Topic: Usage of Knowledge Management Tools: UK and
Canada versus
Russia and Turkey in a Comparative
Study.
Researcher:
Cem Birol, Gokmen Dagli and Fatos Silman
Purpose
of Study
The
aim of this study is to find effective methods for instructors and
universities’ boards of directors regarding knowledge management and the use of
its tools to meet their vision and mission statements. Thus, the researchers in
this study have tested four knowledge resource tools in order to address the
research problem and fulfill the purpose of the research in line with the research
settings as laid down below:
Methodology
Qualitative
research techniques have been used in this study. In this research, 35
different academic staff members from different countries (Russia, Turkey, the
UK and Canada) and from four different universities from respective country have
been interviewed. The countries have been chosen according to their level of
development. In the interviewing process of research, the questions were
related to how knowledge management tools were used. The research data were
collected between 15 March 2007 and 1 July 2008 with the help of 26 open ended
questionnaires based on Beijerse’s study (Beijerse, 1999) of knowledge
management in universities. The transcribed interview data were coded and
broken down into categories to draw themes derived from the questions. Finally,
the data has been analyzed discreetly.
Findings
and Results
The findings have been categorized under four
dimensions pertaining to the four knowledge management tools. For
instance, Table 2 indicates that the universities
in the developing countries (Russia & Turkey) are generally lacking in
every aspect of the first KMT (identify the lack of knowledge) in universities
in the areas that would help them reach their goals, visions, and missions.
Likewise, the universities of the developing
countries (Russia and Turkey) are proven to be lacking behind in every aspect
of KMT unlike the universities of the developed countries such as Canada and the
UK. As per the report submitted by the interviewee, it
is said that the universities in the developing countries are not able to
compete with developed countries in-terms of managing KMT due to economic, technological
and socio-cultural factors.
Conclusion
and Recommendations
The result of this study
has been categorised into four sections subsequent to the four dimensions of
KMT as follows:
1.
First Dimension: Identifying the Lack of Knowledge
Instructors
from developed countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada organise
meetings on a regular basis in order to identify the lack of knowledge and use the
results drawn from these meetings to find solutions for certain issues. While
the instructors from developing countries such as Russia and Turkey organise
fewer meetings, which were not enough to make effective decisions in-order to identify
the lack of knowledge. Aslangiray (2003) stated that once the communication and
emotional connection between group members in teams are established, the lack
of knowledge can be identified, and groups can perform more efficiently. With
regard to organising meetings, more regular and systematic meetings should be
organised in the universities of the developing countries, and the opinion of
the academic staff should be taken into consideration in order to prevent knowledge
deficiency. Based on the analysis of the UK and Canadian academic staff, future
scenarios have been used for both short and long-term strategic planning in
their universities. While, the future scenarios tool was not defined by the academic
staff from the developing countries as a solution to solve the long-run
knowledge deficiency problems. Thus, it’s recommended that the universities of
the developing countries should organize their short, medium and long-term
strategic planning parallel to the applications of the universities of the
developed countries in order to eliminate knowledge deficiency problems that
might arise in the future.
2.
Second Dimension: Improvement and Acquisition of
Knowledge
An academic staff
member from England and Canada stated that with regard to research and development,
among the knowledge management tools the improvement and acquisition of
knowledge method is utilised at an adequate level, and it is understood that
research and development are the main targets of the universities. In Russia
and Turkey, due to economic, technological, and socio-cultural reasons, adequate
attention is not paid to research and development studies. As for the knowledge
development process, it is seen that the participants from the universities of
the developed countries utilise the observation method more than the
participants from the universities of the developing countries. The
universities in Canada and England continuously observe other universities in
order to elicit the developments inside and outside the universities and
increase their improvements. Their aim is to find solutions to possible
problems beforehand and act on time. On the other hand, due to the lack of
competition between universities in Russia and Turkey, the observation method
is not utilised very often.
3.
Third Dimension: Sharing Knowledge
Universities
in countries such as England and Canada used knowledge-sharing tools of knowledge
management by forming workgroups that helped them achieve continuous knowledge
sharing. The participants in the universities of the developed countries said
that teamwork was used more often and it helped them achieve the best results.
On the other hand, organisation of workgroups and teams is used less in
countries such as Russia and Turkey. The main reasons are due to cultural
factors: individuals act more selfishly, and they are afraid to take
responsibility. In order to keep the quality at a certain level and to follow
the developments and changes in our environment and to achieve efficiency,
teamwork is essential (Sarihan, 1998). Discussion groups as a knowledge management
tool were used more in the universities of the developed countries than those
in the developing countries. Discussion groups are constructive, can provide
positive feedback, and aid knowledge sharing. Accordingly, developed nations
used this tool when sharing knowledge. Russia and Turkey have less use of
discussion groups due to reasons such as conflict between faculty staff and
their supervisors and drifting from the main topic during discussions.
Discussion groups are also indicators of the democratic and intellectual level
of the communities (Yesil, 2004). Therefore, individuals in Russia and Turkey
should have an idea about how to act and behave in discussion groups
(Mendel-Reyes, 1998).
4.
Fourth Dimension: Evaluation of Knowledge
Evaluation of knowledge in terms of external and
internal controls is used more often in the universities of the developed countries
compared to those in the developing countries. Accreditation institutions have
been seen as a major external control system in the developed nations. Universities
always try to do their best to reach the premium standards set by these institutions,
which help them achieve continuous improvements. Evaluations from students and other
departments classified as internal control are also helpful for making
continuous improvements in the universities. The result indicates that the universities
of the developing countries could not use the internal and external control
systems properly when compared to those of the developed countries. As for the
external control, a government institution acted as a control tool where it
focused on whether or not the universities followed the standards. On the other
hand, student surveys are the only means of internal controls, the results of which
are not utilised adequately. However, Sullivan and Glanz (2005) claim that in
order to improve education and increase student motivation and performance,
constant evaluation, control, and monitoring are necessary. The research shows
that evaluation of reports is used more often in the universities of the
developing countries than the universities of the developed countries.
Evaluation of reports is critical in developed countries such as Canada and England,
since it helps to plan an upcoming year’s educational strategies. However, evaluations
of reports are not used for strategic purposes in Russia and Turkey. Quantitative
analyses of social and economic factors are getting more complicated nowadays.
Accordingly, new problems arise in the communities. Statistical studies and the
use of methods based on these studies are becoming more necessary. In addition
to this, collection of data based on issues such as summing up, analysing, making
effective use of the collected data, and making decisions based on the data are
the important elements of the evaluation process, and therefore they should be utilised
more in Russia and Turkey (Karagöz & Ekici, 2005).
For in-depth research work please
browse the given site if interested.
http://www.ejer.com.tr/0DOWNLOAD/pdfler/eng/1312230501.pdf
