The third practice to appear in all studies was training. All researchers (Anderson et.
al, 1994; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Powell, 1995; Saraph et. al, 1989) saw training
for employees and management in the quality management philosophy and quality tools
as essential to total quality management.
27
Table 2
Synthesis o f Quality Management Practices

Article
Anderson,
Hackman &
Rungtusanatham,
Wageman
Benson, &
and Schroeder
(1995)
Schroeder
Powell (1995)
(1994)
Saraph,
(1989)
X
Training
Customer focus
Leadership
Process Control
for Continuous
Improvement
Company-wide
employee
involvement
Supplier
partnerships
Teams
Benchmarking
x
X
Measurement
X
X
Note. A X in the column indicates that the researchers included this practice in their set o f practices for
quality management.
As seen in Table 2 there is not a consensus on the exact practices of quality

management. A lack o f definitional consensus, however, should not halt further research.
Each researcher needs to clearly define quality management in their research framework.
28
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For this study I have defined quality management as the set of practices used by an
organization to meet or exceed customer expectations and to continuously improve its
capability to do so. This definition incorporates Reeves and Bednars (1994) focus on the
customer. It is also in line with Hackman and Wagemans (1995) study that found varied
practices under the quality management umbrella. This definition recognizes that there is
not a single set of practices that is accepted as required for practicing quality
management. When defining quality Reeves and Bednar (1994) state, We believe that
such a global definition (of quality) does not exist and that different definitions of quality
are appropriate in different circumstances (p. 440). Similarly the establishment of a
single definition of the set of practices within quality management is not the focus of this
study and different definitions may be appropriate under different circumstances.
Still, to conduct this research a more exact definition of set of practices within
quality management is necessary. The literature review of quality management has led to
the identification of three practices that were used and consistently defined in four widely
recognized research studies. As identified in Table 2, these practices were leadership,
process control for continuous improvement, and training.
For this research the following definitions of each practice were used (Saraph et al.,
1989). Quality management leadership practices related to the extent of the role of the
organizations leaders in the organizations quality management efforts. Examples
included communications from top leadership about quality, the involvement of top
leadership in quality awards, and quality initiatives that are championed by top leaders.
Quality management training practices related to the degree to which the organization
emphasized training in its quality management efforts. Examples included having
29
resources for quality management training, the commitment of top leadership to quality
training, and management attendance at quality training. Quality management process
control practices related to the extent to which the organizations efforts were directed at
controlling internal processes to achieve quality. Examples included automated
inspection systems, error-proofing, and clear procedures and work instructions.
These three practices were used as the set of practices for quality management in
this research, and therefore were studied as the quality management practices that formed
the organizational context for the use of organizational approaches to knowledge
management.
The purpose of this research was to determine the relationships between quality
management practices and organizational approaches to knowledge management. The
review of the quality management literature identified three quality management
practices that were used in this study. The literature on knowledge management must
now be reviewed to ascertain the organizational approaches to knowledge management.
Before reviewing the knowledge management literature it is reasonable to ask for a
definition of knowledge. As reasonable as this might seem the definition of knowledge is
the subject of much debate both past and present. As Davenport and Prusak (1998)
stated, Since epistemologists spend their lives trying to understand what it means to
know something, we will not pretend to provide a definitive account ourselves (p. xx). I
agree, as a definitive answer to what it means to know something is not within the scope
of this research. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Gill (2000) both provide excellent
30
historical reviews of the debate between rationalism, empiricism and what it means to
know.
Knowledge management as a field of study is relatively new (De Long & Seemann,
2000), though organizations and groups have been managing knowledge for some time.
Davenport and Prusak (1998) noted, good managers (have always) valued the
experience and know-how of employees - that is, their knowledge (p. ix).
For this research I have defined knowledge management as how an organization
builds, maintains and uses its intellectual assets to gain competitive advantage.
Intellectual assets are the explicit intellectual material within an organization as well as
the knowledge and learning that is shared between individuals, groups and their actions.
I have defined a knowledge management system as the interrelated processes and norms
that shape how an organization employs structural and behavioral approaches to build,
maintain and use its intellectual assets to gain competitive advantage.
These definitions are based upon three foundational concepts that are found within the
current literature in the field. They are:
1. Knowledge is a, if not the primary, source of competitive advantage for firms
into the future.
2. Knowledge is multifaceted. It is composed of many dualisms such as a
possession and a process, a stock and a flow and being both explicit and tacit.
3. All organizations have knowledge management systems regardless of whether
the system is being actively managed or not. Every knowledge management
system has both structural and behavioral components, and an effective system
31
has both of these components working together to support knowledge

management and learning.
These three characteristics of knowledge in organizations form the foundation for
knowledge management as a field that can be studied at the organizational level. With
these foundational concepts the existence of a knowledge management system emerges in
all organizations. These knowledge management systems can then be studied given the
complex nature of knowledge and systems. They can be studied as systems that hold
multiple dualisms: possession and process, explicit and tacit, active task management
and supportive relationship building, and structural and behavioral components.
Knowledge as a source o f competitive advantage.
In the early 1990s academic researchers and practitioners began to recognize
knowledge as the source of competitive advantage for organizations (Earl & Scott, 1999;
Kogut & Zander, 1992; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Liebeskind, 1996; Lubit, 2001; Thomas,
Sussman, & Henderson, 2001). Drucker (1991) warned that knowledge- and serviceworker productivity would be the single greatest challenge facing the developed countries
into the new century. Quinn (1992) introduced the intelligent enterprise that delivers
value based upon its knowledge and service-based capabilities.
Knowledge's role in a firm's strategy was built upon the resource-based theory of the
firm. Under the resource-based theory of the firm, firms possess very specific resources,
competencies and capabilities (Spender, 1996) that allow them to take strategic action.
Thomas, Sussman and Henderson (2001) describe the key to sustainable competitive
advantage under the resource-based theory of the firm as the firms ability to bundle
critical resources in such a way as to distinguish its knowledge base in particular areas
32
(p. 331). In academic research the resource-based theory of the firm was augmented by
a knowledge-based theory of the firm (Decarolis & Deeds, 1999). In the knowledgebased theory o f the firm knowledge is the firms most strategically important resource.
In line with knowledge as the key source of competitive advantage Kogut and Zander
(1992) see combinative capability or the ability of a firm to replicate and combine
knowledge into new capabilities as the source of a firms competitive advantage.
Knowledge dualisms.
Knowledge has been identified as existing through multiple dualisms. One dualism
compares knowledge to both an object and a process. As an object knowledge is a thing
that can be stored and manipulated (Zack, 1999, p.46). It can be possessed (Cook &
Brown, 1999). Knowledge as a process can be viewed as a process of simultaneously
knowing and acting (Zack, 1999, p. 46). It exists through dynamic interaction with the
environment in which it is applied (Cook & Brown, 1999).
A second dualism sees knowledge as both a stock and a flow (Bontis, Crossan, &
Hulland, 2002). Bontis et al. described a system of knowledge in organizations where
knowledge is stored as a stock of knowledge. Here knowledge resides for people to
access as needed. However in the model knowledge is also a flow where knowledge is
being created as people interact and develop new ideas and solve new problems.
Knowledge flows between people at the same level of the organization and across
multiple levels between individuals, groups and the organization as a whole. In this
respect knowledge is dynamic and is constantly moving throughout the organization.
Similarly, Decarolis and Deeds (1999) refer to stocks of knowledge as accumulated
knowledge assets that are internal to the firm (p. 954). Flows of knowledge are
33
knowledge streams into the firm or various parts of the firm which may be assimilated
and developed into stocks o f knowledge (Decarolis & Deeds, 1999, p.954).
A final dualism describes knowledge as being explicit and tacit (Polanyi, 1967).
Explicit knowledge can be easily articulated and codified. It is stored in documents and
databases and can be easily accessed by others. On the other hand, tacit knowledge is
knowledge that we hold but that cannot be fully explained. It is best communicated
through experience and action. Tacit knowledge is hard for people to articulate. In
Polanyi's famous description of tacit knowledge, we can know more than we can tell
(p. 4).
It can be seen that these multiple dualisms follow a similar pattern. On one hand,
knowledge as an object fits with the concept of knowledge stocks, which fits with the
concept of explicit knowledge. That is, explicit knowledge is more apt to be documented
and stored in procedures and databases as an object in an organizations stock of
knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge as a process fits with the concept of
knowledge as a flow, which fits with the concept of tacit knowledge. In this case tacit
knowledge is more apt to flow between people through conversation and shared
experiences, which reflect knowledge as a process of continuous learning. These
differences are not completely separate. There is some overlap. These two perspectives
do however point to a key distinction between knowledge management structural
approaches that treat knowledge as an object, a stock and explicit as opposed to
knowledge management behavioral approaches that treat knowledge as a process, a flow
and tacit.
34
Knowledge management systems.

Knowledge management systems are the interrelated processes and norms that shape
how an organization employs structural and behavioral approaches to build, maintain and
use its intellectual assets to gain competitive advantage. Systems theory views systems
as a set of interrelated parts that function as a whole to achieve a common purpose
(Daft, 2003). In systems theory open systems interact with the environment while
turning inputs into outputs through some transformation process and then receiving
feedback about those outputs. Senge (1990) achieved great popular success by
advocating systems thinking as part of organizational learning. In systems thinking
Senge advocates that managers need to understand the interactions between the parts of a
system even when the results of the interactions are separated by space and time. In
systems thinking, Senge challenges managers to appreciate the complexity of
organizations as systems and to base their decisions on a deeper understanding of the
interrelationships between activities within the organizational system.
The use of the term knowledge management system implies that the interrelationship
between a firms knowledge management activities are complex and do not exist alone.
Each knowledge management activity, whether structural or behavioral, influences and is
influenced by the other activities. In addition the norms, culture and accepted behavior
within the organization provide the environment within which the knowledge
management activities exist.
In defining a knowledge management system I have built upon the literature of
organizational learning systems and knowledge management systems. I will further
explain the growing convergence between organizational learning and knowledge
35
management that justifies the use of organizational learning systems in the development
o f my knowledge management system definition.
In an early review of organizational learning literature Shrivastava (1983) advanced a
typology o f organizational learning systems. In his typology Shrivastava identified an
organizational learning system that has both structural and behavioral components. He
stated that organizational learning systems include a variety of formal, informal,
cultural, and historical schemes for managing the process of knowledge-sharing and
propagation within the organization (p. 17).
Even more vividly Argyris and Schon (1996) combined the structural and explicit
knowledge that can be managed and the behavioral and tacit knowledge that can be
facilitated into an organizational learning system. They defined an organizational
learning system as the structures that channel organizational inquiry and the behavioral
world of the organization, draped over these structures, that facilitates or inhibits
organizational inquiry (p. 28). They added:
By organizational structures, we mean
Channels of communication (forums for discussion and

debate, formal and informal patterns of interaction);
Information
systems,
including
their
media
and
technologies (the computer, for example)
The spatial environment of the organization insofar as it

influences patterns of communication
Procedures
and
routines
that
guide
individual
and
interactive inquiry; and
36
Systems of incentives that influence the will to inquire, (p.

28)
By the behavioral world of the organization, we mean the

qualities, meaning, and feelings that habitually condition patterns
of interaction among individuals within the organization in such
a way as to affect organizational inquiry.... (p. 29).
Argyris and Schon (1996) described an organizational learning system that has
both structural and behavioral components. Structurally Argyris and Schons
organizational learning system addressed the explicit knowledge that can be
managed through information technology, technology-based communication
channels and documented procedures and policies. Behaviorally their
organizational learning systems addressed the culture, norms and ways of doing
things that influence how people interact with each other. The behavioral
component of their organizational learning system also included communication
channels that are not technology-based, the layout of the workplace and the
reward system.
Clearly Argyris and Schon (1996) recognized the structural and behavioral
components of organizational learning. O f greater importance for this study they
recognized that organizations have organizational learning systems that are composed of
both structural and behavioral components.
Other scholars developed the concept of organizational memory as the structural
component within organizational learning. Organizational memory is stored
information from an organizations history that can be brought to bear on present
37
decisions (Walsh & Ungson, 1991, p. 61). It includes both the structural and behavioral
components of how firms capture knowledge for future use (Cross & Baird, 2000; Huber,
1991; Levitt & March, 1988; Walsh & Ungson, 1991; Zhang, Tian & Qi, 2006).
The concept of an organizational learning system is well founded. It is also widely
accepted that an organizational learning system has both a structural and behavioral
component. I have defined a knowledge management system as a similar concept to
organizational learning systems. This similarity is supported by the convergence of
knowledge management and organizational learning as explained below.
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning
Before discussing the convergence of knowledge management and organizational
learning the differences between the two fields must be reviewed. In tracing the
differentiation between knowledge management and organizational learning, Polanyis
(1967) recognition of explicit and tacit knowledge was a significant distinction that
served as a precursor to the fundamental differentiation between knowledge management
and organizational learning. Organizational learning tended to focus on the importance
of tacit knowledge in the social interaction, culture, and behaviors within organizations
while knowledge management focused on explicit knowledge and the structure and
technology within organizations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Easterby-Smith, Crossan, &
Nicolini, 2000; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 2000).
This differentiation limited the adoption of knowledge management in both the
academic and practitioner worlds; for despite Polanyis (1967) work on knowledge,
knowledge management did not become a recognized management practice. In the
academic world organizational learning with its base in the behavioral sciences received
38
far more attention. Academic research into organizational learning reached a critical
mass of recognition as an important topic for research in the 1980s (Fiol & Lyles, 1985;
Hedberg, 1981; Levitt & March, 1988; Shrivastava, 1983; Stata, 1989). The early work
in organizational learning was dominated by discussion of three major topics: (a)
learning and unlearning (Hedberg, 1981; Huber, 1991); (b) types of learning - single-loop
or double-loop (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Ulrich, Von Glinow, & Jick, 1993), incremental
or radical (Bierly & Chakrabarti, 1996; Miner & Mezias, 1996), adaptive or generative
(McGill, Slocum, & Lei, 1992; Senge, 1990), and lower-level and higher-level (Fiol &
Lyles, 1985); and (c) organizational memory (Hedberg, 1981; Huber, 1991; Kim, 1993;
Levitt & March, 1988; Walsh & Ungson, 1991).
Discussions of the concept of learning and unlearning addressed not only how
organizations learn new ideas and practices but also how learning requires organizations
to discard or unlearn established ideas and practices that no longer work (Hedberg, 1981;
Huber, 1991). The underlying theme was that organizations must not only learn but must
also unlearn.
The types of learning added to the understanding of organizational learning by
discussing two levels o f learning (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Bierly & Chakrabarti, 1996;
Fiol & Lyles, 1985; McGill, Slocum, & Lei, 1992; Miner & Mezias, 1996; Senge, 1990;
Ulrich, Von Glinow, & Jick, 1993). Despite the different terms used by the authors cited,
there is general agreement on the two levels of learning. On the first level organizations
learn from their mistakes and correct problems and thereby improve performance. Here
organizations gradually expand their current knowledge base (Bierly & Chakrabarti,
1996, p. 124). They focus on incremental improvements to existing products, markets,
39
services or technologies - often within the context of the firms preceding track record of
success (McGill, Slocum, & Lei, 1992, p. 6).
On the second more challenging level organizations must collectively question the
underlying assumptions of how the world works to arrive at why the problem occurred in
the first place. Here organizations aim at adjusting overall rules and norms rather than
specific activities or behaviors (Fiol & Lyles, 1985, p. 808). Double-loop learning
reevaluates the nature of objectives and the values and beliefs underlying them (Ulrich,
Von Glinow, & Jick, 1993, p. 53). For example, a problem may occur due to lack of
communication. The problem is fixed by improving communication between the parties
that are involved. The second level of learning would go further and ask why the people
were not communicating in the first place. What organizational norms, values and beliefs
caused the lack of communication? The second level drives learning beyond the
immediate problem to underlying causes within the social interactions of the
organization.
Although learning and unlearning and types of learning focused on organizational
learning, organizational memory provided some balance to the early works on
organizational learning by adding a structural perspective. Organizational memory
recognized that organizations can learn only if the learning is captured by the
organization (Cross & Baird, 2000; Hedberg, 1981; Huber, 1991; Kim, 1993; Levitt &
March, 1988; Stata, 1989; Walsh & Ungson, 1991; Zhang, Tian, & Qi, 2006). This can
be in some structural manner such as in a database or procedure or in a more behavioral
manner such as by changing the norms of how the organization works. The inclusion of
40
organizational memorys structural perspective provided an early link between

organizational learning and knowledge management.
Despite this shared concept in the early literature, the differences between
organizational learning and knowledge management gained far more attention as the two
camps argued over the role of behavioral approaches to learning versus structural
approaches to knowledge. Organizational learning gained the upper hand when it hit the
practitioners world with a vengeance with Peter Senges publication of The Fifth
Discipline in 1990. Senges work catapulted organizational learning into the lexicon of
the popular business press and established organizational learning as a concept that
required management attention (Dumaine, 1994). Knowledge management on the other
hand continued to struggle for recognition as an area requiring top management attention.
Knowledge Management Struggles fo r Recognition
As a proponent of organizational learning Senge (2000) was uncomfortable with the
term knowledge management. Senge stated I find that knowledge management is an
awkward term, because I think the idea that knowledge is something you manage makes
it like a thing. Capacity for effective action is not a thing (p. 56). He also stated The
real questions in knowledge management do not concern capture, storage, and retrieval.
These are questions about information (p. 57). For Senge the real questions in
knowledge management were concerned about how an organization knows what
knowledge it has that generates value, how it identifies what it is trying to learn, and how
it develops the ability to take knowledge in one area and use it as a foundation for
building knowledge in another area.
41
Senge (2000) saw these questions about knowledge management as subsumed by

organizational learning. He stated that these questions are the same set of issues that we
have always been concerned with in organizational learning for many years (p. 57).
Senge, however, saw a role for knowledge in organizations by defining organizational
learning as the process by which organizations generate and diffuse knowledge (p. 57).
On the knowledge management side, Davenport and Prusak (1998) also differentiated
between knowledge management and organizational learning. They argued that
organizational learning initiatives largely address cultural and behavioral issues (p.
169) and therefore it is rare for organizational learning initiatives to lead to knowledge
management because many learning-oriented organizations ignore the possibilities for
structuring and leveraging knowledge (p. 169). Davenport and Prusak agreed that
organizations seeking to manage knowledge have placed too much emphasis on
information technology and information management (p. 169); but they countered, the
world of organizational learning places too little emphasis on structured knowledge and
the use of technology to capture and leverage it (p. 169). They stated, without an
approach to managing structured knowledge, organizational learning is too conceptual
and abstract to make a long-term difference to organizations (p. 170).
Some scholars did not find some similarity between knowledge management and
organizational learning but not enough to bridge the gap between the two concepts.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) saw some affinity between organizational learning as
described by Senge (1990) and their model of organizational knowledge creation. In
particular Senges use of such concepts as mental models, a shared vision, and team
learning described some of the same constructs that Nonaka and Takeuchi saw at work
42
in their own theory. Nonaka and Takeuchi took issue with Senge in that he rarely uses
the word knowledge and does not present any ideas on how knowledge can be created
(p. 45). In this respect Nonaka and Takeuchi did not see their theory as coinciding with
organizational learning. Though they used some constructs that are similar to
organizational learning, they contended that their theory of organizational knowledge
creation focuses on the creation of knowledge which organizational learning ignores.
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning Converge
Although some researchers continued to distinguish between organizational learning
and knowledge management, the literature began to support the view that there are more
similarities than differences. As Easterby-Smith, Crossan and Nicolini (2000) stated:
Knowledge management is still led by technologists and employs the
language of economics, whereas scholars with a human resource orientation
dominate organizational learning. But there is growing recognition that the
two communities share similar underlying concepts and problems, even
though they may still be using somewhat different language to express these
issues, (p. 790)
Two of knowledge managements foundational assertions underlie the similarities
between organizational learning and knowledge management. Both are supported in
reviewing the literature. First is that knowledge management and organizational learning
require a behavioral or human component and a structural or process / technology
component. Second is that both can be viewed as systems.
Interestingly as the fields of knowledge management and organizational learning
diverged in general, some scholars had already synthesized knowledge management and
43
organizational learning by taking a systems view. As discussed earlier, Shrivastavas

(1983) organizational learning typology and Argyris and Schons (1996) organizational
learning system view organizational learning as a system with both structural and
behavioral components.
So the idea that organizational learning ignores the structural component is actually
inaccurate. It is not the central theme for organizational learning. However, early
typologies and definitions of organizational learning systems have included a structural
component, and other scholars have defined organizational memory as the structural
component by which organizational learning captures new insights for future use.
On the other hand knowledge managements evolution in the practitioners world
resulted in a strong emphasis on a process solution that uses technology to capture
explicit knowledge for future use (Cross & Baird, 2000; Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
The emphasis was on the structural component to solve the problem of organizational
learning. The structural component most often pursued was an information technology
solution that captured lessons learned and best practices for use by others. Although
many databases included the contributors names and contact information to add a human
element, the emphasis was clearly on the use of explicit knowledge.
As a result once knowledge management left the practitioners sphere and entered the
academic world, organizational researchers found it easy to challenge its validity due to
its slight mention of the human element. This deficiency was rectified and knowledge
management literature now includes the importance of the behavioral perspective (Swan
& Scarborough, 2001).
44
A Synthesis o f the Literature

If the organizational learning literature has included organizational memory, a
structural and behavioral approach to maintaining knowledge for future use, and
knowledge management has now added the behavioral perspective to its process and
technological approach, then what is the difference between these two multifaceted
concepts? The answer is one of emphasis.
All organizations have organizational learning systems and knowledge management
systems. That is, even if not articulated, all organizations learn and manage knowledge.
An organizational learning system will emphasize the behavioral component but it cannot
ignore the structural component. At the same time an organizations knowledge
management system will emphasize process and technology but cannot ignore the
behavioral component. In some ways the terms could be used interchangeably although
the point of emphasis is important.
Given the close assimilation of the two fields it is evident that organizations can take
different approaches to organizational learning and knowledge management. Using
Argyris and Schons (1996) definition of an organizational learning system as an
example, an organization can take different approaches and emphasize different elements
of the organizational structures and the behavioral world within their organizational
learning system.
The growing similarity between organizational learning and knowledge management
is not surprising. Learning begets knowledge. For example, when we refer to lessons
learned we are referring to knowledge that we learned based upon our experience. At the
45
same time the acquisition of knowledge is a process that moves a person toward new
thoughts and behaviors. That sounds a lot like learning.
In all cases knowledge and learning are inextricably interwoven. Knowledge
management and organizational learning involve both knowledge and learning. They
cannot be separated. One cannot have knowledge management without affecting how the
organization learns. On the other hand, one cannot have organizational learning without
affecting how the organization manages knowledge.
The distinction between organizational learning and knowledge management has
always been fuzzy at best. In light of the current research and debate the distinction is
becoming even more transparent.
This review of the knowledge management and organizational learning literature
traces separate concepts that have grown together. Knowledge management grew in the
practitioners world and emphasized processes and systems. Organizational learning
developed in the academic world and emphasized relationships and behavior. As both
developed each recognized that a combination of structural and behavioral components
are necessary for success. Although each fields original emphasis remains, many
concepts are shared in each fields current literature. Some researchers recognized this
shared foundation in early typologies and models. The remainder of the literature has
now caught up to this shared recognition.
It is on this basis that I have defined a knowledge management system. Similar to
definitions of organizational learning systems my definition of knowledge management
takes a systems perspective and includes both a structural and behavioral component. It
is different in that it recognizes the equal importance and value of both structural and
46
behavioral approaches to managing knowledge. It therefore is a useful definition on

which to base this research.
A Typology fo r Further Research
Earl (2001) provided a more recent effort to combine the structural and behavioral
approaches to knowledge management using a single typology. Earls goal was to
provide an early classification or typology o f schools of knowledge management (p.
216). Earls (2001) typology was developed as a start to classifying schools or strategies
for how organizations approach knowledge management. He also stated that the schools
represent a particular orientation (p. 216) toward knowledge management. He noted
that, the schools are not mutually exclusive. Indeed two or three of them have been
observed in the same organization (p. 216). Earl intended his typology to be a frame of
reference for both scholars and practitioners (p. 231) for generating propositions for
further study (p. 215). He identified seven schools of knowledge management: three
technocratic schools, one economic school, and three behavioral schools (p. 217)
The technocratic schools consisted of:
1. the systems school where the fundamental idea is to capture specialists
knowledge in knowledge bases.. .which other specialists or qualified people can
access (p. 218).
2. the cartographic school which aims to record and disclose who in the
organization knows what by building knowledge directories (p. 220).
3. the engineering school which is based upon two ideas - that performance of
business processes can be enhanced by providing operating personnel with
47
knowledge relevant to their tasks and not only decision-relevant information,

but contextual and best-practice knowledge should be beneficial (p. 221).
The economic school is overtly and explicitly concerned with both protecting and
exploiting a firms knowledge or intellectual assets to produce revenue streams (p. 222).
The behavioral schools were:
1. the organizational school where organizational structures, or
networks...exchange and share knowledge interactively, often in nonroutine,
personal, and unstructured ways, as an interdependent network (pp. 223-224).
2. the spatial school which centers on the use of space - or spatial design - to
facilitate knowledge exchange (p. 225) in order to encourage socialization as a
means of knowledge exchange (p. 226).
3. the strategic school which sees knowledge management as a dimension of
competitive strategy (p. 227) if not the essence of a firms strategy (p. 227).
Earl (2001) clearly recognized the challenge of defining knowledge management
when he stated, Knowledge management, like knowledge itself, is difficult to define (p.
215). He reinforced this difficulty by noting that the seven schools do emphasize that
not only is there more than one set of ideas or practices in knowledge management, but
also that knowledge management is more than just another IT application (p. 229).
Typologies Underlying Quality and Knowledge Management

The quantitative and qualitative research that follows was based upon the review of
the quality management and knowledge management literatures. The quality
management literature provided previous studies that defined quality management as a
meaningful body of knowledge and defined specific quality management practices under
the quality management concept. Other studies developed and used survey instruments
o f quality management practices to study quality management. Four studies (Anderson et
al., 1994; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Powell, 1995; Saraph et al., 1989) stood out in
importance. In particular Saraph et al.s research developed a comprehensive survey
instrument that was deemed to be both reliable and valid given the results of their
statistical analysis.
Three quality management practices were identified as common among the four
studies. These practices leadership, training and process control were used as the
quality management practices that formed the organizational context from which to study
the use of organizational approaches to knowledge management.
The review o f the knowledge management literature also resulted in the identification
of a meaningful body of knowledge. Knowledge management and organizational
learning typologies were reviewed to identify appropriate knowledge management
approaches. Earls (2001) typology was deemed the most comprehensive and useful for
further research. Its division of knowledge management practices into structural,
behavioral and economic schools addressed the most prominent areas of knowledge
management approaches.
49
This research integrated the fields of quality management and knowledge management
by studying the relationship between quality management practices and organizational
approaches to knowledge management. The theory that supports this study has two
components. The first component applies organizational context to the relationship
between quality management practices and knowledge management approaches.
Organizational context is the total environment in which an organization exists. It
therefore influences organizational choices. It includes an organizations competitive
strategy, industry setting and corporate culture (Earl, 2001). The theoretical framework
for this study posits that organizational context, in this case an organizations quality
management practices, is related to an organizations approach to knowledge
management.
Organizational context for knowledge management has been discussed in some
research. Some scholars have identified the importance of numerous contextual
dimensions in organizational learning and knowledge management studies (Crossan &
Berdrow, 2003; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Zack, 1999). Others have focused on a single
contextual dimension such as culture (Nevis, DiBella, & Gould, 1995; Stata, 1989), the
firms knowledge environment (Pisano, 1994) or social relationships (Brown & Duguid,
1991).
The relationship between an organizations context and knowledge management and
organizational learning calls for more investigation. The current research recognizes the
importance of context in determining the type and success of knowledge management
and organizational learning initiatives. More research is needed into the specific
50
organizational contexts and their relationship to knowledge management and

organizational learning. Knowledge management and organizational learning are
advocated for adoption without much discussion of what approach organizations should
use given their current context (Crossan & Berdrow, 2003).
How then do different organizational contexts relate to the use of knowledge
management approaches? Earl (2001) proposed a knowledge management typology and
called for study into antecedent relationships as to what schools or approaches of
knowledge management work best given the organizations current context.
Along this line of inquiry many companies have implemented quality management
initiatives and have established a foundation of practices under the quality management
umbrella. Much of the current research has focused on a qualitative explanation for using
quality management as a foundation for knowledge management (Barrow, 1993; Clarke,
2000; Hodgetts, Luthans, & Lee, 1994; Wilson & Asay, 1999). This study provides a
new perspective by combining a quantitative and qualitative approach to study quality
management practices as the organizational context from which to examine the use of
organizational approaches to knowledge management.
The second component of this studys theoretical framework further delineates the
relationship between quality management practices and the use of knowledge
management approaches by dividing both fields into structural and behavioral
approaches. The frameworks second component posits that organizations that adopt a
structural approach to quality management are more likely to select a structural approach
to knowledge management. Similarly if an organization employs a behavioral approach
51
to quality management then it will be more likely to adopt a behavioral approach to

knowledge management.
The distinction between structural and behavioral approaches to quality management
is well documented (Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Sitkin, Sutcliffe, & Schroeder, 1994;
Zbaracki, 1998). Quality management structural approaches identified in previous
research focused on quantitative methods to achieve and maintain control of operational
processes. Statistical process control and automated error-checking fall into this
category. On the behavioral side of quality management, approaches such as teams,
employee empowerment, training and leadership are behavioral methods for achieving
quality.
Similarly, knowledge management also has structural and behavioral approaches.
Knowledge management structural practices relates to the degree that the organization
managed its knowledge through structural approaches such as a best practices database,
an organizational directory o f experts, and management reports that are available to
employees. Structural approaches treat knowledge as an object and attempt to capture
knowledge for future use and to know where knowledge resides in the organization.
Knowledge management behavioral practices relates to the degree that the
organization manages its knowledge through behavioral approaches such as laying out
the facility, communicating strategy, and enabling people to work together. Examples
include holding special events that enable people to come together to share ideas, having
the technology tools to connect people with each other, designing facilities with meeting
spaces, and recognizing employees knowledge as a source of competitive advantage.
Here knowledge is treated as a process and human interaction is the source of new
52
knowledge. The goals are to allow knowledge to be freely shared so it can move to the
people that need it and to allow new knowledge to emerge through the serendipity of
people meeting each other and sharing their ideas.
In total the theoretical framework for this study holds that quality management
provides an organizational context from which to study the use of knowledge
management approaches. As an organizational context though, quality management is
not monolithic. It has both structural and behavioral approaches. It is therefore further
theorized that organizations that promote structural quality management practices are
more likely to select structural knowledge management approaches. In this study
structural quality management practices are quality management process control
practices. Similarly, organizations that employ behavioral quality management practices
are more likely to select behavioral knowledge management approaches. In this study
behavioral quality management practices include quality management leadership and
quality management training practices.
Figure 1 graphically illustrates this theoretical framework.
53
Figure 1
Knowledge Management System

Knowledge
Management
Behavioral Approaches
Knowledge
Management
Structural Approaches
Quality Management
Process Control
Quality Management Leadership

Quality Management Training
(Structural/
Control-Oriented Practice)
(Behavioral Practices)
v
Organizational Context - Quality Management

This theoretical framework breaks new ground in the study of the relationship
between quality management and knowledge management. Others (Hsu & Shen, 2005;
Linderman, Schroeder, Zaheer, Leidtke, & Choo, 2004; McAdam & Leonard, 2001) have
studied the relationship between quality and knowledge management from various
perspectives. The relationship between structural and behavioral practices and
approaches has not been accounted for in these studies.
54
Based upon this framework three hypotheses have been developed.

Hypothesis One.
The process control approach to quality management focuses on managing processes
to consistently produce desired outputs. The underlying drive is to place controls on an
organizations processes to achieve quality. Preventative maintenance programs,
inspection and checking of work, error-proofing and clear work instructions are some of
the ways that organizations implement process control in their operations (Saraph et al.,
1989).
The structural approach to knowledge management focuses on knowledge as explicit
information that can be documented and saved for future use. Structural approaches to
knowledge management include the use of information systems to document the
knowledge of experts and store it for use by others (Earl, 2001). This normally takes the
shape of best practice or lesson learned databases that are stored on an accessible
information technology platform. Information systems can also be used to store and
make accessible knowledge directories of people so that others know where to go when
they need a specific level of expertise (Earl, 2001). Organizations that support structural
approaches to knowledge management also use information systems to share taskoriented knowledge, contextual knowledge and best practice knowledge with operating
personnel to improve business process performance (Earl, 2001).
The underlying theme shared by quality management process control and knowledge
management structure is control. Process control attempts to implement process
capabilities that ensure outcomes that consistently meet or exceed customer expectations.
Quality is treated as something that can be controlled and managed. Good quality is
55
simply the outcome of processes that are actively managed and have built in activities
that eliminate errors. Similarly knowledge management structure treats knowledge as
something that can be controlled and managed. Databases, directories and accessibility
to information are structural answers to knowledge as an object that can be controlled and
managed. From a structural perspective, knowledge management requires the
documentation o f an organizations knowledge and the accessibility of that knowledge to
the organization.
Due to the shared perspective on control hypothesis one states that those organizations
that adopt a process control approach to quality management will also adopt a structural
approach to knowledge management.
Hypothesis One: The use of a process control approach to quality management will
be positively correlated with the use of structural knowledge management
approaches.
Hypothesis Two.
Quality management leadership practices recognize the primary importance of an
organizations leadership in implementing and sustaining quality management in
organizations. Organizations that exercise strong quality management leadership
practices will have active and meaningful commitment and support from top executives
for quality management initiatives. In particular quality management leadership practices
include divisional top management assuming responsibility for quality management, the
top divisional executive and major department heads being evaluated on quality
performance, and quality being recognized as being of equal or greater importance in
comparison to cost and scheduling objectives (Saraph et al., 1989). The underlying focus
56
is that top management must see quality as an important objective equal in stature to
profit and loss and must take action to implement and support quality initiatives.
The behavioral school of knowledge management recognizes knowledge as a process.
Knowledge is not a thing that can be easily captured. It results from a process that
produces explicit knowledge that can be documented and tacit knowledge that is hard to
describe and not easily documented. Knowledge is best nurtured by allowing people to
meet and share ideas and insights. Controlling knowledge only inhibits its chances to
grow through social interaction. Organizations that adopt behavioral knowledge
management practices focus on social interaction and events that allow people to interact
and share knowledge (Earl, 2001). Such organizations adopt behavioral approaches to
knowledge management such as forming groups known as communities-of-practice that
support the collaboration of people who are interested in solving similar problems within
a certain area of practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder,
2002). These organizations use technology to connect people to each other to support
collaboration (Earl, 2001). Other behavioral approaches include designing facilities that
support people working in groups and social interaction (Earl, 2001). Numerous team
rooms and group workspaces as well as community areas foster knowledge sharing.
Another approach to behavioral knowledge management focuses on ensuring that all
employees recognize knowledge as a source of competitive advantage and therefore will
act to build, maintain and use the organizations knowledge assets (Earl, 2001).
Both quality management leadership practices and behavioral knowledge management
approaches share a focus on people. Quality management leadership focuses on how the
leaders of the organization commit to quality and behave in a manner that supports
57
quality in the organization. Similarly behavioral knowledge management focuses on the

collaboration between people in the organization, workplaces designed to support
knowledge sharing, and the recognition o f knowledge as a source of competitive
advantage. Based upon their shared focus on people hypothesis two posits a positive
correlation between quality management leadership practices and knowledge
management behavior approaches.
Hypothesis Two: The use of a leadership approach to quality management will be
positively correlated with the use of behavioral knowledge management approaches.
Hypothesis Three.
The training approach to quality management focuses on increasing the skills and
knowledge o f employees as the way to implement and maintain quality. Employees are
seen as resources that should be invested in to achieve quality. Quality management
training practices include that training be given to all levels of the organization, that
training emphasizes everyones responsibility for quality, that top management
demonstrates commitment to training, and that there are available resources for effective
training programs (Saraph et al., 1989).
As described above the behavioral approach to knowledge management recognizes the
importance of people in sharing knowledge. Knowledge management behavioral
approaches give people the organizational structures, tools and facilities to collaborate
and the strategic direction to see knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for
their organization. Due to this shared focus on the importance of people hypothesis three
supports a positive correlation between quality management training practices and
knowledge management behavioral approaches.
58
Hypothesis Three: The use of a training approach to quality management will be

59
Chapter Three: Research Methodology

Research Design
The study used components of Saraph et al.s (1989) survey to measure perceptions of
quality management leadership, training and process control. With regard to knowledge
management, Earls (2001) typology was used as a guide for developing survey items to
measure perceptions of knowledge management structure and behavior approaches. By
combining Saraph et al.s quality management survey and Earls knowledge management
typology, a single survey instrument was developed where the quality management items
provided an evaluation o f the organizational context for the use of knowledge
Research Question with Hypotheses
To study the relationship between quality management practices and knowledge
management approaches the correlations between three widely recognized quality
management practices and two knowledge management approaches were examined. The
three quality management practices - leadership, training and process control - were the
most consistently identified practices within the quality management literature.
Two knowledge management approaches were identified from Earls (2001) typology
of knowledge management - technocratic approaches, which were referred to as
structural approaches in line with the majority of the knowledge management literature,
and behavioral approaches.
The overall research question was: How does the use of selected quality management
practices correlate with the use of organizational approaches to knowledge management
in for-profit companies? Three hypotheses were studied:
60
Hypothesis One: The use of a process control approach to quality management will be
positively correlated with the use of structural knowledge management approaches.
Hypothesis Two: The use o f a leadership approach to quality management will be
Hypothesis Three: The use of a training approach to quality management will be
In Table 3, the hypothesized relationships between the three quality management
practices and two knowledge management approaches are summarized.
Table 3
Hypothesized Correlations Between Quality Management Practices and Knowledge
Management Approaches
Quality Management Practice
Knowledge
Management Approach
Behavioral Practices
Leadership
Training
Structural
Structural Practice
Process Control
Positive
Correlation
Behavioral
Positive
Positive
Correlation
Correlation
Sample and Data Collection Procedures

The population for this study was managers and employees in for-profit organizations.
Convenience sampling was employed. Initial contact was made with 308 potential
respondents: 109 potential respondents from the researchers own list of contacts in forprofit companies and 199 potential respondents ffom a list of contacts provided by the
researchers college. These contacts were sent an e-mail message with a URL link to the
survey. Potential respondents were also asked to either solicit other survey participants
on the researchers behalf or provide the researcher with additional names to be
contacted. Since the survey was completed anonymously it is not known who responded
unless they provided their names to volunteer for the qualitative phase or to receive a
copy of the final report. A total of 152 respondents completed the on-line survey. The
respondents were divided by industry as follows: 33% were primarily manufacturing;
54% were primarily service; and 13% were both manufacturing and service
organizations. By organizational size the respondents were: 45% from small companies
(500 or fewer employees); 24% ffom medium-sized companies (501 - 5,000 employees);
and 31% from large organizations (5,001 employees or more).
For the qualitative interviews 40 survey respondents volunteered to participate in the
interview phase of the research. After each volunteer was assigned a number, a random
number generator was used to select the participants to be contacted for the interview.
Two contacts were attempted one week apart. If the volunteer did not respond then the
next person on the list was contacted until six interview participants were identified. The
six interview participants were equally divided between manufacturing and service with
62
one from a small service organization, two from large service organizations and one from
a small, one from a medium and one from a large manufacturer.
Research Method
The research methodology followed a dominant-less dominant design (Creswell,
1994). The dominant design was a quantitative approach in phase one augmented by a
qualitative approach as the less-dominant approach. Creswell (1994) described the
dominant-less dominant approach as occurring when:
the researcher presents the study within a single, dominant paradigm with one
small component of the overall study drawn from the alternative paradigm. A
classic example of this approach is a quantitative study based upon testing a
theory in an experiment with a small qualitative interview component in the
data collection phase, (p. 177)
Creswell (1994) recommended that the dominant method be chosen based upon the
approach that the researcher uses to develop the theoretical framework and hypotheses
for the study. The primary audience for the study should also be taken into account. For
this study I used a deductive approach to develop the theoretical framework and
hypotheses for the study. This is in line with a quantitative study. The quantitative
approach as the dominant approach also fits the primary audience of this study.
Numerical studies fit the business world where business people measure performance and
attempt to control outcomes.
Within the quantitative paradigm a survey was conducted to ascertain the correlations
between quality management practices and knowledge management approaches. The
survey built upon previous survey research (Anderson et al., 1994; Hackman &
63
Wageman, 1995; Powell, 1995; Saraph et al., 1989). The survey was chosen to obtain the
quantitative data needed to establish the existence of statistically significant correlations
between quality management practices and knowledge management approaches.
Within the qualitative paradigm one-on-one semi-structured interviews were
conducted after the completion of the survey and the analysis of the survey data to gain
the participants perspectives of the quantitative results. The interviews were conducted
with volunteers from the population of people who responded to the survey. The
interviews were exploratory in nature to gain the participants insight into the survey
results. The interview results augmented the researchers interpretation of the survey
results.
Just as in knowledge management where tacit knowledge is equally as valuable as
explicit knowledge, a quantitative approach was deemed to provide only a part of the
story. To apply other perspectives to the analysis of the quantitative results, a small
number of interviews were conducted with survey respondents. The integration of the
quantitative and qualitative approaches provided a deeper understanding of the
relationships under study.
64
Quantitative Method.
The survey questionnaire was a new instrument composed of items from a previous
survey combined with new items (See Appendix A). The previous survey instrument that
was used was from Saraph et al. (1989) which covered eight quality management
practices using six to thirteen items each. This survey instrument was used as Saraph et
al. determined the survey to be reliable and valid for measuring the eight quality
management constructs. For establishing reliability Cronbachs alpha ranged from .76 to
.94. In addition the number of factors and the pattern of factor loadings ranging from .40
to .73, supported the construct validity of the questionnaire.
Saraph et al.s (1989) entire quality management instrument was not used since
knowledge management items were being added to the survey. The primary concern was
in receiving a response rate that would support a quantitative analysis given the number
of items in the survey (Garson, 2005). In addition the new knowledge management items
combined with Saraph et al.s instrument raised concerns about the length of the survey
and therefore the willingness of people to respond.
For this study three practices were chosen based upon a review of the quality
management literature - leadership, training and process control. Each of the three
chosen practices were included in Saraph et al.s (1989) original survey instrument. For
each practice the items in the Saraph et al.s instrument with the highest item-to-scale
correlations were chosen for inclusion in this survey. For example Saraph et al. used
thirteen items under quality management leadership. The three items with the highest
item-to-scale correlations were chosen to represent quality management leadership for
this survey. By choosing items with the highest item-to-scale correlations this survey
65
used the items that were most likely to be reliable and valid in representing the quality
management leadership construct. In total the survey included three items for quality
management leadership (items #1-3), four items for quality management training (items
#4-7) and four items for quality management process control (items #8-11).
For knowledge management approaches new items were created. Four items were
created for structural approaches (items #12-15) and for behavioral approaches (items
#16-19). These items were based upon Earls (2001) knowledge management typology,
which identified three structural and three behavioral approaches to knowledge
management. The entire survey was submitted to subject matter experts to establish
content validity. One item (#17) was modified based upon their review.
A pilot of the survey was then conducted. Feedback was requested and incorporated
on clarity of instructions, practices and approaches that required further definition and
any other feedback to improve the questions, format, and scales (Creswell, 1994). Item
#8 was modified based upon feedback from pilot respondents.
The survey asked respondents to identify the extent of their companys use of three
quality management practices and two knowledge management approaches. The survey
used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very low to 5 = very high. Internal
consistency reliability analysis was performed for the items associated with each of the
five targeted scales. Additionally factor analysis was used to examine the construct
validity of the survey instrument.
After establishing reliability, as well as content and construct validity, the correlations
between constructs were examined and compared to the hypothesized correlations.
66
Qualitative Method.
For the qualitative data collection the instrument was a one-on-one semi-structured
interview employing open-ended questions directed at the three hypothesized correlations
and one non-hypothesized correlation that emerged from the data (See Appendix B).
Interviews were conducted after the completion of the survey and the analysis of the data.
The survey results were shared with the participants. They were then asked to share their
perspective on the statistically significant correlations that were observed among the four
pairs of quality management practices and knowledge management approaches.
To ensure that interview participants had a shared understanding of the survey
constructs being discussed, they were given a Participant Information Sheet (See
Appendix B). The information sheet included definitions of each of the survey constructs
and listed the correlations to be discussed. The interview questions and information sheet
were not shared with participants prior to the interview. Participants were handed the
sheet during the interview. They were given time to read the definitions and were able to
refer to the sheet as the interview progressed.
After conducting the interviews the responses were analyzed to identify shared themes
and to add new perspectives to the researchers interpretation of the data.
67
Chapter Four: Results and Analysis

Quantitative Results and Analysis
Reliability.
For any measurement instrument reliability should be demonstrated. Internal
consistency, or inter-item consistency, establishes that the items on the instrument are
interrelated. This means that the individuals taking the survey are responding in a
consistent manner to those items within a scale (Garson, 2005). Internal consistency is
established by measuring the correlations between items on a scale that are intended to
measure a single construct (Lewis, 1999). For an instrument that is administered only
once, internal consistency for a single construct can be calculated by determining the
correlations between half of the items that measure that construct and the other half of the
items that measure that construct (Lewis, 1999). This split-halves approach would be
most accurate if all split-halves are calculated and an average correlation is obtained for
all possible splits.
Cronbachs alpha is a mathematical calculation that is used to estimate the average
reliability coefficient for all possible split halves. The concept is that a high alpha
indicates that those items on a scale that were intended to measure a single construct are
consistent and therefore the scale is repeatable in that similar responses would occur for
those items if the same population were asked similar questions. In general Cronbachs
alpha values of .7 or above are deemed to be acceptable in establishing that the grouped
items constitute a reliable scale (Bland, 1997; Garson, 2005; Santos, 1999) although
some use .8 (Bland, 1997; Garson, 2005; Northwest Evaluation Association, 2004;
68
UCLA Academic Technology Services, 2005) and some are as lenient as .6 (Garson,
2005).
The survey instrument included five scales for which Cronbachs alpha was
calculated. Three o f the scales underlying constructs were adapted from Saraph et al.s
(1989) instrument for measuring quality management. These constructs were quality
management leadership practices, quality management training practices and quality
management process control practices. Two completely new scales were developed for
this study and were based upon Earls (2001) knowledge management typology. These
were knowledge management structure approaches and knowledge management behavior
approaches. The Cronbachs alpha for each scale is in Table 4.
Table 4
Cronbach s Alpha fo r Survey Constructs
Survey Construct
Cronbachs Alpha
Quality Management Leadership
.85
Quality Management Training
.85
Quality Management Process Control
.72
Knowledge Management Structure
.80
Knowledge Management Behavior
.75
None of the alphas were above .85 although all of them were above .7. Thus three of
the alphas met the more stringent requirement of .8 or higher in establishing internal
consistency. The remaining two alphas were above .7, which is an acceptable level.
Given these alphas the five scales on the survey instrument were deemed to be at an
69
acceptable level of reliability especially given the small number of items composing each
scale.
Validity.
For this study content and construct validity were established. Validity establishes
that the instrument measures what it is intended to measure.
For content validity the survey was given to three subject matter experts. The subject
matter experts were asked to identify the five major constructs underlying the survey
items. Each subject matter expert identified four of the five constructs. They divided the
fifth construct, knowledge management behavior, into a behavioral component and a
strategic component. They felt three of the items, #16, #18 and #19, clearly related to
behavioral approaches for knowledge management. They separated item #17 because
they felt it confused strategic decision-making by senior management with employee
behavior based upon the strategies that were adopted. Given their assessment, item #17
was modified to better reflect if employees view knowledge as a source of competitive
advantage rather than the strategic decision-making process where senior management
identifies knowledge as a source of competitive advantage.
For construct validity a principal components factor analysis was conducted to
determine if the numbers of factors and the loadings of measured (indicator) variables
on them conform to what is expected on the basis of pre-established theory (Garson,
2005). The analysis was performed using squared multiple correlations as communalities
and a varimax rotation. The analysis revealed that 55% of the variance in the data set
was common variance.
70
Based on the scree test and the proportion criterion five factors were retained (SAS,
1982, p. 316). These factors (see Table 5) accounted for 100% of the common variance.
Four of the five constructs were clearly defined. They were quality management training,
quality management leadership, knowledge management structure and knowledge
management behavior. The remaining construct, quality management process control,
was not as clearly defined across the four items in the process control scale. Item #8,
which related to preventative maintenance, did not clearly load on the quality
management process control construct as theorized. The other items within the construct
did however clearly load on the quality management process control construct as
theorized.
Table 5 below shows the factor loadings for each of the five constructs as a result of
the varimax rotation.
71
Table 5
Factor Loadings from Varimax Rotation

Rotated Factor Pattern
Theoretical
Survey
Indicator
Construct
Item
Variable Name
Factor 1 Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Number
QM
1.
TopExec
.21
.70
.05
.14
.15
Leadership
2.
DivMImpt
.18
.73
-.01
.17
.22
3.
DivMEval
.17
.73
.17
.16
.11
QM
4.
TrainMgmt
.61
.49
.15
.09
.07
Training
5.
TrainTQM
.53
.48
.10
.08
.14
6.
TrainCommit
.77
.21
.14
.20
.12
7.
TrainRes
.75
.11
.21
.24
.06
QM
8.
ProPM
.30
.24
.16
.11
.23
Process
9.
ProAuto
-.02
.20
.28
.17
.60
Control
10.
ProError
.24
.22
.19
.06
.72
11.
Prolnst
.43
.24
.26
.17
.41
KM
12.
KMSDB
.18
.16
.51
.27
.36
Structure
13.
KMSYP
.09
-.01
.74
.06
.13
14.
KMSBestP
.16
.15
.75
.27
.18
15.
KMSReport
.32
.11
.48
.20
.18
KM
16.
KMBFacil
.40
.14
.05
.38
.08
Behavior
17.
KMBComAdv
.13
.17
.26
.51
.08
18.
KMBPeople
.20
.23
.10
.69
.14
19.
KMBTech
.21
.04
.31
.60
.29
2.67
2.45
2.12
1.71
1.55
Variance
Explained
by Each
Factor
Note: Complete questions corresponding to the Indicator Variable Names are given in the questionnaire in
Appendix A.
In total content and construct validity were established for five distinct constructs,
which aligned with the five scales designed into the survey. Given these findings, the
analysis proceeded with confidence in the validity of the quality management items from
Saraph et. al.s (1989) survey and the newly developed knowledge management items.
Descriptive Statistics.
The descriptive statistics for each item are provided in Table 6. The descriptions of
the survey items are abbreviated in the table but are provided in their entirety in
Appendix A.
73
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics o f Survey Items

Survey Item
Mean
Std Dev
1. Top Exec
152
3.74
.96
2. Div M Impt
152
3.83
.94
3. Div M Eval
152
3.42
1.04
4. Train Mgt
152
2.94
1.08
5. Train TQM
152
3.06
1.17
6. Train Commit
152
3.18
1.02
7. Train Res
152
3.11
1.07
8. Pro PM
152
3.25
.96
9. Pro Auto
152
2.60
1.08
10. Pro Error
152
2.68
.99
11. Pro Inst
152
3.18
.91
12. KMSDB
152
2.68
1.11
13. KMSYP
152
2.49
1.16
14. KMS Best P
152
2.99
1.04
15. KMS Report
152
3.01
.92
16. KMBFacil
152
3.24
.93
17. KMB Com Adv
152
3.51
.96
18. KMB People
152
3.61
.93
19. KMB Tech
152
3.53
.98
Note: The numerical scale used to rate the extent or degree to which the current practice existed in the
participants organization was: 1 for very low, 2 for low, 3 for medium, 4 for high and 5 for
very high.
Correlations.
Pearsons Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to measure the
relationship between the practices and approaches. The sign of the number indicates a
positive or negative correlation. A positive correlation means that both variables
increase or decrease together. A negative correlation indicates an inverse relationship
where variables move in opposite directions.
The correlation statistic also provides a measure of the strength of the relationship as
indicated by the size of the correlation coefficient. A perfect correlation would be +1 or
-1 . No correlation would be 0. Most relationships are in between. There is no standard
interpretation o f strong, moderate and weak correlations. However correlations can be
tested to determine if they differ significantly from 0. Moreover correlations can also be
compared to each other to determine if they are statistically different (Cohen & Cohen,
1983).
75
Table 7
Correlation Matrix o f Survey Scales

Survey Scales
Approaches
Quality
Behavioral
Quality
Management
Practices
Management
Knowledge
Knowledge
Management
Management
Structure
Behavior
.32
.40
.44
.52
.58
.51
Leadership
Practices
Quality
Management
Training
Structural
Quality
Practices
Management
Process
Control
Note: All correlations were significantly different than zero at p < .001.
All correlations in this study were found to be statistically different than zero. That is,
none of the correlations were deemed to have occurred by chance. Each correlation
represented a statistically significant relationship. These correlations supported all three
hypotheses. Statistically significant positive correlations were also found between
quality management practices and knowledge management approaches that were not
hypothesized.
76
In addition two-tailed t tests for differences between dependent correlations were

conducted. Hypothesis one posited that a positive statistically significant correlation
would be found between quality management process control and knowledge
management structure. Consistent with the first hypothesis, a correlation of .58 was
observed between quality management process control and knowledge management
structure.
Further support for the first hypothesis was reflected by the fact that the .58
correlation was statistically stronger than the relationships involving knowledge
management structure and the two behavioral quality management practices - leadership
and training. Specifically, two-tailed tests for differences among dependent correlations
(Cohen & Cohen, 1983) showed that quality management leadership [r=.32, t (148) =
3.80, p < .01] and quality management training [r=.44, t (148) = 2.16, p < .01] were
statistically less strongly related to knowledge management structure than was quality
management process control [r = .58], The correlation between quality management
process control and knowledge management structure was not only statistically
significant as an independent correlation, it was also statistically different than the
correlation between the two behavioral quality management approaches - leadership and
training - and knowledge management structure.
Hypothesis two and hypothesis three posited a positive statistically significant
correlation between quality management behavioral approaches and knowledge
management behavioral approaches. Consistent with the second hypothesis, the
relationship between quality management leadership and knowledge management
behavior had a statistically significant correlation [.40]. Consistent with hypothesis three
77
the relationship between quality management training and knowledge management

behavior had a statistically significant correlation [.52]. However two-tailed t tests for
differences among dependent correlations (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) showed that these
correlations were not statistically different from the correlation between quality
management process control and knowledge management behavior [.51]. In this case the
correlations among knowledge management behavior and the two behavioral quality
management practices, leadership and training, and quality management process control
were deemed not statistically different than one another. That is, the differences among
the individual correlations could have occurred by chance.
Qualitative Results and Analysis
Upon completion of the quantitative survey six interviews were conducted to gain
participants perspectives as to the interpretation o f the survey results. In general
interview participants were asked to share their thoughts as to why the four correlations
existed. The interview protocol included questions concerning the three hypothesized
correlations as well as the correlation between quality management process control and
knowledge management behavior as that was the second strongest correlation and was
found to be not statistically different than the correlations expected based on hypotheses
two and three.
78
Quality Management Process Control and Knowledge Management Structure.

The correlation between quality management process control practices and knowledge
management structure approaches was found to be statistically different than zero and
statistically different than the correlations between knowledge management and the two
behavioral quality management practices - leadership and training. The interview
participants quickly identified that the correlation between quality management process
control and knowledge management structure made sense although for different reasons.
Four o f the respondents saw knowledge as the driving force behind process control.
These respondents felt that structured knowledge encompasses the lessons learned, best
practices and documented procedures that provide the foundation for the organization to
control processes. The knowledge of what works and what does not work allows the
control of operational processes.
Two o f the respondents saw it the other way. They shared their perspective that
process control methods and instruments provide the data that are used to not only
maintain process control but that are also analyzed to derive new knowledge about
process performance.
Quality Management Training and Knowledge Management Behavior.
All respondents saw this relationship as going hand-in-hand and coming naturally.
One stated his surprise that the correlation was not stronger. Four of the six respondents
saw training as driving knowledge management behavior. These respondents viewed
trainings goal as changing the employees behavior in the organization. They saw a
direct link between training and obtaining new behaviors in the organization.
79
The other two respondents saw knowledge behavior, in particular the need for
knowledge sharing, as driving training. For these two respondents studying data and
collaborating to improve performance provide new knowledge that is the content for
training. Their organizations train because they need to share knowledge.
In this discussion an interesting dynamic appeared. In referring to training, quality
became an unimportant distinction. Participants discussed training as a general concept
beyond only quality management training.
Quality Management Process Control and Knowledge Management Behavior.
This correlation was not hypothesized. Though it was found to be statistically
different than zero, it was not statistically different than the correlations between
knowledge management behavior and the two behavioral quality management practices leadership and training. Five of the six participants saw this relationship as evident by
process control driving knowledge management behavior. These respondents felt the
maintenance of process control requires employees to adopt knowledge management
behaviors. Employees must collaborate, share ideas, and ask others for help to maintain
process control. One manager in a small service company shared that the need to control
and standardize processes is driving knowledge management behaviors as his company
grows. In order to enhance process control the company is increasing the collection and
sharing of documents and grouping employees and laying out the facility to enhance
sharing and collaboration.
80
Quality Management Leadership and Knowledge Management Behavior.

The respondents were split when interpreting this relationship. Three of the
respondents felt that leadership that promotes quality will result in changed behavior.
Much of this changed behavior will be knowledge management behaviors such as getting
employees to talk with each other and share information and knowledge while working
together to solve quality problems.
The other three respondents saw the moderate correlation as evidence that in many
organizations quality management leadership communicates the importance of
knowledge management behaviors but there is a disconnect. Employees are not changing
their behaviors based upon leadership. One respondent noted that it is up to middle
management and employees to execute the quality vision. If management does not
consistently act upon and communicate the vision then employee behavior will not
change. One respondent noted that his leadership does a good job communicating the
importance of quality and quality defect information but leadership does not drive the
need for analysis and interpretation of the data into the organization.
Summary.
In total all the respondents saw the logic behind the four correlations that were
included in the interview protocol and gave reasonable interpretations as to why the
correlations existed. The interpretations varied as to whether the quality management
practice or the knowledge management approach was the initial source of the correlation
but the relationship was still supported. The only exception was quality management
leadership and knowledge management behavior. Here half of the participants shared
why they thought the two constructs correlated at a lower strength than the others.
81
Finally in the discussion of quality management training and knowledge management

behavior the participants drifted away from discussing quality management training.
They addressed training as a broad concept and saw the relationship as involving training
in general and knowledge management behaviors without regard to specific topic of the
training.
82
Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications
Overview
The study resulted in the identification of quality management practices and
knowledge management approaches that have statistically significant correlations. All
three hypotheses were supported. Statistically significant positive correlations were
found between quality management leadership practices and knowledge management
behavior approaches, quality management training practices and knowledge management
behavior approaches, and quality management process control practices and knowledge
management structure approaches. Statistically significant positive correlations were also
found between the quality management practices and knowledge management
approaches that were not hypothesized. In addition, the correlation between quality
management process control and knowledge management structure was found to be
statistically larger than the weaker correlations among knowledge management structure
and the two quality management behavioral practices - leadership and training. Further,
as hypothesized, knowledge management behavior was significantly related to both of the
quality management behavior practices. On the other hand, knowledge management
behavior was also significantly related to quality management process control.
Interview results supported all hypothesized correlations as well as the correlation
between quality management process control and knowledge management behavior.
Interview participants identified consistent explanations for the existence of all
correlations, except for the correlation between quality management leadership practices
and knowledge management behavior approaches. Participants were split about the
existence of this relationship. Half of the participants saw the strength of the relationship
83
while the other half offered explanations as to why the relationship was the weakest of
the four correlations that were discussed.
Implications o f Quantitative Analysis
The implications of this study are on three fronts: the reliability and validity of the
established survey items from Saraph et al.s (1989) research, the reliability and validity
of the new quantitative items for measuring knowledge management and the qualitative
evaluation o f correlations between quality management practices and knowledge
Reliability and Validity fo r Established Survey Items.
The survey instrument measured three quality management practices using a subset of
items from a survey instrument used by Saraph et al. (1989). In comparing internal
consistency and validity (see Table 8) between the two instruments the key difference is
that the current survey used the items that had the highest item to scale correlations in
Saraph et al.s instrument. This meant that the current survey identified those items that
had the strongest relationship to the scale to which they were assigned in Saraph et al.s
instrument. Therefore the current survey benefited from a best case scenario by including
the items that already had a strong relationship in the previous survey.
84
Table 8
Comparison o f Reliability and Validity between Saraph et al. s Survey Items and Current
Survey Items
Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha)
Quality
Validity (Factor Loadings)
Saraph et al.s
Current
Saraph et al.s
Current
Instrument
Survey
Instrument
Survey
.94 (13 items)
.85 (3 items)
.50 to .68
.69 to .73
(13 items)
(3 items)
.45 to .73
.53 to .77
(10 items)
(4 items)
.40 to .64
.22 to .72
(13 items)
(4 items)
Management
Leadership
Quality
.87 (10 items)
.85 (4 items)
Management
Training
Quality
.76 (13 items)
.72 (4 items)
Management
Process
Control
The current survey did not achieve the same level of internal consistency as Saraph et
al.s (1989) instrument although it was extremely close in quality management training
and quality management process control. Thus, the selection of the items with the
highest item to scale correlations mitigated the effect of the use of fewer items and
allowed a similar level of reliability. More importantly, the factor loadings associated
85
with the quality management items were in line with those from Saraph et al., which
supported their construct validity.
Based upon these results the reliability and validity of Saraph et al.s (1989)
instrument is supported. Despite being developed in 1989, Saraph et al.s instrument is
still a reliable and valid measure of quality management in organizations.
Reliability and Validity fo r New Knowledge Management Items.
This study proposed two new constructs for knowledge management that had been
proposed qualitatively in Earls (2001) knowledge management typology. Four items
were developed for each of the two constructs: knowledge management structure and
knowledge management behavior. Cronbachs alpha was .81 for the four knowledge
management structure items and .75 for the four knowledge management behavior items.
The alphas were high enough to conclude that the scales were internally consistent.
The development of these items was the first attempt to quantitatively measure the two
widely held approaches for implementing knowledge management the structural and
behavioral approaches.
The content validity of the scales was established through a review by subject matter
experts. The construct validity of the scales was established through factor analysis. A
varimax rotation of the data revealed factor loadings that supported two factors for
knowledge management: knowledge management structure approaches and knowledge
management behavior approaches. The factor loadings for the knowledge management
structure items ranged from .48 to .75. The factor loadings for the knowledge
management behavior items ranged from .37 to .69.
86
Summary o f Reliability and Validity.

The quantitative findings o f this research supported the reliability and validity of three
quality management scales and two knowledge management scales. The three quality
management scales - leadership, training and process control - were taken from Saraph et
al.s (1989) instrument. This research supported the continued use of Saraph et al.s
instrument when measuring quality management in organizations.
The two knowledge management scales were newly developed for this research from
Earls (2001) typology of knowledge management schools. These scales also achieved
an appropriate level of reliability and validity. Thus, this research has added two new
scales that can be used in the future to measure knowledge management structure and
knowledge management behavior approaches in organizations.
Correlations.
Overall the hypothesized correlations were positive and statistically different than
zero. The magnitudes of the correlations however were not large between any of the
quality management practices and knowledge management approaches. The strongest
correlation was .58 between quality management process control and knowledge
management structure. Other correlations that were not hypothesized were also found to
be positive and statistically different than zero.
The correlations between quality management process control and both knowledge
management structure and knowledge management behavior are particularly interesting.
I hypothesized that quality management process control would be correlated with
knowledge management structure. This correlation was not only the strongest correlation
it was also found to be statistically different than the correlations between knowledge
87
management structure and each of the two behavioral quality management practices leadership and training. Interestingly knowledge management behavior was not
differentially related to any of the three quality management practices. This leads to the
conclusion that while quality management process control practices have a clear
relationship with knowledge management structural approaches, this relationship is not
clearly seen with knowledge management behavior. All quality management practices
seem to have the same impact on knowledge management behavior approaches.
Implications o f Qualitative Analysis
The qualitative research provided interesting insights into the quantitative data. The
qualitative interviews contributed new perspectives on the existence of the correlations
that were found in the study. For the most part the interview participants perspectives on
the existence of the four correlations included in the interview protocol mirrored the
actual hypotheses. Participants gave logical explanations for the existence of hypothesis
one, the correlation between quality management process control and knowledge
management structure, and hypothesis three, the correlation between quality management
training and knowledge management behavior. Hypothesis two, the correlation between
quality management leadership and knowledge management behavior, received mixed
support. One half of the participants supported the relationship between quality
management leadership and knowledge management behavior while the other half shared
why they believed it may have been the weakest hypothesized correlation. These
participants offered that there can be a disconnect between what leadership
communicates and what actually happens. Top leadership may think they have
effectively communicated the quality message and have influenced employees to work
88
together when in fact middle management and employees have not actually changed their
behaviors.
The participants also gave their insight into the correlation between quality
management process control and knowledge management behavior which was not
originally hypothesized. The majority of participants saw the relationship because
quality management process control requires employees to engage in knowledge
management behaviors such as sharing knowledge to solve problems to maintain process
control. Even though the initial hypothesis linked quality management process control to
knowledge management structure, the relationship between process control and employee
behavior was also evident to the participants.
Another interesting perspective from the interviews was the identification of
reciprocal causality between quality management practices and knowledge management
approaches. In discussing the four relationships in the interview protocol there was never
complete agreement as to whether the quality management practice drove the knowledge
management approach or if the knowledge management approach was driving the quality
management practice.
89
Integrated Findings
Taken together the quantitative and qualitative findings did support quality
management as an organizational context that has a statistically significant relationship
with the knowledge management approach an organization uses. Unfortunately the
nature of that relationship is not completely clear. The existence of positive statistically
significant correlations among all quality management practices and knowledge
management approaches supported the view that quality management practices relate to
the use of knowledge management approaches. This relationship, however, varies
between practices and approaches. Quality management process control and knowledge
management structure had the only correlation that was statistically different than the
other correlations among the two quality management behavioral practices. On the
knowledge behavior side, correlations with all quality management practices were not
found to be statistically different.
Interview participants supported the relationship of quality management process
control with both knowledge management structure and knowledge management
behavior approaches. They also supported the relationships between quality management
training and knowledge management behavior and, to a lesser extent, between quality
management leadership and knowledge management behavior.
In total this research provided quantitative and qualitative support for quality
management practices as an organizational context that relates to the use of knowledge
management approaches. It appears that knowledge management structure approaches
are more strongly related to quality management process control practices than to quality
management behavior practices. On the other hand it appears that knowledge
90
management behavior approaches are related to both quality management control and
behavior practices to a similar degree.
This research still leaves open the question as to why quality management does not
correlate more strongly with knowledge management approaches. The origins of the
answer may be found in the interview responses. In talking about quality management
training some of the participants began to drop quality management from their
descriptions and talked about training independent of quality management. Participants
began to address how training is linked to knowledge management behavior. They
discussed training in a broader context rather than only quality management training.
Although this was the only area where this occurred it could be the source of the lack
of stronger correlations. That is, whether training is quality management training or
some other training is not important. The salient practice is that the organization is
committed to training. The commitment to training is what is correlated with knowledge
management behaviors and not quality management training in particular. Similarly it
can be theorized that the important issue is that the organization practices process control.
Whether it uses quality management, lean operations, information technology or another
organizational initiative to achieve process control is secondary to the fact that it
practices process control. The practice of process control independent of the type of
process control is what correlates with knowledge management approaches.
This then makes quality management a variable that relates to the use of knowledge
management approaches but it may not be the determining factor (Kim & Mueller, 1978).
Quality management is perhaps a mediating construct between the causal construct that
correlates with the organizational use of knowledge management approaches.
91
This view is also supported by the quantitative results. While it was gratifying to see
the statistically significant correlations, their strength was troubling. Interpreting such
data is challenging as there is some correlation but not enough to claim with any degree
of certainty that the quality management practices have a strong relationship with the use
of knowledge management approaches. Since all correlations were positive and
statistically significant the quantitative results also support the conclusion that there may
be other overarching contexts that are related to the use of knowledge management
approaches in organizations.
Possible organizational contexts that are more salient to the use of knowledge
management approaches in organizations are numerous. Many structural, cultural,
strategic and process perspectives could be studied. Research thus far has focused on
organizational size (Moffett & McAdam, 2006), customer satisfaction, continuous
improvement and integrative organizational systems practices (Linderman, Schroeder,
Zaheer, Leidtke, & Choo, 2004), the implementation of quality systems such as IS09000
(Molina, Montes, & Fuentes, 2004), and the organizational and internal technical culture
(Moffett, McAdam, & Parkinson, 2003) as contexts for organizational knowledge
management.
92
Contributions o f the Study

This research has contributed original knowledge to both the scholarly body of
knowledge and the practitioners world of decision making.
Scholarly Contributions.
In the academic world this research has provided a first view of two reliable and valid
scales: one for knowledge management structure and one for knowledge management
behavior. It has added an original perspective to the research on the relationship between
organizational context and knowledge management.
The knowledge management scales from the survey instrument are important
additions to the current research on knowledge management. The scales resulted from
the conversion of a qualitative typology of knowledge management (Earl, 2001) into a
quantitative tool. The scales focused on the most widely held distinction in knowledge
management literature and practice - the distinction between structural and behavioral
approaches to knowledge management. This research has contributed a new quantitative
instrument for determining the extent to which organizations use structural and
behavioral approaches to knowledge management.
This research has also added to the current discussion concerning organizational
context and knowledge management. Research is beginning to address how an
organizations context influences how that organization approaches knowledge
management. Further understanding of the effect of organizational context on knowledge
management initiatives will serve to guide companies in selecting the most appropriate
knowledge management approaches given their current context. This research added to
the discussion by studying quality management as the organizational context for
93
knowledge management. Although it was determined that the correlations among quality
management practices and knowledge management approaches are statistically different
than zero, the fact that all of the correlations were statistically significant points toward
the existence o f an overarching context that is related to both quality management and
knowledge management. This research contributed to the scholarly debate by directing
future research towards other organizational contexts and to the factors that underlie the
relationship between quality management practices and the use of knowledge
Contributions to Managerial Action.
For managers in quality management companies this research provides a new
perspective on the relationship between quality management and knowledge
management. This research examined the relationship between specific quality
management practices and knowledge management approaches. For managers the
important finding was the validation that quality management practices correlate with the
organizational use of knowledge management approaches. Quality management can be
used as the foundation for the use of knowledge management approaches. These
practices do not ensure success and may not be the overarching factor behind the
relationship between quality management and knowledge management, but it is clear that
managers in organizations that practice quality management can use those practices as a
foundation for implementing and improving knowledge management approaches.
The clearest path for managers that have implemented quality management process
control practices is to implement knowledge management structural approaches. This
correlation was the strongest found in the study and was statistically different them the
94
correlations among knowledge management structure and quality management behavioral

practices. In addition, quality management process control practices appear to be equally
as effective as leadership and training in supporting the use of knowledge management
behavior approaches. Thus for managers in quality management companies, quality
management process control practices can be leveraged to implement both knowledge
management structural and behavioral approaches.
In companies that emphasize quality management behavioral practices the clearest
path to knowledge management appears to be implementing knowledge management
behavioral approaches. Knowledge management structural approaches do not seem to fit
with companies that are employing quality management behavioral practices. In
addition, quality management training appears to be a more effective way to leverage
knowledge management behavior approaches than quality management leadership, which
suffered from a divided interpretation in the interviews.
This research was a step toward investigating the relationship between organizational
context and the use of knowledge management approaches. Managers in quality
management companies should take heed of the results. Due to its relatively high level of
correlation across both knowledge management structural approaches and knowledge
management behavioral approaches, it appears that leveraging process control practices
seems to be the best approach for quality management companies that want to implement
knowledge management.
95
Recommendations for Future Research.

Future research based on this study can take two lines of inquiry. First, new or
modified scales could be developed to measure knowledge management structural and
behavioral approaches. The reliability of the scales from the current study, while
acceptable, may be improved with refinement of the survey items. Ultimately, the factor
loadings for the items within each scale might also be improved. This research provided
a first use o f a scale that can be used as a foundation for developing a more reliable and
valid instrument across knowledge management studies.
The second line of inquiry builds upon the correlations which were uncovered in the
quantitative study and analyzed further during the qualitative interviews. This research
studied quality management practices as an organizational context for the use of
knowledge management approaches. Correlations were found that were statistically
different than zero. Subsequent qualitative interviews suggested that quality management
and knowledge management share reciprocal causality which was not examined in this
research. Interview participants described the same correlation with quality management
being the independent variable as others described with knowledge management being
the independent variable. A longitudinal design wherein the independent and dependent
variables are measured at different times is required to more directly address the issue of
causality.
Finally both the quantitative and qualitative results point to the existence of other
overarching factors that are related to both quality management and knowledge
management. These other factors are fertile ground for continued research into the
96
relationship between organizational context and the use of knowledge management

approaches.
97
References
Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. (1999). Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers,
and collective learning processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 708-740.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R.G. (1994). A theory of quality
management underlying the Deming management method. Academy o f Management
Review, 19, 472-509.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method,
and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Barrow, J. W. (1993). Does total quality management equal organizational learning?
Quality Progress, 26(7), 39-44.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs dont
produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158-167.
Bierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S.
pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 77,123-135.
Bland, J.M., & Altman, D.G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbachs alpha [Electronic
version], British Medical Journal, 314,572.
Boardman, T.J. (1994). The statistician who changed the world: W. Edwards
Deming, 1900-1993. The American Statistician, 48, 179-187.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid. P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of
practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization
Science, 2, 40-57.
98
Bontis, N., Crossan, M.M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational

learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal o f Management Studies, 39, 437469.
Clarke, A. J. (2000). Knowledge management: Implementation can benefit from
quality experience. Quality Progress, 33(11), 67-74.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression / correlation fo r the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative
dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization
Science, 10, 381-400.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative (Sc quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art o f making quality certain. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Cross, B., & Baird, L. (2000). Technology is not enough: Improving performance by
building organizational memory. Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 69-78.
Crossan, M.M., & Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational learning and strategic renewal.
Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1087-1105.
Daft, R. L. (2003). Management (6th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson Southwestern.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations
manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dean, J.W., Jr., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism.
Academy o f Management Review, 23, 341-352.
99
Decarolis, D.M., & Deeds, D.L. (1999). The impact o f stocks and flows of
organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the
biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 953-968.
De Long, D., & Seemann, P. (2000). Confronting conceptual confusion and conflict
in knowledge management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 33-44.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out o f the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Deming, W.E. (2000). The new economics fo r industry, government, education. (2nd
ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dobyns, L., & Frank, R. (1980). I f Japan can, why cant we? New York: NBC
News.
Drucker, P. F. (1991). The new productivity challenge. Harvard Business Review,
68(6), 69-79.
Duck, J. D. (1993). Managing change: The art of balancing. Harvard Business
Review, 71(6), 109-118.
Dumaine, B. (1994, October 17). Mr. Learning Organization Fortune, 130, 147-157.
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal
o f Management Information Systems, 75(1), 215-233.
Earl, M.J., & Scott, I.A. (1999). Opinion: What is a chief knowledge officer? Sloan
Management Review, 40(2), 29-38.
Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning:
Debates past, present and future. Journal o f Management Studies, 37,783-797.
100
Euske, K.J., & Player, R.S. (1996). Leveraging management improvement

techniques. Sloan Management Review, 38, 69-79.
Fiol, C.M., & Lyles, M.A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy o f
Management Review, 10, 803-813.
Gabor, A. (2000, October 30). He made America think about quality. Fortune, 142,
292-294.
Garson, D. Factor analysis. Retrieved December 8, 2005, from North Carolina State
University, College of Humanities and Social Sciences Web site:
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/standard.htm.
Garson, D. Scales and standard measures. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from
North Carolina State University, College of Humanities and Social Sciences Web site:
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/standard.htm.
Gill, J. H. (2000). The tacit mode: Michael Polanyis postmodern philosophy.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Grant, R.M., Shani, R., & Krishnan, R. (1994). TQMs challenge to management
theory and practice. Sloan Management Review, 35(2), 25-35.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical,
conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 309-342.
Hammer, M. (2002). Process management and the future of six sigma. M IT Sloan
Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W.
Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook o f organizational design (pp. 3-27). New York: Oxford
University Press.
101
Hodgetts, R. M., Luthans, F., & Lee S. M. (1994). New paradigm organizations:
From total quality to learning to world class. Organizational Dynamics, 22(3), 5-19.
Hsu, S. & Shen, H. (2005). Knowledge management and its relationship with TQM.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16(3), 351-363.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and
literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88-115.
Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is total quality control? The Japanese way. (D. J. Lu,
Trans.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1981)
Juran, J. M. (1995a). Managerial breakthrough: The classic book on improving
management performance. (Rev. ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J. M. (1995b). Summary, trends, and prognosis. In J. M. Juran (Ed.), A history
o f managing fo r quality: The evolution, trends, andfuture direction o f managing fo r
quality (pp. 553-602). Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
Juran, J.M. (1999). How to think about quality. In J. M. Juran & A. B. Godfrey
(Eds.), Jurans quality handbook (pp. 2.1 -2.18). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kim, D.H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan
Kim, J., & Mueller, C.W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how
to do it. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities,
and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383-397.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings o f knowledge: Building and sustaining the
sources o f innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
102
Levitt, B., & March, J.G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review o f
Sociology, 14, 319-340.
Lewis, R. J. (1999, May 17). Reliability and validity: Meaning and measurement.
Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Society for Academic Emergency
Medicine. Abstract retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://www.ambpeds.org/
Reliabilityand Validity.pdf
Liebeskind, J.P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17, 93-107.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S., Leidtke, C., & Choo, A.S. (2004).
Integrating quality management practices with knowledge creation processes. Journal o f
Operations Management, 22, 589-607.
Lubit, R. (2001). Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: The keys to
sustainable competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 2 9 ,164-178.
Main, J. (1994). Quality wars: The triumphs and defeats o f American business.
New York: The Free Press.
McGill, M.E., Lei, D., & Slocum, Jr., J.W. (1992). Management practices in learning
organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 2/(1), 5-17.
Miner, A.S., & Mezias, S.J. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures of
organizational learning research. Organization Science, 7, 88-99.
Moffett, S., & McAdam, R. (2006). The effects of organizational size on knowledge
management implementation: Opportunities for small firms? Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 17, 221-241.
103
Moffett, S., McAdam, R., & Parkinson, S. (2003). Technology and people factors in
knowledge management: An empirical analysis. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 14, 215-224.
Molina, L.M., Montes, F.J.L., & Del Mar Fuentes, M. (2004). TQM and ISO 9000
effects on knowledge transferability and knowledge transfers. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 1 5 ,1001-1015.
Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J., & Gould, J.M. (1995). Understanding organizations as
learning systems. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 73-85.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How
Japanese companies create the dynamics o f innovation. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2004, March). Reliability and validity estimates.
Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://www.nwea.org/assets/research/
NWEA%20Reliability%20&%20Validity.pdf
Omachonu, V.K., & Ross, J.E. (2004). Principles o f total quality. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Pisano, G.P. (1994). Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: An empirical
analysis of process development. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 85-100.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books.
Powell, T.C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review
and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 15-37.
Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation.
Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
104
Quinn, J. B. (1992/ Intelligent enterprise: A knowledge and service based paradigm

fo r industry. New York: The Free Press.
Reeves, C.A., & Bednar, D.A. (1994). Defining quality: Alternatives and
implications. Academy o f Management Review, 19, 419-445.
Santos, J.R.A. (1999). Cronbachs alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales
[Electronic version]. Journal o f Extension, 37, Retrieved November 28,2005, from
http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.html
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., & Schroeder, R.G. (1989). An instrument for measuring
the critical factors o f quality management Decision Science, 20, 810-829.
SAS Users Guide: Statistics, 1982 Edition. (1982). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Schaffer, R.H., & Thomson, H.A. (1992). Successful change programs begin with
results. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 80-89.
Schein, E.H. (1993). How can organizations learn faster? The challenge of entering
the green room. Sloan Management Review, 34(2), 85-93.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice o f the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1999). Its the learning: The real lesson of the quality movement. The
Journal fo r Quality and Participation, 22(6), 34-41.
Senge, P. (2000). Reflection on A leaders new work: Building learning
organizations. In D. Morey, M. Maybury, & B. Thuraisingham (Eds.), Knowledge
management: Classic and contemporary works (pp. 53-60). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
105
Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal o f

Management Studies, 20, 7-28.
Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K., & Schroeder, R. S. (1994). Distinguishing control from
learning in total quality management: A contingency perspective. Academy o f
Spencer, B. A. (1994). Models of organization and total quality management: A
comparison and critical evaluation. Academy o f Management Review, 19, 446-471.
Spender, J.C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45-62.
Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: The key to management innovation.
Sloan Management Review, 30(3), 63-74.
Stewart, T. A. (1999, January 11). A conversation with Joseph Juran. Fortune, 141,
168-170.
Swan, J., & Scarbrough, H. (2001). Knowledge management: Concepts and
controversies. Journal o f Management Studies, 38, 913-922.
Taylor, F. W. (1998). The principles o f scientific management. Mineola, NY: Dover
Publications.
Thomas, J.B., Sussman, S.W., & Henderson, J.C. (2001). Understanding strategic
learning: Linking organizational learning, knowledge management, and sensemaking.
Organization Science, 12(3), 331-345.
UCLA Academic Technology Services. SPSS FAQ What does Cornbachs alpha
mean? Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/faq/
alpha.html
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
Ulrich, D., Von Glinow, M.A., & Jick, T. (1993). High-impact learning: Building
and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 52-66.
Wagner, J.A. Ill & Hollenbeck, J.R. (2005). Organization behavior: securing
competitive advantage (5th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson Southwestern.
Walsh, J.P., & Ungson, G.R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy o f
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities o f
practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wilson, L. T., & Asay, D. (1999). Putting quality in knowledge management.
Quality Progress, 22(1), 25-31.
Zack, M.H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review,
40(4), 45-58.
Zbaracki, M. J. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 602-636.
Zhang, L., Tian, Y., & Qi, Z. (2006). Impact of organizational memory on
organizational performance: an empirical study. The Cambridge Business Review, 5(1),
227-233.
107
Appendices
Appendix A
Survey Instrument
Hello
Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this research project. The purpose of this
research is to study the relationship between quality management and knowledge
management in organizations. The objective is to help companies make better use of
their knowledge assets. The study will identify currently used quality management
practices that can help companies implement knowledge management strategies.
The research project is divided into two parts. First you will be asked to complete the
survey below. Second you will be asked to volunteer to participate in a face-to-face
interview with the researcher to discuss the aggregate survey findings. You will have the
option of volunteering for an interview at the end of the survey. This survey should take
about 5 minutes to complete. If you are willing to volunteer, the interview should take
about 30 minutes. You are encouraged to complete the survey even if you do not wish to
be interviewed.
You will incur no known risks or costs while participating in this survey aside from your
time commitment. If you do participate you will receive the aggregated survey results for
you own use if you provide your contact information.
Your responses will be anonymous and confidential. Survey results will only be given in
the aggregate.
Any questions you may have about this study or your rights as a participant will be
answered by Tony Clarke, 20 Hudson Avenue, Lakeside Park, KY 41017, PH: 859-5780833.
Submitting this survey using the submit button at the bottom of the survey means that
you have read and understand this consent form, and you are voluntarily completing this
survey. Although you voluntarily choose to participate, you understand that your consent
does not take away any legal rights in the case of negligence or other legal fault of
anyone who is involved in this study. You further understand that nothing in this consent
form is intended to replace any applicable Federal, state, or local laws.
Thank you for participating in this brief survey. The questions are below.
108
Questions
Please mark the appropriate box based on your perspective of the extent or degree to
which the current practice is being used in the unit of your organization to which you
belong and have knowledge of current practices. This may be a division, department,
business unit of an organization or the entire organization in the case of a small business.
Extent or Dejjree o f C urrent Practice Is
Very
Low
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Low
2
M edium
3
High
4
Extent to w hich the top division executive

(responsible for division profit and loss)
assumes responsibility for quality performance.
Im portance attached to quality by the divisional
top managem ent in relation to cost and schedule
objectives.
Degree to which top managem ent (top
divisional executive and m ajor department
heads) is evaluated for quality performance.
Quality-related training given to m anagers and
supervisors throughout the division.
Training in the total quality concept (i.e.,
philosophy o f com pany-wide responsibility for
quality) throughout the division.
Comm itment o f the divisional top m anagement
to employee training.
A vailability o f resources for employee training
in the division.
Am ount o f preventative equipm ent m aintenance
(machinery, com puters and other operational
equipment).
Extent to w hich inspection, review or checking
o f w ork is automated.
Extent to w hich process design is fo o l-p ro o f
and minim izes the chances o f employee errors.
Clarity o f w ork or process instructions given to
employees.
Extent to which specialist know ledge is
recorded in a database for others to access.
Degree to employees use an organizational
directory or yellow pages that lists who knows
what in the organization.
Extent to which best practices are made
available to employees.
Degree to which employees can access
managem ent reports and information to help
them do their jobs.
Degree to which facilities are designed to
encourage interactions between employees.
Degree to which employees view know ledge as
a key source o f competitive advantage.
Degree o f support o f people getting together to
solve problems.
Extent to w hich people are enabled to work
together through the use o f technology.
109
Very
High
5
Organization Data
Type of Organization (check one):
a Primarily Manufacturing
a Primarily Service
a Both
Size of Organization (check one):

(Please give the size of the entity for which
you answered the survey.)
a 500 or fewer employees

a 501 - 5,000 employees
above 5,000 employees
Would you be willing to participate in an individual interview? Part II of this study

requires interviews with selected individuals about the aggregate survey results.
Interviews should take about 30 minutes. If you would be willing to be interviewed
please enter your contact information below.
N am e________________________________
Phone________________________________
E-m ail_______________________________
Enter your contact information and check here if you wish to receive the survey results
but do not wish to be interviewed.
If you have any questions about this survey, suggestions, or would like to recommend
other individuals who could contribute to this study please contact:
Tony Clarke
Ph.D. Candidate
Union Institute & University
Phone: (859) 578-0833
E-mail: aiclarke@fuse.net
Thank you for participating in this survey. It will provide useful information for all
organizations that are searching for better ways to manage knowledge and create a
learning environment.
110
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
I. Overview o f Study
Thank you for completing the on-line survey on Quality and Knowledge M anagement and agreeing to
participate in this interview. I am researching the relationship between quality management and knowledge
m anagement in organizations. This interview and any documentation from this interview are confidential.
N o person, organization or specific industry will be mentioned in the report. Only the size o f the
organization and type o f organization will be used to refer to interviewees, such as a m anager in a small
service organization. You will have the opportunity to review the report and request changes to ensure
accuracy and confidentiality prior to its release.
II. Purpose o f Interview
The purpose o f this interview is to gain your perspective on the results o f the survey data. In particular you
will be asked to give your perspective on relationships between factors that exist in the data. There are no
right or wrong answers. Your perspective is valued based upon your current and prior organizational
experience.
III. Context
Please describe the quality management system in your organization. By quality management system I
mean how your organization manages how it meets or exceeds customer expectations and continuously
improves its capability to do so.
Overall, how effective is your organizations quality management system?
Please describe the knowledge management system in your organization. By knowledge management
system I mean how your organization manages its intellectual assets, both documented explicit knowledge
and undocumented tacit knowledge fo r competitive advantage.
Overall, how effective is your organizations knowledge management system?
IV. Overview o f Survey Items
The survey items represented five areas whose relationships were then analyzed. The five areas were:
1.
Quality M anagement Leadership - items related to the extent o f the role o f the organizations
leaders in the organizations quality management efforts
2.
Quality M anagement Training - items related to the degree to which the organization emphasized
training in its quality management efforts
3.
Quality M anagement Process Control - items related to the extent to which the organizations
efforts were directed at controlling internal processes to achieve quality
4.
K n o w le d g e M a n a g e m e n t S tru c tu re ite m s re la te d to th e d eg re e th a t th e o rg a n iz a tio n m a n a g e d its
knowledge through structural approaches such as database, best practices and management reports
5. Knowledge M anagem ent Behavior - items related to the degree that the organization m anaged its
knowledge through behavioral approaches such as laying out the facility, communicating strategy
and enabling people to work together
111
V. Relationships Between Factors
Why do you think that quality management process control items were positively correlated with knowledge
management structure items?
Why do you think that quality management training items were positively correlated with knowledge
management behavior items?
Why do you think that quality management process control items were positively correlated with knowledge
management behavior items?
Why do you think that quality management leadership items had a moderate positive correlation with
knowledge management behavior items?
Do you believe that these correlations reflect the quality management and knowledge management systems
in your organization?
VI. W rap-Up
Are there any other relationships that we have not covered that you feel are important?
Is there anything else that you feel is important fo r me to know about this topic?
112
Participant Information Sheet
Overview of Survey Items

The survey items represented five areas whose relationships were then analyzed. The
five areas were:
1. Quality Management Leadership - items related to the extent of the role of the
organizations leaders in the organizations quality management efforts.
Examples would include communications from top leadership about quality, the
involvement of top leadership in quality awards and quality initiatives that are
championed by top leaders.
2. Quality Management Training - items related to the degree to which the
organization emphasized training in its quality management efforts. Examples
would include having resources for quality management training, commitment of
top leadership to quality training and management attendance at quality training.
3. Quality Management Process Control - items related to the extent to which the
organizations efforts were directed at controlling internal processes to achieve
quality. Examples would include automated inspection systems, error-proofing
and clear procedures and work instructions both in service and manufacturing
companies.
4. Knowledge Management Structure - items related to the degree that the
organization managed its knowledge through structural approaches. Examples
would include a best practices database, an organizational directory of experts and
management reports that are available to employees.
5. Knowledge Management Behavior - items related to the degree that the
organization managed its knowledge through behavioral approaches such as
laying out the facility, communicating strategy and enabling people to work
together. Examples would include events that enable people to come together to
share ideas, people having the technology tools to connect with each other, the
design of facilities with meeting spaces and the employee recognition of
knowledge as a competitive advantage.
These following four relationships were found in the data.

Quality Management Process Control and
Quality Management Training and
Quality Management Process Control and
Quality Management Leadership and
Knowledge
Knowledge
Knowledge
Knowledge
Management Structure
Management Behavior
Management Behavior
Management Behavior
113
Appendix C
Informed Consent Form
Hello
Thank you for volunteering to participate in phase II of this research project. This
research is being conducted as part of the requirements of my Ph.D. program in
Organizational Studies at Union Institute & University. The purpose of this research is to
study the relationship between quality management and knowledge management in
organizations. The objective is to help companies make better use of their knowledge
assets. This study will identify currently used quality management practices that can help
companies implement knowledge management strategies.
The research project is divided into two parts. You have already completed phase I in
which you completed a survey and indicated your willingness to participate in a face-toface interview with the researcher to discuss the aggregate survey findings. You have
been randomly chosen as an interview participant from the group of volunteers.
The interview should take about 3 0 - 4 5 minutes. You will incur no known risks or costs
while participating in this interview aside from your time commitment. The researcher
will come to your location or call you on the phone so you will not incur any expense.
You will receive a complimentary copy of the study results for your participation.
Your responses will be confidential. Survey results will only be given in the aggregate.
No person, organization or specific industry will be mentioned in the report. Only the
size of the organization and type of organization will be used to refer to interviewees,
such as a manager in a small service organization.
If you decide you do not wish to participate in this interview or have any questions about
this study or your rights as a participant please contact Tony Clarke, 20 Hudson Avenue,
Lakeside Park, KY 41017, PH: 859-578-0833.
By agreeing to be interviewed you are stating your agreement with the following
statement:
I have read and understand this consent form and although I volunteer to participate in
this research study, I understand that consent does not take away any legal rights in the
case of negligence or other legal fault of anyone who is involved in this study. I further
understand that nothing in this consent form is intended to replace any applicable Federal,
state, or local laws.
N am e_________________________________
Signature______________________________
Date
114

Quality Management Practices and Organizational Knowledge Management A Quantitative and Qualitative Investigation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

Quality Management Practices and Organizational Knowledge Management A Quantitative and Qualitative Investigation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Quality Management Practices and Organizational Knowledge Management:

A Quantitative and Qualitative Investigation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Anthony James Clarke

UMI Number: 3242040

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Quality Management Practices and Organizational Knowledge Management: A

A Project Demonstrating Excellence Approved on:

By the Dean o f the Graduate College:

Union Institute & University

employ knowledge management behavioral approaches. All correlations between quality

Chapter One: Introduction

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

Chapter Four: Results and Analysis

Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework

Table 1: TQM Thought Leaders Definitions of Quality and Quality Management

Table 2: Synthesis of Quality Management Practices

Table 3: Hypothesized Correlations Between Quality Management Practices and

Knowledge Management Approaches

Table 5: Factor Loadings from Varimax Rotation

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of Survey Items

Table 7: Correlation Matrix o f Survey Scales

Table 8: Comparison of Reliability and Validity between Saraph et al.s Survey

Items and Current Survey Items

Appendix A: Survey Instrument

Chapter One: Introduction

organizational learning and knowledge management have been increasingly recognized

Purpose o f the Study

Significance o f the Study

Limitations and Delimitations o f the Study

My choice of a quantitative approach as my dominant method is also a limiting factor.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Narrowly interpreted, quality means quality of product.

interpreted, quality means quality of work, quality of service, quality of

conformance-to-specifications; and (d) meeting and/or exceeding customers

(1998) work in improving organizational productivity, first published in 1911. Taylors

9. Break down barriers between departments (p. 24).

wanted to talk to us about management, cultural change, and senior

lack of knowledge can be addressed by training while lack of attention is an attitudinal

TQM Thought Leaders Definitions o f Quality and Quality Management

A prescriptive step-bystep process for doing

how organizations can

and guidelines for

A conceptual model for

and freedom from

managing for quality

Synthesis o f Quality Management Practices

As seen in Table 2 there is not a consensus on the exact practices of quality

has both of these components working together to support knowledge

Knowledge management systems.

Channels of communication (forums for discussion and

technologies (the computer, for example)

The spatial environment of the organization insofar as it

interactive inquiry; and

Systems of incentives that influence the will to inquire, (p.

By the behavioral world of the organization, we mean the

organizational memorys structural perspective provided an early link between

Senge (2000) saw these questions about knowledge management as subsumed by

organizational learning by taking a systems view. As discussed earlier, Shrivastavas

A Synthesis o f the Literature