CHAPTER 5: RESULTS PRESENTATION
5.2 Questionnaire results
5.2.2 Section B: Knowledge management awareness and perception
This section deals with obtaining an in-depth understanding of KM from the respondents’
viewpoints, to determine which KM practices are used within the Department and to get respondents’ opinions regarding the KM enablers that contribute to the effective use of the identified practices. The section’s questions also cover all the objectives of this study, as mentioned at the beginning of this Chapter.
The first question from this section aimed at finding out whether the respondent has ever heard about the term KM. Figure 7 below indicates that thirty-seven of the respondents (61%) had knowledge regarding KM and that twenty-four (39%) of them had never heard about KM. For those who had no knowledge about KM, a definition of the term KM was provided for them to gain some understanding of the concept, hence enabling them to respond to the next questions.
Figure 7: Prior awareness of knowledge management (N=61)
For respondents who indicated that they knew about KM, a follow-up question was asked to find out where they have heard about KM. Majority of respondents, twelve (33%) indicated
“other” as the place where they had encountered the concept of KM. Some of the respondents specified and others did not specify where they had heard about KM. Those who specified
61%
39%
Prior awareness of KM
Yes No
88 indicated that they had heard about KM from service providers, at university, in their previous employment or via the internet. Of the other respondents who had prior knowledge about KM, eleven (30%) indicated that they heard about KM from the KZN DPW, while ten (27%) mentioned short courses as the source of their knowledge concerning KM. Two other respondents (5%) identified other departments as the source of their knowledge and conferences were mentioned by a further two respondents (5%).
In question three, respondents were asked to provide answers to a multiple response question by indicate the KM practices that they think are used within the Department. Within KZN DPW, the findings showed that thirty-nine of the respondents (64%) think that knowledge sharing is the most used practice compared to twenty-two (36%) who did not. This was followed by knowledge utilization practice as indicated by twenty-five (41%) compared to thirty-six (59%) who did not. Twenty-one respondents (34%) identified knowledge dissemination compared to forty (66%) who did not. Fourteen respondents (23%) also identified knowledge retention as compared to forty-seven (77%) who did not, while thirteen (21%) respondents identified knowledge creation as the least practice used as compared to forty-eight (79%) who did not.
The next question was similar to the above question as it asked the respondents to provide answers to a multiple response question by indicating their view on which KM enablers contribute to the effective use of the identified KM practices. Twenty-four respondents (39%) identified IT as the best enabler that ensures the effective use of KM practices compared to thirty-seven (61%) who did not. Next in line was the HR enabler regarded as helpful as identified by twenty-three respondents (38%) compared to thirty-eight (62%) who did not. This was followed by the Department structure identified by eighteen respondents (30%) as compared to forty-three (70%) who did not. Fifteen respondents (25%) identified strategic planning enabler as helpful compared to forty-six (75%) who did not, while fourteen respondents (23%) think culture as an enabler is the least helpful towards effective use of KM practices compared to forty-seven (77%) who did not.
In question five, respondents were asked to indicate yes, no or do not know while answering the question of whether employees would benefit if more structured and regular modes of KM practices were introduced within the Department. As indicated in Figure 8 below, fifty-one respondents (84%) mentioned that they agree that employees would benefit from such KM practices modes, while eight (13%) of them indicated that they do not know if employees would
89 benefit and only two respondents (3%) stated that employees will not benefit from structured and regular modes of KM practices.
Figure 8: Perceptions about benefits to employees from KM (N=61)
In the next question, employees were asked to indicate yes, no or they do not know whether implementing a KM initiative in the Department is required to enhance performance and service delivery. Most respondents, at forty-eight (79%), agreed that KM would enhance Departmental performance and service delivery if implemented; however, ten respondents (16%) mentioned that they do not know if KM would help in this regard, and three respondents (5%) stated that KM will not assist the Department. Figure 9 below displays these findings.
Figure 9: Implementing KM at KZN DPW may enhance performance and service delivery (N=61)
84%
3% 13%
Perceptions about benefits to employees from KM
Yes No Don't know
79%
5% 16%
KM enhances performance and service delivery
Yes No Don't know
90 Respondents were further asked if they would support a KM initiative, if implemented within the Department. As presented in Figure 10 below, out of sixty-one (61) respondents, fifty-six of the respondents (92%) said that they would support KM initiative if implemented; three respondents (5%) mentioned that they would not support such an initiative, while two respondents (3%) indicated that they do not know whether they would support a KM initiative.
Figure 10: Respondents support for KM initiative (N=61)
Question eight asked respondents to indicate how often they needed to be assisted regarding a work-related problem. Twenty-seven (44%) mentioned that they often need assistance; twenty- four respondents (39%) seldom require to be assisted; while nine respondents (15%) always need to be assisted. Only one respondent (2%) indicated that he had never needed assistance with work-related problems. A follow-up question asked those who indicated that they always, often or seldom require assistance to identify those whom they approach for this assistance.
This question asked the respondents to tick more than one answer that is applicable to them.
Forty-five respondents (74%) identified their supervisor as a person whom they mostly approach when they require assistance compared to sixteen (26%) who did not. This was followed by twenty-eight respondents (46%) who identified their colleagues within the section compared to thirty-three (54%) who did not. Twelve respondents (20%) identified someone outside the Department compared to forty-nine respondents (80%) who did not, while ten respondents (16%) identified colleagues within the Department but in a different section compared to fifty-one respondents (84%) who did not.
91 Respondents were asked further to indicate their level of satisfaction concerning their ability to acquire knowledge to accomplish their given tasks. Thirty-one respondents (51%) indicated that they are satisfied with their ability to acquire knowledge; eighteen (30%) mentioned that they are very satisfied; while ten (16%) are fairly satisfied. Only two respondents (3%) mentioned that they are not satisfied with their ability to acquire knowledge to accomplish their tasks.
To find out if the Department do practice informal KM, respondents were asked to indicate what they did with the report or document generated from a task or a project. This question also asked the respondents to tick more than one answer that is applicable to them. The findings revealed that majority, numbering forty-two of respondents (69%) identified sharing their report or document with their colleagues who they think might need it compare to nineteen (31%) who did not. This was followed by twenty-nine respondents (48%) who indicated that they save the document in the computer compared to thirty-two respondents (52%) who did not. Furthermore, fourteen respondents (23%) indicated that they file the document in a box compared to forty-seven (77%) who did not, while only two respondents (3%) indicated that they discarded the report or document compared to fifty-nine respondents (97%) who did not.
Question 12 in this section asked respondents to indicate whether their colleagues know the respondents’ area of expertise in terms of their jobs. Fifty-two respondents (85%) stated that their colleagues knows their area of expertise, eight respondents (13%) mentioned that they do not know whether or not their colleagues are familiar with their area of expertise, while one respondent (2%) indicated that his/her area of expertise is unknown to his/her colleagues.
When asked which crucial knowledge is at risk of being lost because of organizational restructuring, some respondents indicated that both knowledge are at risk. The majority numbering forty-four of respondents (72%) identified tacit (individual) knowledge as the one at risk compared to seventeen (28%) who did not. Nineteen respondents (31%) identified explicit (organizational) knowledge compared to forty-two (69%) who did not.
The final two questions from this section were aimed at revealing the status of the relationship between employees and their supervisors and among employees themselves. The working relationship between the employee and supervisor is generally good, as indicated by fifty-eight respondents (95%), while two respondents (3%) feel that they do not know whether or not they
92 have good working relationship with their supervisor and only one respondent (2%) does not have a good working relationship with his/her supervisor. On the other hand, results also indicate that fifty-eight employees (95%) also have a good working relationship among themselves, while two respondent (3%) indicated that they do not know whether their working relationship with fellow employees is good and one respondent (2%) stated that he/she does not have a good working relationship with their colleagues.