An empirical study of critical success factors in implementing knowledge management systems (KMS): The moderating role of culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research focuses on the moderating effect of culture on the relationships between KMS and other variables affecting KMS in the service industry. The effects of a number of variables on KMS were examined via analysis and hypothesis testing. These variables included culture; people; process; strategy; and technology. The results show that culture and people have a substantial impact on KMS's performance, emphasizing the need of cultivating a supportive company culture and empowering employees. Furthermore, strategy and technology were shown to be critical in allowing effective knowledge management practices in the service industry. The research also investigates the moderating impacts of culture on these linkages, demonstrating that culture modulates the impact of process, technology, and strategy on KMS. However, it was shown that the interplay between culture and people did not substantially alter the link between people and KMS. These results provide useful insights for firms looking to improve their knowledge management methods, underlining the need to take culture into account and aligning it with strategic goals and technology solutions. While the study adds to our understanding of knowledge management in the service industry, further research is needed to investigate other elements and situations. Overall, this research has practical significance for firms looking to enhance their knowledge management activities and overall organizational performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".