International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
32
KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES FOR SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES IN
NIGERIA
Ugwu, Cyprian I (Ph.D), Ekere, J. N. (Ph.D), Ekere, F. C. (Ph.D)
University of Nigeria, Nsukka
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify knowledge processes for successful
knowledge management application and determine the extent of application of these
processes in university libraries in Nigeria. The study adopted a survey research design and
data were collected on 456 librarians in federal university libraries in Nigeria using
questionnaire. The entire population was studied and data collected were analysed using
Mean ( X ) and Standard Deviation (SD). The findings reveal that knowledge identification,
acquisition, organisation or creation and dissemination were carried out to a large extent in
university libraries in Nigeria. It was also found that knowledge creation was carried out to a
low extent in these libraries. The greatest of these knowledge processes being carried out in
the libraries studied was knowledge acquisition. It is therefore recommended that
organisational commitment to knowledge creation should be intensified. The knowledge
creation efforts in the university libraries should focus on creation of databases, reporting of
data analysis in research endeavours, indexing of knowledge of generated in Nigeria
universities and cataloguing of online resources.
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge management (KM) has been defined from different perspectives. It has
been defined as a process or set of processes, as a method of management, and a new
dimension of information management. Taking a process view, White (2004) defined KM as
a process of creating, storing, sharing and re-using organizational knowledge (or know- how)
to enable an organization achieve its goals and objectives. From management perspective,
Shanhong (2000) defined KM as method of management which works for converting
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIBRARY AND
INFORMATION SCIENCE (IJLIS)
ISSN : 2277 – 3533 (Print)
ISSN : 2277 – 3584 (Online)
Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), pp. 32-48
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/IJLIS.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.1389 (Calculated by GISI),
www.jifactor.com
IJLIS
© I A E M E
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
33
intellectual assert of workers and staff members in the organization into higher productive
forces. From business perspective, Shanhong (1999) defined KM as the systematic, explicit
and deliberate building, renewal and application of knowledge to maximize an enterprise’
knowledge related to effectiveness and returns from its knowledge asserts.
In this study, KM is seen as a collection of processes that govern the creation and
transfer of knowledge in an organization. These processes are within the organization and are
capable of being blended systematically with the organization’s internal work processes. In
the library environment, these processes must cover completely what librarians do in a given
area of library service.
Analysis of literature in this area revealed that a number of factors have pushed
libraries to embrace knowledge management. These factors include knowledge-based
economy, technology, budget shortfalls, and user expectation. These factors have provided an
explanation to the proposition that the library is one of the organizations where KM can be
applied to improve services. Besides, KM has also been found to have potentials of providing
opportunities for librarians.
Knowledge management represents an opportunity in that it creates new roles and
responsibilities for libraries and LIS professionals. A study of literature argues that KM
expands the horizon of LIS and offers a number of opportunities for them (Rovi and Snyman,
2006; Southon and Todd, 2001; Townley,2001). This means that a number of job
opportunities with new job titles and positions have emerged from KM. Some of these job
descriptions in a KM environment as compiled by Bishop(2000) include competitive
intelligence leader, knowledge and information manager, intranet content manager,
knowledge management officer, and knowledge coordinator. Also, Skyme and
Amidon(1995) proposed new roles and functions for LIS professionals in a KM environment.
Some of these new roles and functions include knowledge engineer, knowledge editor,
knowledge analysis, knowledge navigators, knowledge gatekeepers, knowledge brokers and
knowledge asset managers. However, some authors have argued that these new roles are
more or less the same as the current job titles and activities of librarians and professionals
(Malhan and Rao, 2005).
Another way of looking at the opportunities for librarians in a knowledge
management environment is by identifying the specific roles for librarians in KM. Rooi and
Snyman(2006) employed a content analysis approach to identify five broad roles for
librarians. These roles include; facilitating an environment conducive to knowledge sharing,
managing the corporate memory, transfer of information management and related skills to
next content that is linked to business processes and core operations, development of
corporate information literacy and friendly management of information in a digital
environment.
Even though KM is too well established in the business world, there is a very positive
feedback toward it among LIS professionals. KM has been recognized in the library
organizations as having much to offer to the management of libraries and to improving
library services as well as changing the status of librarians. LIS professionals are challenged
to be at the centre stage of KM initiatives in their libraries. These initiatives must be anchored
on some identifiable knowledge processes. The knowledge processes identified in this study
are simply the benchmarks for successful KM implementation in university libraries,
especially in developing countries.
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
34
LITERATURE REVIEW
Concept of Knowledge Management
Attempts to define knowledge management have resulted in many divergent views of
the concept. Many disciplines are contributing to both the theory and practice of knowledge
management. Yet a universally acceptable definition of KM appears to be elusive. However,
an understanding of the concept may be achieved through examination of the different
generations and levels of knowledge management.
Mutula and Mooko (2008) identified two generations of knowledge management. The
first generation of KM focused on knowledge capture. This means the capturing of
information and experiences and making them available to the organization. According to
Mutula and Mooko, this generation relied on the capabilities of information technologies.
This generation led firms and companies to see KM as IT systems. These companies invested
so much on IT systems but got very little return on investment. They were therefore pushed
to believe that KM was a buzz word or another management fad. The second generation is
organization and people focused. This generation is concerned with the way knowledge is
created and shared in an organisation. This generation is a shift away from the information
technology dependency and is based on the consideration of the factors within the
organisations that can facilitate knowledge creation and transfer. Organisational learning is a
pre-condition for the success of the knowledge activities in this generation.
Apart from the above generations, KM can be defined in terms of its levels. Sveiby
(2001) cited in Mutula and Mooko (2008) identified three levels of knowledge management,
namely: track level, organization level and individual level. The track level of knowledge has
IT track KM level and the people-track KM level. At the IT-track level, the emphasis is on
information processing. That is information or knowledge is seen as an object that can be
identified and handled in information systems. At the people-track level, emphasis is on
maximizing the abilities of human resources and encouraging them to create knowledge
though some processes. Most importantly, while the IT-track level is concerned with the
management of information, the people-tract level is concerned with the management of
people.
The second level of KM is individual. This level is highly dependent on the third
level, which is organizational. According to Mutula and Mooko (2008), the organisations role
here is to provide conducive environment that will nurture the sharing of knowledge and
allow staff to try new things, which results in new products, new markets or acquiring a
competitive advantage.
The above discussion have put the KM researchers into two groups, namely: those
who believe in technology centred perspective of KM and those who believe in the people
centred perspectives. Those who believe in the technology centred perspective see IT
solutions as the answer to knowledge management problems in an organisation (Silver and
Shakshuki, 2002), whereas the proponents of people centred perspective see IT solutions of
KM as only a small part of an approach to knowledge management within an organisation
(Mutula and Mooko, 2008).
Another way to enhance understanding of KM is to look at it from the analysis of its
different definitions, resulting in two view of KM. They are the process view and project
view of KM. Some researchers took a project view to define knowledge management
(Rowley, 1999; Liebowits, 2000; Branin, 2003). For instance, Rowley (1999),taking a project
view, defined KM as being concerned with the exploitation and development of the
knowledge assets of an organisation with a view to furthering the organisations’ objectives.
Based on this view, Rowley (1999) categorized knowledge management into four broad types
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
35
of perspectives; to create knowledge repositories, which store both knowledge and
information, often in documentary form; to improve knowledge access and transfer with
emphasis on connectivity, access and transfer; to enhance the knowledge environment so that
the environment is conducive to more effective knowledge creation, transfer and use, and
which also involves tackling organisational norms and values as they relate to knowledge;
and to manage knowledge as an asset which also includes recognising the value of knowledge
to an organisation.
The process view was adopted by many researchers to define knowledge management
(Duffy, 2000; Bukowitz and Williams, 1999). For instance, Duffy (2000) defined knowledge
management as a process that drives innovation by capitalising on organisational intellect and
experience. Knowledge management is also defined as a process by which an organisation
generates wealth from its intellectual or knowledge base assets (Bukowitz and Williams,
1999). Holm (2001) also taking a process view defined knowledge management as the
process of getting the right information to the right people at the right time.
Knowledge management can also be defined in term of its dimensions. The dimensions
of knowledge management, according to Brun (2005), include people, process and
technology. People refer to the entire human resources to be motivated and rewarded for
creating, sharing and using knowledge in an organization. Processes refer to the internal
processes in the organization that are to be structured and organized for successful knowledge
management. Technology refers to the organizational tools that are used to support the people
and facilitate the knowledge processes.
In their dimensions of knowledge management, Okunoye (2003) and Handzic (2001)
identified processes and enablers. Perhaps, what these authors did was to put people,
technology and other elements together as enablers. The enablers are the factors in the
organizational environment that influence or are related to knowledge management process.
These enablers have been described variously in the literature as critical success factors,
knowledge management infrastructures and organizational factors. They are factors that an
organization needs to put in place for successful knowledge management. Okunoye (2003)
summarized the issues raised here thus, “when we talk about knowledge management, we are
primarily talking about supporting the knowledge processes with enablers or organizational
factors”. The implication of the above definition by Okunoye (2003) is that, firstly, the
management of knowledge begins with the identification of the internal processes of the
organization. Secondly, the enablers or organizational factors that support the processes
should be identified.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES THEORY
Attempts to define knowledge management process are numerous. Davenport (1993)
identified KM process as consisting of knowledge acquisition: finding existing knowledge,
understanding requirements, searching among multiple sources, knowledge creation:
research activities, creative processes in advertising, writing books or articles, making
movies, and so on, packaging: Publishing, editing, design work, applying or using existing
knowledge: Auditing, medical diagnosis, and Re-use of knowledge for new purpose:
Leveraging knowledge in product development processes, software development. The
knowledge management process proposed by Galagan (1997), include: gathering new
knowledge, accessing knowledge from external sources, representing knowledge in
documents, databases, software and so forth, embedding knowledge processes, products or
services, transferring existing knowledge around an organization, using accessible knowledge
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
36
in decision-making, facilitating knowledge growth through culture and incentives; and
measuring the value of knowledge management.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) described four knowledge conversion processes:
socialization, externalization, combination and internalization. Each process involves
converting one form of knowledge (tacit or explicit) to another form of knowledge (tacit or
explicit). They used these processes to identify and evaluate certain key activities in the
management of knowledge. Oluic-Vukovic (2001) identified knowledge management
process as consisting of five steps which include gathering, organizing, refining, representing
and disseminating. Writing from the business strategy point of view, Hron (2006) provided a
framework for knowledge management process. The elements of the framework include
knowledge creation, knowledge storage and retrieval, knowledge distribution and knowledge
application.
From the foregoing, it is clear that knowledge management process refers to series of
steps that can be taken to identify key activities in the management of knowledge in an
organization. The International Labour Organization (ILO) in its 2004 Document identified
these steps as follows; identification of required as well as available information/knowledge,
information/knowledge capture, organizing scattered information/knowledge to create
knowledge assets, sharing of knowledge, use of knowledge for planning, budgeting and
brining about better results.
Most of the above steps can be built upon the already existing expertise among
libraries. For example, Foo, Chaudhry, Majid and Logan (2002) observed that knowledge of
classification schemes and controlled vocabularies can be very useful for building taxonomy
and ontology, an area that is becoming extremely important for organizing knowledge
resources on intranets, websites and portals. Knowledge and experience of cataloguing
provides an excellent foundation for metadata creation. Likewise, librarians’ experience in
resource selection and collection development can help them to be actively involved in
content creation and management. This expertise is needed for sharing knowledge through
library portals.
Writing from the academic library perspective, Maponya (2004), proposed knowledge
management process as consisting of creation, capturing, acquisition and sharing of
knowledge. Knowledge creation is a particularly important process of knowledge
management. It focuses on the development of new skills, new products, better ideas and
more efficient processes (Probst, Raub and Romhardt, 2000). In addition, knowledge
creation refers to the ability to originate novel and useful ideas and solutions (Bhatt, 2001).
Knowledge in the context of academic libraries can be created through understanding the user
needs and requirements as well as understanding the University’s curricula. Tang (1998)
cited by Maponya (2004) pointed out that from the library’s perspective, knowledge creation
implies participating more in users’ reading and studying by identifying information needs.
In order to succeed, academic library services must be linked with the university’s academic
programme or church curricula. Academic libraries can become part of the knowledge
creation process through participating in the teaching and research activities of the
University. Knowledge creation in this context should involve all the management effort
through which the academic library consciously strives to acquire competencies that it does
not have both internally and externally (Maponya, 2004).
Capturing and acquiring knowledge is critical to the success and development of a
knowledge-based organization. Organizations often suffer permanent loss of valuable
personnel to dismissals, retirement and death. The reason for this is that much knowledge is
stored in the heads of the people and it is often lost if not captured elsewhere.
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
37
The academic library as an organization may want to look outside its own boundaries
to acquire new knowledge. To achieve this access to external information should be
provided. Librarians have been dealing with building and searching online databases for a
long time. This kind of experience can be very helpful in building knowledge bases and
repositories.
Knowledge acquisition is the starting point of knowledge management in libraries
(Shanhong, 2001). Knowledge in academic libraries can be acquired through; establishing
knowledge links or networking with other libraries and with institutions of all kinds,
Attending training programs, conferences, seminars and workshops, Buying knowledge
products or resources in the form of manuals, blueprints, reports and research reports.
Academic libraries need to develop ways of capturing its internal knowledge, devise
systems to identify people’s expertise and develop ways of sharing it. Formal process of
capturing knowledge can include collating internal profiles of academic librarians and also
standardizing routine information – update reports. In addition, successful libraries are those
that are user-centred and are able to respond to users’ needs. As users become sophisticated,
academic libraries need to develop innovative ideas to add value to their services. Academic
libraries need to be aware and to aim at capturing the knowledge that exists within them.
The type of enquires, for example, that are most commonly received at the reference desk
should be captured and placed within easy reach to better serve users in the shortest time
possible. It is important to create a folder of frequently asked questions to enable academic
libraries to not only provide an in-depth customized reference service but also to become
knowledgeable about handling different enquires and decision–making (Maponya, 2004).
Knowledge sharing is based on the experiences gained internally and externally in the
organization. Making this know-how available to other organizational members will
eliminate or reduce duplication of efforts and form the basis for problem solving. One of the
best ways to avoid collective loss of organizational memory is to identify the expertise and
skills of staff and capture them.
In the context of academic libraries, it can be noted that a great deal of knowledge
sharing is uncoordinated, informal and usually based on conversation. Although knowledge
has always been present in organizations, and to some extent shared, this has been very much
on an ad hoc basis, until recently it is managed or promoted as the key to organizational
success Kude, Nalhe & Mankar (2012). Jantz (2001) had pointed out that in many library
settings; there was systematic approach to organizing the knowledge of the enterprise, and
making it available to other librarians and staff in order to improve the operation of the
library. For academic libraries to utilize their know-how, it is necessary that libraries need to
prepare themselves for using and sharing knowledge. The importance of knowledge sharing
can be seen from the ability of academic librarians to identify, integrate and acquire external
knowledge. This should include knowledge denoting library practices, users and operational
capabilities (Maponya, 2004).
Within the context of knowledge Management process, Choo (2000) stated that
information professionals, in managing explicit knowledge, were often involved in many
stages of knowledge processing cycle such as; acquiring or extracting knowledge from or
with the help of experts; writing up and editing raw knowledge such as presentations and
turning it into processed knowledge (best practices, lessons leant); organizing the processed
knowledge and adding index terms, subject heading, and cross links; and disseminating
knowledge through a variety of knowledge assets in libraries and information centres.
It is important to note that the KM processes are designed to be implemented or to
achieve results. According to Martin (2000), knowledge management processes should meet
the following five organizational objectives, connect people with other knowledge people,
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
38
connect people with information, enable the conversion of information to knowledge,
encapsulate knowledge, making it easier to be transferred, and disseminate knowledge around
the organization.
Selection of Knowledge Management Process for this study
For the present study, the Oluic-Vukovic process model was adopted though with
some modifications. The reason for the choice of this model is that it has been described in
the literature as one model that covers more completely the range of activities carried out in
the university library (Bouthillier and Shearer, 2002).
The modification of the model is as shown here. Firstly, the
”gathering” step has been separated into two processes each of which is distinct from the
other: identification of knowledge and acquisition of knowledge. Secondly, refining and
representing steps have been omitted. Refining is not a major process in the knowledge flow,
but knowledge representation falls within the scope of knowledge organization. This
modification has reduced the steps in the model to four instead of five.
Based on this modified Oluic-Vukovic process model, the KM process dimensions
selected for this study consisted of knowledge identification, knowledge acquisition,
knowledge organization, and knowledge dissemination.
1. Knowledge Identification
Knowledge in the context of an academic library can be created through identification
or anticipation of the needs of the users. This will enable university libraries provide value –
added services to their users. Librarians must embark on knowledge need analysis of users so
as to provide quality or user – centred services. It has been found that the librarians can
achieve this through careful study of the university curricular, linking library services with
the university’s academic programmes, participating in the teaching and research activities in
the University, and finally through participating more in user’s reading (Maponya, 2004).
Therefore, knowledge identification refers to the knowledge activities aimed at identifying
users’ needs and requirements for the purpose of providing them with a variety of quality
services. It is the first step in the knowledge processing chain.
2. Knowledge Acquisition This is the second step in the knowledge processing chain in any organization such as
libraries. Knowledge acquisition refers to knowledge activities directed at seeking and
obtaining knowledge from the external sources and also from the internal environment.
Generally, Maponya (2004) suggested that knowledge in academic libraries can be acquired
through establishing links or networking with other libraries and with institutions of all kind,
attending training programs, conferences, seminars and workshops, and buying knowledge
products or resources in the form of manuals, blueprints, and research reports.
To capture internal knowledge, it has been suggested that academic libraries should
devise systems to identify people’s expertise and develop ways of sharing it. This requires a
formal process, which includes collating internal profiles of academic librarians and also
standardizing routine information (Maponya, 2004). Another approach is to begin to develop
innovative ideas to add value to services. For instance, the type of enquiries that are most
commonly received at the reference desk should be captured and placed within easy reach to
better serve users. This can be achieved by creating a folder of frequently asked questions
(FAQ). Apart from the fact that this will help librarians to provide in –depth customized
reference service, it will also help them to become knowledgeable about handling different
enquiries (Maponya, 2004).
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
39
3. Knowledge Organization or Creation This step ensures that knowledge captured is organized into easily accessible formats.
The convenience of the user is usually considered in organizing knowledge /information for
their use. This process usually results in creation of knowledge products and services targeted
at satisfying the escalating needs of users, or helping them to get the right information at the
right time (Holm, 2001). Knowledge organization is defined as the analysis of information
gathered from internal and external sources to create new knowledge or new knowledge
products. Some of these knowledge products include lecturers’ profile, database of experts,
users profile and so on (Todd and Southon, 2007). In this study, knowledge organization and
knowledge creation will be used interchangeably. Knowledge organization or creation is all
about development of new ideas and new solutions aimed at meeting the needs of library
users.
4. Knowledge Dissemination This is the fourth and last step in the model and it ensures that knowledge resources in
the library are made available to users. This can be achieved through established system of
communication between university libraries and their users. Knowledge dissemination refers
to the knowledge activities aimed at making knowledge resources and services accessible to
users. Kim (2004) noted that librarians should be able to extract, filter and disseminate external
knowledge. Choo (2000) stated that, in libraries and information centres, knowledge can be
disseminated through a variety of knowledge assets such as library alert system, library mailing
lists and so on. It can also be disseminated through the use of new technologies such as
groupware, internet/intranet and other discussion support systems (Rufai and Seliaman, 2004).
KM application in organization is therefore defined in terms of the knowledge processes in an
organization. The present study was focused to determine the knowledge processes for
successful KM applications in Nigerian university libraries.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objectives of this study are twofold, namely;
1. To identify the knowledge processes for successful KM implementation in university
libraries, and
2. To identify the greatest of all knowledge processes for KM implementation in
university libraries.
METHODOLOGY
The design of the study was a descriptive survey. A descriptive survey research
design attempts to accurately describe a given situation. This study was carried out in federal
university libraries in Nigeria. These libraries have sizeable collections of both print and
online resources, established training programmes for staff, internet connectivity and are
capable of providing leadership for other libraries in the country. Also, considerable
variations exist among these libraries in terms of age, size, history and services. These
varying attributes provide opportunity to conduct research.
The population of this study consisted of librarians working in federal universities in
Nigeria. There are 26 federal university libraries in Nigeria made up of 456 librarians. Since
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
40
the population of this study is not large enough to warrant sampling, all the librarians in the
federal university libraries in Nigeria were studied.
Instrument for Data Collection
The instrument for this study was a questionnaire developed by the researcher. The
instrument had two sections. Section A had only one item intended to obtain personal
information on the university libraries studied. Section B covered the knowledge processes
studied. These processes include knowledge identification, knowledge acquisition,
knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination. Multiple item measure was used to
develop the items for each of these processes. The items were homogenously keyed in a 4-
point scale and the subjects were guided to respond to each item thus: VSE= Very Small
Extent; SE= Small Extent; LE= Large Extent; VLE= Very Large Extent. These response
categories were scored thus: VSE=1; SE= 2; LE= 3; VLE= 4. A pilot testing was carried out
to establish the reliability of the instrument using cronbach alpha procedure. This yielded an
alpha coefficient equals to 0.91.
Procedure for Data Collection
The researcher used trained research assistants to distribute and collect the copies of
the instrument. These research assistants covered 21 federal university libraries in Nigeria.
The remaining 5 university libraries were visited by the researcher. The purpose of the study
was explained to the research assistants who expressed willingness to distribute and collect
the copies of the research instrument.
A total of 456 copies of the research instrument were distributed to respondents. Out
of this number, 354 copies were returned and found all usable which gave a response rate of
78%.
METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistical tools consisting of the Mean (x) and the standard Deviation
(SD) were used to analyse the data collected. The decision on the cut-off point for the item
Means was based on the Gregory and Ward’s (1978) formula for determining the lower and
upper limits in Mean. This formula was applied thus:
0.50 – 1.49 – Very Small Extent (VSE)
1.50 – 2.49 – Small Extent (SE)
2.50 – 2.49 – Large Extent (LE)
3.50 – 4.49 – Very Large Extent (VLE).
The minimum Mean value of 2.50 was used as the response acceptance level of each
questionnaire item. This value was obtained by taking the average of the weighed response
categories of the questionnaire items.
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
41
Findings
The findings of this study are presented as shown in the tables below:
Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of Resources used for Knowledge Identification
in Federal University Libraries in Nigeria
Statement N X SD Decision
**
University publications 354 2.80 0.76 LE
Study of University curricular 354 2.78 0.87 LE
Linking library services with university academic
programme
354 3.11 0.89 LE
Participating in the teaching and research activities in
the university
354 3.16 0.92 LE
Survey results 354 2.94 0.71 LE
Contact with users 354 2.83 0.75 LE
Contact with university teachers 354 2.60 0.80 LE
Library liaison 354 2.64 0.78 LE
Overall mean 354 2.86 0.50 LE
** VSE – Very Small Extent; SE – Small Extent; LE – Large Extent;
VLE – Very Large Extent.
Table 1 above shows different resources that university libraries use to identify the
needs of their users. The results show that all knowledge resources listed are used. However,
the ones that are mostly used are participating in the teaching and research activities in the
University (3.16) and linking library services with University academic programme (3.11).
Other important sources used are results from user survey (2.94) and contact with users
(2.83). These findings indicate that university libraries in Nigeria use a variety of knowledge
resources to a large extent in identifying the information and knowledge needs of their users.
This is because the standard deviations of the responses of librarians on the above items do
not show wide variation.
Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation of Resources used for Knowledge Acquisition in
Federal University Libraries in Nigeria
Statement N X SD Decision
** Personal experience 354 3.01 0.77 LE
Consultation with colleagues 354 3.03 0.77 LE
Library collection 354 3.49 0.61 LE
Internet 354 3.22 0.72 LE
Consultation with academics 354 3.10 0.71 LE
Using other libraries collections 354 2.51 0.80 LE
Interviewing those leaving the profession 354 2.71 0.88 LE
Interviewing experts on operational processes 354 3.11 0.88 LE
Overall mean 354 3.00 0.78 LE
** VSE – Very Small Extent; SE – Small Extent; LE – Large Extent;
VLE – Very Large Extent.
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
42
Table 2 above shows the resources that university libraries use to meet the needs of
their users. The results show the resources listed are all used. Of all these resources, the
library collection is mostly used (3.49). Other resources that are used next to library
collection are internet (3.22), interviewing or consulting experts (3.11), consultation with
academics (3.10), consultation with colleagues (3.03) and personal experience (3.01). The
above results show that knowledge resources within and outside the university libraries are
used to a large extent to meet the needs of their users. This can be seen from the fact that the
responses of librarians on the above items do not show wide variation as seen from their
standard deviations.
Table 3: Mean and Standard Deviation of New Knowledge Products created for User-
centred Services in Federal University Libraries in Nigeria
Statement N X SD Decision **
Database of users profile 354 2.46 1.20 SE
Database of experts publications 354 1.76 0.95 SE
Statistics about use and users 354 2.10 1.06 SE
Reports of library surveys 354 2.15 1.05 SE
Database of information in specific subjects 354 2.37 1.05 SE
Database of staff publications 354 2.92 0.70 LE
Database of experts 354 2.83 0.72 LE
Database of staff profiles 354 2.97 098 LE
Data analysis reports 354 2.62 2.28 LE
Reports of observation and experiences 354 1.98 1.06 SE
Lectures’ profile 354 2.01 0.92 SE
Index of knowledge generated in the university 354 2.52 0.79 LE
Catalogue of online resources 354 2.62 0.82 LE
Folder of frequently asked question FAQ 354 2.32 0.76 SE
Overall mean 354 2.47 0.52 SE
** VSE – Very Small Extent; SE – Small Extent; LE – Large Extent;
VLE – Very Large Extent.
Table 3 shows the knowledge resources created by university libraries to meet the
needs of their users. The results show that out of fourteen (14) knowledge products or
services listed; only six (6) were created in the university libraries studied. These services
include database of staff profile (2.97), database of staff publication (2.92), database of
experts (2.82), data analysis reports (2.62), catalogue of online resources (2.62) and index of
knowledge generated in the university (2.52). The findings show that knowledge creation
activities are carried out to a small extent in the universities libraries studied. This is because
the standard deviations of the responses of librarians do not show wide variation.
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
43
Table 4: Mean and Standard Deviation of Approaches used for knowledge
dissemination in Federal University Libraries in Nigeria
Statement N X SD Decision
**
Library notice 354 2.87 0.77 LE
Library signs 354 2.75 0.76 LE
Library internal newsletters 354 2.79 0.81 LE
University newsletter 354 3.34 0.83 LE
Library presentation and demonstration 354 2.94 0.98 LE
Library instructional programmes 354 2.73 0.89 LE
Library alert system 354 2.81 0.88 LE
Library mailing list of users 354 2.68 0.97 LE
Reference librarian 354 2.61 0.87 LE
Liaison librarian 354 2.18 0.96 SE
Internet 354 2.08 1.03 SE
e-mail 354 2.92 1.07 LE
Library website 354 2.55 1.12 LE
Mailing lists 354 2.70 1.07 LE
Face to face communication 354 2.59 0.99 LE
Telephone or mobile phone 354 2.90 0.87 LE
Fax 354 2.84 0.87 LE
Video conferencing 354 2.31 1.04 SE
Snail mail 354 1.66 0.95 SE
Intranet 354 1.63 0.93 SE
Overall mean 354 2.57 0.47 LE
** VSE – Very Small Extent; SE – Small Extent; LE – Large Extent;
VLE – Very Large Extent.
Table 4 above shows the various ways university libraries make the needed
information and knowledge available to their users. The results show that the most used
medium is university newsletter (3.34) and the least used medium is the intranet (1.63). Apart
from the university newsletter, other traditional approaches used greatly are library
presentation and demonstration (2.94), library notice (2.87), library internal newsletter (2.79),
library signs (2.75), library instructional programmes (2.73), reference librarian (2.68) and
face to face communication (2.59). The results also reveal that the most conventional or
modern medium used is e-mail (2.92) followed by mobile phones (2.90), by fax (2.84) and by
library alert system (2.81). Other modern methods used include mailing list (2.70), library
mailing list of users (2.68), and library website (2.55). Channels like liaison librarian (2.18),
video conferencing (2.31) and snail mail (1.66) are not used at all. The above findings,
therefore, show that both traditional and conventional media are used to a large extent to
disseminate information and knowledge to library users. This is because the responses of
librarians do not show wide variation as from their standard deviations.
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
44
Table 5: Summary of KM Applications in Federal University Libraries in Nigeria
Statement X SD Decision **
Knowledge identification 2.86 0.50 LE
Knowledge acquisition 3.02 0.47 LE
Knowledge creation 2.47 0.50 SE
Knowledge dissemination 2.57 0.45 LE
Overall mean 2.65 0.41 LE
** VSE – Very Small Extent; SE – Small Extent; LE – Large Extent; VLE – Very
Large Extent.
Table 5 above shows the KM processes for providing user-centred services in Federal
University libraries in Nigeria. The data in the above table show that KM activities are
carried out to a large extent in university libraries in Nigeria to meet user needs. The greatest
area of activity is knowledge acquisition (3.02), followed by knowledge identification (2.86)
and finally by knowledge dissemination (2.57). The above table also reveals that knowledge
creation is carried out to a small extent in the libraries studied. The above results show that
university libraries pay more attention to acquisition followed by identification and
dissemination of knowledge but less attention to creation of knowledge. This can be seen
from the responses of librarians which do not show wide variability.
Discussion of the Findings
From the findings depicted in tables 1 - 5, it is clear that knowledge management is
being applied to provide user-centred services in university libraries in Nigeria. This
application begins with the identification of the needs of library users. The university libraries
in Nigeria engage in many knowledge activities to identify the needs of their users. These
activities include participating in teaching and research process in the university, linking
library services with university academic programmes, library use survey and contact with
users. The greatest area of activity is participating in the teaching and research process of the
university.
The next area of KM application is knowledge acquisition based on the identified
needs of the users. The university libraries use different sources to gather information and
knowledge to meet the needs of the users. These sources include library collection, internet,
interviews, consultation with colleagues and personal experience. The most widely used
source for the purpose of meeting user needs is library collection.
The findings also reveal that the university libraries engage to a small extent in
knowledge creation and slightly above average in knowledge dissemination activities. The
knowledge resources created to meet user needs in the libraries include database of staff
profile, database of staff publications, and catalogue of online resources and index of
knowledge generated in the university. Knowledge dissemination was found to be done
through university newsletter, library presentation and demonstration, library notice, e-mail,
mobile phone, library alert system and fax. These results are not surprising because
technological infrastructures have not been fully developed in university libraries in Nigeria.
Information and communication technology (ICT) is a necessary condition for KM success.
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
45
Poor ICT development or lack of it affects negatively the success of KM application,
especially in the areas of knowledge creation and dissemination.
The findings also reveal that knowledge acquisition constitutes the greatest area of
KM application in these libraries, followed by knowledge identification. This result is
expected because acquisition of information resources is one of the core competencies of
librarians. The knowledge management process found in university libraries in Nigeria
consist mainly of knowledge identification, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge
dissemination. This finding is expected because the elements of KM are long present in
libraries. The finding supports the KM process in academic libraries identified by Maponya
(2004). According to Maponya (2004) knowledge management process in academic libraries
involves the capturing, sharing or dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Maponya
further identified specific knowledge management activities in academic libraries as
participation in the teaching and research activities of the university (knowledge
identification), collating internal profiles of academic librarians (knowledge creation),
establishing knowledge link or contacts (knowledge acquisition) and using both internal and
external media to disseminate knowledge. The findings also support the KM process
identified by Chen and Mohammed (2004) which included knowledge acquisition and
knowledge dissemination.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
The major finding of this study is that knowledge creation is carried out to a low
extent in federal university libraries in Nigeria. This finding has implications for university
libraries in Nigeria. It means that these libraries should begin to engage seriously in
knowledge innovation and creation. They are to be seen making available to users knowledge
products and services that have the capacity to meet their needs.
University libraries should encourage their staff to be committed to knowledge
creation. That is, these staff should be encouraged to be involved in knowledge activities such
as creation of databases, indexing of indigenous knowledge or knowledge created in Nigerian
universities and cataloguing of online resources. Library staff should be trained and retrained
to acquire knowledge management competencies for knowledge creation and transfer in
Nigerian university libraries.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The present study reveals that knowledge processes for KM application in Nigerian
university libraries consisted of knowledge identification, acquisition, creation and
dissemination. These processes were applied to a large extent in providing user-centred
services in federal university libraries in Nigeria. KM was found to be applied to user-centred
services, especially in the areas of identifying the needs of users by using different sources,
acquiring knowledge resources based on user needs and disseminating these knowledge
resources to library users through different approaches or methods. The greatest area of
activity was acquisition of knowledge resources based on user needs. It is therefore
recommended that organisational commitment to knowledge creation should be intensified
and the knowledge creation efforts in Nigerian university libraries should focus on creation of
databases, engaging data analysis report, indexing of knowledge generated in the university
and cataloguing of online resources.
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
46
REFERENCES
[1] Bhatt, G. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: examining the
interaction between technologies, technologies, and people, Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5(1), 68-75.
[2] Bogdanowicz, M. S. & Bailey, E. K. (2002). The value of the new knowledge
worker: generation X in the new economy, Journal European Industrial Training,
26(3/3/4) : 125 – 9.
[3] Bouthillier, France & Shearer, Kathleen (2002). Understanding knowledge
management: the need for an empirical perspective Information Research, 8(1): pp
251 – 267.
[4] Branin, J.J. (2003). Knowledge management in academic libraries: Building the
knowledge bank at the Ohio State University. Retrieved from
http://www.Lib.ohio.state.edu/kbinfo/kmacadlib.pdf. on February 28, 2007
[5] Brun, Caroline (2005). ABC of knowledge management. Retrieved from
http://proceedings.informingscience.org/insite2008/IISITV5p571- 590Grant532.pdf
on October 25, 2008.
[6] Bukowitz, W.R. & Williams, R.L. (1999). The knowledge management field book.
Harlow: Pearson Education.
[7] Chen, Le & Mohamed, Sherif (2007). Empirical analysis of knowledge management
activities in construction organizations. Retrieved from
http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/ bitstream/10072/13339/1/4043.pdf on
November 05, 2008.
[8] Choo, C.W. (2000). Working with knowledge: How information professionals help
organizations manage what they know. Library Management, 21(8), 250-261.
[9] Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through
information technology, Boston: Harvard Business School.
[10] Duffy, J. (2000). Knowledge management: To be or not to be? Information
Management Journal, 34(1): 64-67.
[11] Foo, S., Chaudhry, A.S., Majid, S.M., & Logan, E. (2002). Academic libraries in
transition: Challenges ahead, Proc. World Library Summit, Keynote address:
Academic Library Seminar, National Library Board, Singapore, April 22-26.
[12] Galagan, P (1997), Smart Companies Knowledge Management, Traning and
developmetn 51(12): 20 – 5.
[13] Gregory, G. S. and Ward, D. C. (1978). Statistical methods in educational
psychology, New Jersey: Prentice – Hall.
[14] Handzic, M. (2001). Knowledge management: A Research Framework. In
Proceedings of the 2nd
European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM)
(pp.3 5 – 42). USA: Bled.
[15] Holm, J. (2001). Capturing the spirit of knowledge management. Paper presented at
the American Conference on Information Systems, Boston, M. A, August 10 – 15.
[16] Holm, J. (2001). Capturing the spirit of knowledge management. Paper presented at
the American Conference on Information Systems, Boston, M. A, August 10 – 15.
[17] Holm, J. (2001). Capturing the spirit of knowledge management. Paper presented at
the American Conference on Information Systems, Boston, M. A, August 10 – 15.
[18] Joint Inspection Unit, Interational Labour Organization (2004). Knoweldge
management at the internatioal laboour orgnaization, (senera: International labour
orgnaization)
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
47
[19] Kim, Soonhee (2004). Organizational factors affecting knowledge sharing
capabilities in T-government: An empirical study. Retrieved from
http://aim.uoregon.edu/research/pdfs/Holowetzki2002.pdf on October 28, 2008
[20] Kude N; Nalhe, U.P; & Mankar, S. (2012), knowledge management: practice in
academic Libraries, International Journal of Research in Management, Economics
and Commerce, 2 (11): 225-234
[21] Liebowitz, Jay (2000). Building organizational intelligence. A knowledge
management Printer. Boea Raton: CRK Press.
[22] Malhan, I. V and Rao, S. (2005), “From Library management to knowledge
management: a conceptual change”, Journal of Information of Knowledge
Management, 4(4): 269 - 7
[23] Maponya, Pearl N, (2004). Knowledge management practices in academic libraries:
a case study of the University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg libraries: Retrieved from
http://mapule276883.pbworks.com/f/
Knowledge%2Bmanagement%2Bpractices%2Bin%2Bacademic%2Blibraries.pdf on
November 05, 2008
[24] Martin, Bill. (2000). Knowledge Management within the Context of Management:
An Evolving Relationship. Singapore Management Review, 22 (2): 17-36.
[25] Mutula, S. M and Mooko, N. P (2008). Knowledge Management; In Aina, S. M.
Mutula & M. A. Tiamiyu (eds). Information and Knowledge Management in the
Digital age. Concepts, technologies and African perspective (pp.269 – 299) Nigeria:
Third World Information Services Ltd.
[26] Nonaka, I & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company attempting to
improve its process; proceeding in software Technology and Engineering practice
STEP’ 99pp. 153-160.
[27] Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review,
69(6):96-104
[28] Okunoye, Adekunle, O. (2003). Knowledge management and global diversity: A
framework to support organization in developing countries. Finland: University of
Turku,
[29] Oluic-Vukovic, V. (2001). From Information to Knowledge: Some reflections on
the origin of the current shifting towards knowledge processing and further
perspective: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 52, 46 - 61.
[30] Raman, Raguraman(2001). A critical review of knowledge management models.
Unpublished Dissertation. University of Utara, Malaysia.
[31] Rooi, H. V. & Snyman, R. (2006). “A content analysis of literature regarding
knowledge management opportunities for librarians”, Aslib Proceedings: New
information perspectives, 58(3): 261 – 71
[32] Ugwuanyi Chijioke Ferdinand and Ejikeme Anthonia Nwamaka, “Awareness of the
Expected Skills Sets and Development Required by New Era Librarians in Academic
Libraries in South East Geo-Political Zone of Nigeria”, International Journal of
Library and Information Science (IJLIS), Volume 2, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 26 - 38,
ISSN Print: 2277 – 3533, ISSN Online: 2277 – 3584.
[33] Shakti Kundu, “Knowledge Management: Value, Technologies and its Implications”,
International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 4,
Issue 5, 2013, pp. 182 - 188, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6375.
[34] Rowley, J. (1999). What is knowledge management, Library management, 20(8):
416-419.
International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), ISSN: 2277 – 3533 (Print),
ISSN: 2277 – 3584 (Online), Volume 3, Issue 1, January - June (2014), © IAEME
48
[35] A.Chinnaraj, “Knowledge Based Information Resources from Libraries to Higher
Education Professionals and Information Managers”, International Journal of Library
and Information Science (IJLIS), Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 37 - 47, ISSN Print:
2277 – 3533, ISSN Online: 2277 – 3584.
[36] Rufai, Raimi & Seliaman, M.E. (2004). Towards a knowledge management model
for Universities, Retrieved from: http://ickm.upm.edu.my/parallel%20session
%202/Raimi%20&%20SeliamanTowards%20a%20km%20model%20for%20Univer
sitiesdoc. on February 05, 2009.
[37] Shanhong, T. (2000). Knowledge management in libraries in the 21st century. Paper
presented at the 66th
IFLA council and general conference, Jerusalem, Isrea.
Retrieved from http://www:ifla.org/iv/ifla66/papers/057-110e.htm on 10th
August,
2007.
[38] Silver, D and Shakshuki, E (2002) Knowledge management: Integrating
perspectives. Retrieved from http://plato.acadiau.ca/courses/comp/dsilver/km-IP-
Abstact-4.doc on June 24, 2012.
[39] Skyrme, D. J. and Amidon, D. N. (1997), Creating the Knowledge-based Business,
Business Intelligence, London.
[40] Southon, G & Todd, R. (2001). Library and information professionals and
knowledge management: conceptions, challenges and conflicts. The Australian
Library Journal, 50(3). Retrieved from
http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/alj/50.3/full.tent/ conceoptions.challenges.html. on
20th April, 2008.
[41] Sveiby, K. E (2001) What is knowledge management? Retrieved from
http://www.sveiby.com/povtable/0/articels/knowldgemangment.html. on June 24,
2012.
[42] Todd & Southon (2001). Library and Information professionals and knowledge
management; conceptions, challenges and conflicts; Authralian Library and
Information Association 50(3). Retrieved from
http://www.alia.org.an/publicing/aji/50.3/full-text/conceptions. challeges.html; on
March 26 2008.
[43] Townley, C. T. (2001), Knowledge management and academic libraries”, College
and Research Libraries, 62(1): 44 – 55.
[44] White, T. (2004). Knowledge management in academic library: case study: KM
within Oxford University Library Services (OULS). Retrieved from
http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk/archive/00000s15/01/Tatiana_white_KM_article.pdf on
25th October, 2010
[45] Zack, M.H. (1999). Knowledge and Strategy, Boston, USA: Butterworth and
Hieinemann.
Top Related