20304050607083 2

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



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.



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



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



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.



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,



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).



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



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.



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


** 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






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



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.



43

Table 4: Mean and Standard Deviation of Approaches used for knowledge

dissemination in Federal University Libraries in Nigeria


**

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




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.



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.



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.



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.





[18] Joint Inspection Unit, Interational Labour Organization (2004). Knoweldge

management at the internatioal laboour orgnaization, (senera: International labour

orgnaization)



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.



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.

20304050607083 2

Technology

Transcript of 20304050607083 2