Yu, W D; Chang, P L; Yao, S H and Liu, S J (2009) KVAM: Model for measuring knowledge management performance of engineering community of practice. Construction Management and Economics, 27(8), pp. 733-747. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The research presents the development of the knowledge value-adding model (KVAM) for quantitative performance measurement of the community of practice (CoP) of the knowledge management system (KMS) in an A/E consulting firm. The proposed KVAM combines several existing KM theories including knowledge creation spiral, knowledge chain model, and knowledge value added theory to form a process-level model for measuring the performance of a generic community of practice (CoP). Case study results show that the proposed KVAM provides KM managers with a useful tool not only to monitor the performance of a CoP and its members but also to plan an effective strategy for performance improvement. Unlike the traditional organizational-level approaches, the proposed KVAM was concluded to better reflect the actual values solely generated by the KMS rather than other management factors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | community of practice; engineering consulting; knowledge management; performance evaluation; value-adding models |
| Index terms: | knowledge management, manager, strategy, knowledge creation, case study, performance evaluation, performance measurement, knowledge management system, performance improvement |
| Subjects: | professional development, performance measurement, information systems, management, knowledge management, practitioner, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Information Management, Quality Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here