Measuring the effect of the perception of knowledge management on its utilization in public sector in jordan

Information and Knowledge Management
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

Measuring the Effect of the Perception of Knowledge
Management on its Utilization in Public Sector in Jordan: A
comparative Study to Determine the Change in the Utilization of
Knowledge Management Between 2004 – 2013
Haitham Ali Hijazi1
1. Dept. Of Business Administration, Al-Zaytoonah University, Jordan, info@hijazi-km.com
Hadeel Al-hroot2
2. Dept. Of Business Administration, Al-Zaytoonah University, Jordan, hadeel_hroot@yahoo.com
Abstract
This study aimed to trace the development of the implementation of knowledge management initiatives in the
public sector institutions in Jordan. The study was compared with precedent study had been conducted in 2004.
The results showed there is very little progress in knowledge management utilization in the Jordanian
government institutions compared to 2004. Also, the study suggested a set of recommendations to enhance the
utilization of knowledge management in the Jordanian government institutions.
Keywords: Knowledge Management (KM), Knowledge Creation, Knowledge Transfer and Sharing, Knowledge
Utilization, Implicit Knowledge, Explicit Knowledge, Public sector, Jordan
1. Introduction
Today, the world is witnessing a huge, multifaceted wave of change, and social change is one of the most
important faces of that wave. The impact of such change varies between one person and another, and the change
process towards knowledge society is social rather than economic. The change process affects the lives of
individuals, and decisions taken by them in regard of the learning/ teaching mechanisms, the type of
implemented action and lived life style. The social change is accompanied with economic and manufactural
change, which includes introducing globalization, collapsing commercial barriers and borders (Wiig, 1993, Xiii).
Worldwide organizations seek continuous survivor under these sharp changes, developments and dynamic
world. Organizations survivor cannot be achieved unless they have competitive advantages that can be achieved
by knowledge. Heibeler (1996, 22) explained that organizations competitive advantages can be obtained by
developing better knowledge management practices. Also, Kothuri (2002, 5) elaborates that knowledge is a
competitive advantage in its self, and organizational competitive advantage is a hardly imitated resource and
highly protected product. Pan and Scarbrough (1998, 55) ensure that knowledge is the most important resource
in achieving competitive advantage.
Nonaka (1998, 23) explained the importance and roles of knowledge management in achieving excellence in
organizations. For instance, Japanese companies such as Honda, Canon, Matsushita, NEC, Sharp and Kao; have
achieved huge success and familiarity because of its rapid response to changes in the needs of customers,
development of new products, and control of emerging technologies. In addition, the secret of such success is the
generation of new knowledge. As a result, formal systematic knowledge is the most useful type of knowledge.
The main measurements of the value of newly generated knowledge are quantitative, such as: increased
efficiency, lower costs, and improved return on investment.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1 Knowledge:
Barnes (2002, 35), Stettner (2000, 27), Warner & Witzel (2004, 51 - 53), Wiig (1993, 73) and others had defined
Knowledge as the sum of facts, views, opinions, judgments, working methods, experiences and information,
data, concepts, strategies, and principles held by an individual or organization. Additionally, knowledge is used
to interpret information related to a particular circumstance or situation, and to address this circumstance and this
situation.
2.2 Knowledge Management:
Wiig (1993, 16), Cross (Little et al., 2002, 9), Capshaw & Frappaolo (1999, 44), Gartner Group (1998, 5),
Dorothy Yu (Zerega, 1998, 16), Griffiths (1997, 62) and Fearnley and Horder (1997, 25) have defined
knowledge management as the process of analyzing, combining, evaluating and implementing changes related to
knowledge in order to achieve goals that have been set in an intentionally organized and purposeful manner. In

63

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

other words, knowledge management is the process of managing organizational knowledge in order to create
value for business and generate competitive advantage.
2.3 Benefits of Knowledge Management:
Primarily, knowledge management implementation helps organization to achieve excellence by: improving
innovation, increasing productivity, reducing costs, enhancing decision making process, increasing customer
satisfaction, increasing creativity, promoting employees collaboration, enhancing work implementation within
the organization (Myers, 2004, 32; Wickham, 2001, 223; Wiig, 1994, 25).
2.4 Sources of obtaining Knowledge:
Mainly, Marquardt (2002, 47) and Cullen (2005, 425) have mentioned two sources to obtain knowledge, which
are: internal and external. The internal sources are the tacit knowledge such as: experiences, beliefs,
assumptions, memories and memoirs of individuals. In addition, internal sources include explicit knowledge
such as: documents and databases. By contrast, external sources include the following processes such as:
benchmarking, participating in conferences, renting experts, following-up newspapers (e.g. magazines and
published articles) on the World Wide Web, watching TV and videos, monitoring economic and social trends
and technological developments, gathering information and data from customers and competitors and suppliers,
cooperating with other organizations, and creating alliances and Joint ventures.
2.5 Types of Knowledge:
Knowledge has two types, which are: tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. The tacit knowledge is a complex
(i.e. composite) knowledge that is polished and accumulated in form of know- how and understanding in the
peoples’ minds. By contrast, explicit knowledge is a knowledge that can be expressed by words, numbers, sound,
data sharing, scientific equations, visuals, product specifications, and manuals. Accordingly, explicit knowledge
can be transferred, tested, and used by individuals easily, since it can be formed and organized in documents,
procedures, software, or any other form. Consequently, it is a public knowledge and common experiences, can
be shared, accumulated, transferred, and analyzed. Therefore organizations seek increment of knowledge
stockpiles as part of the learning process (Balogun & Hailey, 2004, 67-68; Cullen, 2005, 311; Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 2004, 3; Wiig, 1993, 207).
2.6 Processes of Knowledge management
Mainly, processes of knowledge management are practices to implement knowledge management in
organizations. The most important processes are: knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and sharing, and
organizational learning. Although, researchers indicate that processes can include other kinds such as: encoding,
storage, and retrieval.
2.6.1 Knowledge creation: Essentially, two issues are raised by talking over knowledge creation process,
namely: levels of knowledge creation, and stages of knowledge conversion. In regard of knowledge creation
levels (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995, 47) suggested their theory on creation of organizational knowledge, and
proposed that the key to create such knowledge is to convert tacit knowledge (i.e. individual knowledge) to an
explicit knowledge (i.e. organizational knowledge). The previous theory, suggested four levels for knowledge
creation, which are: individual level, group level, organizational level and Inter-organizational level.
Additionally, knowledge conversion phases are also called “conversion of knowledge” which means converting
tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, and vice versa. However, Nonaka and Takeuchi (2004, 54 & 66) Nonaka
(1998, 28) Wickham (2001, 349) and Warner & Witzel (2004, 91 - 93) argue that organization cannot create
knowledge on their own. In details, organization must collect and accumulate tacit knowledge at the individual
level, and then expanded through different modes of knowledge conversion process to be generated.
Remarkably, knowledge conversion process is consisted of the following four modes, which are: (a)
Socialization: is the conversion of tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge (b) Externalization: is the conversion of
tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge (c) Combination: is the conversion of explicit knowledge to explicit
knowledge and (d) Internalization: is the conversion of explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge. Importantly,
knowledge creation abilities are essential for achieving continuous competitive advantage (Warner & Witzel,
2004, 91 - 93). (Marquardt, 2002, 33) suggested that knowledge creation can be done by number of processes
that extend from challenging creativity, to hard research. Additionally (Marquardt, 2002, 33) explained that
knowledge generated by solving the problem and experimentation, can be most valuable to the organization.
Therefore, organization must support and stimulate knowledge-creating activities performed by individuals. The
support can be done by providing the right environment for individuals.
64

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

2.6.2 Knowledge Sharing: Fundamentally, Knowledge transfer process is the first and important step in the
knowledge sharing process (Coakes, 2003, 42; Szulanski, 1996, 43; Zmud, 2000, 15 – 28; Earl, 1998, 48)
because it focuses on “appropriate” delivery of knowledge to the “appropriate” person in the “proper” time,
form, and cost, taking in mind that knowledge creation process, in its self, will not achieve the high performance
unless the created knowledge transferred and shared throughout the organization, and utilized properly. This will
reduce transference costs and increase organizational performance. In order to get the utmost benefits of
knowledge management, Puccinelli (1998, 40) emphasizes the concept of knowledge sharing, because the
environment which encourages knowledge creation will lead to create new knowledge (Marshall et., al., 1996,
77) despite voluntary knowledge sharing is difficult among users. Therefore, Bhatt (2001, 68-75) points to the
importance of transferring, disseminating and sharing knowledge across the organization. Additionally, Bhatt
(2001, 68-75) explained the positive impact of the interaction between technologies, techniques, and individuals
over the effectiveness of knowledge distribution.
2.6.3 Learning: Wiig (1993, 183) defines organizational learning as the process of acquiring and internalizing
new knowledge. Furthermore, Nancy Dixon (Little et. Al., 2002, 264) explains organizational learning as
organization ability of utilizing the mental capacity of its members to create operations that enhances its ability
to learning. Moreover, organizations aiming to achieve success, survival, sustainability, and profitability, need to
learn from its experiences, researches, observations of what others do, and from any other available source, so
new knowledge may become available to all stakeholders in a timely manner, easily and conveniently (Wiig,
1993, 188).
3. 2004 Study Background
The researcher (Hijazi, 2004) had conducted a study to measure the impact of perception of knowledge
management on utilizing it in Jordanian organizations. Furthermore, recommendations had included reexamination of utilizing KM in Jordanian organizations, after at least four years, to determine the change in
using of KM, and with the use of the same model. The model measures independent, moderating, and dependent
variables to utilize KM. The measurement reflects impact of perceptions of both Jordanian public and private
organizations in terms of knowledge management concept, role, assets, objectives, and benefits. Additionally,
perception can be measured in terms of roles of leadership and organizational culture (independent variables) on
the utilization of KM (dependent variable). Also, the model examines processes of knowledge management such
as: knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and sharing, and organizational learning (moderating variable) and
its impact on the utilization of KM at those organizations. Therefore, researcher had formed three key variables,
which are: Perception (i.e. independent variable), Operation (i.e. moderating variable), and Utilization (i.e.
dependent variable). The variables have been examined within Jordanian environment that deals with knowledge
management as a modern administrative concept.
Figure (1)
The suggested Model for the study of 2004

Perception of
KM
- Concept
- Role
- Assets
- objectives
- Benefits
- Leadership
- Organizational
culture

KM Processes
- Creation
- Transfer and
Sharing
- Learning

65

KM
Utilization

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

4. Problem of current study
This current study attempts to determine degree of change in utilizing knowledge management within
organizations of public sector in Jordan for the year 2013 compared with 2004. Evidently, the study uses model
that had been used in 2004 (Hijazi, 2004) with a slight amendment (i.e. deleting concept and role from 2004
model, and combining objectives and benefits).
5. Importance of current study
This study is important since it is an implementation to one of the recommendations of the study, which took
place in 2004 in terms of the re-examination of the model that had been designed previously, to see how the
change in the use of knowledge management in the public sector of Jordan during the years 2004 - 2013, and to
assist decision makers in these organizations to address the imbalance if it exists.
6. Objectives of current study
The present study aimed to:
1- Determine if there is a change in the knowledge management utilization in the Jordanian public
organizations in comparison with 2004.
2- Determine the necessary improvements required to develop a successful knowledge management system in
Jordanian organizations.
3- Measuring degree of success of knowledge management initiatives that have been applied in Jordanian
organizations.

7. Model of current study
The model of the current study determines extent of change in utilization of knowledge management in
Jordanian public organizations. The model compares results of this study with the achieved results of 2004
study, according to the following model:
Figure (2)
Model of Current Study

8. Hypotheses of current study
8.1 The first group (impact of the independent variable on the moderating variable / knowledge creation
process):
Ho1: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of knowledge assets on knowledge
creation before and after application of the model
Ho2: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of the objectives and benefits of
knowledge on knowledge creation before and after application of the model
Ho3: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of leadership on knowledge creation
before and after the application of the model

66

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

Ho4: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of organizational culture on
knowledge creation before and after the application of the model
8.2 The second group (impact of independent variable on the moderating variable / process of knowledge
transfer and sharing):
Ho5: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of knowledge assets on knowledge
transfer and sharing before and after the application of the model
knowledge on knowledge transfer and sharing before and after the application of the model
Ho7: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) knowledge of the impact of the leadership on
knowledge transfer and sharing before and after the application of the model
Ho8: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of the organizational culture on
knowledge transfer and sharing before and after the application of the model
8.3 The third group (impact of independent variable on the moderating variable / process of
organizational learning)
Ho9: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of knowledge assets on
organizational learning before and after the application of the model
knowledge on organizational learning before and after the application of the model
Ho11: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of the leadership on organizational
learning before and after the application of the model
Ho12: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of organizational culture on the
organizational learning before and after the application of the model
8.4 The fourth Group (impact of moderating variable on the dependent variable)
Ho13: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of the knowledge creation process
on KM utilizing before and after the application of the model
Ho14: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of knowledge transfer and sharing
process on KM utilizing before and after the application of the model
Ho15: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of the organizational learning
process on KM utilizing before and after the application of the model

8.5 The Fifth Group (impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable)
Ho16: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of knowledge assets on KM
utilizing before and after the application of the model
knowledge on KM utilizing before and after the application of the model
Ho18: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of the leadership on KM utilizing
before and after the application of the model
Ho19: There are no statistically significant differences (α <.05) of the impact of the organizational culture on
KM utilizing before and after the application of the model
9. Methodology
9.1 Population and sample of current study: The population of the study is compromised of all Jordanian
public organizations. Moreover; the study was applied to (21) organizations. Beside, number of individual
respondents included within the study is (385) individuals. Notably, 2004 study had used the same population
and sample where 2004 group was considered as a control group. However, population and sample of 2013 study
was considered as an experimental group.
Tools of current study: The study used the same tool that had been used in the 2004 study to measure the
variables.
10. The study analysis and results
10.1 Description of variables and hypothesis testing:

67

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

Table (1)
Arithmetic averages and standard deviations for the variables of the current study compared to 2004

2004
The level of
significance

2013

value

Variable
Standard
Deviation

Arithmetic
Mean

Standard
Deviation

Arithmetic
Mean

0.000

13.183

0.824

3.266

.551

3.932

Knowledge
Assets

0.000

9.442

0.844

3.152

.708

3.681

KM
Objectives
and Benefits

0.000

6.788

0.789

3.888

.665

4.245

Leadership

0.000

4.298

0.797

3.348

.611

3.568

Organizational
Culture

0.000

7.832

0.796

3.276

.661

3.689

Knowledge
Creation

0.000

9.224

0.769

3.097

.552

3.542

Knowledge
Transfer and
sharing

0.155

1.422

0.640

3.691

.647

3.757

Learning

0.007

2.688

0.623

3.519

.636

3.641

Km
Utilization

According to Table (1) the arithmetical averages for all variables (i.e. independent, dependent and moderating)
of both of the studies (i.e. both 2004 and 2013) were valued higher than (3). Therefore, results of arithmetical
averages indicate that the perception of KM, practices of KM and utilization of KM in organizations are in a
positive manner. Besides, the value of the standard deviations for all variables (i.e. Independent, dependent and
intermediate) of the study (i.e. both 2004 and 2013) were less than (1) which indicates that answers have an
acceptable degree of homogeneity.
Also, the table shows that arithmetic means for 2013 are larger than athematic means for 2004. This indicates a
positive change, by the descriptive standard, KM perception in Jordanian organizations in terms of: assets,
objectives and benefits, leadership, and culture, as well for Km processes (i.e. creation, transfer and sharing, and
organizational learning).
In addition, values of t-test are statistically significant at the level (0.05) for the year 2013, because arithmetic
means are the largest. As a result, there is a positive change in the deductive standard regarding the perception of
KM in terms of assets, objectives and benefits, leadership, and culture, as well KM processes (creation, transfer
and sharing, and learning) and utilization in Jordanian organizations.

68

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

10.2 Path Analysis Test Results:
10.2.1 Results of the Study for 2004
During the study which was conducted in 2004, the researcher tested the model in question (Figure 1). After
analyzing the data that was obtained at the time, the researcher re-analyzed the model statistically using the
method of path analysis to determine the direct and indirect impact for the sub-independent variables, mainindependent variable, sub-moderating variables, and the main- moderating variable in the dependent variable.
The analysis of the multiple regressions through the model had clarified that knowledge creation, transfer and
sharing, and learning affect utilization of KM in an individual manner. The value of Beta (Standardized
Coefficients): (0.412) and (0.252) and (0.312), respectively. Besides, knowledge creation is impacted directly by
the perception of KM assets, goals, and organizational culture. Particularly, implication happens since the value
of Beta respectively is: (0.199) and (0.210) and (0.45). This conclusion was shown by testing the impact of
dimensions of knowledge management perception on the creation process. Also, this conclusion was shown by
testing of multiple regressions. Finally, Zero - Order Correlation test proved that the benefits, and leadership
indirectly affect the knowledge creation, since this process is linked to a meaningful relationship with assets,
objectives and organizational culture.
Additionally, knowledge sharing is impacted directly by assets, objectives, and the organizational culture.
Particularly, implication happens since the value of Beta respectively is: (0.154) and (0.228) and (0.514). This
conclusion was shown by testing the impact of dimensions of knowledge management perception on knowledge
sharing process. Also, this conclusion was shown by testing of multiple regressions. At last not the least, Zero Order Correlation test proved that the concept, role, benefits, and leadership indirectly affect knowledge sharing
process. Specially; the sharing process is linked to a meaningful relationship with assets, objectives, and culture.
As well, organizational learning process is impacted directly by the perception of km dimensions (i.e. assets,
benefits, leadership, and culture). Particularly, implication happens since the value of Beta respectively is:
(0.146), (0.140), (0.261)and (0.353). Also, this conclusion was shown by testing of multiple regressions. At last
not the least, Zero - Order Correlation test proved that the objectives indirectly affect the learning process.
Specially; the learning process is linked to a meaningful relationship with assets, objectives, leadership and
culture.
10.2.2 Results of current Study for 2013:
In order to test the hypotheses of the current study, Amos 16 has been used. Moreover, the results of the direct
and indirect implications of KM perception showed the following:
Table (2)
Results of Path Analysis Test for the Current Study
level of
significance

critical
value

standard
error

Approximation

Moderating variable

Independent variable

.058

1.896

.078

.120

Knowledge creation

Knowledge Assets

.013

2.471

.076

.187

knowledge creation

KM Objectives &
Benefits

.008

2.634

.051

.136

Knowledge Creation

Leadership

.000

8.114

.070

.571

Knowledge creation

Organizational Culture

.707

-.375

.078

-.029

Knowledge transfer
& Sharing

Knowledge Assets

.005

1.844

.075

.139

Knowledge transfer
& Sharing

KM Objectivess &
Benefits

.000

3.883

.051

.199

Knowledge transfer
& Sharing

Leadership

69

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

.000

6.516

.070

.456

Knowledge transfer
& Sharing

Culture

.000

4.545

.086

.391

Learning

Knowledge Assets

.141

-1.471

.083

-.122

Learning

KM Objectives &
Benefits

.350

-.935

.057

-.053

Learning

Leadership

.000

9.386

.077

.725

Learning

Culture

level of
significance

critical
value

standard
error

Approximation

Dependent Variable

Moderating Variable

.000

3.584

.068

.242

Km utilization

Knowledge creation

.227

1.209

.068

.082

Km utilization

Knowledge transfer &
Sharing

.000

8.330

.062

.512

Km utilization

Learning

level of
significance

critical
value

standard
error

Approximation

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

.093

1.679

.069

.116

Km utilization

Knowledge Assets

.461

-.738

.064

-.047

Km utilization

KM Objectives &
Benefits

.009

2.603

.045

.137

Km utilization

Leadership

.710

.372

.088

.033

Km utilization

Culture

70%
58%
63%
78%

Explanation Coefficient R2 for knowledge creation
Explanation Coefficient R2 for Knowledge Transfer and Sharing
Explanation Coefficient R2 for Organizational Learning
Explanation Coefficient R2 For Knowledge utilization

10.2.2.1 The First Group (Impact of Sub-independent variables on Sub- moderating variable/ knowledge
creation process)
The results of the study had shown no implication of perception role of the knowledge assets on the knowledge
creation process at the level of (β = .120, P <0.05). Therefore, this study accepts the null hypothesis (Ho1) which
argues that no impact of perception role of the knowledge assets on knowledge creation process at the level of
(P<0.05). Also, the results of the study had shown implication of perception goals and benefits of the KM on the
knowledge creation process at the level of (β = .187, P <0.05). As a result, this study rejects the null hypothesis
(Ho2) and accepts the alternative hypothesis which shows implications of the effect of a statistically significant
(α <.05) for the perception of goals and benefits of KM on the knowledge creation process. Besides, the results
of the study had shown implication of perception role of leadership on the knowledge creation process at the
level of (β = .136, P <0.05). Consequently, this study rejects the null hypothesis (Ho3) and accepts the
alternative hypothesis which shows implications of the effect of a statistically significant (α <.05) to the
perception of role of leadership on the knowledge creation process. Additionally, the results of the study had
shown implication of perception role of culture on the knowledge creation process at the level of (β = .571, P
<0.05). Therefore, this study rejects the null hypothesis (Ho4) and accepts the alternative hypothesis which
shows implications of the effect of a meaningful statistics to perception the impact of the role of culture on
knowledge creation process.

70

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

10.2.2.2 The Second Group (Impact of Sub-independent variables on Sub-moderating variable/
knowledge transfer and sharing)
The results of the study had shown no implication of perception role of the knowledge assets on the knowledge
transfer and sharing process at the level of (P <0.05). Therefore, this study accepts the null hypothesis (Ho5)
which argues that no statistically significant impact at level of (P<0.05) to the perception of the role of the
knowledge assets on knowledge transfer and sharing process (β=-.029, P>0.05). Also, the results of the study
had shown implication to perception role of KM goals and benefits on the knowledge transfer and sharing
process. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho6) is rejected, and we accept the alternative hypothesis that argues
implications of the effect of a statistically significant (α <.05) to perception of the KM goals and benefits on
knowledge transfer and sharing process. Results, as well, shows that there is an implication to the perception of
the role of leadership on knowledge sharing and transfer at the level of (β =.199, P <0.05). As a result, this study
rejects the null hypothesis (Ho7) and accepts the alternative hypothesis which shows statistically significant
implications at level of (α <.05) of leadership role on the knowledge transfer and sharing process. Besides, the
results of the study had shown implication of perception of the role of culture on the knowledge transfer and
sharing process at the level of (β = .456, P <0.05). Consequently, this study rejects the null hypothesis (Ho8) and
accepts the alternative hypothesis which shows implications of the effect of a statistically significant (α <.05) to
the perception of the roles of culture on the knowledge transfer and sharing process.
10.2.2.3 The Third Group (Impact of Sub-independent variables on Sub- moderating variable/
organizational learning process):
The results of the study had shown implication of perception the role of the knowledge assets on the
organizational learning process at the level of (β=.391, P<0.05). Therefore, this study rejects the null hypothesis
(Ho9) and accepts the alternative hypothesis which argues that statistically significant impact exists at level of
(P<0.05) to the perception of the role of the knowledge assets on the organizational learning process. The
results, also, had shown that there is no impact of the perception of the role of KM goals and benefits on the
organizational learning process. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho 10) that argues that there is no impact of the
perception of the KM goals and benefits on the organizational learning process (β=-.122, P>0.05) of the effect of
statistically significant (α <.05) is accepted. Also, the results of the study had shown that there is an impact of
the perception of the role of leadership on the organizational learning process. As a result, this study rejects the
null hypothesis (Ho11) which shows no statistically significant implications at level of (α <.05) of recognizing
leadership role in the organizational learning process (β=-.053, P<0.05). Besides, the results of the study had
shown an impact of perception the role of culture on the organizational learning process at the level of (β =.725,
P <0.05). Consequently, this study rejects the null hypothesis (Ho12) and accepts the alternative hypothesis
which shows implications of the effect of a statistically significant (α <.05) to the perception of the role of
culture on the organizational learning process.
10.2.2.4 The Fourth Group (Impact of Sub-moderating variables on the dependent variables):
The results of the study had shown an impact of knowledge creation process on utilizing KM in the researched
organizations at the level of (β=.242, P<0.05). Therefore, this study rejects the null hypothesis (Ho13) and
accepts the alternative hypothesis which argues that statistically significant impactions exist at level of (α<.05)
of the knowledge creation process to utilize KM in the researched organizations. However, the results of the
study did not show an impact of knowledge transfer and sharing on utilizing KM in the researched
organizations at the level of (β=.082, P>0.05). As a result, this study accepts the null hypothesis (Ho14) which
shows statistically significant implications at level of (α <.05) of knowledge transfer and sharing process in
utilizing KM in the researched organizations. Besides, the results of the study had shown implication of
organizational learning process in utilizing Km in the researched organizations at the level of (β =.512, P
<0.05). Consequently, this study rejects the null hypothesis (Ho15) and accepts the alternative hypothesis which
shows implications of the effect of a statistically significant (α <.05) of organizational learning process in
utilizing KM in the researched organizations.
10.2.2.5 The Fifth Group (Impact of Sub-independent variables in the dependent variables):
The results of the study had shown no implication of perception knowledge assets in utilizing KM in the
researched organizations. Therefore, this study accepts the null hypothesis (Ho16) which argues that no
statistically significant impactions exist at level of (α<.05) to the perception of the role of knowledge assets in
utilizing KM in the researched organizations at the level of (β=.116, P>0.05). In addition, the results of the study
did not show implication of the perception of KM goals and benefits of knowledge in utilizing KM in the
researched organizations. As a result, this study accepts the null hypothesis (Ho17) which shows no statistically
71

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

significant implications at level of (α <.05) the perception of the goals and benefits of KM in utilizing
knowledge management in the researched organizations at the level of (β=-.047, P>0.05). In addition, path
analysis test results showed a direct implication to the perception of the role of leadership in utilizing KM in the
researched organizations at the level of (β=.137, P<0.05). Consequently, this study rejects the null hypothesis
(Ho18) and accepts the alternative hypothesis which shows statistically significant implications at the level of (α
<.05) to the perception of the role of leadership in utilizing KM in the researched organizations. Finally, the
results showed that no implication to the perception of the role of culture in utilizing KM in the researched
organizations. Therefore, this study accepts the null hypothesis (Ho19) that argues that there is no significant
impact at the level of (α <.05) of the perception of the role of culture on utilizing KM in the researched
organizations at the level of (β=.033, P>0.05).
The following results had been reached through the analysis; the sub-independent variables (i.e. perception of
dimensions of KM) have interpreted 70% of the sub-moderating variable (i.e. knowledge creation process), 58%
of the sub-moderating variable (i.e. knowledge transfer and sharing), and 63% of the sub-moderating variable
(i.e. organizational learning process). However, the variation in the employment of knowledge has caused all
independent and moderating variables to be interpreted to reach 78%.
As a result, this study deduces that there is a direct impact for the perception of KM dimensions on utilizing it in
public sector in Jordan. In addition, this study deduces that there is an indirect impact for organizational learning
process on utilizing KM in public sector in Jordan.
11. The Study Results and Recommendations
The study reached a number of results, which are: Firstly, public sector organizations in Jordan continue to
implement programs of KM, and utilized such programs in their work compared to the study of 2004. Secondly,
a positive change continues to appear, compared to the study of 2004, but in an albeit slight; whether in the field
of perception KM in terms of: assets, objectives and benefits, leadership and organizational culture.
Additionally, positive change continues to appear in terms of practice of KM processes, compared to the study of
2004, such as: knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and sharing, Organizational learning, as well as utilizing
of knowledge. However, Jordan is still a newcomer in this field; in spite of efforts of Jordanian authorities’
officials; who considered organizational KM one of the criteria of King Abdullah II award for Excellence for
Government Performance and Transparency. As a result, degree of positive change in such field is constrained
by the following factors: Firstly, scarcity of economic and natural resources in Jordan. Secondly, Jordan
surrounding tensioned environment that hinders opportunities to investment in human resources, which is
considered the main factor of knowledge and KM.
Based on the outcome of the study, the following recommendations can be proposed: Firstly, establishment of a
governmental body concerned with the affairs of KM. Secondly, development of course curriculum in Jordanian
universities that enables students to absorb the concept of KM, benefits, objectives, and operations.
Consequently, students contribution can be enhances KM initiatives can be implemented after joining the labor
market. Thirdly, encouragement of staff of government organizations to be involved in Km initiatives through
special training courses of KM, strengthening rewards and compensation systems to encourage knowledge
creation, transfer and sharing, and utilization. Fourthly, encouragement of public and private organizations by
the concerned authorities to develop facilities that encourage transfer and sharing of knowledge such as: chat and
dialogue rooms. Also, developing services that encourage the transfer and sharing of knowledge, such as: trips
and outdoor activities for members of the organization. In addition, organizations must conduct promotional
things, such as trust, that promotes knowledge sharing. Also, organizations should take all procedures that
encourage the process of converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. For instance, organizations should
take procedures such as linking incentives with the process of converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge.
Finally, organizations must provide all facilitation that would enhance the conversion process.

72

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

Figure (3)
Analyzing the Model using method of path analysis for the 2004 study

Figure (4)
Analysis of the model of the previous study in 2004 after the re-application in 2013

73

Vol.3, No.11, 2013

www.iiste.org

References:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

Balogun, J. and Hailey , V. P. ( 2004 ) Exploring Strategic Change , Harlow , England , Prentice Hall
Barnes, Stuart (ed.) ( 2002 ) Knowledge Management Systems : Theory and Practice , London , Thomson
Learning
Bhatt , G. D. ( 2001 ) Knowledge Management in Organizations : Examining the Interaction Between
Technologies , Techniques , and People , Journal of Knowledge Management , 5 ( 1 ) pp. 68 – 75
Capshaw , S. and Frappaolo , C. ( 1999 ) Knowledge Management Software : Capturing the Essence of
Know – How and Innovation , The Information Management Journal , July , pp. 16 – 25
Coakes, Elayne (ed.) ( 2003 ) knowledge Management : Current Issues and Challenges , U.S.A. , Idea
Group Publishing
Cullen , J. B. and Parboteeah K. P. ( 2005 ) Multinational Management ,
Earl , M. J. ( 1998 ) Information Management , New York , Oxford University Press
Fearnley, P. and Horder, M. (1997) what is Knowledge Management? Knowledge Management in the Oil
and Gas Industry , London Conference Proceedings Notes
Gartner Group ( 1998 ) 21st Century Vision , Information Strategy , 3 ( 9 )
Griffiths , E. ( 1997 ) Knowledge Management for Global Operations and its Impact , Oil and Gas Industry
, February 13 , pp. 61 – 70
Hiebeler , R. ( 1996 ) Benchmarking Knowledge Management , Strategy and Leadership , 24 ( 2 ) p. 22
Hijazi, Haitham A. (2004) Measuring the Effect of the Perception of Knowledge Management on its
Utilization in the Jordanian Organizations: A Comparative Analytical Study Covers Public and Private
Sectors towards Building a Model for Utilizing Knowledge Management, Ph. D. dissertation, Amman Arab
University for Graduate Studies, Amman, Jordan
Kothuri , Smita ( 2002 ) Knowledge in Organizations : Definition , Creation and Harvesting ,
www.gse.harvard.edu , Retrieved March 18 , 2004
Little , Stephen , Quintas , Paul and Ray , Tim (ed.) ( 2002 ) Managing Knowledge : An Essential Reader ,
London , Sage Publications
Marquardt , Michael J. ( 2002 ) Building the Learning Organization : Mastering the 5 Elements for
Corporate Learning , U.S.A. , Davis – Black publishing Company
Marshall , C. , Prusak , L. and Shpilberg , D. ( 1996 ) Financial Risk and the Need for Superior Knowledge
Management , California Management Review , 38 ( 3 ) pp. 77 – 101
Myers , Paul S. ( 2004 ) Making the Business Case for Knowledge Management , www.Yahoo.com ,
Retrieved July 7 , 2004
Nonaka , Ikujiro and Takeuchi , Hirotaka ( 1995 ) The Knowledge Creating Company : How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , New York , Oxford university Press
Nonaka, Ikujiro and Takeuchi, Hirotaka (2004) Hitotsubashi on Knowledge Management, Singapore, John
Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.
Nonaka , Ikujiro ( 1998 ) The Knowledge – Creating Company , Harvard Business Review on Knowledge
Management , U.S.A. , Harvard Business School Press
Pan , S. L. and Scarbrough , H. ( 1998 ) A Socio – technical View of Knowledge – Sharing at Buckman
Laboratories , Journal of Knowledge management , 2 ( 1 ) p. 55
Puccinelli , B. ( 1998 ) Strategies for Sharing Knowledge , Inform , 12 ( 9 ) pp. 40 - 41
Stettner , Morey ( 2000 ) Skills for New Managers , U.S.A. , McGraw – Hill
Szualnski , G. ( 1996 ) Exploring Internal Stickiness : Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within
the Firm , Strategic Management Journal , 17 , pp. 27 – 43
Warner , M. and Witzel , M. ( 2004 ) Managing in Virtual Organizations , Australia , Thomson
Wickham , P. A. ( 2001 ) Strategic Entrepreneurship , Harlow , England , Prentice Hall
Wiig , Karl M. ( 1993 ) Knowledge Management Foundations : Thinking About Thinking / How People
and Organizations Create , Represent and Use Knowledge , U.S.A. , Schema Press
Wiig, Karl M. ( 1994 ) Knowledge Management : the Central Management Focus for Intelligent Acting
Organization , U.S.A. , Schema Press
Zerega , B. ( 1998 ) Art of Knowledge Management , Infoworld , July 27 , p. 61
Zmud, R. W. (ed.) (2000) Framing the Domain of IT Management: Projecting the Future through the Past,
Ohio, Pinnflex educational resources, Inc.

74

This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science,
Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access
Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is
Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.
More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTE’s homepage:
http://www.iiste.org
CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS
The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and
collaborating with academic institutions around the world. There’s no deadline for
submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission
instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/
The IISTE
editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified submissions in a
fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the
world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from
gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the journals is also available
upon request of readers and authors.
MORE RESOURCES
Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/
Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/
IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners
EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open
Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial
Library , NewJour, Google Scholar

Measuring the effect of the perception of knowledge management on its utilization in public sector in jordan

More Related Content

What's hot (8)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Measuring the effect of the perception of knowledge management on its utilization in public sector in jordan (20)

More from Alexander Decker (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Measuring the effect of the perception of knowledge management on its utilization in public sector in jordan