Knowledge Management Tools

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