University of WollongongResearch Online

Faculty of Business - Papers Faculty of Business

2018

Designing a knowledge management system forsocial services not-for-profit organisationsPeter R. MassinghamUniversity of Wollongong, peterm@uow.edu.au

Rada MassinghamWestern Sydney University, rkm722@uowmail.edu.au

Alan A. PomeringUniversity of Wollongong, alanp@uow.edu.au

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library:research-pubs@uow.edu.au

Publication DetailsMassingham, P., Massingham, R. & Pomering, A. (2018). Designing a knowledge management system for social services not-for-profitorganisations. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 14 (3), 69-81.

Designing a knowledge management system for social services not-for-profit organisations

AbstractThis article discusses knowledge management system design for SSNFPOs. The transfer of best practiceknowledge management to SSNFPOs is not easy. SSNFPOs have different strategies and ways of doingbusiness compared to 'for-profit' organisations. Sector reforms in disability services, aged care, and childservices in Australia threaten to disrupt social value as new for-profit rivals enter and pursue economic value.In response, the case study organisation (CSO) has been working with the research team to consider howknowledge management might help it become a stronger organisation and ensure its survival and growth inthe reformed sector. The research was informed by discussions involving the CSO's management and theresearch team over an 18 month period. A general framework for designing knowledge management forSSNFPOs was developed. It involves six theoretical platforms, along with problems associated with theoryand practice, how knowledge management may address these problems, and measures of impact.

DisciplinesBusiness

Publication DetailsMassingham, P., Massingham, R. & Pomering, A. (2018). Designing a knowledge management system forsocial services not-for-profit organisations. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 14 (3), 69-81.

This journal article is available at Research Online: https://ro.uow.edu.au/buspapers/1512

DOI: 10.4018/IJKM.2018070105

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

Copyright©2018,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

69

Designing a Knowledge Management System for Social Services Not-For-Profit OrganisationsPeter Massingham, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

Rada Massingham, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia

Alan Pomering, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

ABSTRACT

Thisarticlediscussesknowledgemanagement systemdesign forSSNFPOs.The transferofbestpracticeknowledgemanagementtoSSNFPOsisnoteasy.SSNFPOshavedifferentstrategiesandwaysofdoingbusinesscomparedto‘for-profit’organisations.Sectorreformsindisabilityservices,agedcare,andchildservicesinAustraliathreatentodisruptsocialvalueasnewfor-profitrivalsenterandpursueeconomicvalue.Inresponse,thecasestudyorganisation(CSO)hasbeenworkingwiththeresearchteamtoconsiderhowknowledgemanagementmighthelpitbecomeastrongerorganisationandensureitssurvivalandgrowthinthereformedsector.TheresearchwasinformedbydiscussionsinvolvingtheCSO’smanagementandtheresearchteamoveran18monthperiod.AgeneralframeworkfordesigningknowledgemanagementforSSNFPOswasdeveloped.Itinvolvessixtheoreticalplatforms,alongwithproblemsassociatedwiththeoryandpractice,howknowledgemanagementmayaddresstheseproblems,andmeasuresofimpact.

KeywORDSKnowledge Management System Design, Knowledge Management, Not-For-Profit Organisations, Social Care Services

INTRODUCTION

Thispaperexaminesthedesignofaknowledgemanagement(KM)systeminasocialservice,not-for-profitorganisation(SSNFPO)inAustralia.PreviousresearchhasfoundthatSSNFPOsoftendeveloptheirowndefinitionsofwhatKMmeansfortheirorganisationandadoptacustomisedapproach(HumeandHume,2008).TheinterestingchallengeindesigningaKMsystemforSSNFPOsisthedifferenceinstrategybetweenthemandfor-profitorganisations(BontisandSerenko,2009).Whereasfor-profitsseeKMasthecauseofinter-firmdifferencesinperformanceandprofitability(e.g.seeMouritsen et al., 2001)., social enterprises see KM as helping achieve additional organisationalpriorities, particularly the sharingof best practice, advancing thebodyof knowledge associatedwithbetterqualitysocialcare,andsocietalbenefits(e.g.seeGuldbergetal.,2013).SSNFPOsarealsoincreasinglytryingtocorporatize;whichisbeingdrivenbychangesinthehybridityoftheirmission,requiringthemtobeaccountabletodeliverbothfinancialandsocialresults(BattilanaandLee,2014).ThispaperwillpresentconceptualideasabouttheimpactofthesechangesonSSNFPOs’KMintermsoftheirstrategyandimplementation.

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

70

SSNFPOsareorganisations that tackle social problems, improve communities, people’s lifechances,ortheenvironment(Granadosetal.,2017).Thereisanincreasingneedformoreresearchtounderstandthecharacteristicsoftheseorganizationsandthedifferentstrategiesusedtomaximisetheir socialandenvironmental impact (Granadosetal.,2017).Researchhas revealed that socialenterpriseshaveamulti-bottomlinecoveringeconomic,environmentalandsocialgoals;amultiplestakeholderdimension;andabroadfinancialperspectivetofocusonsustainability(Villeneuve-Smith,2011).However,thiscreatestensionbetweensocialandeconomicmissionswhichSSNFPOshaveaddressedwithuniquevalues, identity, resourceallocation,decision-makingandmanagementofcapabilities(Stevensetal.,2015).Theirapproachtovaluecreationfocusesonsustainablesolutionsrather than sustainable advantages; which they try to do by empowering others (internally andexternally),asopposedtothemoretraditionalapproachofscientificmanagement(complianceandcontrol)(Santos,2012).

SSNFPOs,therefore,presentadifferentwayofdoingbusiness.Distinguishingcharacteristicsof charities, for example, include staffing profile (more volunteers than paid workers) and theirsourcesofrevenue(moredonationthanfee-based)(KilbourneandMarshall,2005).Thismakesthemvulnerabletoeconomiccycles,andalsolessabletoinvestinknowledgemanagement(GreenawayandVuong,2010).Directlyapplyingfor-profitKMprinciplestotheSSNFPOcontextisnoteasy(Humeetal.,2012),andnotnecessarilyappropriate.Failing toaddress thesedifferencesmayadverselyaffecttheoryandpractice(GreenawayandVuong,2010).PreviousresearchhasfoundthatsocialenterpriseKMoftenfocusesondevelopingasenseofcommunity,e.g.connectingteamswithotherswhohavefacedsimilartasksorprojects;andlessontechnologyorstrategy(Ragsdelletal.,2014).Socialenterprisesrelyupontheexperienceandskillsoftheirstaffandvolunteerstodelivertheirservicesorproductsratherthantangibleassets,suchastechnology(Lettierietal.,2004).ThatKMsystemdesignforSSNFPOs,therefore,mayrequireaperson-centredapproachtoKM.TheseissuesareexploredinanexploratorycasestudywhichdevelopsconceptualideassurroundingKMdesignfornot-for-profitorganisations.Thepapercontinueswithabriefliteraturereview;followedbythestudycontext–casestudyorganisation,problemconceptualisation,andmethodology;thentheresultsanddiscussion;andaconclusion.

OVeRVIew OF KNOwLeDGe MANAGeMeNT

Knowledgemanagement(KM)maybedefinedascombiningorganizationalandtechnicalsolutionstoachievethegoalsofknowledgeretentionandreuseinordertoimproveindividualandorganizationallearning (Jennex, 2007). KM system design may be distinguished in terms of strategy andimplementation.StrategyfocusesonKMgoalsanditsvaluefororganizations.ThegoalsforKMareto“identifycriticalorganizationalknowledgeassets,acquirethoseassetsinanaccessiblerepository,establishmechanismsforsharingtheassetsamongorganizationalworkers,applytheappropriateknowledge to specific decision domains, determine the effectiveness of knowledge application,andadjustknowledgeartifactstoimprovetheireffectiveness”(Jennexetal.,2016).Thedifferenceinstrategybetweenfor-profitsandSSNFPOsmeansthattheirknowledgerequirementsmaydifferGreenawayandVuong, (2010).For example, charitiesmay focusonvolunteers’ “miscellaneousknowledge”(Lettierietal.,2004,p.25)whilefor-profitfirmsmayfocusondeclarative,proceduralorcausalknowledge(Zack,1999).Therefore,SSNFPOs’KMgoalsmaydifferintermsofcriticalknowledgeassets,whichwilltheninfluencetheotherKMgoals.

Organizations create KM systems to support their KM initiatives (Jennex et al., 2016).Implementation is improvedbyKMsystemdesign thatenablesknowledgeworkers toaccess itsorganizationalmemory(i.e.structuralcapital),and touse thatknowledge tocreatevaluefor theorganisation.OrganisationalmemoryisparticularlyimportantinSSNFPOs.Forexample,volunteerturnoverincharitiescreateorganizationalmemorylosswhichmaycauserepeatmistakes(GreenawayandVuong,2010).KMimplementationmaycreatevaluebyimprovingprocessesandprocedures,

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

71

betterapplicationofknowledgeacrossfunctionalareas,andbetterbusinessperformance(Jennexetal.,2016).KMinitiativesmayaddressspecificproblemsforSSNFPOs,suchasknowledgeloss,throughretention,creatingandacquiringnewknowledge,andimprovingtheconnectionsbetweenpaidstaff(GreenawayandVuong,2010).

SSNFPOs typically have limited finances which constrains their ability to invest in KMS(GreenawayandVuong,2010).Therefore,KMsystemsneedtobecarefullydesignedandimplementedwithaclearviewofwhatconstitutessuccesstoensurethatSSNFPOsreceiveasatisfactoryreturnontheirinvestment.Jennexetal.,(2016)arguetheimportancemeasuringKMperformanceintermsofprocessesandoutcomescriticalsuccessfactors(CSFs).ThesemaybeincludedinKMsystemdesignbyintegratingknowledgeintoorganizationalprocesses;andalsousedaskeyperformanceindicators(KPIs)forassessingtheoutcomesassociatedwithKMinitiatives(Jennexetal.,2016).However,assessingorganizationalperformanceisachallengeforSSNFPOs,asvalueisoutcomes-focused,i.e.servicedelivery,andnotfinancially-focused(Hatry,2007).

THe CASe STUDy ORGANISATION

TheorganisationchosenforthiscasestudyisanAustralianSSNFPO.TheSSNFPOisaregisteredcharityandsocialenterprisewhichprovidesservicesfordisadvantagedcommunities,includingagedcare.Thecasestudyorganisation(CSO)isoperatinginachangingandincreasinglycompetitivemarketplace.AgedcareinAustraliaisundergoingreformstoensurethesystemcanbesustainableandaffordable(https://agedcare.health.gov.au).Themainchangesaretheintroductionofasinglequality frameworkandamove towardsconsumer-directedcare.The reformsaim togivepeoplegreaterchoice,recognisingmostpeoplewanttostayindependent,andcarewillbebasedonneedsand flexibility. In response, theCSOhasbeenworkingwith the research team to consider howknowledgemanagementmighthelpitbecomeastrongerorganisationandensureitssurvivalandgrowthinthereformedsector.

PROBLeM CONCePTUALISATION

The main problem in designing implementation for the CSO’s KM system is debate over whatconstitutessocialcareknowledge.Theknowledgeofsocialcaremaybedescribedintermsofthreeinter-relatedtypes:theoreticalknowledge(fromstudyandresearch),factualknowledge(abouttheclientorcase),andpracticeknowledge(abouthowtodelivercareorserviceseffectively(Trevithick,2008).However,thereisdebateaboutwhichknowledgeismorevaluable,andhowtomanagetheseresourcestoarriveatadecisionaboutpractice(Trevithick,2008).Socialserviceinvolvinghealthcare,suchasagedcare,tendstofocusonclinicalgovernance,whichintegratestheactivitieswhichmayimpactpatientcare(BloiceandBurnett,2016).

KMsystemimplementationmaydelivervaluefortheCSOby(a)developingsocialcapitalleadingtodifferentiationasaSSNFPO;(b)designingastructureandculturewhichensuresimproveddecisionmaking, collective ways of thinking, and positive work behaviours, e.g. teamwork, cooperation,collaboration;and(c)reducingcostandimprovingworkperformancebystandardisingbestpractice(particularlybackoffice)and(d)embeddingknowledgemanagementintohighvaluecreatingactivitiestoimproveoperationalefficiency.

MeTHODOLOGy

Thisstudyadoptedanactionresearch(AR)methodology.ARisnowawell-documentedandwell-acceptedresearchmethodology(Hearnetal.2008;Massingham,2015).ARisappliedresearchinwhichtheprimarygoalistofacilitatesocialchangeorbringaboutvalueorientedpolitical-socialgoal

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

72

(Neuman2006,p.28).TheresearchersworkedwithpractitionerstodesignaknowledgemanagementsystemthatwouldimprovetheSSNFPO’sperformanceandservicedelivery.Themethodinvolvedregular interaction between an expert(s) and an analyst(s); where the expert was the SSNFPOpractitionersandtheanalystwastheresearchers.

GavrilovaandAndreeva,(2012)distinguish‘passive’and‘active’methodsfromtheperspectiveofthelevelofinvolvementofananalystascomparedtotheeffortsofanexpert.Threecategoriesofmethodsareidentified:(1)active(analyst-leading)wheretheanalystelicitsknowledgefromtheexpertwithspeciallypreparedquestions(e.g.surveyresearch);(2)passive(expert-leading)wheretheexpertishighlyengagedandtheanalyst’sinvolvementisverylimited(e.g.observation/listeningfollowedbyanalysis);(3)active-passivewheretheexpertandanalystworkcloselytogetheraspartnerstofindsolutions(e.g.researchinterventions)(GavrilovaandAndreeva,2012).

The studyused expert-leading collectivemethods (i.e. passive).Collectivemethods includeround-tableandbrainstorming.Thisstudycombinedbothmethods.Theround-tablemethodinvolvesdiscussionofatopicbyanumberofexperts(typicallythreetoseven),eachgivenequalopportunityto engage, which helps achieve action research’s goals of democracy and participation. Thebrainstormingmethodfacilitatesnewideas,withoutcritique,inordertostimulatecreativethinking,(GavrilovaandAndreeva,2012).Thestudyusedbrainstorminginaround-tablesettingtoallowtheSSNFPOpractitionerstoexploretheirunderstandingofknowledgemanagementandwhatitmightoffertheirorganisation.Theresearchersadoptedapassiverolebyprovidinginformationoncurrentbestpracticeandcontributinganswerstoquestionswhenrequired.ThiswasdoneintentionallytoengagethepractitionersinthediscussionandtorespectthefactthatSSNFPOshaveadifferentwayofdoingbusinesscomparedwithfor-profits.Inthisway,thepassiveround-tablebrainstormingmethodenabledtheresearcherstocreatenewideasaboutknowledgemanagementwithinaSSNFPOsettingbyallowingthepractitionerstoworkoutforthemselveshowknowledgemanagementcouldworkforthem.Theoutcomeof18monthsofthesediscussionsissummarisedinthispaper.

Thediscussionsledtothefollowingresults,discussionandconceptualoutcomes(Figure1)inthisway.First,wesoughttounderstandwhatwasdrivingtheSSNFPO’s(casestudyorganisation)interestinKM.Thediscussionsrevealedadesiretocorporatizeandembracebestpracticeassociatedwithfor-profits.Theforcesforchangewereaneedtoincreasecustomervaluewhilealsomanagingcosts.Atthispoint,thedualisticstrategiesofsocialresponsibilityandcostreductionemerged.Second,we discussed how KM might help the SSNFPO achieve this dual strategy. These conversationsrevealedbarrierstochangeincludingproblemswithculture,governance,andproductivity;aswellasanaversiontocompetition.Third,weexaminedhowKMmightaddresstheseissuesandhelpimplementthestrategy.

ReSULTS AND DISCUSSION

Social ResponsibilityThecontemporarymovetowardmarketingsustainabilityisdrivenbyclientsnolongerchoosingbrandsonfunctionalandemotionalgroundsonly,butalsoonhowcompaniesmeettheirsocialresponsibilities(Pomering,2017).Thishasincreasedthecomplexityofmarketingstrategynecessarytoensurethecreationofeconomicvalueandalsosocialvalue(Layton,2016).

SSNFPOsarefocusedontheirclientsandthedesiretoprovidequalitysocialcaredriveseverypart of their business model. However, the hybrid mission of SSNFPOs highlights fundamentaldifferencesinapproachtomarketingbetweenthemandfor-profitorganisations.ThetensionemergesbecauseSSNFPOsdonotfocusmuchoneconomicvalue,e.g.profit,andinsteadinterpretmarketingascreatingsocialvalue.Theyalsodonotfocusonthecompetitiveaspectsofthemarketingmix,i.e.persuadingclientstochoosetheminsteadofrivals.Theytendtoassumetheirclientsneedthem,andfocusonservicedelivery,i.e.howtogivethemqualitycare.

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

73

TheroleofKMistohelptheCSOimplementitssocialresponsibilitymarketingstrategywithinitschangingmarketenvironment.ThefirststepwastopersuadetheCSOthatitneededtofocusmoreoneconomicvalue.ThiswasaKMissuebecauseitinvolvedincreasingtheCSO’sknowledgeofthechangingexternalenvironment.ThisknowledgerequiredtheCSOtoreallyunderstandtheirclients.TheGovernment’sreformagendaaimedtogiveclientsmorechoiceandflexibility.ThisempowermentofvulnerablepeoplemeanttheCSOcouldnolongerrelyuponattractingclientssimplybecausetheyneededsocialcare.TheCSOwouldneedtocompeteforclients.ThisintroducedtwoopportunitiesforKMtohaveimpact.Thefirstopportunityismarketintelligence.Thisalignswithpreviousresearchontheroleofknowledgemanagementinmarketing(e.g.,Darroch&McNaughton,2002),whichfocusonknowledgeasinformingdecision-makerswhenmakingchoicesassociatedwithmarketingstrategy.TheimpactistouseKMtogatherusefulinformationaboutthevaluepropositionofferedbytheCSOandclients’buyingbehaviour.Thisisaboutknowledgeasaresource.Thesecondopportunityistousethisinformationtodesignco-creationofvalueforclients.TheCSOneededtodevelopmarketingprofessionalsabletomanagethecognitiveprocessesassociatedwiththebroaderstrategy,structure,andcultureoftheirorganizationtohelpthemfindmeaning,andmakegoodmarketingmixdecisions.ThisisaboutKMasacapability.

ThesecondstepwastodevelopconsensusaboutthecorporateidentityoftheCSOwithsocialresponsibilityastheirmarketingstrategy.ThiswasaKMissuebecauseitinvolveddevelopingsharedmentalmodelsandlearningaboutthehybridstrategyofeconomicandsocialvalue.PreviousresearchhasnotadequatelyaddressedcontemporaryviewsofmarketingwithinSSNFPOsasprofessionalpractice.Thisinvolvescognitiveprocessesofproblem-framingandproblem-solvingbasedontheindividual’stheoryofpractice.ThechangingmarketwillcreateconfusionaboutstrategyandrolesamongsttheCSOstaff.KM’sroleistoexaminethejudgment,i.e.cognitiveskills,necessaryforhandlingcomplexity,uncertainty,andvalue-conflictwhenengagingpeopleandproblemsassociatedwithanewhybridmarketingstrategy.ItenablestheCSOtodevelopinternalmarketingcapability(e.g.seeHumeandHume,2015).

Competitive AdvantageTheknowledgeeconomyisaconceptdevelopedbyBell(1973)andpopularizedbyDrucker(1988,1999)whichexplainshowknowledgeisthemaindriverofeconomicvalue.SSNFPOsfocusonsocialvalue(Santos,2012)may,therefore,maybecynicalabouttheclaimsmadebyKM,particularlyabouthowitcreateseconomicvalue.

TheroleofKMistohelptheCSOunderstandthevalueofitsknowledgeresourcesandhowKMmayhelpitcompeteinachangingmarketenvironmente.g.theintroductionoffor-profitrivals.Thefirststepistoidentifyvaluableresources.Itisimportanttoassesshowknowledgeaffectsactivitieswhichmayimpactonpatientcare(BloiceandBurnett,2016).ThesolutionistocombinetheVRINcriteriaforsustainablecompetitiveadvantagewiththeknowledgeaccountsmodel(Massingham,2016)tomeasurethevalueoftheCSO’sknowledgeresourcesagainstthethreesocialcaredimensionse.g.theoreticalknowledge,factualknowledge,andpracticeknowledge.TheVRINcriteriaisfourtestsofcompetitivepower: is theresourceorcapabilitycompetitivelyvaluable,rare-somethingrivalslack,hardtocopy—inimitable,invulnerabletothethreatofsubstitution—non-substitutable(Thompsonetal,2016).

ThesecondstepistohelptheCSOseethevalueofknowledgemanagement.ThismeansaddressingthethreemaincriticismsofKM:(1)knowledgecannotbeseparatedfromtheknower,(2)KMistoodifficult,and(3)lackofevidencebetweenKMandorganizationalperformance(Massingham,2016).ThewaytoaddresstheseconcernsforSSNFPOsistoexplainhowKMisthenextstepinthegapleftbyevidence-informedpractice(LeeandAustin,2012).Thisgapishowtheoreticalknowledge,e.g.KMbestpractice,mightcombinewithexperientialknowledge,evidence-informedpractice,todevelopnewknowledge.ThefocusistoexplainhowKMcontributestotheCSO’ssocialcare.

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

74

Cultural ChangeAsstatedearlier,oneofthegoalsofKMistoimproveindividualandorganizationallearning(Jennex,2007).Organisationallearningcreatesvaluebyincreasingknowledgeresources,generatingcreativityandinnovation,continuousimprovement,andenablingskilfulknowingattheindividual,group,andorganisationallevels.Viewsaboutlearningarepresentedbythefieldsofbehaviourism,cognitivepsychology,andsocialconstructivism.Therearedifferentperspectivesabouthoworganisationalculturemayimprovelearning.Behaviourismisbasedonstimulus-responsemodels(Gutherie,1935).Itisaboutrewardandrecognition.Cognitivepsychologyseeslearningaschangesinstatesofknowledge(Bruneretal,1956).Itisaboutintrinsicrewardsandself-ledteams.Socialconstructivismseeslearningaseasiertodobyobservingandinteractingwithothers(Bandura,1977).Itisaboutsocialcapital.

Thelearningorganisationisanaspirationalbusinessmodeldescribinganentitythatlearnsfromexperience,respondstochange,andgrowsitsknowledgeresources(MassinghamandDiment,2009).PreviousresearchhasfoundthatSSNFPOsuseKMtodevelopasenseofcommunity(Ragsdell,etal.,2014),andtheyrelyupontheexperienceandskillsoftheirstafftodelivertheirservices(Lettierietal.,2004).However,SSNFPOsmayrejectthelearningorganisationiftheyhaveacompliance-basedculture.Thisrejectionmayoccurduetotheculturegeneratingriskavoidancebehaviouranddependenceonclinicalgovernance.These factors representbarriers to the learningorganisationprinciplesofempowerment,creativity,andinnovation.Compliance-basedculturesrequirepeopletofollowtherulesratherthanchallengethem.

TheroleofKMistoexaminewhetherthelearningorganisationcanbeimplementedbyculturalchange,anddeliver thebenefits itpromisesintermsofpositiveworkbehaviourse.g. teamwork,collaboration,andcooperation,andimprovedorganizationallearning.ThefirststepistoexaminetheCSO’sexistingcultureintermsofbehaviourism,cognitivepsychology,andsocialconstructivismto establish alignment with learning organization characteristics. The second step is to designandimplementstrategiestoimprovetheCSO’slearningorganisationperformance.TheCSOisacompliance-basedorganisation.Itwantstochangetobecomeanemployee-ledorganisation.Thisrequiresculturalchangefocusedonempoweringemployees.However, thisisdifficultwithinthecontextofthenatureoftheirwork.Socialcarecarriesgreatresponsibility,particularlywhendealingwithvulnerableclients,andtheconsequencesofmistakesareserious.Thetensionbetweencomplianceandempowermentmayberesolvedbyusingthelearningorganisationtointroduceculturalchangedesignedtoimproveemployees’emotionalrelationshipwiththeorganisation.

Performance ImprovementThecodificationandpersonalizationviewsofKMprovidecontrastingideasabouthowKMmayimproveperformance.Thecodificationviewproposesthattheunskilfulindividualwilluseinformationtechnologytoidentifyandthenuseknowledgewhichhasbeencapturedbytheirorganizationtohelpthembecomeskilful(e.g.seeKearnsandLederer2003).ThepersonalizationviewofKMproposesthatthisindividualwillworkitoutforthemselves,i.e.learnbydoing,orseekhelpfromothers(Gardner,2012).Researchershaverecognisedtheshiftfromtechnology(codification)towardssocialization(personalization)(e.g.seeBerry,2015).

TheshifttowardsthepersonalisationviewofKMshouldsuitSSNFPOsbecausetheywanttoempowerstaff.However,thisapproachcanbeinefficientbecauseoflostproductivitywhileemployeestaketimetobecomeskilfulknowers.SSNFPOstaffareoftenverygoodattheirjobs.However,staffmayalsobeworkinginjobsthatrequirerelativelylowskilllevelswithlowpay.Asaresult,stafftendtofollowtherulesastheyareneithersuitablyskilledorpaidtotakeresponsibilityforcreatingnewpractices.The changingnatureof theCSO’smarketmeans that itwill need to improve itsperformanceifitistosurvivecompetitionfromnewfor-profitrivals.Thiscreatesatensionbetweentheinefficiencyinthepersonalisationapproachandtheneedforimprovedperformance.Staffwillbeempoweredtodiscovernewpractices,whichwillchallengethemtolearnnewknowledge,whichwilltaketime.Thisstudydistinguishedbetweencomplextasksrequiringtacitknowledge,androutinetasksrequiringtechnicalknowledge(NonakaandTakeuchi,1995).Thisrecognisesthatthereare

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

75

taskswhichmaybestandardisedanddonebyfollowingbestpractice(routine),andthosethatarecontext-specificandmaybeachievedviamultiplebestpractices(complex).Routinetasksarecoveredinthenextsectiononcostreduction.Theinefficienciesincomplextaskswereaddressedbyprocesscentredknowledgemanagement.

TheroleofKMistouseleanthinkingtoexplorehowskillfulknowingwillreduceoreliminatewasteandincreaseefficiencyinworkflow.Itassumesthatunskillfulknowingcreateswastebecausetheindividuallacksknow-whatorknow-howknowledge(e.g.seeEdmondsonetal.,2003),andthiscausesdelays.KMmayimproveefficiencywithintheprocessbyenablingskillfulknowinginminimumtime.Thefirststepistoidentifyproblemprocesses.ThesearecomplextasksattheCSOwherethereisanunsatisfactorylevelofemployeeswithunskillfulknowing.Thecontext-specificnatureofthesetasksmeansthattransferringasinglebestpractice,e.g.bystafftraining,isineffective.Therefore,eachproblemprocesshastobeexaminedindividually.Thesecondstepistoexaminewhythesetaskshavewastepointsusingprocesscentredknowledgemanagement’sviewoftheoperationalcoreofknowledge:workflowexecution,informationprocessing,motivation,anddecisionmaking(RaghuandVinze,2007);withinthecontextofthetasksinperformingabusinessprocess.Thisidentifiesthenatureofthewastepoint.Complextaskshavewastepointsduetolearningbydoingtime.Thesituationalcontext,i.e.multiplebestpractices,meansthatstaffcannotrelyuponcodifiedknowledgeasinroutinetasks,andoftenhavetoworkitoutforthemselvesorapplytacitknowledgefromotherstotheirsituation.ThethirdstepistodesignKMsolutionsandembedthemintotheproblemprocess(Massingham, andAl-Holaibi, 2017).The appropriateKMsolution is determinedby thenatureofthewastepoint(step2)andisthensituatedwithinthetaskasacoreactivity(Massingham,andAl-Holaibi,2017),sothatindividualscaptureanduseknowledgeaspartoftheirnormalwork(HanandPark,2009).

Cost ReductionKMmayreducecostsbycapturingbestpracticeandsharingthisknowledgetoimproveefficiency.Thisefficiencyisgeneratedbyincreasedproductivityasstaffspendlesstimelearningbydoing,searching for knowledge, and rectifying mistakes or poor-quality work. Process management istypicallyusedbyorganisationstoimproveperformance,includingproductivity(Becerra-FernandezandSabherwal,2010).KMcontributestoprocessmanagementviasystems,technologiesandtoolswhichenableknowledge tobecaptured,stored,andshared tobenefit theorganization(Becerra-FernandezandSabherwal,2010).Workflowmanagementsystems(WMS)areatooltypicallyusedforback-officeintegrationprocesses(vanderAalstandVanHee,2002).WMSmapsprocessesandimplementsbestpractices.WMSismosteffectiveinworkthatisroutineandstandardized.Therefore,itsuitsworkthatbenefitsfromspecializationoftaskinthesensethatrepetitionleadstoimprovementandrefinementand,eventually,asinglebestpractice.

TheroleKMistouseprocesscentredknowledgemanagementforroutinetasksrequiringcodifiedknowledgeattheactofdoing.Itassumesthatunskillfulknowingcreateswasteduetounproductiveworke.g.highsupervisioncosts,redoingunsatisfactorywork,fixingmistakes.Thesesunksalarycostsmaybesignificantduetothehighvolumeofroutinetasks.KMmayreducecostsbyreducingwasteinroutinetasks.Itdoesthisintwoways.Thefirststepistoidentify,capture,store,andsharebestpractice.Thesecondstep is toensurebestpractice ismaintainedbyusingITforfacilitatedcollaboration.TheCSOfeltthatITwasthebestwaytocollaborateinroutinetasks.Recentresearchexplainedthat‘themainroleofnewinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICTs),suchasWeb2.0/3.0,collaborativetechnologies2.0,socialnetworkingtools,wikis,internalblogging,istohelppeopleshareknowledgethroughcommonplatformsandelectronicstorage’(Soto-AcostaandCegarra-Navarro,2016:417).ThetermKM2.0hasbeencoinedtodescribetheacquisition,creationandsharingofcollectiveintelligencethroughsocialnetworksandcommunitiesofknowledge(SigalaandChalkiti,2014).KMmayfacilitatecollaborationviaKM2.0conceptstoefficientlycapturebestpracticeinroutinetasks,andmaintaintheircurrency(i.e.update).Theoutcomeisthatemployeeshaveaccesstocodifiedknowledgenecessarytocompleteroutinetasksintheactofdoing.

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

76

Risk ManagementOrganizational risk management is typically based on decision tree models, i.e. measuring thelikelihoodandconsequencesoftheriskevent(DeZoysaandRussell,2003).However,thisapproachmaybeineffectiveduetocomplexityandcognitiveconstraints(Massingham,2010).SSNFPOshaveadifferentperspectiveonriskcomparedwithfor-profits.Ratherthanfocusingonrisksassociatedwitheconomicvalue,SSNFPOsfocusonriskstosocialvalue.ThispresentscomplexchallengesfortheCSOduetoitsdependenceonemployeestodeliversocialvaluetoclientsandthenatureofsocialcare.Employeescreateriskduetovariabilityintheirhumancapital.Thesameissueswhichrepresentedbarrierstoknowledgeflowincomplextasksoutlinedinthesectiononperformanceimprovement,i.e.workflowexecution,informationprocessing,motivation,anddecisionmaking–alsoposerisks.Thenatureoftheknowledgenecessarytodeliversocialcare,i.e.-theoreticalknowledge,factualknowledge,andpracticeknowledge(seesectiononcompetitiveadvantage)–alsoposesrisk.Thisriskmayinvolvethenatureoftheknowledgeitself,i.e.itstacitnessorcomplexity,whichmakeitdifficulttoshare(Massingham,2010),thelossofvaluableknowledge(Massingham,2018),andthedifficultyinmanagingthethreattocapability(Massingham,2010).

TheroleofKMistoimproveobjectivityandcognitiveclarityinriskmanagementassociatedwithmanagingcomplextasks(Massingham,2010).KMcanaddressthecomplexityofriskattheCSO,intermsofknowledgeloss,inthreesteps:riskevent,riskexposureandriskresponse(Massingham,2010).Thishasbeenprovedtoaddresstheunderlyingproblemswithtraditionaldecisiontreemodelsbyfocusingriskassessmentontheknowledgenecessarytomanagetheriskevent,ratherthantheactivity(Massingham,2010).Thestepsinvolveidentifiestheriskevent(riskassociatedwithlosingknowledgeinimportantactivities);thelevelofexposure(likelihoodandconsequencesoftheriskoccurring),andtheriskresponse(capacitytofillthegap).Theoutcomeisriskmanagementwhichaddressesthecognitivebias(subjectivity)andcomplexity(environmentaluncertainty)inherentindecisiontreemodels.

Research Implications and RecommendationsFigure1isageneralframeworkforKMforSSNFPOs.TheproblemconceptualisationwasderivedfromtheactionresearchwiththeCSOandframedwithinthefindingsfromtheliteraturereview.TheresearchquestionsemergedfromtheproblemconceptualisationtoverifytheCSO’sinterpretationoftheevidenceforpractice.TheKMimplementationdirectlyaddressestheproblemsandtheresearchquestions.TheoutcomesdefinedthevalueoftheKMsystem’sstrategy(purpose)andimplementation(practice)withinthecontextofclinicalgovernance.

Figure1beginswiththetheoreticalplatformexploredbythispaper.TheframeworkwasdevelopedinresponsetodiscussionswiththeCSOabouthowKMmighthelpitcorporatize.TheCSOwassomewhatscepticalaboutthenatureoftheideaspresentedbyKM,particularlywhetherbestpracticeusedinfor-profitswouldbetransferabletothedifferentenvironmentofSSNFPOs.Thetheoryselected(seelefthand-sideofFigure1)emergedfromthesediscussionsinthesensethatthesesixtopicswerethemainissuesfacingtheCSOandhowKMmighthelpand,therefore,persuadetheCSOthatithasvalue.TheproblemidentificationrecognisesthedifferentnatureofdoingbusinessforSSNFPOscomparedwithfor-profits.ItalsohighlightshowsimplytransferringbestpracticeKMbasedonfor-profitsisdifficult.AswemoveacrossFigure1,evidenceforpracticeexplainsthechallengesKMfacesinpersuadingSSNFPOsthatithasvalue.KM’srolesummariseshowitcanhelpSSNFPOs.StrategyexplainsthepurposenecessaryforKMsystemdesign;whileimplementationexplainsitspractice.Thefinancialandnon-financialimpactmeasuretheoutcomesSSNFPOsmayexpectfromthisKMsystemdesign(e.g.seeJennex&Olfman,2005).Thecausalrelationshipsintheframeworkareexplainedby thearrowson theright-handsideofFigure1.Thefirst threeconstructs (rows)combinetogrowthetopline(i.e.increaserevenues)viavalue,differentiation,andproductivity.Thebottomthreeconstructs(rows)combinetomanagethebottomline(i.e.reducecosts)viaproductivity,performanceimprovement,andgovernance.

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

77

CONCLUSION

Thepapersetouttoexaminethedesignofaknowledgemanagement(KM)systeminasocialservicenot-for-profit organisation (SSNFPO). An underlying assumption is that SSNFPOs are differentfromfor-profitfirms,andthisshouldbetakenintoaccountinKMsystemdesign.TheKMstrategyisinfluencedbythefocusonsocialvalueratherthaneconomicvalue.TheKMimplementationisinfluencedbythenatureofsocialcareandtheknowledgeresourcesnecessarytodeliverthisservice.ThepaperhasdevelopedideasaboutKMsystemsforSSNFPOstryingtocorporatizeinresponsetoincreasedcompetitionfromfor-profits.SSNFPOs’limitedcapacitytoinvestinKM,emphasisestheimportanceofadoptingbestpracticesfromotherSSNFPOs,ratherthantryingtoretrofitmodelsdesignedforotherpurposes(GreenawayandVuong,2010).SSNFPOshaveremarkableabilitiestolearnfromothers(GreenawayandVuong,2010).ThispaperprovidesaplatformforfutureresearchaboutKMsystemdesignforSSNFPOsleadingtogreaterlongtermsectorcapacity.

The paper recognises that SSNFPOs are different from for-profits, and KM system designmustadapt to theirwayofdoingbusiness.Thepaperhasproposed thatKMdesign isgroundedinsixtheoreticaldomains.KMpracticeshouldaddresstheproblemsidentifiedfortheCSO.KMimplementationneedstoadaptKMbestpracticetotheSSNFPObusinessmodelnecessarytoachievethehybridmission,i.e.botheconomicandsocialvalue.Outcomesneedtodeliverpracticalbenefitswithinthecontextofclinicalgovernanceandtheuniquenatureofsocialcareknowledgeresources.ThisresearchwasaqualitativestudythatwasconductedatoneSSNFPO,andthesystemproposedhasnotyetbeenempiricallytested.ItmaybeapplicabletoatypeofSSNFPO,ratherthanallSSNFPOs,i.e.thosethatresemblethecharacteristicsoftheCSO.However,wehopethatallSSNFPOsmightlearnsomethingfromthesystemwhichtheymightapplytotheirorganisationalcontext.ThereareexcitingopportunitiestotesttheideaspresentedinthispaperwithotherSSNFPOs.

Figure 1. General framework of knowledge management for SSNFPOs

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

78

ReFeReNCeS

Bandura,A.(1977).Social Learning Theory.London:Prentice-Hall.

Becerra-Fernandez,I.,&Sabherwal,R.(2010).Knowledge Management: Systems and Processes.Armonk,NY:M.E.Sharpe.

Bell,D.(1973).The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Hammondsworth.Penguin.

Berry,H. (2015).Knowledge inheritance inglobal industries:The impactofparent firmknowledgeon theperformance of foreign subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1438–1458. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0724

Bloice,L.,&Burnett,S.(2016).Barrierstoknowledgesharinginthirdsectorsocialcare:Acasestudy.Journal of Knowledge Management,20(1),125–145.doi:10.1108/JKM-12-2014-0495

Bontis,N.,&Serenko,A.(2009).Acausalmodelofhumancapitalantecedentsandconsequentsinthefinancialservicesindustry.Journal of Intellectual Capital,10(1),53–69.doi:10.1108/14691930910922897

Bruner,J.S.,Goodnow,J.J.,&Austin,G.A.(1956).A Study of Thinking.NewYork:Wiley.

Darroch,J.,&McNaughton,R.(2002).Examiningthelinkbetweenknowledgemanagementpracticesandtypesofinnovation.Journal of Intellectual Capital,3(3),210–222.doi:10.1108/14691930210435570

DeZoysa,S.,&Russell,A.D.(2003).Knowledge-basedriskidentificationininfrastructureprojects.Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,30(3),511–522.doi:10.1139/l03-001

Drucker,P.(1999).Knowledge-workerproductivity:Thebiggestchallenge.California Management Review,41(2),79–94.doi:10.2307/41165987

Drucker, P. F. (1988). The Coming of the New Organization. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management,(January).

Edmondson,A.C.,Winslow,A.B.,Bohmer,R.M.J.,&Pisano,G.P.(2003).Learninghowandlearningwhat:Effectsoftacitandcodifiedknowledgeonperformanceimprovementfollowingtechnologyadoption.Decision Sciences,34(2),197–223.doi:10.1111/1540-5915.02316

Eisenhardt,K.M.,&Graebner,M.E.(2007).Theorybuildingfromcases:Opportunitiesandchallenges.Academy of Management Journal,50(1),25–32.doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24160888

Gardner, H. K. (2012). Performance Pressure as a Double-edged Sword: Enhancing Team Motivationbut Undermining the Use of Team Knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(1), 1–46.doi:10.1177/0001839212446454

Gavrilova,T.,&Andreeva,T.(2012).Knowledgeelicitationtechniquesinaknowledgemanagementcontext.Journal of Knowledge Management,16(4),523–537.doi:10.1108/13673271211246112

Gergen,M.M.,&Gergen,K.J.(2000).Qualitativeinquiry:Tensionsandtransformations.InN.K.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Handbook of Qualitative Research(2nded.,pp.1025–1046).

Gold,A.H.,Malhotra,A.,&Segars,A.H.(2001).Knowledgemanagement:Anorganizationalcapabilitiesperspective.Journal of Management Information Systems,18(1),185–214.doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669

Granados,M.L.,Mohamed,S.,&Hlupic,V.(2017).Knowledgemanagementactivitiesinsocialenterprises:Lessons for small and non-profit firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 376–396. doi:10.1108/JKM-01-2016-0026

Greenaway,K.E.,&Vuong,D.C.H. (2010).TakingCharitiesSeriously:ACall forFocusedKnowledgeManagement Research. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(4), 87–97. doi:10.4018/jkm.2010100105

Guldberg,K.R.,Mackness,J.,Makriyannis,E.,&Tait,C.(2013).Knowledgemanagementandvaluecreationinathirdsectororganisation.Knowledge and Process Management,20(3),113–122.doi:10.1002/kpm.1410

Gutherie,E.R.(1935).The Psychology of Learning.NewYork:HarperandRow.

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

79

Han,K.H.,&Park,J.W.(2009).Process-centeredknowledgemodelandenterpriseontologyforthedevelopmentof knowledge management system. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7441–7447. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.09.031

Hatry,H.P.(2007).Performance Measurement: Getting Results(2nded.).Washington,DC:UrbanInstitute.

Hearn,G.,Tacchi,J.A.,Foth,M.,&Lennie,J.(2009).Action Research and New Media: Concepts, Methods and Cases.Cresskill,NJ:HamptonPress.

Hume,C.,Clarke,P.,&Hume,M.(2012).Theroleofknowledgemanagementinthelargenonprofitfirm:BuildingaframeworkforKMsuccess.International Journal of Organisational Behaviour,17(3),82–104.

Hume,C.,&Hume,M.(2015).Thecriticalroleofinternalmarketinginknowledgemanagementinnot-for-profitorganizations.Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing,27(1),23–47.doi:10.1080/10495142.2014.934567

Jennex,M.,&Olfman,L.(2005).Assessingknowledgemanagementsuccess.International Journal of Knowledge Management,1(2),33–49.doi:10.4018/jkm.2005040104

Jennex,M.,Smolnik,S.,&Croasdell,D.(2016).TheSearchforKnowledgeManagementSuccess.In49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences(pp.4202-4211).IEEEComputerSociety.

Jennex,M.E.(2007).WhatisKnowledgeManagement?InM.E.Jennex(Ed.),Knowledge Management in Modern Organizations(pp.1–9).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-261-9.ch001

Kearns,G.S.,&Lederer,A.L.(2003).AResource-BasedViewofStrategicITAlignment:HowKnowledgeSharingCreatesCompetitiveAdvantage.Decision Sciences,34(2),1–29.doi:10.1111/1540-5915.02289

Kilbourne,W.E.,&Marshall,K.P.(2005).Thetransferofforprofitmarketingtechnologytothenon-for-profitdomain:Fromthetheoryoftechnology.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,13(1),14–25.doi:10.1080/10696679.2005.11658535

Layton,R.(2016).Therecouldbemoretomarketingthanyoumighthavethought!Australasian Journal of Marketing,24(1),2–7.doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.02.001

Lee,C.,&Austin,M.J.(2012).Buildingorganisationalsupportsforknowledgesharingincountyhumanserviceorganisations:Across-caseanalysisofworks-inprogress.Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work,9(1/2),3–18.doi:10.1080/15433714.2012.635473PMID:22409608

Lettieri,E.,Borga,F.,&Savoldelli,A.(2004).Knowledgemanagementinnon-profitorganisations.Journal of Knowledge Management,8(6),16–30.doi:10.1108/13673270410567602

Lincoln,Y.S.,&Guba,E.G.(1989).Fourth Generation Evaluation.UnitedStatesofAmerica:Sage.

March,J.G.,&Shapira,Z. (1987).Managerialperspectivesonriskandrisk taking.Management Science,22(11),1404–1418.doi:10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1404

Massingham,P.(2010).Knowledgeriskmanagement:Aframework.Journal of Knowledge Management,14(3),464–485.doi:10.1108/13673271011050166

Massingham,P.(2015).KnowledgeSharing:whatworks,whatdoesn’tandwhy?:ACriticalSystemsThinkingPerspective.Systemic Practice and Action Research,28(3),197–228.doi:10.1007/s11213-014-9330-3

Massingham, P. (2016). Knowledge Accounts. Long Range Planning, 49(3), 409–425. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2015.02.003

Massingham,P.(2018).MeasuringtheImpactofKnowledgeLoss:AnEmpiricalLongitudinalStudy.Journal of Knowledge Management,22(4),721–758.doi:10.1108/JKM-08-2016-0338

Massingham, P., & Al-Holaibi, M. (2017). Embedding Knowledge Management into Business Processes.Knowledge and Process Management,24(1),53–71.doi:10.1002/kpm.1534

Massingham,P.,&Diment,K.(2009).OrganizationalCommitment,KnowledgeManagementInterventions,andLearningOrganizationCapacity’?The Learning Organization,16(2),122–142.doi:10.1108/09696470910939206

Massingham,P.,&Massingham,R.(2014).DoesKnowledgeManagementProducePracticalOutcomes.Journal of Knowledge Management,18(2),221–254.doi:10.1108/JKM-10-2013-0390

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

80

Mouritsen,J.,Larsen,H.T.,&Bukh,P.(2001).Intellectualcapitalandthe‘capablefirm’:Narrating,visualisingandnumberingformanagingknowledge.Accounting, Organizations and Society,26(7),735–762.doi:10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00022-8

Neuman,W.L.(2006).Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches(6thed.).Boston,MA:Pearson.

Nonaka,I.,&Takeuchi,H.(1995).The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Pomering,A.(2017).MarketingforSustainability:Extendingtheconceptualisationofthemarketingmixtodrivevalueforindividualsandsocietyatlarge.Australasian Journal of Marketing,25(2),157–165.doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.04.011

Raghu,T.S.,&Vinze,A.(2007).AbusinessprocesscontextforKnowledgeManagement.Decision Support Systems,43(3),1062–1079.doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.031

Ragsdell,G.,Espinet,E.O.,&Norris,M.(2014).Knowledgemanagementinthevoluntarysector:Afocusonsharingprojectknow-howandexpertise.Knowledge Management Research and Practice,12(4),351–361.doi:10.1057/kmrp.2013.21

Santos,F.M.(2012).Apositivetheoryofsocialentrepreneurship.Journal of Business Ethics,111(3),335–351.doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4

Sigala,M.,&Chalkiti,K.(2014).InvestigatingtheexploitationofWeb2.0forknowledgemanagementintheGreektourismindustry:Anutilisation-importanceanalysis.Computers in Human Behavior,30(1),800–812.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.032

Soto-Acosta,P.,&Cegarra-Navarro,J.G.(2016).NewICTsforKnowledgeManagementinOrganizations.Journal of Knowledge Management,20(3),417–422.doi:10.1108/JKM-02-2016-0057

Stevens,R.,Moray,N.,&Bruneel,J.(2015).Thesocialandeconomicmissionofsocialenterprises:Dimensions,measurement,validation,andrelation.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,39(5),1051–1082.doi:10.1111/etap.12091

Thompson,A.J.,Jr.,Peteraf,M.A.,Gamble,J.E.,&Strickland,A.J.(Eds.).(2016).Crafting&ExecutingStrategy.TheQuestforCompetitiveAdvantage:Concepts&Cases(20thed.).Irwin,NY:McGraw-Hill.

Trevithick,P.(2008).Revisitingtheknowledgebaseofsocialwork:Aframeworkforpractice.British Journal of Social Work,38(6),1212–1237.doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcm026

VanderAalst,W.,&vanHee,K.(2002).Workflow management: Models, Methods, and Systems.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Villeneuve-Smith,F.(2011).“Fightback Britain”, State of Social Enterprise Survey 2011.London,UK:SocialEnterprise.

Yin,R.K.(2014),Case Study Research: Design and Methods.LosAngeles,CA:SAGE.Retrievedfromhttps://agedcare.health.gov.au/aged-care-reform

International Journal of Knowledge ManagementVolume 14 • Issue 3 • July-September 2018

81

Peter Massingham is from the University of Wollongong’s School of Management, Operations and Marketing within the Faculty of Business. Before joining the University in 1998, he was a management consultant, most recently with KPMG. He works with a range of Australian organisations on their business strategy, particularly focusing on knowledge management. Most recently he has completed a major research projects with the Australian Department of Defence on knowledge loss (2008-2013), Saudi Arabia Government on their research institutes (2008-2012), and a multi-disciplinary team on a project about sharing retirees’ knowledge. He is currently working with a SSNFPO on their knowledge management

Rada Massingham works in the Accounting Discipline within the School of Business at Western Sydney University (Australia), where she is the Academic Course Advisor (International). She is a highly qualified accounting professional and researcher. Her experience has been in senior management positions within Australian industry, including BHP, Vinidex Tubemakers and Integral Energy. She is particularly interested in how accounting theory and practice can be used to help measure knowledge management, and extend existing business models, such as the Balanced Scorecard. Rada has completed her PhD on the Australian construction industry from a critical accounting theory perspective. She is currently working with a SSNFPO on the design of their knowledge management system to improve business processes and measure value.

Alan Pomering works in the research areas of: Marketing, Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and Corporate Marketing. He is internationally published in leading academic journals, business newspapers and magazines, and several international handbooks related to CSR.