Page 1 of 17
522
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.8, No.3
Publication Date: March 25, 2021
DOI:10.14738/assrj.83.9944.
Sacho, Z. J., & Senaji, T. A. (2021). Determinants of Knowledge Management Success In Public Companies In Kenya. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 8(3) 522-538.
Determinants of Knowledge Management Success In Public
Companies In Kenya
Zammary Jepkorir Sacho
Thomas A. Senaji
ABSTRACT
In a knowledge economy, the need to ensure knowledge management
success is imperative because it determines the success of an
organization. Consequently, in order to improve and sustain their
competitive advantage, many companies are also exploring the field of
knowledge management. We examined factors that influence
knowledge management success, namely organizational culture,
knowledge strategy, information technology and leader behavior using
a descriptive survey of 216 low, middle and top-level managers from
public companies in Kenya based in Nairobi. Primary data was
collected using structured questionnaires. The overall response rate
was 72 percent. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the
analyzed survey data into frequencies and means. The findings were
that organizational culture (β = 0.185, t = 5.436, p < 0.001), knowledge
strategy (β = 0.368, t = 9.622, p < 0.001), information technology (β =
0.338, t = 9.247, p < 0.001) and leader behavior (β = 0.187, t = 4.764, p
< 0.001) had a positive and significant influence on knowledge
management success. Based on these findings, it is recommended that
organizations have a knowledge strategy and enhance their
information technology because these were found to have the greatest
influence on knowledge management success.
INTRODUCTION
KM is a discipline that deals with analysis and technical backing of processes used in an
organization to identify, create, represent, transmit and support the acceptance and exploitation
of best practices entrenched in corporate settings and, specifically, in firm’s knowledge practices.
Effective KM is progressively becoming a significant basis of competitive advantage, and critical to
the success of modern organizations, strengthening the communal expertise of its personnel and
partners. The core foundation behind organizational KM is that all aspects that lead to excellent
performance, organizational innovation, operational effectiveness, and quality of output and
services are upgraded when more knowledge is availed and utilized proficiently (Senaji &
Nyaboga, 2011).
Knowledge Management (KM) is a strategic capability of an organization which enables it to
leverage knowledge resources for success. It comprises various approaches and operations which
are used by companies to recognize, generate, represent, disseminate, and allow insights and
experiences to be adopted. Such insights and experiences encompass knowledge, either
Page 2 of 17
Sacho, Z. J., & Senaji, T. A. (2021). Determinants Of Knowledge Management Success In Public Companies In Kenya. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 8(3) 522-538.
523
N
G
U
Y
E
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.83.9944.
personified or entrenched in companies as processes and organization's routines. Thus,
knowledge management is perceived as a method by which companies create value through their
cognitive and knowledge resources. Strategic knowledge stresses the expansion of business
operations instead of enhancing and solving problems. This requires multiple actors and can help
build a network of knowledge and products where it did not exist before (Bourini, Khawaldeh
&Al-Qudah, 2013).
Knowledge has become one of the most critical motivator for business prosperity as well as in
value addition (King & Zeithalm, 2003). In order to improve and sustain their competitive
advantage, many companies are also exploring the field of knowledge management (KM). As a
result of economic globalization, it is agreed by all that it is crucial for commercial companies in
any part of the world, to better their performance through KM, in what is referred to a knowledge
based economy, to be able to withstand, endure, survive and compete internationally (Soon &
Zainol 2011).
KM is not clearly understood by many companies in Kenya (Mosoti, 2010). Though most
companies affirm that they utilize IT, it has been confirmed that there's the need for a synergy
with other additional enablers of KM which include organizational culture, organizational strategy
and organizational leadership (Yusuf & Wanjau, 2014). The research by Mosoti, (2010)
concentrated on the knowledge management practices (KMP) in companies in Nairobi, Kenya.
Their motivation was to find out whether knowledge management had been implemented. They
discovered that many of the challenges encountered by firms situated in Nairobi are based on how
well they can create and apply KMP as well as incorporate with organizational culture, strategy as
well as leadership.
Knowledge has become the most basic element needed for an economy; and knowledge streams
are recognized as the most significant component of the economy (Ansari, 2012). However,
nonexistence of sound mechanisms to evaluate and implement KM together with necessary
requirements has made this venture look like an extra expenditure in managers’ point of view.
Ansari, (2012) adds that in order to deal with this issue, corporations need to first perceive critical
success factors for executing KM and then, offer suitable base to implement it by venturing on the
recognized critical factors. Many agencies are exploiting the field of KM with the aim of improving
and maintaining their competitiveness. In this regard Wong (2005) suggests the need for an
additional systematic and planned research on the significant success factors for implementing
knowledge management. He additionally states that companies need to be cognizant and sensitive
to the critical factors that will impact the achievement of knowledge management initiative.
Further, several scholars have studied and researched on critical success factors of KM in
organizations. They have also written extensively on the major determinants which include
culture, knowledge strategy, information technology and leadership. They have given a detailed
relationship between the determinants of KM and knowledge management success in various
organizations. Although the definition and success factors of knowledge management are known;
the prevalence of these factors in public companies in Kenya are not known.
This study therefore, would like to establish if organizational culture, knowledge strategy,
information technology and leader behavior are observed and practiced at public companies, the
Page 3 of 17
524
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 3, March-2021
extent of presence of the determinants, which determinant has more strength and contributes
more to KM success, if knowledge management has been implemented successfully and the
relationship between the determinants of KM and knowledge management success at public
companies in Kenya. Consequently, this study sought to answer the call by Wong (2005) by
assessing the determinants of KM success in public companies. Further, this study is meant to
understand the relative significance of each determinant on knowledge management success.
Specifically, we sought to answer the question: what is the influence of organizational culture,
knowledge strategy, information technology, and leader behavior on KM success in public
companies in Kenya?
THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS
Theory
We drew from the resource based theory (RBV), knowledge based view (KBV) and the dynamic
capabilities view (DCV) to examine the relationship between organizational culture, knowledge
strategy, and information technology and leader behavior on KM success. In particular, these
theoretical lenses were used to underpin the study variables.
Resource-based view of the firm. The resource-based view (RBV) seeks to clarify the internal
sources of a firm’s sustained competitive advantage (SCA). Its main position is that if a company is
to have SCA, then it should obtain and govern valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable
(VRIN) assets and capabilities (Kraaijenbrink, 2010). The foundation of this model is that
businesses that are superior in performing acquire their potential competitiveness on the growth
of inimitable and uncommon enablers, which are often implicit. Therefore the firm’s strategy must
be well defined by its rare assets and capabilities (Theriou, Aggelidis & Theriou 2009).
This theory views companies as prospective creators of value added capabilities, and the
fundamental company capabilities which consider seeing company's assets and resources from a
knowledge-based point of view. It emphasizes on the concept of expensive to replicate traits as
basis of achieving better company performance and competitive advantage (Halawi, 2005).
Impalpable resources are significantly more likely than physical assets to place the firm at a
superior position as compared to its competitors. In particular, distinct tacit assets comprising of
knowledge, enable firms to supplement value to the factors of production (Halawi, 2005).
Viewed from the resource-based perspective, knowledge management researchers have identified
various KM related resources that serve as potential source of competitive advantage, these
include; technological resource, structural resource, and cultural resource. These critical
resources which are firm specific are therefore likely to serve as sources of organizational
capability (Lee, 2003).
Knowledge-based view of the firm. Resources which are precious, unique, and hard to imitate
can offer a foundation for a company’s competitive gain. In turn, this competitiveness produces
profitable returns. Knowledge is that kind of an asset. The special competencies of businesses for
developing and transferring knowledge are being identified as an important element of
organizational edge (Senaji & Nyaboga, 2011). At the center of the KBV perspective is that an
organization’s idiosyncratic understanding and its ability to replicate and take advantage of know- how are basically liable for organizational success (Akoorie, 2009).
Page 4 of 17
Sacho, Z. J., & Senaji, T. A. (2021). Determinants Of Knowledge Management Success In Public Companies In Kenya. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 8(3) 522-538.
525
N
G
U
Y
E
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.83.9944.
The strategic capability of knowledge relies on particular traits of that knowledge. It ought to be
concurrently valuable, hard to replicate, and is not commonly used by competitors this gives
companies an upper hand which leads to superior performance. Knowledge is the best source of
SCA. However, because knowledge isn't always obviously seen and measured, its existence can be
felt through company capabilities which are manifested in observable action (Theriou et al., 2009).
For a company to have a SCA ‘knowledge management capabilities’ must be created first to be able
to develop all other essential distinctive capabilities and/or fundamental competencies in time.
KM processes signify an important basic competence that can be used to develop other strategic
capabilities (Theriou et al. 2009). According to the KBV competitive performance is controlled by
the capability of firm to create new knowledge-based resources that develop essential
competencies. Important to the KBV of the firm is the notion that the significant input in
production and main source of value is knowledge. In the KBV, analysis of capabilities has
integrated human, social and organizational resources following economic and technical
resources. Companies that have stocks of organizational knowledge connected with value that can
be defined as rare or distinct, are in good position to consistently produce high returns.
The most approved way of creating unique capabilities and essential competences within
companies is through skill accrual, knowledge codification and communication or through (KM)
processes of creating, acquiring, storing, distributing and using knowledge. The degree to which a
capability is ‘distinctive’ rests on the company and its personnel in developing, acquiring, storing,
sharing and deploying all necessary comprehensive and precise knowledge that will provide a
SCA. With regard to knowledge, the subject of conveyance is vital, not only between companies,
but most importantly, within the firm (Grant, 1996). KBV examines ways of competently and
successfully conducting KM. The KBV states that knowledge is an organization’s most significant
and main resource. Scholars embracing the KBV states that the company’s potential growth is
pegged on productive incorporation of knowledge resources and decision-making capabilities
(Akoorie, 2009).
Dynamic capability view of the firm. Dynamic capabilities is a firm’s behavioral alignment to
continually incorporate, reconfigure, renew and recreate its resources and capabilities, and most
significantly, advance and renovate its main capabilities in reaction to the environmental
alterations to achieve and maintain competitive advantage (Ahmed, 2007). Even though DCs and
RBV are together focusing on resource and also having similar assumptions with RBV, DCs is
distinct from RBV for two core reasons; RBV is static which means it is not affected by the changes
in the surrounding while DCs focuses on the alterations of the environment, and second, RBV is
addressing the best way to use the firm’s resources bundle while DCs centers on the finest means
of integrating, renewing, reconfiguring, and recreating the resources bundle (Othman, 2011).
Dynamic capabilities are the antecedent organizational and tactical practices by which managers
change their resource base, obtain and shed resources, assimilate them together, and amalgamate
them to develop novel value-generating policies. Making them the drivers responsible for the
creation, advancement and remerging of other assets, into new foundations of competitive
advantage (Martin & Eisenhardt, 2000).
Consequently, an approach based on dynamic capabilities has emerged with a more dynamic
nature. This approach emphasizes the strategic value of dynamic capabilities, which are defined as
Page 5 of 17
526
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 3, March-2021
organizational routines by which firms enhance existing resource configurations in the pursuit of
long-term CA (RBV’s logic of leverage) and achieve new resource configurations in the pursuit of
temporary advantages (logic of opportunity) when markets emerge, collide, divide, evolve and die.
As such, DCV provides adequate conditions for the generation, development, and renewal of firm- specific resources and capabilities, allowing firms to create new products, adapt to changing
external conditions and remain competitive (Lopez, 2005).
The customary features of dynamic capabilities across companies are recognizable and exhibit the
nature of similarities in important characteristics. Wang and Ahmed (2007) claims that it is
probable to pinpoint three key features of dynamic capabilities across researches; they include
adaptive capability, absorptive capability and innovative capability. These capabilities strengthen
a firm’s ability to incorporate, redesign, renew and redevelop its assets and capabilities in tandem
with external variations.
Hypothesis
Consistent with the research question: What is the influence of organizational culture, knowledge
strategy, information technology, leader behavior on knowledge management success we
formulated four null hypotheses that were tested. In this study knowledge management success is
seen as a response measure. KM success is viewed as a result of knowledge management enablers
such as supportive organizational culture, knowledge strategy, information technology and
enabling leader behavior existing within an organization. Typical outcomes in terms of
organizational performance are the enhancement of product and service quality, productivity,
innovative ability and activity, competitive capacity and position in the market and customer
satisfaction. KM success also focuses on improved process effectiveness as well as on achieving
actionable outcomes (Jennex, 2009).