TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED MATURITY MODEL

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED MATURITY MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES
JEAN-PIERRE BOOTO EKIONEA
Faculty of Administration, University of Moncton
Moncton (New Brunswick) E1A 3E9 CANADA
jean-pierre.booto.ekionea@umoncton.ca

MICHEL PLAISENT, PROSPER BERNARD
School of business studies (ÉSG)
University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM)
Case postale 8888, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal (Québec) H3C 3P8 CANADA
plaisent.michel@uqam.ca, bernard.prosper@uqam.ca

The resource-based view of the firm is used to study the role of organizational knowledge in establishing sustained competitive advantage. The concept of the organisational knowledge capabilities development analyzes the organisational capabilities in three principal dimensions: Knowledge Management (KM) infrastructures, KM processes and KM competences. Indeed, the literature in knowledge management, management and information technology shows that the development of the organisational capabilities is strongly related to the use of a maturity model. Also, the literature establishes a link between the level of maturity in KM capabilities and the level of organizational performance.
However, there is very little work on the literature which develops an integrated maturity model for KM capabilities that use together the three principal dimensions. This work proposes a maturity model of Knowledge Management capabilities with three principal.
1. Introduction
Since more than twenty years, the managers consider that certain resources and specific capabilities of the firms are crucial to explain the organizational performance (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). One of the challenges to take up, for organizations, is to identify, develop, protect and deploy resources towards a direction which brings to the firm sustainable competitive advantage and the organisational performance. It is what the resources paradigm supports which explains a strategic approach by which an organization has recourse to its internal resources in order to support or to obtain the sustainable competitive advantage (Wernerfelt, 1984; Grant, 1991; Amit and Schoemaker, 1993).
The definition of knowledge in organizational context is a difficult task to realize (Spiegler, 2000). And yet, a good knowledge management in an organization is likely to help to achieve the businesses goals. In addition, it is increasingly obvious that the development of knowledge management (KM) capabilities is one of the critical factors in almost all the businesses fields (Earl, 2001). It is what would explain that the organizational success would depend, to a big part, of their capability to transform organisational knowledge into a strategic resource likely to support the businesses performance.
However, the twenty last years research on the impact of the knowledge management, as a strategic resource, on the businesses performance is limited still mainly to strategic alignment (Abou-Zeid, 2002; Asoh et al, 2003; Booto Ekionea and Swan, 2008; Swan and Booto Ekionea, 2008). This is why; actors rather need to develop the organizational knowledge capabilities to make sure that it contributes to the businesses performance (Peppart and Ward, 2004).
Thus, the literature in management and information technology (IT) shows that the development of the organisational capabilities is strongly related to the use of a maturity model (Peppart and Ward, 2004; Luftman et al, 2004; Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Venkatraman, 1994; St-Amant and Renard, 2004). However, there is very little work on the literature which holds account of the development of an integrated maturity model for KM Capabilities. For this reason, the objective of this work is a KM Capabilities maturity model (KMCMM) while trying to answer the three following questions: which are the key concepts around which the KM capabilities can be developed? Can we identify their different maturity levels and their particular characteristics?
In order to try to answer these questionings, the methodological step hereafter is adopted. First, the literature review to circumscribe the research field and the concepts associated with the model to be proposed and the design of a model of KMCMM. Second, a discussion on the model is initiated and the comparative study to existing maturity model is proposed.
2. The literature review:
2.1. Organizational capabilities and knowledge management
The concept of organisational capability is defined like a skill to carry out the deployment, the combination and the coordination of resources and competences through various value flows to put in work the strategic objectives beforehand defined (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Collis, 1994 and Grant, 1991).
It is in the strategic approach of the resources based theory that the concept of organisational capability is explained better because this theory refers to the means which belong to the organization and which are necessary to carry out the transformation of the inputs into outputs by developing the specific organisational capabilities (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Grant, 1991 and Teece et al, 1997).
In this context, the concept of organisational capability then has reference to the strategic application of organisational competences, their use and their deployment in order to achieve the businesses goals, on the one hand and with the firm abilities to assemble, integrate and deploy the value resources, of course in combination with other organizational resources in order to reach the business performance, on the other hand (Peppard and Ward, 2004; Bharadwaj, 2000). This position consolidates that of the literature which supports that what brings the difference in the organisational performance is the way in which the organization manages the activities of its internal resources and not the control of its technical aspects or of the market (Peppart and Ward, 2004; Barney, 1991). This is why Amit and Schoemaker (1993) support that the key capability, by definition, require strategic visions, the time of development and the substantial investments. It is what would explain the partly success that certain organizations could reach which do not base their business strategies on the diversification of resources, but on the observation and the valorization of the internal resources and capabilities (Dierick and cool, 1989).
The concept of organisational capabilities thus comes to answer the insufficiency of the theoretical assumptions in strategy, in general, and more particularly with a widespread theoretical thought according to which the fact of aligning a resource or its strategies with the business strategies would be enough to guarantee the business performance (Venkatraman, 1989; Venkatraman and Prescott, 1990; Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993; Earl, 2001; Barki et al, 2001; Abou-Zeid, 2002; Booto Ekionea and Swan, 2008; Swan and Booto Ekionea, 2008).
Because the development of the internal capabilities in accordance with the business objectives is perceived more and more like the only means likely to grant the sustainable competitive advantage and to support the business performance (Peppard and Ward, 2004). Indeed, the establishment of the strategy requires the development of capabilities on which the organization will have to hope to achieve its goals.
With this intention, the new business strategies should be concerned with know how the organization develops, nourish and use its competences in connection with the business objectives, the strategies of each organisational resources, the business operations and the resource operations. This vision contrasts with the traditional vision which considers only the strategic alignment of the organisational resources to the business strategies (Peppard and Ward, 2004; Mitchell, 2006; Puri, 2007).
In addition, concerning the KM capabilities, KM literature (Abou-Zeid, 2003; Chang & Ahn, 2005) analyzes the concept of organisational capability in three principal dimensions: knowledge infrastructures, knowledge processes and knowledge competences. Thus, for better determining the link between the knowledge management and the concept of KM capabilities, it is important to know the maturity level which an organization can reach. The following section briefly presents some existing maturity models in management, IT and KM fields.
2.2. Existing maturity models
The analysis of some models in management, IT and KM refers to the development of a maturity model with three considerations. First, the few studied models suggest a maturity scale which can reach or aim at an organization. Second, the contents of each level of the model are depending on the specialization field of authors. For the authors who based themselves on the maturity models in IT, Venkatraman (1994) develops a maturity model with five levels on the IT planning in an organization. Dekleva and Drehmer (2001) and Ramasubbu et al. (2008) speak about the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), where a maturity model of software development processes on five levels is proposed in the software engineering industry. Luftman et al. (2004) suggest an IT infrastructures maturity model with specific characteristics to each level. Peppart and Ward (2004), as far as they are concerned, develop an organizational IT capabilities model putting the emphasis on the competences and the capabilities development at individuals, groups, and organizational levels for deployment and manpower use of IT as a strategic resource of an organization (Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008). Lastly, the maturity model of St-Amant and Renard (2004), which is based on the management of the business processes, put the emphasis on the knowledge creation and sharing for business processes in order to improve the organisational capabilities in the use of a specific resource. Third, in all the cases, there is not exist yet of a KM Capabilities maturity model which consider, at the same time, knowledge infrastructure, knowledge processes, and knowledge skills.
Taking into account of these three principal dimensions, we observe that the few models suggested by the literature refer to five levels of maturity. Certain refers to, some time, in K-infrastructure (Venkatraman, 1994, Luftman and al., 2004), the other on K-processes (Venkatraman, 1994; Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ramasubbu et al., 2008), and some on K-skills (Peppart and Ward, 2004) as shown on table 1.
On the level 1, with the dimension of K-infrastructures, the initial level, Venkatraman (1994) identifies it as that of the localised exploitation where the technological infrastructure is not integrated in the whole of the organization but in locally functions. It is actually a level where IT emergent like an asset at the local level but there is incomprehension between IT and the business world (Luftman et al, 2004) in the direction where the IT development is not necessarily aligned with the business objectives. On the level 2 of maturity, there is an internal desire of IT integration (Venkatraman, 1994) in order to support the transactions and the catch of the decisions (e.g. ESS, DSS) (Luftman et al, 2004). For level 3, the step consists in establishing a good comprehension between IT and the business world (Luftman et al, 2004) in order to ensure alignment between IT strategies and business strategies (Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993). On the level 4 of maturity, IT are perceived as a strategic resource on which organization develop its business strategy and vision (Barney, 1991; Mata et al, 1995; Bharadwaj, 2000). Thus, IT architectures are integrated with the various organizational partners (Luftman and Al, 2004). Finally, on level 5, the IT infrastructure and the businesses wide and are adapted to the various external partners of organization (Luftman et al, 2004; Saraf et al., 2007; Ye Du et al., 2008).
It is thus important to understand that according to the understanding of Abou-Zeid (2003), the dimension of the knowledge infrastructures includes information technologies which support the KM activities and the cultural infrastructures of the knowledge management with the elements such as the corporative vision and the organisational system values (Gold et al, 2001; Armbrecht et al., 2001). The second dimension of the organisational knowledge capabilities, like recovery in table 1, is that of knowledge processes classifies in three principal categories: knowledge generation, knowledge mobilization and knowledge application. With regard to business or IT processes, there are five levels of maturity. At the initial level, the exploitation of the resource processes is localised (Venkatraman, 1994). The processes are in a rudimentary stage, unforeseeable level and slightly controlled (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008). Because there is no formal process and the reaction in front of the situations is made step per step: no defined priorities (Luftman et al, 2004). In this level, the development of the organisational capabilities is ad hoc and chaotic (St-Amant and Renard, 2004).
On level 2 of maturity, there is internal integration of the processes (Venkatraman, 1994; Mitchell, 2006; Puri, 2007) on a resource, the processes are structured and reproducible (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008) and the organisational capabilities are expressed and put in work in definite and documented processes (St-Amant and Renard, 2004). On the level 3, the organization reaches the level of business processes reengineering (Venkatraman, 1994) under the influence of a resource (Markus and Robey, 1988), it develops and exploits the processes relevant and integrated on the whole of its activities (Luftman and al, 2004; Mitchell, 2006; Puri, 2007; Booto Ekionea and Swan, 2008; Swan and Booto Ekionea, 2008) and, finally, the standard processes, coherent, defined and included well set up (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008).
On the level 4 of the maturity scale, the organization controls its processes while being well able to measure them and to control them (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008), it proceeds to the re-design of the businesses networks (Venkatraman, 1994) on the resource basis and, finally, its practices are documented and its results are quantitatively controllable and measurable (St-Amant and Renard, 2004). On level 5, the organization redefines its business mission (Venkatraman, 1994) and primarily devotes it on the resource. The business vision and the processes are elaborate with the partners (Luftman et al, 2004; Saraf et al., 2007; Ye Du et al., 2008) and the resource processes are continuously optimized and improved (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ramasubbu et al., 2008).
Thus, knowledge can be employed to develop new processes, new products, new services, and new business appropriateness or to improve those existing (Abou-Zeid, 2003).
Lastly, like recovery in table 1, the third dimension is that of the businesses skills. This dimension refers to the capability which can have an organization to facilitate the continuous process of the generation and sharing knowledge (Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008). Also, knowledge skills refer to the capability with which an organization could develop the human and cultural infrastructure and the skill to use the available KM technologies (Abou-Zeid, 2003; Chang and Ahn, 2005).
Table 1: Comparative analysis of some capability maturity models
Maturity
Level Knowledge Capability Dimensions (Abou-Zeid, 2003; Chang & Ahn, 2005)
Knowledge Infrastructures Knowledge Processes Knowledge Skills
1 • Localized exploitation (Venkatraman, 1994);
• Emergent IT as an asset, incomprehension between IT and business (Luftman et al., 2004).

• Localized exploitation (Venkatraman, 1994);
• Initial and unforeseeable process and slightly controlled (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008);
• Initial process: ad hoc and chaotic organizational capability expressed and implemented in processes which are not defined (St-Amant and Renard, 2004);
• No formal process, reaction step by step (Luftman et al., 2004). • People apply their knowledge (Peppart and Ward, 2004);
• Little motivation or reward (Luftman et al., 2004);
• Success depends on the individual efforts and competences (St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008).

2 • Internal integration (Venkatraman, 1994; Mitchell, 2006; Puri, 2007);
• IT supports the transactions and the decisions (ex.: ESS and DSS) (Luftman et al., 2004). • Internal integration (Venkatraman, 1994; Mitchell, 2006; Puri, 2007);
• Structured and reproducible process (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008);
• Refers to an organizational capability expressed and implemented in defined and documented processes (St-Amant and Renard, 2004). • People integrate their knowledge (Peppart and Ward, 2004; Mitchell, 2006; Puri, 2007) ;
• Improvement of the individual and organizational efforts, competences, and knowledge (St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008).
3 • Good comprehension between IT and the business (Luftman et al., 2004; Mitchell, 2006; Puri, 2007; Booto Ekionea and Swan, 2008; Swan and Booto Ekionea, 2008).

• Reengineering (Venkatraman, 1994);
• Relevant processes integrated through the organization (Luftman et al., 2004; Mitchell, 2006; Puri, 2007);
• Standard, coherent, defined, and included/understood process (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008);
• Definition and repetition of the processes for the improvement of the firm capabilities (St-Amant and Renard, 2004). • People interact with the others (Peppart and Ward, 2004).
4 • IT facilitates and leads the business strategies, the vision, and the IT architecture is integrated with the partners (Luftman et al., 2004; Riege and Lindsay, 2006; Saraf et al., 2007; Ye Du et al., 2008). • Network reengineering (Venkatraman, 1994);
• Controlled and measured process (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008);
• The practices are documented and their results are quantitatively controllable and measurable (St-Amant and Renard, 2004). • People coordinate their activities (Peppart and Ward, 2004);
• The risks and the rewards are shared (Luftman et al., 2004);
• The organization identifies competences, knowledge, and the best practices, and integrates them into its processes (St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008).
5 • IT infrastructures are extended to the external partners; the IT and the business are adapted between the organization and partners (Luftman et al., 2004; Riege and Lindsay, 2006; Saraf et al., 2007; Ye Du et al., 2008). • Redefinition of the business mission (Venkatraman, 1994);
• The business vision and the processes are elaborated with the partners (Luftman et al., 2004; Riege and Lindsay, 2006; Saraf et al., 2007; Ye Du et al., 2008);
• Process in continuous improvement (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Ramasubbu et al., 2008);
• Optimization and continuous improvement (St-Amant and Renard, 2004). • Optimization and continuous improvement (Luftman et al., 2004).

At the initial level of this dimension, people apply their knowledge (Peppart and Ward, 2004) with little motivation or rewards (Luftman et al., 2004) and success depends on the individual efforts and competences (St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008) given the major part of the necessary knowledge for task execution is inside people who have it (Nonaka, 1994). On the level 2, people integrate their knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Peppart and Ward, 2004) and the organization improves individual, groups, and organizational efforts, competences, and knowledge, (St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008). On level 3 of the maturity scale, people interiorize knowledge (Nonaka, 1994) and interact with others (Peppart and Ward, 2004) for the achievement of a task or business objectives. On level 4, people coordinate their activities (Peppart and Ward, 2004), the risks and the rewards are shared (Luftman et al., 2004), and the organization identifies competences, knowledge, and the best practice, and integrates them into its action processes (St-Amant and Renard, 2004; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008). And, on the level 5, the organization develops the leadership, ensures the career and the staff training, and rewards its employees and the business partners which contribute to the process enrichment by new knowledge, product improvement, and customer services (Luftman et al., 2004; Riege and Lindsay, 2006; Saraf et al., 2007; Ye Du et al., 2008).
3. Design of the KM Capabilities Maturity Model (KMCMM)
This section is devoted primarily to the design of the KM Capabilities maturity model (KMCMM). Indeed, with section 1 based on the literature review, it was noted that on the one hand, there was absence of a KM Capabilities maturity model that consider the Abou-Zeid (2003) KM capabilities dimensions. Because there are no existing maturity models that could be applied and consider in the context of KM Capabilities as we defined above.
For this reason this section proposes to conceive the KMCMM by retaining some guiding principles. First, the development of KMCMM is a process of organisational learning and knowledge accumulation in the time and which can be spread out in several stages (Cyert and March, 1963; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Burgelman, 1988; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Second, the development of KMCMM is seen like a whole of skills to develop, by the leader or the manager with an aim of guaranteeing, in combination with the other organizational resources, the deployment and the effective use of knowledge (Stevenson, 1976; Quinn, 1979; Maidique, 1980; Roberts, 1990). Third, the development of the KMCMM is a strategic planning which requires the strategic specific skills to knowledge management in order to guarantee the strategic positioning of the organization to the assistance or by a good organisational knowledge management (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978; Miles and Snow, 1978; Porter, 1985).
Thus, holding account of some existing maturity models (Venkatraman, 1994; Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Luftman et al, 2004; Peppart and Ward, 2004; St-Amant and Renard, 2004) and of KM Capabilities dimensions as identified and described in section above, a KM capabilities maturity model will be proposed. The aforementioned model to be conceived will have five maturity levels and will be supported by a comparative table of the various characteristics of the existing models to KMCMM in order to arise its relevance.
3.1 Presentation of the model
In comparison to the models provided by the literature and while being inspired precisely by the maturity model that Venkatraman (1994) suggests, on figure 1, it is proposed a KM capabilities maturity model (KMCMM) which can reach an organization. This model recommends five maturity levels reached or which an organization using or by the knowledge management can reach. This model considers that when the maturity level of KM capabilities in an organization is low, the awaited benefits are also low (Venkatraman, 1994).









Fig. 1: Maturity levels of the organizations by the KM (adapted from Venkatraman, 1994)
While more the maturity level of KM capabilities in an organization is high, the awaited benefit would be also high. We can as realize as the maturity levels of KM capabilities in an organization are divided into two main categories: firstly, the evolution levels (level 1: localised exploitation and level 2: internal integration) and secondly, revolution levels (level 3: re-engineering, level 4: networks re-design and on the level 5: redefinition of the business mission).

3.2 Comparative study of KMCMM to the existing models
The KMCMM is a model designed on the basis of existing maturity models in order to meet their identified insufficiencies and the needs for application of the existing maturity models in the context of KM capabilities. In fact, it is currently difficult to use or apply as such, in the specific context of KM capabilities, the existing maturity models developed in IT or management. Compared to the Capability Maturity Model Improved (CMMI) of Dekleva and Drehmer (2001), and Ramasubbu et al. (2008), which is a model centered on the integrated development of the software engineering processes, it could inspire the application of the second dimension of the KMCMM: KM processes. The CMMI is a model which would help to study the levels of maturity that an organization reach or can reach in the development of its KM processes. However, the CMMI are unaware of two other KMCMM dimensions: KM infrastructures and KM skills. This would seriously limit its adoption to measure the levels of maturity in KM capabilities. Finally, the maturity model of St-Amant and Renard (2004), and Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras (2008), stresses the development of individual competences via the business processes because, according to these authors, the organization must identify competences, knowledge, and the best practices, and must integrate them into its action processes. This concern meets those of Peppart and Ward (2004) and those of the KMCMM which recommends a dimension on the level of maturity reached or to reach by an organization on its KM processes. It is what Luftman et al. (2004) support while they recommend, in particular, the development of leadership, staff training, and improvement of product and customer services. However, the model suggested by St-Amant and Renard (2004), on the contrary to the KMCMM, do not take into account the dimensions of KM infrastructures and KM processes.
Summary comparisons of the KMCMM with some maturity models proposed by IT and management literature conclude that the KMCMM would be a model adapted to the evaluation of KM capabilities. It is also realized that the Venkatraman (1994), Dekleva and Drehmer (2001), Luftman et al. (2004), and Ramasubbu et al. (2008) models are the maturity models which help to evaluate the IT capabilities reached or which an organization can reach. From these models, Dekleva and Drehmer (2001), and Ramasubbu et al. (2008) stress the fact that the software engineering process is similar to the knowledge process that the KMCMM recommends. The St-Amant and Renard (2004), and Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras (2008) models have the merit to approach the concept of the maturity model in a context of capabilities development and organizational competences in management. While the suggestion of KM capabilities in three dimensions by Abou-Zeid (2003) and Chang and Ahn (2005) brings an advanced level of analysis of the degree of maturity reached or that could reach an organization by the development of its KM capabilities. Indeed, the majority of the studies on the KM maturity models are related to the processes (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Harigopal and Satyadas, 2001; Klimko, 2001; Siemens, 2001; Berztiss, 2002; Johnson and Brodman, 2002; Kaner and Karni, 2004; Dayan and Stephen, 2006; Ramasubbu et al., 2008) and very few are interested in KM competences (Klimko, 2001; Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008) and even less in KM infrastructures.
However, to our knowledge, none of these studies is taking into account, at the same time, the three dimensions of the KM capabilities. And yet, in order to well understand the KM capabilities problems, the maturity models should simultaneously consider the three KM capabilities dimensions: KM-Infrastructures, KM-Processes, and KM-Competences (Abou-Zeid, 2003; Chang and Ahn, 2005). The KMCMM developed from existing maturity models is proposed in order to fill the gaps identified previously. Finally, the Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras (2008), St-Amant and Renard (2004), and Klimko (2001) maturity models talk about the development of individual competences via the business and KM processes. According to the authors, the organization has to identify and integrate competences, knowledge, and best practices into its action processes. This concern as such meets those of Peppart and Ward (2004), and Luftman et al. (2004) for IT processes and KMCMM for KM processes. However, the models suggested by St-Amant and Renard (2004), and Klimko (2001), contrary to the KMCMM, do not take into account the dimensions of the KM infrastructures and KM competences. If we compare the KMCMM to some maturity models suggested by the literature in IT, management, and knowledge management, we can see that the KMCMM would be a model adapted to the evaluation of the KM capabilities as defined in this paper. It is also noted that the Venkatraman (1994), Dekleva and Drehmer (2001), Luftman et al. (2004), and Ramasubbu et al. (2008) models are the maturity models which help to evaluate the KM infrastructures capabilities reached or which an organization can reach. Table 5 presents a summary of the comparison between the KMCMM and the existing models in management, IT, and KM.

Table 5: Comparative study of the KMCMM and existing models
Existing Maturity Models Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Developed Dimensions
• Venkatraman (1994) Localized exploitation Limited internal integration Reengineering of business processes
Redesign of business network Redefinition of business scope Organizational capabilities related to the KM-Infrastructures
• CMMI and his KM application (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001; Berztiss, 2002; Johnson and Brodman, 2002; Dayan and Stephen, 2006; Ramasubbu et al., 2008)
Initial, no link with business objectives
Repetitive, managed, and gradual identification of the needs
Processes and practices definition Managed, predictable, and culture change (Kappos and Rivard, 2008)
Optimisation, integration, and participation

Organizational capabilities related to the KM-Processes

• CEMM (Harigopal and Satyadas, 2001) Individual Departmental Business line Organizational Inter-organizational Organizational capabilities related to the KM-Processes
• DM-CMM (Kaner and Kani, 2004) Initial, ad-hoc, heroic, abstract, undisciplined Repetitive, disciplined, defined partially Defined, standard, constant, disciplined, formal Managed, predictable, formal, controlled, multi-stages Optimized, continuously improved, procedural, multi-stages
Organizational capabilities related to the KM-Processes

• The Siemens KMMM (Siemens, 2001) Initial, unsystematic, ad-hoc Repetitive, pilot project, particular activities in KM Defined, standard in knowledge creation and sharing Managed, integrated, improved, controlled, measured Optimized, continuous development and improvement
Organizational capabilities related to the KM-Processes

• KMMM (Klimko, 2001) No focus, no motivation, no challenge
Internal and external evaluation of KM needs Creation of new knowledge Optimal allowance of resources
Inter-organizational cooperation Organizational capabilities related to the KM-Processes and
KM-Skills
• KMCMM (suggested model) Localized, limited, unstructured, lack of culture and business scope, heroic effort (Kappos and Rivard, 2008) Internal integration limited, specific structure, existing organizational culture, expression of needs (Kappos and Rivard, 2008)
Understanding with business, process reengineering, definition, development, awareness, technical competences (Ordóñez de Pablos and Lytras, 2008)
Integrated scope, piloting, network redesign, continuous process, best practices
Inter-organizational integration, management, adapted business scope, measured and controlled process, continuous facilitation, partnership (Saraf et al., 2007; Ye Du et al., 2008) Organizational capabilities related to the KM-Processes and
KM-Skills


From these models presented in Table 5, Dekleva and Drehmer (2001) and Ramasubbu et al. (2008) suggested a maturity model applied in software engineering which is similar to the KM process recommended by the KMCMM. The St-Amant and Renard (2004), and Klimko (2001) models have the merit to approach the concept of the maturity model in a context of organizational capability competences in management and KM. When comparing the existing maturity models with the KMCMM, the suggestion of three KM capabilities dimensions by Abou-Zeid (2003) brings an advanced level of analysis in KM maturity model. To be convinced, Table 6 compares these models to the KMCMM on the basis of three criterions (capabilities): KM-Infrastructures, KM-Processes, and KM-Skills.
Summary comparison between the KMCMM and the few maturity models suggested by the literature, we could admit that the KMCMM would be a model adapted to the evaluation of the organizational KM capabilities because holding account, at the same time, the three dimensions (infrastructures, processes, and competences). Thus, it is understood that the Venkatraman (1994), Dekleva and Drehmer (2001), and Luftmant et al. (2004) models help to evaluate the KM infrastructures within an organization. The Dekleva and Drehmer (2001) maturity models and its applications in KM stress the software engineering process similar to the KM process which the KMCMM recommends. In addition, the St-Amant and Renard (2004) and Klimko (2001) maturity models have the merit to approach the concept of the maturity model in a context of capability development and organizational competences in management and KM. Table 6 compares these existing models to the KMCMM on the basis of three dimensions suggested by Abou-Zeid (2003) and Chan & Ahn (2005) and retained by KMCMM: KM infrastructures, KM processes, and KM competences. Indeed, the suggestion of the three KM dimensions by Abou-Zeid (2003) and Chan & Ahn (2005) brings an advanced level of maturity analysis within an organization by the development of its KM capabilities.

Table 6: Comparative study of the KMCMM with existing KM maturity models




Criterions (capabilities) Do the following models include the capabilities of


Remarks
KMCMM
(suggested model) CEMM (Harigopal and Satyadas, 2001) DM-CMM (Kaner and Kani, 2004) The Siemens KMMM (Siemens, 2001) KMMM (Klimko, 2001)
Development, deployment, and use of KM-Infrastructures

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO Organizational capabilities related to the KM-Infrastructures
Development, deployment, and use of KM-Processes

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES Organizational capabilities related to the KM-Processes
Development, deployment, and use of KM-Skills

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES Organizational capabilities related to the KM-Skills
4. Conclusion
The concept of KM capabilities is defined in this work as being a whole of knowledge infrastructures, knowledge processes and knowledge skills to carry out the deployment and the effective use of a knowledge strategy in combination and coordination of the other organisational resources in order to support or to contribute directly to the business performance (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Collis, 1994; Grant, 1991; Zollo and Winter 2002). Thus, we can retain certain starting postulates for this work. First, KM capabilities require the specific knowledge infrastructures which constitutes the whole of KM capabilities including IT which support the knowledge activities, the KM cultural including the organisational system of reward and incentive policies. Second, the development of KMCMM is tributary with the unit of KM capabilities to the knowledge processes: knowledge generation, knowledge mobilization and knowledge application. Third, the development of KMCMM requires the whole of KM capabilities specific to knowledge skills: technical, organisational and human skills. Four, the development of KMCMM can be observed only through a KM capabilities maturity model.
Consequently, the following proposals must form part of the discussion. First, the development of the specific capabilities to the knowledge infrastructures determines organisational maturity in KM. Indeed, the definition and the installation of new business and knowledge strategies are tributary with the technological infrastructures capabilities available to the organization. These infrastructures relate to IT infrastructures as well as the knowledge management systems (KMS) available or to acquire. Indeed, without adequate technological infrastructures and being able to support the establishment of new business and knowledge strategies, it would be difficult to reach the expected organisational performance. Second, the development of the specific capabilities to the knowledge processes determines organisational maturity in KM. Indeed, the development of the specific capabilities to the knowledge processes includes three principal categories: processes of knowledge generation, processes of knowledge mobilization and processes of knowledge application (Davenport, 1998; Elliott, 1997, 1998; Abou-Zeid, 2003). Third, the development of the specific capabilities to the knowledge skills determines organisational maturity in KM. Indeed, the knowledge skills include the characteristics of knowledge processes which reflect the nature of necessary competences to carry out them (Abou-Zeid, 2003).
Our aim was to understand the concept of KM capabilities and to suggest an integrated KM capabilities maturity model that holds account the principle capabilities in KM: K-Infrastructures, K-Processes, and K-Skills. Thus, the KMCMM need to be validated with further empirical studies for providing a standard maturity model in KM capabilities field. Once validated, the KMCMM could be used as diagnosis tool of KM capabilities and their strategic use within the organization. The KMCMM will allow an organization to establish a diagnosis and to develop a specific organizational capabilities guide favouring the improvement of its KM practices. Indeed, once standardized, the KMCMM could be used as a framework of organizational learning in the KM capabilities context. In addition, the design of KMCMM provides several research perspectives: 1- in general, the designed KMCMM will be used as a foundation to continue the research on KM strategic planning; 2- in particular, the designed KMCMM will be used as a foundation to continue the research on the concept of the standard maturity model in KM context. Thus, the KMCMM could be used as a basis for further research on the subject by other researchers to develop is standardization. Then, there is still a lot of work to do, and we will continue to investigate in this exciting new field in order to improve organizational KM.
References
Abernathy, William J. and James M. Utterback (1988) “Patterns of Industrial Innovation. In Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation”, Robert A. Burgelman and Robert A. Maidique, Homewood, II: Irwin: 141-148.
Abou-Zeid, El-Sayed (2003) CDeveloping Business Aligned Knowledge Management Strategy”. In E. Coakes (Ed), Knowledge Management: Current Issues and Challenges, IRM Press: 156-172.
Abou-Zeid, El-Sayed (2002). A Strategic Alignment Model for Knowledge Management. IRMA International Conference Proceedings.
Amit, R. et P. J. H. Shoemaker (1993) “Strategic Assets and Organizational Rents”, Strategic Management Journal, 14(1): 33-46.
Armbrecht, F.M. Ross et al. (2001) “Knowledge Management in research and development”, Research Technology Management.
Asoh, Derek A., Salvatore Belardo and Peter Duchessi (2003) “Alignment: The missing link in knowledge management research”, Fourth European Conference on Knowledge Management, Fergal McGrath University of Limerick: 39-47.
Barki, H., S. Rivard, J. Talbot (2001) “An integrative contingency Model of Software Project Risk Management”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4): 37-69.
Barney, J. B., (1991) “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage”. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.
Berztiss, Alfs T. (2002) “Capability Maturity for Knowledge Management”, IEEE, 13th International Workshop, on 2-6 sept.: 162-166.
Bharadwaj, A.S. (2000) “A Resource-Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation”, MIS Quarterly, 24(1): 169-196.
Booto Ekionea, J.P. & Swain, D.E. (2008) “Developing and aligning a knowledge management strategy: Towards a taxonomy and a framework”, International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1): 29-45.
Burgelman, Robert A. (1988) “Strategy Making as a Social Learning Process: The Case of Internal Venturing”, Interface, 18(3): 74-85.
Chang, S-G & Ahn, J-H, (2005) “Product and process knowledge in the performance-oriented knowledge management approach”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4): 8-18.
Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal (1990) “Absorptive Capability: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, March: 128-152.
Collis, d.j., and C.A. Montgomery (1995) “Competing on Resources: Strategy in the 1990s”, Harvard Business Review, July-August:118-128.
Cyert, R. M. and James G. March (1963) “A Behavioural Theory of the Firm”, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Davenport, Thomas H. (1998) “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system”, Harvard Business Review, July-August: 126-135.
Dayan R., and S. Evans (2006) “KM your way to CMMI”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1): 69-80.
Dekleva, Sasa and David Drehmer (2001) “Measuring Software Engineering Evolution : A Rash Calibration”, Information Systems Research, 8/1): 95-104.
Dierick, I., K. Cool and J.B. Barney (1989) “Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage”, Management Science, 35(12): 1504-1510.
Earl, M. (2001) “Knowledge management strategies : Toward a taxonomy”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1): 215-233.
Elliott, S. (1997) “Case Corporation's Pilot Effort Proves Value of Knowledge Management”, Knowledge Management in Practice, 10.
Elliott, S. (1998) “Broderbund Builds Stong 'Case' for Internal, External Knowledge Sharing”, Knowledge Management in Practice, 14.
Gold, A., A. Malhotra, et A. Segars (2001) “Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1): 185-214.
Grant, R. M., (1991) “The Resource Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implication for Strategy Formulation”, California Management Review, Spring: 119-135.
Harigopal Umesh et Satyadas Antony (2001) “Cognizant Enterprise maturity Model (CEMM)”, IEEE, 31(4): 449-459.
Henderson, J.C., N. Venkatraman (1993) “Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations”, IBM Systems Journal, 32(1): 4-16.
Jonson D.I. & J.G. Brodman (2002) “Applying CMM project planning practices to diverse environments”, IEEE Software, 17(4): 40-47.
Kaner Maya & Renven Karni (2004) “A capability Maturity Model for Knowledge-Based Decision-making”, Information Knowledge Systems Management, 4: 225-252.
Kappos, A. & Rivard, S. (2008) “A three-perspective model of culture, information systems, and their development and use”, MIS Quarterly, 32(3): 601.
Klimko G. (2001) “Knowledge Management and maturity models: building common understanding”, . In: Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Knowledge Management, Bled Slovenia: 269-278.
Luftman, Jerry N. et al. (2004) “Managing the IT Resource: Leadership in the Information Age”, Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Maidique, A. Modesto (1980) “Entrepreneurs, Champions, and Technological Innovation“, Sloan Management Review, 21(2): 59–76.
Mata, JF, WL Fuerst and JB Barney (1995) “Information Technology and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based analysis”, MIS Quarterly, 19(4): 487-505.
Miles, Raymond E. and Charles C. Snow (1978) “Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process”, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mitchell, V.L. (2006) “Knowledge integration and information technology project performance”, MIS Quarterly, 30(4): 919.
Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter (1982) “An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change”, Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Ordóñez de Pablos, P. & Lytras, M.D. (2008) “Competencies and human resource management: Implications for organizational competitive advantage”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(6): 48.
PEPPART, J., Ward, J. (2004) “Beyond strategic information systems: towards an IS capability”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13: 167–194.
Porter, Michael E. et Victor E. Millar (1986) "Pour combattre vos concurrents, maîtrisez mieux l’informatique". Harvard-L’Expansion, Printemps : 6-20.
Puri, S.K. (2007) “Integrating scientific with indigenous knowledge: Constructing knowledge alliances for land management in India”, MIS Quarterly, 31(2): 355.
Quinn, J.B., P. Anderson, and S. Fiinkelstein (1996) "Leveraging Intellect”, Academy of Management Executive, 10(3): 7-27.
Ramasubbu, N., Mithas, S., Krishnan, M.S., & Kemerer, C.F. (2008) “Work dispersion, process-based learning, and offshore software development performance”. MIS Quarterly, 32(2): 437.
Riege, A. & Lindsay, N. (2006) “Knowledge in the public sector: Stakeholder partnerships in the public policy development”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3): 24-39.
Roberts, Edward B. (1990) “Evolving Toward Product and Market-Orientation: The Early Years of Technology-Based Firms”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(2): 274-287.
Saraf, N., Langdon, C.S., & Gosain, S. (2007) “IS application capabilities and relational value in interfirm partnerships”, Information Systems Research, 18(3):320-341.
Siemens (2001) “Holistic Development of Knowledge Management with KMMM” In: Proceedings of the fourth IS Congress, Canada.
Spiegler, I. (2000) “Knowledge Management: A New Idea or a Recycled Concept?”, Communications of AIS, 3(14).
St-Amant, G. et Renard, L. (2004) "Proposition d’un modèle de gestion du développement des capacités organisationnelles", XIIième Conférence de l’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique (AIMS), Vallée de Seine 2, 3 et 4 juin.
Stevenson, H. H. (1976) “Defining Corporate Strengths and Weaknesses”, Sloan Management Review, 17(3): 51-68.
Swain, D.E. & Booto Ekionea, J.-P. (2008) “A framework for developing and aligning a knowledge management strategy”, Journal of Information and Knowledge Management (JIKM), 7(2): 113-122.
Teece, D.J.et al., (1997) “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management”, Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-533.
Venkatraman, N. (1989) “The Concept of FIT in Strategy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence”, Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 423-444.
Venkatraman, N. et Prescott, J.E. (1990) "Environment-Strategy Coalignment: An Empirical Test Of Its Performance Implications”, Strategic Management Journal, 11(1): 1-23.
VENKATRAMAN, N. (1994) “IT-enabled Business Transformation: From Automation to Business Scope Redefinition”, Sloan Management Review, Winter: 73-87.
Wernerfelt, B., (1984) “A Resource Based View of the Firm”, Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171-180.
Ye Du, A., Geng, X., Gopal, R., Ramesh, R., & Whinston, A.B. (2008) “Capacity provision networks: Foundations of markets for sharable resources in distributed computational economies”, Information Systems Research, 19(2): 144-163.
Zollo, M. et S.G. Winter (2002) “Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities”, Organization Science, 13: 339-351.