Knowledge-Based Systems 33 (2012) 83–91

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Knowledge-Based Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/knosys

Applying fuzzy quality function deployment to prioritize solutions of

knowledge management for an international port in Taiwan
Gin-Shuh Liang a, Ji-Feng Ding b,⇑, Chun-Kai Wang a
a
Department of Shipping and Transportation Management, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 202, Taiwan
b
Department of Aviation and Maritime Transportation Management, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan City 711, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this paper is to apply a fuzzy quality function deployment (QFD) approach to prioritize
Received 14 August 2011 knowledge management (KM) solutions for an international port in Taiwan. First, the paper examines
Received in revised form 8 March 2012 house of quality (HOQ) matrices to facilitate handling of the ‘what’ (i.e., KM requirements) and ‘how’
Accepted 10 March 2012
(KM solutions) aspects of the QFD problem, and proposes procedures for the use of a fuzzy QFD method.
Available online 17 March 2012
A case study concerning port K in Taiwan is then used to demonstrate a systematic appraisal process for
prioritizing KM solutions, and twenty attributes with sixteen feasible KM implementation solutions are
Keywords:
measured employing an HOQ matrix. Finally, the top five feasible solutions for implementing KM at port
Knowledge management
Port
K are identified. The empirical results show that ‘establishment of a data storage and data mining system’
Fuzzy number in the technology dimension is the most urgent requirement for KM implementation at port K in Taiwan.
Quality function deployment Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Taiwan

1. Introduction [2,21,48]. Zack [48] suggests that knowledge is a strategic resource

Traditionally, labor, land, capital, and an entrepreneurial spirit
are seen by businesses and organizations as the most fundamental
factors of production. In an age of exploding information, however,
an enterprise needs to integrate its knowledge and transform it
into useful resources that can help it maintain or create a compet-
itive edge. In his Post-Capitalist Society, management guru Drucker
[18] pointed out that in today’s society, the key factor of produc-
tion providing real dominance is not capital, land, or labor, but
rather knowledge, highlighting the reality that knowledge has be-
come an important production element.
Knowledge is an unlimited resource and asset [39] that can
grow as it is used, and organizations can continue to innovate
and progress through internal and external competition and
friction. Both in the present and the future, knowledge will remain
an important tool by which enterprises can boost their competi-
tiveness. The key to the success of an enterprise lies in the contin-
ued application and accumulation of knowledge, and the steady
growth of knowledge through continuous learning and innovation.
Knowledge management (KM) [2] involves the conversion of
data into useful information which can be applied as knowledge.
It is a process in which data and information are processed and
analyzed to become valuable knowledge, which can help
businesses and organizations make profits, reduce costs, boost
competitiveness, and generate both tangible and intangible assets
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 6 2785123x2263; fax: +886 6 2785056.
E-mail address: jfding@mail.cjcu.edu.tw (J.-F. Ding).
that is difficult to copy or acquire, and the time needed to obtain
knowledge cannot necessarily be shortened by increased invest-
ment. As a result, knowledge can offer both synergetic effects
and increasing returns. Thus, the acquisition, integration, storage,
and sharing of knowledge are the basis for an enterprise’s creation
and maintenance of a competitive edge [27,31].
Nonaka and Takeuchi [33] and Polanyi [37] contend that tacit
knowledge is a subjective concept that requires personal experi-
ence and can only be accumulated over time, and is also a form
of knowledge that cannot be transferred through language and
can only be shared via either interpersonal interactions or personal
experience. Due to its higher production cost and lower chance of
repeated use, tacit knowledge is normally applied by businesses to
higher added value production activities. In contrast, since explicit
knowledge can be transmitted to others via other media, it can be
spread in a more effective and faster manner, leading people to
believe that explicit knowledge is the most important factor of
production in a knowledge-based economy. Because explicit
knowledge has a wider range of application and can be repeatedly
used, duplicated and learned, it can be passed on and spread
through tabulation, generalization, classification and storage.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) [36] argues that a knowledge-based economic framework
will bring about changes in the pattern of global economic devel-
opment. In a knowledge economy age, the creation of enterprise
value hinges on technology, entrepreneurial spirit, and innovation.
With the development and advance of various technologies, a new
economic era has now arrived. To enhance competitiveness,

0950-7051/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.03.012
84 G.-S. Liang et al. / Knowledge-Based Systems 33 (2012) 83–91
improve efficiency, and lower operating costs, organizations
should treat their knowledge as an asset and manage it accord-
ingly, share and transfer correct know-how, and transform
themselves into knowledge-oriented organizations.
KM involves the use of a series of knowledge creation, acquisi-
tion, and application processes for the improvement of organiza-
tional performance. Hence, the success of an enterprise requires
both innovation and application of knowledge to gain competitive
advantages and promote KM [4]. A growing range of organizations
are thus focusing attention on KM. In short, knowledge manage-
ment treats knowledge as an asset and manages it in a systematic
way to achieve the goal of enhancement of organizational perfor-
mance and competitiveness.
In recent years, a growing body of literature [2,4,8,10–
12,20,21,26–28,31,40,41,45,46,48] has addressed the subject of
KM, which underscores the widespread attention this topic has
received. However, a review of relevant literature suggests that
the application of KM is still limited to manufacturing, high-tech
industry, knowledge-intensive industry, service industries having
frequent interactions with customers, and some government agen-
cies. Despite the fact that there have been studies on the applica-
tion of KM to the maritime transport industry [47], discussion of
its application to port management remains scanty.
The integration of port service functions and their connection
with the country’s industrial development not only result in bene-
ficial economic clustering effects but also boost the market effec-
tiveness of the production sector. Moreover, the development of
global trade has further changed the management of traditional
maritime transport and led to critical changes in the international
maritime transport service market system. Haynes et al. [24] sug-
gested that factors connected with the success of a fourth-genera-
tion port operation [44] include technology, human resources,
resource integration strategies, and application of knowledge. With
the development of KM and the knowledge-based economy, these
competitive port knowledge service capabilities have expanded to
play a functional role, which further demonstrates the important
role played by KM in modern seaport operations.
Ports are a type of service industry [3], but there are discrepan-
cies in perceived importance and satisfaction when KM is
implemented by port operators. In order to enhance KM imple-
mentation performance, successful, concrete, feasibility solutions
must be proposed in order to resolve the issue of these discrepan-
cies. The quality function deployment (QFD) method offers just
such a solution. There are situations in which information is
incomplete or imprecise, or when views subjective or endowed
with linguistic characteristics [50], creating a ‘fuzzy’ [49] deci-
sion-making environment. The fuzziness-based quality function
deployment (fuzzy QFD) approach can be used to evaluate the rela-
tionships between the requirements and solutions of implement-
ing KM for port operators. By using the fuzzy QFD approach, KM
implementation requirements can be transformed into technical
requirements able to improve KM performance.
In summary, the purpose of this paper is to apply the fuzzy QFD
method to prioritize technical KM solutions for an international
port in Taiwan. The first section provides background information.
The following section presents the research methodology, while
the third section describes the fuzzy QFD procedures. The fourth
section consists of an empirical case study, and the final section
offers our conclusions.
2. Research methodology
In this section, some of the concepts and methods used in this
paper are briefly introduced. These include the triangular fuzzy
numbers and the algebraic operations, linguistic values, and the
ranking of fuzzy numbers, respectively.
2.1. Triangular fuzzy numbers and the algebraic operations
In a universe of discourse X, a fuzzy subset A of X is defined by a
membership function fA(x), which maps each element x in X to a
real number in the interval [0, 1]. The function value fA(x) repre-
sents the grade of membership of x in A.
A fuzzy number A [19] in real line is a triangular fuzzy number if
its membership function fA : R ! ½0; 1 is
8
< ðx  cÞ=ða  cÞ; c 6 x 6 a
>
fA ðxÞ ¼ ðx  bÞ=ða  bÞ; a 6 x 6 b ð1Þ
>
:
0; otherwise
with 1 < c 6 a 6 b < 1. The triangular fuzzy number can be de-
noted by (c, a, b). The parameter a gives the maximum grade of
fA(x), i.e., fA(a) = 1; it is the most probable value of the evaluation
data. In addition, ‘c’ and ‘b’ are the lower and upper bounds of the
available area for the evaluation data. They are used to reflect the
fuzziness of the evaluation data. The narrower the interval [c, b],
the lower is the degree of fuzziness of the evaluation data.
Let A1 = (c1, a1, b1) and A2 = (c2, a2, b2) be fuzzy numbers.
According to the extension principle [49], the algebraic operations
of any two fuzzy numbers A1 and A2 can be expressed as
 Fuzzy addition, :
A1  A2 ¼ ðc1 þ c2 ; a1 þ a2 ; b1 þ b2 Þ;
 Fuzzy multiplication, :
k  A2 ¼ ðkc2 ; ka2 ; kb2 Þ; k 2 R; k P 0;
A1  A2 ffi ðc1 c2 ; a1 a2 ; b1 b2 Þ; c1 P 0; c2 P 0:
2.2. Linguistic values
In this paper, linguistic values [29,50] characterized by triangu-
lar fuzzy numbers are employed to express the fuzzy relationship
degree between the KM requirements and solutions. According to
the practical needs and for matching the fuzzy QFD approach
developed in this paper, the fuzzy relationship degree set is defined
as S = {High, Medium, Low, Non}. The linguistic values can be
defined as High = (0.5, 0.75, 1), Medium = (0.25, 0.5, 0.75),
Low = (0, 0.25, 0.5), and Non = (0, 0, 0), respectively.
2.3. Ranking of fuzzy numbers
In a fuzzy decision-making environment, ranking the alterna-
tives under consideration is essential. To match the fuzzy QFD ap-
proach developed in this paper, and to solve the problem
powerfully, the graded mean integration representation (GMIR)
method, proposed by Chen and Hsieh [7] in 2000, is employed to
determine the priority order of execution to all technical solutions.
Let Ai = (ci, ai, bi), i = 1, 2, . . . , n, be n triangular fuzzy numbers. By
the GMIR method, the GMIR value P(Ai) of Ai is
PðAi Þ ¼ ðci þ 4ai þ bi Þ=6 ð2Þ
Suppose P(Ai) and P(Aj) are the GMIR values of the triangular fuzzy
numbers Ai and Aj, respectively. We define:
 Ai > Aj $ PðAi Þ > PðAj Þ,
 Ai < Aj () PðAi Þ < PðAj Þ,
 Ai ¼ Aj () PðAi Þ ¼ PðAj Þ.
 G.-S. Liang et al. / Knowledge-Based Systems 33 (2012) 83–91
3. The fuzzy QFD approach
3.1. Basic concept of the QFD model
The QFD model [13,14,23,25] can be used to translate customer
requirements into product specifications. It is a tool to employ the
voice of the customer (VOC) in a search for the best product devel-
opment solutions. Cohen [13] proposed a four-phase QFD model in
a discussion of product development; these phases respectively
consist of customer requirement planning (CRP), product charac-
teristics deployment (PCD), process and quality control (PQC),
and the operative instruction (OPI). In this paper, we focus on
the CRP phase, which is used to develop procedures for identifying
KM requirements and solutions. The CRP phase of the QFD model
consists of use of a matrix, known as the ‘‘House of Quality’’
(HOQ), which uses matrices to show multiple relationships be-
tween customer requirements (i.e., the ‘what’ requirements of
KM) and technical specifications (i.e., ‘how’ the KM solutions have
to be designed). In this paper, HOQ matrices are used to organize
KM requirements and establish the priority of solutions in order
to meet KM requirements. In other words, the customer’s KM
requirements are transformed into technical specifications, which
are then evaluated to establish an impact ranking. Further discus-
sion and explanation of the QFD model may be found in Akao [1],
Cohen [13], and Terninko [43].
A typical HOQ chart (American style) is shown in Fig. 1, and is
created in six basic steps. The difference between the American-
style and Japanese-style HOQ charts is that the latter lacks Area E
in Fig. 1. Since the Japanese style of HOQ is easy to use, however,
it will be employed in this paper.
 Area A represents customer needs, as identified by the VOC. In
this paper, those needs are termed requirements, and influence
the KM solutions. The KM requirements are determined via a
questionnaire.
 Area B represents the relative importance of KM requirements,
determined in this paper using the questionnaire.
 Area C represents design requirements or technical specifica-
tions, which are ‘how’ the KM solutions to be made. In this
paper, this ‘how’ question is the main issue, and involves iden-
tification of KM solutions.
 Area D represents the relationship matrix, which is the core ele-
ment of the HOQ. In this paper, the relationship strength is
expressed by triangular fuzzy numbers.
 Area E represents the correlation matrix, which expresses how
design requirements affect each other. Correlations are shown
with symbols, a rating scheme of 1–3–9, or linguistic
expressions.
 Area F represents design requirement target values. In this
paper, the priorities of KM solutions are calculated.
Correlation
matrix (E)
Design requirements (C)
Customer Relative importance of
requirements Relationship matrix (D) customer requirements
(A) (B)
Target values (F)
Fig. 1. House of quality (HOQ).
85
3.2. The systematic steps of fuzzy QFD approach
Fuzzy QFD method implementation steps [15,29,30] are pro-
posed as follows.
3.2.1. Step 1. Identify the KM requirements
Because KM requirements are not easy to obtain, we combined
determination of KM requirements via the academic literature
[2,5,6,9,15–17,32,34,42] with consultation with managers and ex-
perts in Taiwan concerning the characteristics of KM implementa-
tion at a port. Four dimensions with twenty KM requirement
attributes for an international port are evaluated, and their codes
shown in parentheses.
1. Market competitiveness (R1). This dimension chiefly focuses on
attributes relating to the enhancement of competitiveness in
the international port market, and includes the attributes of
‘improvement of high-level managers’ prediction ability (C1)’,
‘solution of problems caused by business and change of envi-
ronment (C2)’, ‘enhancement of knowledge sharing between
different departments (C3)’, ‘shortening the time needed for
business procedures (C4)’, ‘improvement of employees’ work
efficiency (C5)’, ‘strengthening of the port’s market penetration
ability (C6)’, and ‘reduction of port costs and expenses (C7)’.
2. Human resources management (HRM) (R2). This dimension
concerns issues related to the improvement of HRM efficiency
in port operation, and includes the attributes of ‘implementa-
tion of a substitute system to enable any replacement employee
to swiftly take over a new job in the event of a job transfer (C8)’,
‘fast and effective solution of repeated, routine, and common
problems (C9)’, ‘standardization of working procedures to
improve employees’ business handling ability (C10)’, and
‘improvement of employees’ ability to apply information to
support decision-making (C11)’.
3. Service innovation (R3). This dimension represents the ability to
improve port service quality and organizational innovation
ability. Its attributes include ‘improvement of the innovation
abilities of the organization and its high-level managers
through knowledge sharing (C12)’, enhancement of professional
port managers’ success rate in their business negotiations with
new customers (C13)’, ‘shortening of the time needed by the
port’s to respond to customer demands (C14)’, ‘improvement
of the port’s online service quality and implementation of a
one-stop service system (C15)’, and ‘improvement of communi-
cation channels with the harbor bureau, shipping companies,
and shipping agents (C16)’.
4. Organizational management (R4). This dimension focuses on
attributes associated with the improvement of a port’s organi-
zational management. It includes ‘improvement of organiza-
tional and individual knowledge learning ability (C17)’,
‘improvement of the return of unit labor cost (C18)’, ‘transform-
ing the port’s non-knowledge-oriented organization into a
knowledge-oriented organization and increasing knowledge
sharing within the organization (C19)’, and ‘application of KM
to the overall port operation management system to boost port
competitiveness (C20)’.
3.2.2. Step 2. Comparing the importance and satisfaction levels of
attributes
The KM requirement attributes can be measured using a Likert-
type five-point scale [15,29] to evaluate the discrepancies between
levels of perceived importance and satisfaction. If the latter are
greater than the former, this implies that the port system KM
requirements are acceptable. Conversely, if the former exceed the
latter, this implies that some measures or solutions should be
identified, and Step 3 executed. In this paper, the authors will eval-
86 G.-S. Liang et al. / Knowledge-Based Systems 33 (2012) 83–91
uate discrepancies in perceptions of KM attributes via a
questionnaire.
3.2.3. Step 3. Identify technical solutions
The direction of this ‘how’ issue is considered from the angle of
the technical specifications involved in identifying KM solutions,
which are obtained from the academic literature [2,10–12,21,26–
28,31,40,45,46,48] and port experts. Three dimensions with six-
teen technical KM solutions are suggested, and their codes are
shown in parentheses. Descriptions of all technical solutions are
shown in Table 1.
3.2.4. Step 4. Calculating the priorities of KM requirements
As mentioned in Step 2, the degree of importance and satisfac-
tion of each KM requirement attribute are compared to obtain the
arithmetic means of all importance and satisfaction levels. The pri-
orities of the KM requirements are calculated to evaluate the VOCs.
Referring to the area A in the Fig. 1, the identified VOCs include
those in both the higher importance levels and the lower satisfac-
tion levels, which implies that the higher KM requirements should
be improved.
Let xi and yi ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; be the arithmetic means of impor-
tance and satisfaction levels for each attribute (Ci, i = 1, 2, . . . , n)
of the KM requirements. The priority of each requirement has a di-
rect relationship with the importance level, whereas the priority
has an inverse relationship with the satisfaction level [15,29]. Thus,
the original priority wi of Ci can be denoted by wi ¼ xi ð6  yi Þ. To
Table 1
Technical solutions of KM for an international port.
Dimensions Solutions
Technology Establishment of a data storage and data
(S1) mining system (A1)
Construction of an information and
communication infrastructure (A2)
Establishment of a decision-making support
system (A3)
Use of groupware and other software (A4)
Establishment of a database for document
management (A5)
Personnel Support from high-level executives (A6)
(S2)
Promotion of employees’ awareness of KM (A7)
Improvement of administrative employees’
information application ability (A8)
Establishment of a personnel continuing
education system (A9)
Dimensions Solutions
Workflow Establishment of a clear future vision and
(S3) common values (A10)
A transparent workflow (A11)
Establishment of multiple knowledge-sharing
channels (A12)
Strengthening of the performance evaluation
system (A13)
Additional value guidance (A14)
A networked organization (A15)
Development of a learning-based organization
(A16)
facilitate comparison with the
Ppriority, these weights are normal-
n
ized and denoted by W i ¼ wi i¼1 wi .
The priority of each KM requirement attribute can be found via
this approach.
3.2.5. Step 5. Construction of a fuzzy relationship matrix
A fuzzy relationship matrix can be constructed to link the KM
requirement attributes (Ci, i = 1, 2, . . . , n) and technical solutions
E
(Aj, j = 1, 2, . . . , m). Let X Eij ¼ ðcEij ; aEij ; bij Þ; E ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; h; be the fuzzy
relationship degree of the ith attribute corresponding to the jth
technical solution by the Eth expert. The linguistic relationship
strength Rij in the position (i, j) of the matrix can be calculated by
 
Rij ¼ ð1=hÞ  X 1ij  X 2ij      X Eij      X hij ¼ ðcij ; aij ; bij Þ;
where
  
P
h P
h P
h
E
cij ¼ cEij h; aij ¼ aEij h; bij ¼ bij h:
E¼1 E¼1 E¼1
The fuzzy relationship matrix R can now be obtained, and is
R = [Rij]n m.
3.2.6. Step 6. Calculate the fuzzy weights of technical solutions
Let Rij = (cij, aij, bij), i = 1, 2, . . ., n; j = 1, 2, . . . , m, be the fuzzy rela-
tionship strength between the attributes (Ci, i = 1, 2, . . . , n) of the
KM requirements and technical solutions (Aj, j = 1, 2, . . . , m). The
fuzzy weight FSj of technical solution Aj relative to all attributes
of the KM requirements can be expressed as
Descriptions
A data storage and data mining system can be used to convert data into useful information and
knowledge through data collation and analysis, facilitating the decision-making process
An information and communication infrastructure can be used to achieve smooth, efficient, real-time
communication between personnel, customers, and other port affair participants
A computer-based decision-making support system (DSS) can use a dialog-type method to help
decision makers use data to solve semi-structured and unstructured decision-making problems
An open knowledge-sharing environment can facilitate cooperation between groups within an
organization; e.g. the use of software like online bulletin boards, project management systems, and
distance video conferencing
A document management database can be used for document archiving and classification, facilitating
the query and transmission of related documents
The support of high-level executives has made the application of KM more effective
Pre-service or on-the-job training is used to boost awareness of KM among port personnel and reduce
cognitive bias and psychological resistance
On-the-job training is used to enhance the information application ability of personnel, boosting
information skills and enhance personnel qualifications
Port personnel are encouraged to receive further education or pursue study to upgrade their harbor
service knowledge
Descriptions
The promotion of KM requires the setting of specific goals before a clear future vision, common values,
and team spirit can be established within the organization
A transparent workflow can help eliminate the flaws commonly seen in conventional work
procedures, enhance overall working efficiency, facilitate document storage, sharing, and
management, and achieve smoother operation
Diversified communication channels are needed to share knowledge and experience within an
organization and prevent the obstruction of knowledge by outside factors
Performance evaluation should be conducted periodically to encourage knowledge sharing and create
learning models among employees
To stress the importance of KM, port personnel should be made aware that the application of KM is not
limited to port affairs but can also be applied in daily life
A networked organization has the competitive advantage of information circulation. By promoting the
efficient and effective transmission of knowledge, networked organization enables a port to respond
swiftly to dramatic changes in international markets and achieve a high degree of competitiveness
Learning is a continuous, strategic application process which creates ties between organization
members and their daily work. Organizational learning can therefore lead to changes in organization
members’ knowledge, attitude, and behavior, strengthening the organization’s ability to innovate and
grow
 G.-S. Liang et al. / Knowledge-Based Systems 33 (2012) 83–91
 
P
n P
n P
n
FSj ¼ W i cij ; W i aij ; W i bij ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m:
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
3.2.7. Step 7. Defuzzify the fuzzy relationship strength to rank the
priority
The GMIR method, discussed in Section 2.3, is used to defuzzify
the fuzzy weight FSj of technical solution Aj. The ranking value
P(FSj) of FSj can be calculated by
 
P
n P
n P
n departments (C3)’, and ‘improvement of the knowledge learning
PðFSj Þ ¼ W i cij þ 4 W i aij þ W i bij 6;
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
Based on these ranking values and the ranking rules in Sec-
tion 2.3, we can determine the priority of implementation of all
technical KM solutions.
4. Case study
In this section, a case study of an international port (‘‘port K’’) in
Taiwan is performed to demonstrate the calculation procedures
described above.
4.1. Questionnaire and data collection
In this paper, questionnaires for two stages were designed to
evaluate the priority of KM requirements and the fuzzy relation-
ship degrees between KM requirements and technical solutions.
In the stage one questionnaire, we used twenty KM requirement
implementation attributes to evaluate degrees of importance and
satisfaction. One hundred personnel at port K, including senior
and middle managers and general unit personnel of port K, were
selected to answer the survey questionnaires. A total of 74 valid
questionnaires (74%) were received from 100 respondents. The
survey was implemented through e-mails, phone calls, and in-per-
son interviews by the authors.
The Cronbach’s a values of all twenty KM requirement imple-
mentation attributes with respect to degrees of importance and
satisfaction were 0.9425 and 0.9375, respectively, showing that
the survey results had a satisfactory level of reliability [35]. The
content of the questionnaire was developed through an examina-
tion of the academic literature, and investigated the characteristics
of KM implementation at the port via the views of managers and
experts. A pretest was also conducted. As a result, the content
validity of the questionnaire was considered very good.
Regarding the stage-two questionnaire, the authors combined
the twenty requirement attributes and sixteen technical KM
solutions to construct a matrix table evaluating fuzzy relationship
degree. Robbins [38] suggested five or seven decision-makers are
suitable for dealing with group decision-making problems. Due
to the fact that the degree of fuzzy relationship is generated by a
professional committee, five experts consisting of senior managers,
the majority of whom had been working in the field for over
twenty years, were selected to complete the stage two
questionnaire.
4.2. Empirical results
The authors used the fuzzy QFD steps described in Section 3.2 to
obtain the final results, shown in Table 2. The detailed construction
the HOQ in Table 2 is described below.
First, the right side of Table 2 shows the xi ; yi ; wi , and Wi. The
Likert’s five-points scale [15,29] was designed in the stage-one
questionnaire to measure degree of importance and satisfaction,
and 74 valid questionnaires were collected to calculate the arith-
metic means. The results showed that the arithmetic means of
importance (xi ) are all larger than the degree of satisfaction (yi )
j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m:
87
for each attribute (Ci) in Table 2. The rankings of the important
KM requirements attributes for port K are then evaluated. The
top five KM requirement attributes were ‘reduction of port costs
and expenses (C7)’, ‘transforming the port’s non-knowledge-ori-
ented organization into a knowledge-oriented organization and
increasing knowledge sharing within the organization (C19)’,
‘implementation of a substitute system to enable any replacement
employee to swiftly take over a new job in the event of a job trans-
fer (C8)’, ‘enhancement of knowledge sharing between different
abilities of individuals and the organization (C17)’, respectively.
Second, the central part of Table 2 shows the fuzzy relationship
matrix. Four linguistic expressions were designed in the stage-two
questionnaire to measure the fuzzy relationship degree of each
attribute Ci corresponding to each solution Aj. Five valid question-
naires were collected to calculate the fuzzy relationship matrix
[Rij]n m (see Step 5 in Section 3.2). After obtaining the fuzzy rela-
tionship matrix, the authors used the Steps 6 and 7 in Section 3.2
to calculate the fuzzy weights (FSj) and ranking values P(FSj) of
all technical solutions. The technical solutions were ranked based
on the ranking rules in Section 2.3, and these results are shown
at the bottom of Table 2.
The empirical results showed that the five best feasible solu-
tions for implementing KM at port K consist of ‘establishment of
a data storage and data mining system (A1)’, ‘establishment of a
decision-making support system (A3)’, ‘construction of an informa-
tion and communication infrastructure (A2)’, ‘establishment of a
database for document management (A5)’, and ‘use of groupware
and other software (A4)’, respectively.
4.3. Discussions
In summary, we have gained a rough idea concerning the tech-
nical requirements of KM implementation for port K, with atten-
tion focused first on technology, followed by personnel, and then
workflow. This implies that the development of various software
and systems should first seek to structure data and information,
which should precede the application of KM awareness and abili-
ties by port employees. Workflow-related tasks, such as system
and organizational reforms, should be performed during a later
stage.
Due to the fact that the environments faced by port operators
can be very different, to ensure the correctness and timeliness of
KM implementation strategies, the relationship between the
implementation of KM requirements and technical requirements
should be constantly adjusted, so that they can serve as the basis
for subsequent periodic evaluations of QFD methods. This paper
has determined the top five feasible solutions for the implementa-
tion of quality technology deployment strategies, which are dis-
cussed as follows. These feasible solutions should be prioritized
when port operators implement KM.
1. Establishment of a data storage and data mining system. We
can see that information is obtained through the tabulation
and analysis of data, while knowledge is acquired through the
classification and collation of information. After testing and
application, knowledge can be used to help enterprises make
a profit, reduce costs, boost competitiveness and produce both
tangible and intangible values. At the beginning of KM imple-
mentation, port operators therefore need to first strengthen
their ability to convert data into knowledge before their com-
petitiveness can be enhanced.
2. Establishment of a decision-making support system. Research
on DSS has made great strides in recent years. The purpose of
a DSS is to resolve uncertain decision-making problems faced
by high-level executives by integrating conventional data and
Table 2

88
The results of solutions of KM for international port K.

Solutions factors S1 S2
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
R1
C1 (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813)
C2 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875)
C3 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875)
C4 (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875)
C5 (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938)
C6 (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688)
C7 (0.313, 0.5, 0.688) (0.313, 0.5, 0.688) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0, 0.188, 0.375)
R2
C8 (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.5, 0.75, 1)
C9 (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.25, 0.438, 0.625) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.5, 0.75, 1)
C10 (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938)
C11 (0.25, 0.438, 0.625) (0.375, 0.563, 0.75) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0.25, 0.438, 0.625) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938)
R3

G.-S. Liang et al. / Knowledge-Based Systems 33 (2012) 83–91

C12 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.063, 0.313, 0.563)
C13 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.188, 0.375, 0.563) (0.375, 0.563, 0.25) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75)
C14 (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688)
C15 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75)
C16 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813)
R4
C17 (0.313, 0.5, 0.688) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75)
C18 (0.188, 0.375, 0.563) (0.188, 0.375, 0.563) (0.188, 0.375, 0.563) (0.25, 0.438, 0.625) (0.188, 0.375, 0.563) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813)
C19 (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.5, 0.75, 1)
C20 (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.5, 0.75, 1)
Fuzzy weight (0.397, 0.637, 0.878) (0.393, 0.633, 0.874) (0.391, 0.635, 0.879) (0.378, 0.622, 0.866) (0.380, 0.634,0.874) (0.351, 0.598, 0.845) (0.321, 0.562, 0.803) (0.321, 0.564, 0.808) (0.323, 0.569, 0.813)
GMIR values 0.637 0.633 0.635 0.622 0.632 0.598 0.562 0.564 0.569
Rank the priority 1 3 2 5 4 6 9 8 7
S3 xi yi wi Wi
A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16
R1
C1 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.313, 0.5, 0.688) (0.313, 0.5, 0.688) 4.068 3.568 9.8934 0.0496 (14)
C2 (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.188, 0.375, 0.563) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) 3.987 3.50 9.9675 0.050 (11)
C3 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) 3.865 3.324 10.3427 0.0519 (4)
C4 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.063, 0.313, 0.563) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) 4.135 3.662 9.6676 0.0485 (16)
C5 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) 4.203 3.622 9.9947 0.0501 (9)
C6 (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) 3.838 3.351 10.1669 0.0510 (7)
C7 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0.25, 0.438, 0.625) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.438, 0.688, 0.938) (0.063, 0.25, 0.438) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) 4.0 3.324 10.7040 0.0537 (1)
R2
C8 (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.188, 0.375, 0.563) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0, 0.188, 0.375) (0.25, 0.438, 0.625) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) 3.987 3.392 10.3981 0.0522 (3)
C9 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.063, 0.313, 0.563) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.25, 0.438, 0.625) (0, 0.188, 0.375) (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) 4.041 3.527 9.9934 0.0501 (10)
C10 (0.375, 0.625, 0.875) (0.25, 0.438, 0.625) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.188, 0.375, 0.563) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) 4.122 3.514 10.2473 0.0514 (6)
C11 (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0, 0.188, 0.375) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0, 0.188, 0.375) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) 4.054 3.622 9.6404 0.0484 (17)
R3
C12 (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.313, 0.563, 0.813) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) 4.081 3.622 9.7046 0.0487 (15)
C13 (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0, 0.25, 0.5) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.063, 0.313, 0.563) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) 4.216 3.649 9.9118 0.0497 (13)
C14 (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0, 0.25, 0.5) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.063, 0.313, 0.563) 4.176 3.757 9.3668 0.0470 (19)
C15 (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) 4.311 3.784 9.5532 0.0479 (18)
C16 (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0.125, 0.313, 0.5) (0.125, 0.375, 0.625) (0.188, 0.438, 0.688) 4.257 3.878 9.0334 0.0453 (20)
 G.-S. Liang et al. / Knowledge-Based Systems 33 (2012) 83–91 89

decision-making analysis. Emphasis is placed on interaction

(12) between human and machine, and a system must have ade-
(5)

(2)
(8)

quate flexibility and adaptability to cope with a changing and

0.0516

0.0524
0.0498
0.0505

unknown future environment. This type of system can enable

port operators to effectively use their current assets and
respond quickly to a changing environment based on their
10.4471
9.9244
10.2904
10.0634

existing information. In the face of strong competition from

other international ports and a drastically changing maritime
transport environment, port operators must be able to come
3.419

3.297
3.405

3.608

up with more efficient policies enabling them to meet current

and future challenges.
3.865
3.987
3.878

4.149

3. Construction of an information and communication infrastruc-

ture. The speed of information transmission is much faster than
before in the 21st century – a time of age of exploding informa-
(0.188, 0.438, 0.688)
(0.375, 0.625, 0.875)

(0.296, 0.543, 0.790)

tion. Nowadays, communication with customers, knowledge

transfer between port employees, exchanges between ports,
(0.5, 0.75, 1)
(0.5, 0.75, 1)

and contact with authorities must all often be conducted via

the Internet. Even if the situations most ports encounter are
0.543

similar, port operators should pursue the larger goal of contin-

10

uing to upgrade port service quality.

4. Establishment of a database for document management. The
(0.188, 0.438, 0.688)
(0.188, 0.438, 0.688)
(0.438, 0.688, 0.938)
(0.438, 0.688, 0.938)
(0.260, 0.497, 0.734)

compilation and transmission of documents within a traditional

organization is often very laborious and complex work that is
both time-consuming and inefficient. By contrast, use of a doc-
ument management system with cross-platform functions can
0.497

enable all the data and documents within an organization to

13

be effectively integrated. Accordingly, a document management

(0.188, 0.438, 0.688)

(0.313, 0.563, 0.813)

(0.063, 0.313, 0.563)
(0.234, 0.468, 0.703)

system can assist an organization in its implementation of KM

and allow the distribution of documents containing rich knowl-
(0.25, 0.5, 0.75)

edge to all levels within a port organization. This can encourage

innovative thinking and learning among port employees, and
0.468

improve their decision-making analytical ability. In addition,

15

the logical access mechanisms of the document management

system offer clear-cut categories, and employees typically find
(0.125, 0.375, 0.625)

(0.063, 0.313, 0.563)

(0.136, 0.370, 0.605)
(0.063, 0.25, 0.438)

such systems very convenient to use.

(0.25, 0.5, 0.75)

Note: The full names of all attributes of requirements and solutions of KM can be seen in the Section 3.2.

5. Use of groupware and other software. Through the use of

groupware, professional personnel in each department at a port
can freely absorb experience and knowledge from each other,
0.370

further promoting the overall knowledge of the organization.

16

The virtual community environment created using the group-

(0.313, 0.563, 0.813)
(0.188, 0.438, 0.688)
(0.438, 0.688, 0.938)
(0.438, 0.688, 0.938)
(0.295, 0.539, 0.783)

ware can facilitate the exchange and transmission of knowledge

among different departments and individuals, thereby facilitat-
ing a smooth cooperation within the organization.

It is also worth discussing the responses to this study from var-

0.539
11

ious personnel, as this is relevant to KM implementation at port K.

A committee – including five senior personnel working in different
(0.188, 0.438, 0.688)
(0.375, 0.625, 0.875)
(0.438, 0.688, 0.938)
(0.241, 0.478, 0.715)

departments at port K – was organized to discuss whether or not

the technical solutions could help them improve working perfor-
(0.25, 0.5, 0.75)

mance. The personnel agreed that KM implementation with appli-

cation of technical solutions to technology, personnel, and
0.478

workflow could better meet customers’ requirements. Full applica-

14

tion of KM service procedures to serve customers can promote

good service quality, management system effectiveness, and work-
(0.125, 0.375, 0.625)

(0.375, 0.625, 0.875)

(0.438, 0.688, 0.938)
(0.286, 0.536, 0.786)

ing performance. They argued that since knowledge is a critical

(0.25, 0.5, 0.75)

heterogeneous resources, KM implementation could be applied

effectively and deeply embedded in the organizational culture,
and should be valued as a key strategic capability. The personnel
0.536

believed that the successful implementation of KM at port K could

12

improve the quality of human resources and make human re-

Rank the priority

sources a strategic resource and an inimitable capability. In the

Fuzzy weight

end, they also felt confidence they could apply this non-substitut-
GMIR values

able resource to enhance their competence and sustainable com-

petitive advantage in the industry. This is in line with the
C17
C18
C19
C20

suggestion of Hafeez et al. [22] that a capability is ‘the ability to

R4

make use of resources to perform some task or activity’. How port

90 G.-S. Liang et al. / Knowledge-Based Systems 33 (2012) 83–91
managers can determine their KM capabilities to run their business
operations more efficiently and establish their core competence
more effectively will be an important issue for future study.
5. Conclusions
This paper uses a fuzzy QFD approach to prioritize KM solutions
for an international port in Taiwan. To facilitate resolution of the
main issue, the basic concepts of the QFD model are presented first,
and the HOQ method is then proposed as an insightful procedure
for solving the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions in the QFD model. How-
ever, there are situations in which information is incomplete or
imprecise, or when views are subjective or endowed with linguistic
characteristics, creating a ‘fuzzy’ decision-making environment. A
fuzzy QFD approach was therefore used to resolve the relationship
between customer requirements (i.e., ‘what’ KM requirements) and
technical specifications (i.e., ‘how’ the KM solutions have to be de-
signed). Systematic procedures for using the fuzzy QFD method
were then proposed in Section 3.2.
Empirical analysis was conducted, using port K as a case study,
to demonstrate a systematic appraisal process for prioritizing KM
solutions. Two questionnaires administered in different stages
were designed to help illustrate the operational processes of the
proposed appraisal model. In the first questionnaire, we used 20
KM requirement implementation attributes to evaluate the dis-
crepancies between levels of perceived importance and satisfac-
tion. A total of 74 valid questionnaires were collected from one
hundred respondents. We next constructed a matrix table to eval-
uate the fuzzy relationship degree in the second questionnaire.
Five valid stage-two questionnaires were collected and used to cal-
culate the fuzzy relationship matrix. The results of the empirical
study were as follows:
1. The top five attributes for implementing KM requirements are
respectively ‘reduction of port costs and expenses (C7)’, ‘trans-
forming the port’s non-knowledge-oriented organization into
a knowledge-oriented organization and increasing knowledge
sharing within the organization (C19)’, ‘implementation of a
substitute system to enable any replacement employee to
swiftly take over a new job in the event of a job transfer (C8)’,
‘enhancement of knowledge sharing between different depart-
ments (C3)’, and ‘improvement of organizational and individual
knowledge learning ability (C17)’.
2. The top five feasible solutions for implementation of KM at port
K are respectively ‘establishment of a data storage and data
mining system (A1)’, ‘establishment of a decision-making sup-
port system (A3)’, ‘construction of an information and commu-
nication infrastructure (A2)’, ‘establishment of a database for
document management (A5)’, and ‘use of groupware and other
software (A4)’.
3. Thus, the technical requirements of KM implementation at port
K should begin with technology, followed by personnel, and
then workflow.
Although KM implementation can significantly benefit port
operations, its benefits cannot be realized without comprehensive
planning. Therefore, in the process of KM implementation, such as-
pects as the establishment of systems and the promotion of learn-
ing and a sharing culture need to be taken into consideration in the
construction of technological infrastructure. Furthermore, this pa-
per can be used as a reference by port K in its implementation of
KM, as it can help port personnel understand the purpose and
importance of KM. While this paper adopts a case study approach
to discussing port KM, follow-up researchers may apply other
methods to investigate patterns and advantages/disadvantages of
port KM implementation.
References
[1] Y. Akao, Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements
into Product Design, Productivity Press, Cambridge, 1990.
[2] M. Alavi, D.E. Leidner, Review: knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS
Quarterly 25 (1) (2001) 107–136.
[3] P.M. Alderton, Port Management and Operations, LLP, London, 1999.
[4] L.J. Bassi, Harnessing the power of intellectual capital, Training and
Development 51 (12) (1997) 25–30.
[5] C. Canamero, UNCTAD activities in the field of ports and their future, Maritime
Policy and Management 27 (1) (2000) 65–70.
[6] V. Carbone, M. de Martino, The changing role of ports in supply-chain
management: an empirical analysis, Maritime Policy and Management 30 (4)
(2003) 305–320.
[7] S.H. Chen, C.H. Hsieh, Representation, ranking, distance, and similarity of L–R
type fuzzy number and application, Australian Journal of Intelligent
Information Processing Systems 6 (4) (2000) 217–229.
[8] Y.H. Chen, C.F. Liu, H.G. Hwang, Key factors affecting healthcare professionals
to adopt knowledge management: the case of infection control departments of
Taiwanese hospitals, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (1) (2011) 450–457.
[9] C.C. Chou, AHP model for the container port choice in the multiple-port region,
Journal of Marine Science Technology 18 (2) (2010) 221–232.
[10] H.K.H. Chow, K.L. Choy, W.B. Lee, A dynamic logistics process knowledge-
based system – an RFID multi-agent approach, Knowledge-Based Systems 20
(4) (2007) 357–372.
[11] A. Chua, Knowledge management system architecture: a bridge between KM
consultants and technologists, International Journal of Information
Management 24 (1) (2004) 87–98.
[12] P.W.H. Chung, L. Cheung, J. Stader, P. Jarvis, J. Moore, A. Macintosh,
Knowledge-based process management – an approach to handling adaptive
workflow, Knowledge-Based Systems 16 (3) (2003) 149–160.
[13] L. Cohen, Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York, 1995.
[14] K. Crow, Customer-focused development with QFD, 2003. <http://www.npd-
solutions.com/qfd.html>.
[15] J.F. Ding, Applying fuzzy quality function deployment (QFD) to identify
solutions of service delivery system for port of Kaohsiung, Quality and
Quantity 43 (4) (2009) 553–570.
[16] J.F. Ding, Evaluating key capabilities and core competence for port of Keelung,
International Journal of Information and Management Sciences 20 (2) (2009)
269–290.
[17] J.F. Ding, C.C. Chou, A fuzzy MCDM model of service performance for container
ports, Scientific Research and Essays 6 (3) (2011) 559–566.
[18] P.F. Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society, HarperCollins Publisher, New York, 1994.
[19] D. Dubois, H. Prade, Operation on fuzzy numbers, International Journal of
Systems Sciences 9 (6) (1978) 613–626.
[20] P. Gottschalk, Stages of knowledge management systems in police
investigations, Knowledge-Based Systems 19 (6) (2006) 381–387.
[21] B. Gupta, L.S. Lyer, J.E. Aronson, Knowledge management: practices and
challenges, Industrial Management & Data Systems 100 (1) (2000) 17–21.
[22] K. Hafeez, Y. Zhang, N. Malak, Determining key capabilities of a firm using
analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of Production Economics 76
(1) (2002) 39–51.
[23] J.R. Hauser, D. Clausing, The house of quality, Harvard Business Review 66 (3)
(1988) 63–73.
[24] K.E. Haynes, Y.M. Hsing, R.R. Stough, Regional port dynamics in the global
economy: the case of Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Maritime Policy and Management 24
(1) (1997) 93–113.
[25] H. Hjort, D. Hananel, D. Lucas, Quality function deployment and integrated
production development, Journal of Engineering Design 3 (1) (1992) 17–29.
[26] M. Hoegl, A. Schulze, How to support knowledge creation in new product
development: an investigation of knowledge management methods, European
Management Journal 23 (3) (2005) 263–273.
[27] J. Johannessen, B. Olsen, J. Olaisen, Aspects of innovation theory based on
knowledge-management, International Journal of Information Management
19 (2) (1999) 121–139.
[28] G. Kebede, Knowledge management: an information science perspective,
International Journal of Information Management 30 (5) (2010) 416–424.
[29] G.S. Liang, T.Y. Chou, S.F. Kan, Applying fuzzy quality function deployment to
identify service management requirements for an ocean freight forwarder,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 17 (5) (2006) 539–554.
[30] G.S. Liang, Applying fuzzy quality function deployment to identify service
management requirements, Quality and Quantity 44 (1) (2010) 47–57.
[31] A. Macintosh, I. Filby, J. Kingston, Knowledge management techniques:
teaching and dissemination concepts, International Journal of Human–
Computer Studies 51 (3) (1999) 549–566.
[32] A.S. Nir, K. Lin, G.S. Liang, Port choice behavior – from the perspective of the
shipper, Maritime Policy and Management 30 (2) (2003) 165–173.
[33] I. Nonaka, H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New
York, 1995.
 G.-S. Liang et al. / Knowledge-Based Systems 33 (2012) 83–91
[34] T.E. Notteboom, W. Winkelmans, Structural changes in logistics: how will port
authorities face the change?, Maritime Policy and Management 28 (1) (2001)
71–89
[35] J.C. Nunnally, I.H. Bersten, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1994.
[36] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), The
Knowledge-Based Economy, Paris, 1996. <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/
8/1913021.pdf>.
[37] M. Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, Anchor Books, New York, 1967.
[38] S.P. Robbins, Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
[39] P.M. Romer, Increasing returns and long-run growth, Journal of Political
Economy 94 (5) (1986) 1002–1037.
[40] B. Rubenstein-Montano, J. Liebowitz, J. Buchwalter, D. McCaw, B. Newman, K.
Rebeck, The knowledge management methodology team, A systems thinking
framework for knowledge management, Decision Support Systems 31 (1)
(2001) 5–16.
[41] G. Shaw, A. Williams, Knowledge transfer and management in tourism
organisations: an emerging research agenda, Tourism Management 30 (3)
(2009) 325–335.
[42] Y.L. Su, G.S. Liang, C.F. Liu, T.Y. Chou, A study on integrated port performance
comparison based on the concept of balanced scorecard, Journal of the Eastern
Asia Society for Transportation Studies 5 (2003) 609–624.
91
[43] J. Terninko, Step-by-Step QFD: Customer-Driven Product Design, St. Lucie
Press, Boca Raton, 1997.
[44] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Technical
Note: Fourth-Generation Port, UNCTAD Ports Newsletter 19 (1999) 9–12.
[45] R. Vandaie, The role of organizational knowledge management in successful
ERP implementation projects, Knowledge-Based Systems 21 (8) (2008) 920–
926.
[46] W.P. Wagner, J. Otto, Q.B. Chung, Knowledge acquisition for expert systems in
accounting and financial problem domains, Knowledge-Based Systems 15 (8)
(2002) 439–447.
[47] C.C. Yang, P.B. Marlow, C.S. Lu, Knowledge management enablers in liner
shipping, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
45 (6) (2009) 893–903.
[48] M.H. Zack, Developing a knowledge strategy, California Management Review
41 (3) (1999) 125–145.
[49] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (3) (1965) 338–353.
[50] L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
approximate reasoning, Part 1, Information Sciences 8 (3) (1975) 199–249;
L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
approximate reasoning, Part 2, Information Sciences 8 (4) (1975) 301–357;
L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
approximate reasoning, Part 3, Information Sciences 9 (1) (1976) 143–180.