The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

KM in Malaysian
Knowledge management in school education
Malaysian school education
Do the smart schools do it better?
263
Marinah Awang, Ramlee Ismail, Peter Flett and Adrienne Curry
University of Stirling, Stirling, UK Received June 2010
Accepted May 2011

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to shed light on changes in the Malaysian education system,
with particular reference to the development of Smart Schools, and to evaluate progress with respect to
knowledge management in school education.
Design/methodology/approach – The research is designed around questionnaires based on a
knowledge management conceptual framework administered to random samples of 50 teachers in 25
Smart Schools and 25 Non-Smart Schools so as to be able to make comparisons.
Findings – The findings provide evidence relating to a number of factors in knowledge management,
its importance, the methods of managing knowledge, knowledge activities, barriers to knowledge
management and factors contributing to knowledge management.
Originality/value – The originality of the paper lies in its Malaysian context and the lack of
research into knowledge management in the field of education in general.
Keywords Organizational culture, Communications, Education, Schools, Teachers,
Knowledge management, Learning methods, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper

Introduction to education in Malaysia

Prior to independence in 1957 there was no uniformity in the education system and
schools were basic learning institutions for simple literacy and numeracy skills. The
Razak Statement in 1956 contained the first formulation of a National Education Policy
(Okposin et al., 2005), designed to integrate all ethnic groups progressively and leading
to the Education Act in 1961. Changes from the British to the Malaysian Education
System entailed British and Chinese secondary schools being converted to national
secondary schools and becoming fully or partially assisted by the government.
The 1970s and 1980s then witnessed a different approach to education, resulting
from the communal tensions that brought about the racial riots in Kuala Lumpur on
May 13 1969. Since then the New Economic Policy was designed to eradicate poverty
regardless of race and eliminate identification of occupation with race, prompting more
constructive policies to bring about stability and prosperity. In 1979 a Cabinet
Committee Report recommended new strategies to democratise educational
opportunities and reduce the imbalances between rural and urban areas.
Educational facilities were rapidly expanded, with greater access being provided to
rural children and the economically disadvantaged.
Today, Bahasa Melayu (the Malay language) is the medium of instruction in all Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 19 No. 3, 2011
national schools and is compulsory in Chinese and Tamil schools, whilst English is pp. 263-282
taught as a second language. Further education reform arrived in the early 1980s with q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
the New Primary Curriculum (KBSR) in 1983 and the Integrated Secondary School DOI 10.1108/09684881111158063
QAE Curriculum (KBSM) in 1989. Educational reform was based upon a philosophy that
19,3 integrated belief systems in a multi-racial society and emphasised generic moral values
embedded in the curriculum (Ratnavadivel, 1999).
The last decade of the twentieth century saw unprecedented and accelerating
change in the global market accompanied by advances in ICT (information
communication technology). The Ministry of Education (Malaysia, 2001, p. 17)
264 issued a mission statement reflecting the national aspiration: “To develop a world class
quality education system which will realise the full potential of the individual and fulfil
the aspirations of the Malaysian nation”. This in parallel with Vision 2020, initiated in
1997 as a crucial agenda for Malaysia to become a developed country by the year 2020
and transform from an information society to a knowledge society and finally to a
“value-based” knowledge society. The Education Act of 1961 was replaced by the
Education Act 1996.
From 2000 onwards the new era of the knowledge economy requires a workforce
with a high level of skill and educational attainment. Public institutions were upgraded
to accommodate increasing demand for places and the curriculum was reviewed to
increase the knowledge content and incorporate new emerging technologies. In the
rural areas teaching and learning facilities and educational support services were
expanded to ensure parity with urban areas (Malaysia, 2001).

The Smart Schools

The Malaysian Smart School project, also known as the Smart School Integrated
Solution (SSIS), was launched in July 1997 as part of Vision 2020, known as the
Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), to reinvent the teaching and learning process. In
total, 90 schools participated in the SSIS project, chosen on the basis of their overall
performance and strategic location so as to be able to serve as an education hub for
the surrounding area. The private sector joined the government in providing the
capital to supply computer software and components to Smart Schools nationwide.
The major difference between the Smart Schools and the National Schools was in
the technological facilities provided. Moreover, the ICT infrastructure in the Smart
Schools enabled an integrated management and learning system, the Smart School
Management System (SSMS), so that administrative and supervisory tasks could be
streamlined and automated. These new technological challenges led to an explosion
of data, information and knowledge; schools no longer existed merely for the
purposes of traditional teaching and learning but needed to enhance their
knowledge activities so as to be able to cope with the rapid changes that were
taking place.

Knowledge management in education

Holsapple and Joshi (2001), 2003) researched the multiple factors influencing
knowledge management and, using a Delphi technique, synthesised them into a single
framework including managerial, resource and environmental influences. Managerial
influences encompass issues of coordination, control, measurement and leadership.
Resource influences refer to organisational “reserves”, such as financial and human,
which might affect the quality of knowledge management initiatives either positively
or negatively. Environmental influences are external and pose potential constraints or
opportunities for the organisation.
Management KM in Malaysian
Effective knowledge management is most successful where systems are sufficiently school education
open and flexible to allow creativity to flourish, whilst also possessing the necessary
formality and discipline to ensure the production of tangible outcomes (Graham and
Pizzo, 1996). Bureaucracy and formal communication tend to inhibit the spontaneity,
experimentation and freedom of expression necessary to provide innovative responses
to environmental change, however they do capture, control and connect knowledge. On 265
the one hand, individuals must be free to interpret information and encouraged to seek
knowledge, be innovative and creative but can only do this to best advantage in an
organised systemic context (Bennett and Gabriel, 1999).

Technology
In principle, ICTs would appear to offer individuals and organisations faster, cheaper,
broader sources of data and enable information exchange and the capturing, generating,
sharing and storage of knowledge (Walsham, 2001). The availability of a range of new
technologies and tools has been a major catalyst to knowledge management initiatives
(Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Barret et al., 2004; Alavi and
Tiwana, 2005) and some, such as e-mail, video-conferencing and virtual teaching and
learning fora, provide valuable learning support (Barret et al., 2004).
However, the importance of face-to-face contact cannot be overlooked, particularly in
the dissemination of tacit knowledge (McKinlay, 2002), both in terms of one-to-one and
one-to-many interaction. Such behaviour is vital to develop and foster trust relationships
between people (Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000; Barret et al., 2004). Further, research by
Alavi and Tiwana (2005) demonstrated that perceptions of knowledge management
technology are shaped by individual embedded values, which in turn lead to different
patterns of technology use. Different features of knowledge management technologies
may be more or less important depending on their intended purpose.
Finally, one must consider the issue of cost effectiveness on which ICTs depend
(Barret et al., 2004) and the balancing of benefits, such as superior technical performance
and quality, with deficits, such as poor infrastructure, outdated systems and high
maintenance budgets. For some, the decision to implement tools is based on the
assumption that technology can be the panacea for knowledge problems, however, as
McDermott (1999) points out, most organisations which have engaged with ICTs soon
find the leveraging of knowledge through the use of technology difficult to achieve.

Culture
Studies have claimed that in fact technology contributes only 20 per cent of the entire
success of knowledge management, compared to people and culture (Davenport and
Grover, 2001). Though this figure may well be arbitrary, the point remains that
technology may play a marginal role in the overall success. Whilst technology is by no
means unnecessary, it must be employed in a culture that promotes knowledge sharing
(Fahey and Prusak, 1998; Liebowitz, 1999). Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003) believed
organisational culture to be the most significant and effective input to knowledge
management and organisational learning.
Further, McDermott and O’Dell (2000) claim that, no matter how strong the
commitment and approach to knowledge management, the organisational culture has a
much stronger impact. De Long and Fahey (2000) demonstrated that values such as
QAE trust and collaboration lead to greater willingness to share insights and expertise,
19,3 whilst values that emphasise individual power and competition lead to knowledge
hoarding. Lee and Choi (2003) found a positive relationship between organisational
cultures, such as collaboration, trust and learning, and the knowledge creation process.
The importance of trust for collaborative knowledge sharing, learning and innovation
has been identified in many multi-disciplinary research networks (Brown and Duguid,
266 1991; Dodgson, 1993; Jones and George, 1998; Newell and Swan, 2000). Additionally, a
learning culture and a learning climate are closely related and have a significant
impact on the individual, the team and the organisation as a whole, either encouraging
or impeding learning and knowledge sharing.

Communities of practice
Communities of practice are an emerging, unstructured organisational form believed to
make an important contribution to managing knowledge in organisations, in fact the main
source of knowledge creation (Smith and McKeen, 2003). Relationships in CoPs are often
dynamic and spontaneous, created to solve a particular problem or to engage in story
telling and collaboration to tap into each other’s knowledge, thereby transcending the
organisation’s documented knowledge (Brown and Duguid, 2000). As a result, CoPs are not
just functioning forms of social activity but also serve as professional meetings because
they are action-oriented and knowledge-based and are uninhibited by the strictures of
organisational structure (Smith and McKeen, 2003). Wasko and Faraj (2000) demonstrated
that people participated in CoPs because they wanted to feel part of and promote a
professional community they valued to stay up-to-date with current ideas and innovations.
However, there are questions as to how CoPs can enable knowledge sharing to
permeate the organisation because of their informal nature that renders them highly
resistant to management supervision. If management do not get involved, the
community often dissolves and disappears (Smith and McKeen, 2003). Some also argue
that the close ties within CoPs may limit knowledge creation because individuals are
unlikely to encounter new ideas in close-knit networks where they tend to possess
similar information (Robertson et al., 1996); others that power, trust, inclination and
spatial reach could all be factors contributing to the limit of CoPs (Roberts, 2006).
Knowledge creation is best served when there is solidarity in CoPs due to the fact that
individuals share and speak the same language and such communities will develop
and share collective knowledge. This is rooted in the view that knowledge is socially
embedded within communities and, as such, is inseparable from practice. Therefore,
having such an organisational culture eventually triggers the success of knowledge
management initiatives in organisations.

Barriers to managing knowledge

Knowledge and power, inequalities of status and perceived lack of job security are
some examples of potential knowledge sharing barriers (Riege, 2005). According to
Foucault, knowledge and power are inseparable (Walsham, 2001). People may be afraid
of losing influence or being influenced by others and may be unsure about sharing
objectives and the intentions of senior staff (Lelic, 2001). Alternatively, they may be
operating within their “comfort zone” (Peter and Scott, 2005) or within the limits of
their economic and psychological well-being and social status, all of which could create
a barrier to knowledge sharing.
 Moreover, intellectual property is often not shared because it is considered a source of KM in Malaysian
power (Quinn et al., 1996). There is then the issue of givers and recipients: on the source school education
side, people may hesitate for fear of loss of ownership, privilege, superiority or lack of
reward or time to communicate. Recipients, conversely, are reluctant to accept new
knowledge if they think it brings threat or represents a burden. Evgeniou and Cartwright
(2005) highlighted the problem of ‘newcomer syndrome’, whereby newcomers are often
enthusiastic and bring fresh ideas but lack the bigger picture or overall vision of the 267
project. Another common impediment to knowledge sharing is time constraints (O’Dell
and Grayson, 1998), a strong reason for not spending time with others to share
knowledge lest this be perceived as not working productively (Riege, 2005).
On an organisational level, there needs to be the financial commitment to setting up
what are often expensive knowledge management systems. Organisational structure
might be a deterrent, especially if it is not open, flexible and hierarchically flat (Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995; De Long and Fahey, 2000). Similarly, as already mentioned,
culture is important. People who wish to belong and be accepted will work towards
this, while others will not and be ignored (Debowski, 2006). Consequently, subcultures
emerge that operate independently of the overall publicly stated culture, making it
more difficult to build collective practices and processes.
Lack of managerial direction and leadership contribute to limiting knowledge
sharing, which needs to be overtly encouraged and motivated, particularly tacit
knowledge (Riege, 2005). Incentives and recognition are vital to this effect. This also
ties into financial restrictions as a lack of commitment to knowledge management and
the implementation of appropriate systems to enable it are the preserve of senior
management.
Finally, technology is an inhibitor if it is not suitable, does not match the
organisation or its purpose and if people are not sure what it can or cannot do (Riege,
2005). Although most people are eager to use technologies, the unfamiliarity of systems
can hinder their use. Sometimes the existing hardware cannot support new software.
As systems tend to form an enabler of knowledge management and knowledge
sharing, it is essential that they are appropriate and capable.

Managing knowledge in education

As Fullan (2002, p. 409) argues: “despite being in the learning business, schools and
local education authorities are notoriously poor knowledge sharers”. This argument is
based on both structural and normative reasoning: structurally, teachers have little
time in their working environment to get together to discuss ideas and refine their
teaching, which limits their capacity for knowledge sharing; from a normative
perspective, the giving and receiving habits among teachers resulting from school
cultures discourage such sharing.
Whilst knowledge has to be collected, stored and made accessible, schools often lack
transparency. Furthermore, teachers have a variety of additional tasks to perform apart
from teaching and consequently do not have much time to actively exchange knowledge
with colleagues (Friehs, 2003; Collinson and Cook, 2004). Teachers often complain about
time erosion and disruption of workflow, with the result that there is a strong norm of
not interrupting others (Lortie, 2002). Another interesting factor influencing a school’s
culture and teachers’ sharing of learning lies in the norm of equality and reciprocity
(Collinson and Cook, 2004). Lortie refers to the norm of equality as that of egalitarianism,
QAE whereby one responds to requests for help but does not expect any special privileges for
19,3 doing so. The main reason for such behaviour is so as to be non-judgmental of peers by
sharing unsolicited knowledge, skills and experience.
Bureaucracy in educational settings is another cause for concern. As schools,
particularly in Malaysia, need to respond to broader political and economic imperatives
for change (Istance and Kobayashi, 2003; Haughey, 2006), through knowledge
268 management initiatives schools should be able to evolve from traditional bureaucracies
to a more educational knowledge environment appropriate to meet these changes
(Petrides and Guiney, 2002). A further challenge for teachers in accommodating the
information age is the use of technologies, which may give rise to resistance (Haughey,
2006). Whilst most departments or offices in schools maintain independent sources of
data which are rarely related to each other (Kongshem, 1999), nonetheless there have
been positive impacts of technology expansion on how schools maintain their
databases (Bushweller, 2000; Kongshem, 1999; Streifer, 1999). Use of technology and
computer networks in education is not just about data mining and warehousing, it is
also about expanding networks to other schools and gaining access to advice from
colleagues outside the school. There is some evidence that schools are becoming
networks and that the profession has created communities of practice that go beyond
school boundaries. A two-year study involving 30 principals showed how computers
had impacted upon their work in terms of distributed leadership, knowledge sharing
and professionalisation (Haughey, 2006).

The research
A conceptual model formed the research framework and essentially encompassed the
influences of management, culture and technology on the creation, capture, storage,
application and sharing of knowledge, upon which the survey instrument was based. A
total of 25 Smart Schools and 25 Non-Smart Schools were sampled across the five main
geographical areas of Malaysia (four of each school type from four areas and nine of
each from the Central area) and 50 teachers from each school were randomly selected
irrespective of background profile to participate in the self-administered surveys.
The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first comprised nine questions
on the respondents’ background profile, including gender, position, academic
background, work experience and access to e-mail. The second section was divided
into five sub-sections corresponding to the variables in the research model: the
importance of managing knowledge (12 items); facilities and methods of managing
knowledge (17 items) using either traditional or technology-enabled methods and the
frequency of their usage; knowledge sharing barriers (20 items), including
organisational factors, power and intellectual property, cultural issues and
technological problems; knowledge activities, subdivided as follows: knowledge
capture (five items), knowledge creation (five items), knowledge sharing (six items),
knowledge application (six items) and knowledge storage (six items), all related to
managing knowledge in the working environment. The final section of the
questionnaire focused on contributing factors to managing knowledge, namely
management (eight items), culture (nine items) and technology (seven items).
A five-point Lickert scale was used for each item, ranging from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree”, with a “neutral” option for those unable to comment on a particular
item. The questionnaire was translated into the Malay language and then piloted
among two groups of 20 participants each from Smart Schools and Non Smart Schools KM in Malaysian
respectively. Finally, items were tested using Cronbach alpha and those with low school education
coefficient values were dropped, thereby increasing the overall alpha value from 0.908
for 101 items to 0.913 after removal of five items. The final questionnaire consisted of
96 items: importance of managing knowledge (12 items); facilities and methods (17
items); knowledge sharing barriers (20 items); knowledge activities (25 items) and
factors contributing to managing knowledge (22 items). 269
Study findings
Of the 50 questionnaires sent to each school, the lowest return was 15 and the highest
42. A total of 1,313 respondents, in total, participated in the survey out of a potential
2,500, 694 (52.9 per cent) from Smart Schools and 619 (47.1 per cent) from Non Smart
Schools. There were more respondents from rural than urban areas (715 – 54.5 per cent
and 598 – 45.5 per cent respectively). Distribution details and profiles of respondents
are shown in Tables I and II.
Mean scores for each of the questionnaire items provided an indication of
respondents’ perceptions of different aspects of knowledge management. As shown in
Table III, both Smart Schools and Non Smart Schools agreed that it was important to
manage knowledge, particularly work-related knowledge, with mean scores of 52.13
and 52.69 respectively.
Knowledge could be used in decision making and to improve staff efficiency.
Managing knowledge could also increase the responsiveness of relevant stakeholders
(teachers, parents, students, the community as a whole) and could also increase
productivity, as well as create and embed new knowledge. The majority agreed that
managing knowledge encouraged staff to share knowledge, thereby increasing
teamwork. However, the least importance for managing knowledge was attached to
time and cost benefits, which is logical.
The frequency of usage of facilities and methods of managing knowledge is shown
in Table IV and displays a noticeable pattern. Respondents were more likely to agree
on the frequent use of traditional methods, such as paper documents and notice boards
than electronic technologies, even in the case of the Smart Schools; this possibly
because of perceived complexity of technology or inadequacy of computer facilities.
Knowledge-sharing barriers are detailed in Table V. Most important were those
relating to basic resources and facilities, in particular lack of time allocated to staff due to
workload for both types of schools. ICT was regarded as inadequate or out-of-date and
staff lacked confidence when using electronic devices and some referred to a lack of
commitment from school management. Whilst staff tend to hang on to personal
knowledge and not share it with others, this did not seem to constitute a particular barrier.

Knowledge activities
Five variables each contained between four and six items: knowledge capture (five items);
knowledge creation (four items); knowledge sharing (five items); knowledge application
(six items) and knowledge storage (five items). Mean scores for these variables were quite
high, demonstrating their importance in managing knowledge in schools. As for
knowledge capture, both respondent groups stressed the importance of collaborative
relations, with the majority believing the basic source of new knowledge to be external,
such as the Ministry of Education, Department of Education or other schools.
 19,3

270
QAE

Table I.

by school category
return of questionnaire
Distribution and rate of
School category
Smart School Non Smart School
Number of Number of Number of Rate of Number of Number of Rate of
schools in selected distributed return Number selected distributed return Total
zone schools questionnaires F (%) of schools schools questionnaires F (%) F (%)

North 20 4 200 178 75.1 484 4 200 59 24.9 237 18.1

South 17 4 200 121 46.9 382 4 200 137 53.1 258 19.6
Central 25a 9 450 182 41.0 314 9 450 262 59.0 444 33.8
East 16 4 200 111 44.0 392 4 200 141 56.0 252 19.2
Sabah and
Sarawak 12 4 200 102 83.6 355 4 200 20 16.4 122 9.3
Total 90 25 1,250 694 52.9 1,927 25 1,250 619 47.1 1313 52.5
Note: a5 are primary schools
 KM in Malaysian
Item n %
school education
Types of school
Smart School 694 52.9
Non-Smart School 619 47.1
School location
Urban 598 45.5 271
Rural 715 54.5

Gender
Male 384 29.2
Female 929 70.8

Age group (years)

51 and above 56 4.3
41-50 388 29.6
31-40 603 45.9
30 and below 266 20.3

Academic background
Master’s degree 138 10.5
First degree 1,074 81.8
Diploma 68 5.2
Higher Certificate of Education 16 1.2
Malaysian Certificate of Education 17 1.3

Teaching experience (years)

31 and above 13 1.0
21-30 170 12.9
11-20 512 38.9
10 and below 618 47.3

Position in school
Principal 24 1.8
Senior Assistant (Administration) 27 2.1
Senior Assistant (Students affairs) 10 0.8
Senior Assistant (Co-curriculum) 28 2.1
Afternoon Supervisor 4 0.3
Head of Department 60 4.6
Subject Coordinator 318 24.2
Discipline Coordinator 30 2.3
Resource Center Coordinator 17 1.3
Information Technology Coordinator (ITC) 11 0.8
Subject Teacher 784 59.7

Owned e-mail
Yes 799 60.9
No 514 39.1

Owned web sites

Yes 103 7.8
No 1,210 92.2 Table II.
Respondents’
Note: n ¼ 1,313 background profiles
QAE
Items Pooled sd SS sd NSS sd
19,3
Importance of managing knowledge 52.39 6.08 52.13 6.31 52.69 5.79
Knowledge can be used in decision making 4.52 0.617 4.51 0.610 4.53 0.626
Improved efficiency of people 4.50 0.597 4.48 0.590 4.51 0.606
Increased responsiveness need of relevant
272 stakeholders (teachers, students, parents, society) 4.47 0.591 4.44 0.578 4.49 0.606
Increased service productivity 4.46 0.614 4.44 0.600 4.48 0.629
Leads to new knowledge creation 4.43 0.640 4.41 0.622 4.45 0.660
Embedding new knowledge in the organisation 4.42 0.608 4.42 0.604 4.43 0.612
Encourages knowledge sharing among the staff
community 4.38 0.624 4.36 0.626 4.40 0.621
Increased teamwork 4.37 0.630 4.39 0.603 4.35 0.660
Easy access to knowledge databases (computerised
databases or record files) 4.30 0.723 4.25 0.779 4.36 0.649
Transferring existing knowledge to other parts of
the organisation (within or among schools,
Education Department or Ministry of Education) 4.27 0.733 4.21 0.793 4.34 0.653
Time saving 4.21 0.769 4.18 0.807 4.24 0.722
Table III. Cost saving 4.07 0.812 4.04 0.847 4.11 0.769
Mean score distribution
for importance of Note: n ¼ 1,313. Pooled: Both types of school (SS and NSS); SS: Smart School; NSS: Non-Smart School;
managing knowledge Sd: Standard deviation

Items Pooled sd SS sd NSS sd

Facilities and methods 47.24 11.61 48.78 11.03 45.52 12.02

Sharing knowledge informally in a casual discussion
with colleagues in the staff room or school’s canteen 3.84 0.821 3.86 0.802 3.81 0.842
Sharing knowledge informally with other people
with the same interest 3.76 0.841 3.74 0.846 3.77 0.836
Notice board for announcement 3.39 0.983 3.44 0.963 3.33 1.002
Documentation 3.19 0.993 3.18 0.991 3.20 0.996
Face-to-face such as meetings, forums or workshops 3.18 0.965 3.20 0.979 3.16 0.951
In-house training 2.99 0.932 2.99 0.900 2.99 0.966
Inventory 2.89 1.059 2.84 1.089 2.95 1.023
Having formal system for referring difficult
problems to panel of experts 2.87 1.024 2.94 0.995 2.79 1.051
Internet 2.86 1.321 3.15 1.303 2.53 1.264
Internal newsletter 2.84 1.075 2.91 1.056 2.76 1.091
Electronics database 2.57 1.126 2.79 1.083 2.33 1.126
Presentations or briefing given by employee about to
leave the school 2.42 1.034 2.51 1.005 2.32 1.057
E-mails 2.32 1.248 2.56 1.230 2.06 1.215
Intranet 2.24 1.328 2.55 1.366 1.90 1.195
School web 2.17 1.180 2.47 1.145 1.83 1.128
Table IV. E-forums 2.02 1.134 1.99 1.124 2.06 1.145
Mean score distribution Video-conferencing 1.70 1.065 1.66 1.045 1.74 1.086
for facilities and methods
of managing knowledge Note: n ¼ 1,313
 KM in Malaysian
Items Pooled sd SS sd NSS sd
school education
Barriers 66.04 11.20 65.54 11.25 66.60 11.13
Lack of time allocated to staff due to workload 4.17 0.815 4.15 0.861 4.20 0.760
Lack of good training and expertise 3.67 0.854 3.66 0.856 3.69 0.852
Lack of financial resources 3.61 0.907 3.62 0.964 3.59 0.840
Difficult to change staff behaviour and attitudes 3.60 0.891 3.57 0.897 3.63 0.883 273
ICT out of date 3.59 0.908 3.62 0.941 3.55 0.869
Inadequacy of ICT infrastructure 3.48 0.972 3.46 1.010 3.50 0.928
No standardised procedure 3.41 0.844 3.37 0.846 3.46 0.839
Concerns over security of information 3.40 0.921 3.42 0.959 3.37 0.877
Lack of understanding among staff 3.35 0.922 3.28 0.938 3.44 0.898
Emphasised individual rather than teamwork 3.34 0.873 3.33 0.852 3.34 0.896
Lack of confidence using electronic device 3.31 0.874 3.29 0.879 3.33 0.869
Hierarchic and bureaucratic school management 3.24 0.980 3.13 0.967 3.37 0.980
Lack of commitment and support from school
management 3.16 0.928 3.05 0.899 3.28 0.946
Sharing knowledge with closest friend 3.12 0.989 3.08 0.988 3.17 0.990
Worry about confidentiality of information
transmitted and received electronically 3.11 0.945 3.13 0.958 3.08 0.931
Tend to hang on to the acquired knowledge and
reluctant to share with others 3.05 0.966 3.01 0.962 3.09 0.969
Communication channels using ICT are less effective
compared with traditional methods 2.98 0.945 3.00 0.934 2.96 0.956
Staff tend not to trust their colleagues 2.95 0.932 2.93 0.914 2.97 0.951
Fear that sharing might reduce chances for job
promotion 2.82 0.982 2.78 0.969 2.87 0.995
Fear that sharing might reduce their influence within Table V.
the school 2.69 1.050 2.67 1.032 2.72 1.070 Mean score distribution
for barriers to managing
Note: n ¼ 1,313 knowledge

Knowledge creation tended to be effected through social discussions, teamwork or

work projects, additionally, through individual activities such as reading and
self-reflection. Knowledge sharing through informal discussions was agreeable, with
respondents perceiving that their friends were always ready to share and contribute
new ideas. Mentoring was also a way of sharing knowledge. Knowledge application in
context could increase individual experience. Knowledge could also be applied through
problem solving, when people asked for advice, during work tasks set by management
and through rules, procedures and organisational routines.
Finally, in terms of knowledge storage, it was regarded as easier to access explicit
than tacit knowledge. Respondents perceived that they could access information easily,
including important information. However, perceptions were not so clear as to whether
it was better to store knowledge in paper form or electronically. The overall mean
scores shown in Table VI demonstrate that knowledge management initiatives are
gathering pace, albeit at a relatively slow rate.

Factors contributing to managing knowledge

A total of 21 questions represented the contextual factors of management, technology
and culture (seven questions each) and their mean distribution can be found in
QAE
Items Pooled sd SS sd NSS sd
19,3
Knowledge capture 18.29 2.23 18.23 2.17 18.39 2.27
New knowledge can be captured when schools are
collaboratively related 3.93 0.644 3.93 0.638 3.94 0.652
Basically, new knowledge comes from external
274 sources 3.72 0.759 3.61 0.774 3.83 0.725
More knowledge is captured from external than
internal sources 3.66 0.718 3.64 0.715 3.68 0.720
Basically, new knowledge comes from internal
sources 3.63 0.727 3.67 0.699 3.58 0.755
There is new knowledge when school gets new staff 3.36 0.822 3.36 0.849 3.35 0.792
Knowledge creation 15.37 1.82 15.29 1.80 15.47 1.84
People have social discussions when they want to
generate new knowledge 3.90 0.640 3.90 0.640 3.90 0.641
Most knowledge is created through group activities
discussion, teamwork, project 3.86 0.624 3.85 0.627 3.87 0.620
People apply trial and error when dealing with new
ideas 3.86 0.644 3.81 0.673 3.91 0.607
Most knowledge is created through individual
activities, reading, self-reflection 3.75 0.696 3.72 0.694 3.79 0.697
Knowledge sharing 19.89 2.34 19.90 2.31 19.87 2.39
People exchange ideas and views through informal
discussion 4.08 0.631 4.12 0.625 4.05 0.635
Friends are ready to share and contribute to new
ideas 4.06 0.604 4.04 0.583 4.07 0.627
Mentoring is a way of sharing knowledge among
staff in this school 4.03 0.669 3.99 0.699 4.07 0.632
In this school knowledge is shared among a wide
range of people 3.93 0.638 3.96 0.605 3.89 0.671
People exchange ideas and views through formal
discussion 3.79 0.716 3.80 0.714 3.79 0.720
Knowledge application 23.68 2.49 23.66 2.45 23.71 2.53
Knowledge application can increase an individual’s
experience 4.14 0.545 4.15 0.555 4.14 0.534
This school has a clear vision and mission statement
regarding knowledge usage 4.04 0.681 4.09 0.699 3.98 0.656
In this school knowledge is applied through problem
solving 3.97 0.567 3.97 0.564 3.98 0.571
Knowledge can be applied when people ask for
advice 3.90 0.604 3.89 0.628 3.90 0.576
In this school knowledge is applied through work
task and work instruction given by the management 3.87 0.621 3.85 0.618 3.88 0.625
In this school knowledge is applied through rules,
procedures and organizational routines 3.76 0.662 3.71 0.671 3.82 0.647
Knowledge storage 18.39 2.21 18.57 2.07 18.19 2.35
It is easier to access tangible explicit knowledge than
intangible tacit knowledge 3.95 0.707 4.01 0.713 3.88 0.695
Staff have easy access to the information they need 3.70 0.700 3.83 0.655 3.60 0.727
It is easy to access important information 3.61 0.723 3.64 0.684 3.59 0.763
It is better to store knowledge in documents and
Table VI. manuals than in computerised databases 3.50 0.798 3.49 0.778 3.51 0.821
Mean score for
knowledge activities Note: n ¼ 1,313
Table VII. The management factor defines the chain of command governing KM in Malaysian
communication and decision making, as well as encouraging knowledge sharing and school education
facilitating continuous transformation of ideas. Respondents agreed that management
encouraged staff learning, organised appropriate training and promoted knowledge
acquisition both internally and externally. However, they were neutral about
management being bureaucratic and it being therefore difficult to manage knowledge.
275
Items Pooled sd SS sd NSS sd

Management 25.53 3.64 25.84 3.52 25.19 3.74

Top management encourage their staff to learn and gain
more knowledge internally and externally 4.04 0.701 4.10 0.680 3.96 0.719
Top management is very supportive of their subordinates
in terms of managing knowledge 3.91 0.746 3.97 0.720 3.85 0.770
In this school people from different departments/units
frequently interact to discuss current issues, problems and
plans 3.72 0.765 3.74 0.753 3.70 0.777
This school has a proper training program in terms of staff
development 3.67 0.782 3.73 0.796 3.60 0.762
This school can quickly reallocate its resource and
undertake new activities when facing any problems 3.66 0.759 3.66 0.741 3.67 0.779
Existing knowledge is always evaluated 3.57 0.757 3.58 0.745 3.55 0.771
School’s management is bureaucratic and it is difficult to
manage knowledge 3.03 0.907 2.94 0.904 3.14 0.899
Technology 25.98 4.09 26.42 4.36 25.48 3.72
ICT can facilitate knowledge transfer and knowledge
sharing across individuals and schools 4.00 0.666 3.99 0.692 4.02 0.636
Computer-based information systems can provide staff
with more up-to-date information than is available in
manual form 3.96 0.691 3.97 0.711 3.94 0.668
Usage of ICT saves a great amount of time 3.94 0.784 3.93 0.838 3.94 0.718
ICT facilities are widely used in this school 3.66 0.912 3.86 0.855 3.43 0.921
All information and records are kept in the electronic
databases 3.55 0.833 3.64 0.830 3.44 0.825
All ICT facilities are functioning well in this school 3.44 0.955 3.46 1.046 3.42 0.842
All information and records are easily accessible to all staff 3.44 0.889 3.57 0.880 3.29 0.877
Culture 33.17 3.86 33.17 4.09 33.16 3.57
Teachers assume that school is a learning organization 4.11 0.663 4.1 0.704 4.07 0.612
There is no limit to knowledge access unless it is private
and confidential 4.09 0.775 4.15 0.804 4.03 0.738
People are ready to share their knowledge with others at
any time 3.95 0.606 3.94 0.611 3.95 0.601
This school learns from best practice from other schools 3.86 0.726 3.88 0.758 3.85 0.687
This school shares its information and knowledge with
other schools 3.81 0.667 3.77 0.680 3.86 0.650
People are reluctant to share knowledge because it is
considered as a personal asset 3.20 1.001 3.23 0.997 3.17 1.006
Individuals within the school tend to use knowledge as a
source of power to be used for personal advantage rather Table VII.
than as an organizational resource to share with others 3.15 0.957 3.13 0.963 3.17 0.950 Mean score for factors
contributing to managing
Note: n ¼ 1,313 knowledge
QAE Technology was considered a tool or enabler to accelerate the growth of knowledge
19,3 activities. Technology such as networks, databases and e-forums could facilitate
knowledge transfer and sharing as well as provide more current available information.
ICT facilities seemed to be widely used and functioning well in schools nationwide,
with information and records stored in electronic databases and accessible to all
members of staff in those schools.
276 Finally, supportive school cultures were identified as knowledge friendly,
motivating staff to share knowledge, with a committed leadership, showing
openness to change, mutual trust and learning. The majority of respondents
agreed that the school was a learning organisation, perceived as possessing a
positive sharing culture and being ready to share knowledge with others at any
time and learn from best practice. However, respondents were neutral about people
being reluctant to share knowledge because it was considered to be a personal
asset and about individuals using knowledge as a source of personal advantage
rather than organisational gain. As demonstrated in Table VII, culture had the
highest mean of the three factors, with technology and management having almost
identical means.

Differentiating between Smart Schools and Non-Smart Schools

Table VIII shows t-test output for differences in the importance of knowledge, facilities,
barriers, activities and contextual factors contributing to managing knowledge
reported by respondents from both types of schools, with a p value of p , 0.05.
The results revealed no statistical significance between SS and NSS in the
importance of managing knowledge, however facilities and methods of managing
knowledge showed a significant difference. The t-value was 5.704, significant at 0.000,
demonstrating the understandable difference between the facilities provided to SS as
opposed to NSS. Similarly, barriers were experienced less in SS (M ¼ 65.54;
sd ¼ 11.25) than in NSS (M ¼ 66.60; sd ¼ 11.13). These two results are consistent with
SS having better equipment and facilities and therefore being able to take greater
advantage from technology as an enabler of knowledge management. Nonetheless,
technology does not explain all of the variance in knowledge related behaviour; the

95% confidence
interval of
difference
Variables t df p Mean difference Lower Upper

Importance 2 1.678 1309.84 0.094 2 0.561 0.334 21.216 0.095

Facilities 5.704 1262.13 0.000 3.258 0.139 2.549 5.242
Barriers 2 1.712 1311 0.087 2 1.059 0.619 22.273 0.155
Capture 2 1.482 1311 0.138 2 0.1817 0.1226 20.422 0.059
Creation 2 1.774 1311 0.076 2 0.1785 0.1006 20.376 0.019
Sharing 2 0.240 1311 0.811 2 0.0311 0.1297 20.223 0.270
Application 2 0.314 1311 0.754 2 0.0432 0.1375 20.313 0.227
Table VIII. Storage 3.101 1240.90 0.002 0.3812 0.1229 0.141 0.622
Independent samples test Management 3.226 1311 0.001 0.6467 0.2005 20.254 1.039
(t-test for equality of Technology 4.208 1308.36 0.000 0.9339 0.2232 0.501 1.377
mean) Culture 0.969 1310.22 0.333 0.1430 0.1476 20.147 0.432
human factor no doubt was a mediating factor in technological differences between the KM in Malaysian
two types of school. school education
Among knowledge activities the t-test was only significant for two variables,
creation and storage, with no significant differences for knowledge capture, sharing
and application. Unexpectedly, the mean for knowledge creation among NSS teachers
was higher than those in SS, the former believing they created more knowledge.
However, the 95 per cent interval for the difference in mean was quite narrow (-0.376 to 277
0.019). Time might be a factor here, with teachers’ workload a perennial issue in
schools (Lortie, 2002; Rosenholtz, 1989; Louis, 1994; Ministry of Education Malaysia,
2004). Findings from those studies agreed that lack of time remains the major barrier in
managing knowledge, teachers being increasingly required to teach and perform many
onerous administrative duties. SS teachers tend to have higher workloads because of
new policy implementation demanding both time and effort. As expected, the mean
difference for knowledge storage was found to be statistically significant at the 1 per
cent level, t ¼ 3.101; p ¼ 0.001, almost certainly on account of the relatively superior
facilities and equipment in SS.
Of the three factors contributing to knowledge management, results suggested
that teachers’ perceptions of technology and management were higher in SS, the
difference being statistically significant at the 1 per cent level, t (1311) ¼ 3.23;
p ¼ 0.001/(1308.36) ¼ 4.21; p ¼ 0.000 respectively. The culture factor did not show
any significant mean difference between SS and NSS, possibly because the sample
was relatively homogeneous from the same environmental setting. Moreover, school
culture across Malaysia tends to be homogeneous under the government and control
of the Ministry of Education with the resulting top-down style of management.

Regression results
Knowledge activities constituted the dependent variables for the regression models,
with the independent variable, the predictor, being management, technology, culture,
school type, gender and experience. The results are shown in Table IX.

Knowledge activities
Dependent variable
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Independent variables Capture Create Share Apply Store

Constants 11.989 * * * 9.896 * * * 8.330 * * * 12.920 * * * 11.230 * * *

Management 0.054 * * 0.017 0.164 * * * 0.094 * * * 0.041 * *
Technology 0.086 * * * 0.042 * * 0.002 0.039 * * 0.115 * * *
Culture 0.115 * * * 0.158 * * * 0.284 * * * 0.281 * * * 0.110 * * *
School type 20.275 * * 20.239 * * 20.098 20.199 0.198 *
Gender 0.007 20.239 * * 20.356 * * 20.188 0.042
Experience 20.028 0.006 0.007 0.024 * 0.021 *
F 26.347 25.201 80.792 53.107 33.322
R2 0.108 0.104 0.271 0.196 0.133
Note: n ¼ 1313; *Significant at 10 per cent level ( p , 0.1); * *Significant at 5 per cent level ðp , 0:05Þ; Table IX.
* * *Significant at 1 per cent level ( p , 0.01) Regression model results
QAE The beta value for knowledge capture was significantly related to management,
19,3 technology and culture, with the latter being suggested as the most important predictor
of the three. The coefficients for experience and type of school were both significant at
the 5 per cent level, however, there was no significant difference between male and
female in terms of knowledge capture. The negative coefficient for the experience
variable indicates that new teachers are more likely to capture knowledge than senior,
278 more experienced teachers, whilst the activity of knowledge capture in SS was better
than in NSS at 0.275 ( p , 0.05) percentage points.
For knowledge creation all variables were statistically significant at the 5 per cent
level, except for management and experience. Whilst school culture was the most
important predictor of knowledge creation, there were no significant relationships with
either management input or length of service/experience. Teachers in NSS created
more knowledge than their counterparts in SS and male teachers were perceived to
create less knowledge than their female counterparts.
For knowledge sharing all factors were statistically significant at the 5 per cent
level, except for technology, experience and type of school. Once more, culture emerged
as the most important factor contributing to sharing knowledge, with management
also significantly correlated. The negative coefficient associated to gender indicated
that male teachers shared less knowledge among themselves compared to female
teachers. Length of service seemed to have no impact on knowledge sharing.
Once more, for knowledge application school culture was the most important
predictor, with both technology and management important contributory factors. No
significant differences were found between types of school and male or female teachers.
For knowledge storage two factors were significant at the 1 per cent level, with
technology the best predictor followed by school culture. Gender was not significant
but knowledge storage was found to be higher in SS than NSS. Technology inevitably
played a vital role in knowledge storage but length of service was also significant,
indicating that teachers with more experience stored more knowledge, both tacit and
explicit. Table X provides an overall summary of the regression results showing the
pattern of contextual factors and knowledge activities.
In summary, culture was very important in contributing to sharing, applying,
creating, capturing and storing knowledge, while management was less important for
knowledge creation. Knowledge capture and storage were perceived to be better in SS
with better ICT facilities and equipment but technology did not support knowledge
creation. Meanwhile, the more practical sharing and application activities were not
significantly different between these school types. Gender was found to be negatively

Independent variable (predictors)

Dependent variable Management Technology Culture School type Experience Gender

Capture Sig * * * Sig * * * Sig * * * Sig * * (-) Sig * Not Sig

Create Not Sig Sig * * Sig * * * (-) Sig * * Not Sig (-) Sig * *
Share Sig * * * Not Sig Sig * * * (-)Not Sig Not Sig (-) Sig * * *
Table X. Apply Sig * * * Sig * * Sig * * * (-)Not Sig Sig * Not Sig
Summary for regression Store Sig * * Sig * * * Sig * * * Sig * Sig * Not Sig
models of independent
variable (predictor) to the Note: *Significant at 10 per cent level; * *Significant at 5 per cent level; * * *Significant at 1 per cent
dependent variable level; Not Sig ¼ Not significant
correlated with knowledge sharing and creation, whilst length of service was positively KM in Malaysian
correlated with knowledge application and storage. Whilst senior teachers store and school education
apply more knowledge, new or novice teachers were more likely to capture more
knowledge.
Clearly, knowledge management contextual factors are vital in school settings.
Schools need to embrace a positive culture to foster learning and sharing. Teachers and
school leaders need to play a prominent role to ensure that knowledge management 279
initiatives can be accomplished. Every school has the potential to enhance overall
performance by using a knowledge-based approach to support learning and sharing.

Discussion and conclusion

Management, technology and cultural factors relate to knowledge activities.
Management provides the platform and a supportive infrastructure for knowledge
sharing to occur. Technology enables knowledge management to take place in schools,
whilst culture appears to be a significant factor in generating knowledge activities.
However, despite these positive aspects, barriers may emerge between these contextual
factors and knowledge activities for structural and normative reasons, such as time
constraints, workloads, sharing behaviour and the ICT infrastructure. Each factor
contributes in different ways to managing knowledge. Management provides the
supportive framework for resourcing, decision making and innovative practices so that
knowledge activities can be successfully pursued. Technology provides the
mechanism to store, share and transfer information and knowledge. Culture
emphasises the need to create a link between all knowledge activities by guiding
and encouraging the social and professional interactions among communities of
practice. Culture offers the insight into the knowledge context to create meaning and
identify the purpose of activities being undertaken.
Considering the relative difference between Smart Schools and Non Smart Schools
in terms of funding allocation, facilities and bureaucracy, school type is not a
determinant factor in knowledge activities. As for teacher workloads, the major barrier
to knowledge management, they are high in both types of school, especially in the SS,
and additional pressure for both teachers and schools comes from high parent
expectations of performance in the Malaysian education system. It might be interesting
to see if schools could develop and expand the culture of good citizenship, including
religious influence in practice. Malaysian society is regarded as collectivist, with
Malays socialised to be modest, non-assertive and compliant. They are associated with
values like self-sacrifice, self-respect and mutual help, values likely to have an effect on
management and culture.
However, even though teachers might be willing to cooperate and share knowledge
willingly, this tends to happen in the context of informal networks or groupings that
might not be translated into a wider context. Teachers may also not be able to find a
suitable way to transfer knowledge to their colleagues. What is needed by schools is a
more systematic practice which offers ways to nurture new knowledge, stimulate
innovation and share tacit knowledge within schools.
Schools might wish to develop a network practice whereby individuals could
interact through social discourse, asking for and sharing knowledge with each other.
This would involve people from a variety of backgrounds and expertise who could
share their knowledge and skills by using informal and formal interactions, such as
QAE face-to-face or electronic networks. Smart Schools are expected to act as the educational
19,3 hub for their surrounding areas and have superior resources in terms of infrastructure,
manpower and funding. They could take on the responsibilities for networking,
dissemination and activity generation amongst the group of schools to work with other
schools and share best practice. Such a learning breakthrough could provide
opportunities for teachers to interact and reach beyond their own experience by
280 working collaboratively. Unfortunately, solving the problem of teachers having
insufficient time in their daily work routines still remains a Sisyphian task!

References
Alavi, M.K. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Review: knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 107-38.
Alavi, M.K. and Tiwana, A. (2005), “Knowledge management: the information technology
dimension”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organisational
Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell, Oxford.
Barret, M., Cappleman, S., Shoib, G. and Walsham, G. (2004), “Learning in knowledge
communities: managing technology and context”, European Management Journal, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H. (1999), “Organisational factors and knowledge management within
large marketing departments: an empirical study”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 212-25.
Brown, J. and Duguid, P. (1991), “Organizational learning and communities of practice: towards a
unified view of working, learning and innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 2, pp. 40-57.
Brown, J. and Duguid, P. (2000), “Balancing act: how to capture knowledge without killing it”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 73-80.
Bushweller, K. (2000), “The smarter office”, Electronic School, Vol. 187 No. 3, pp. 26-8, available
at: www.electronic-school.com
Collinson, V. and Cook, T.F. (2004), “Learning to share, sharing to learn. Fostering organizational
learning through teachers’ dissemination of knowledge”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 312-32.
Davenport, T.H. and Grover, V. (2001), “Knowledge management”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-4.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management”,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27.
Debowski, S. (2006), Knowledge Management, John Wiley & Sons, Melbourne.
Dodgson, M. (1993), “Learning, trust and technological collaboration”, Human Relations, Vol. 46
No. 1, pp. 77-95.
Evgeniou, T. and Cartwright, P. (2005), “Barriers to information management”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 293-9.
Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998), “The 11 deadliest sins of knowledge management”, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 265-76.
Friehs, B. (2003), “Knowledge management in educational settings”, paper presented at AARE
Conference, Auckland.
Fullan, M. (2002), “The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge management in KM in Malaysian
schools”, Teachers and Teaching: Theory in Practice, Vol. 8 Nos 3/4, pp. 409-19.
Graham, A.B. and Pizzo, V.G. (1996), “A question of balance: case studies in strategic knowledge
school education
management”, European Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 338-46.
Haughey, M. (2006), “The impact of computers on the work of the principal: changing discourses
on talk, leadership and professionalism”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 23-36. 281
Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. (2001), “Organizational knowledge resources”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 31, pp. 39-54.
Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. (2003), “A knowledge management ontology”, in Holsapple, C.W.
(Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management. Volume 1: Knowledge Matters, Springer
Verlag, Berlin.
Istance, D. and Kobayashi, M. (2003), Networks of Innovation. Towards New Models for
Managing Schools and Systems, OECD, Paris.
Janz, B.D. and Pransarnphanich, P. (2003), “Understanding the antecedents of effective
knowledge management: the importance of a knowledge-centred culture”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 351-84.
Jones, G. and George, J. (1998), “The experience and evolution of trust: implications for
cooperation and teamwork”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 531-46.
Kongshem, L. (1999), “Smart data: mining the school district warehouse”, Electronic School,
September, available at: www.electronic-school.com
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), “Knowledge management enablers, processes and organizational
performance: an integrative view and empirical examination”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-228.
Lelic, S. (2001), “Creating a knowledge-sharing culture”, Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 5,
pp. 6-9.
Liebowitz, J. (1999), The Knowledge Management Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Lortie, D.C. (2002), Schoolteacher, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Louis, K.S. (1994), “Beyond managed change: rethinking how schools change”, School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
McDermott, R. (1999), “Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge
management”, California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 103-17.
McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2000), “Overcoming the ‘cultural barriers’ to sharing knowledge”,
APQC, available at: www.apqc.org
McKinlay, A. (2002), “The limit of knowledge management”, New Technology, Work and
Employment, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Malaysia (2001), Eighth Malaysian Plan 2001-2005, Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad,
Kuala Lumpur.
Maznevski, M.L. and Chudoba, K.M. (2000), “Bridging space over time: global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness”, Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 473-92.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2004), Benchmarking the Smart School Integrated Solution,
Multimedia Development Corporation Malaysia, Frost and Sullivan, Kuala Lumpur.
Newell, S. and Swan, J. (2000), “Trust and inter-organizational networking”, Human Relations,
Vol. 53, pp. 1287-328.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
QAE O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C.J. (1998), “If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of
internal best practices”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-74.
19,3 Okposin, S.B., Abdul Hamid, A.H. and Ong, B.H. (2005), The Changing Phase of Malaysia
Economy, Pelanduk Publications, Kuala Lumpur.
Peter, Y.T.S. and Scott, J.L. (2005), “An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer”, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 75-90.
282 Petrides, L.A. and Guiney, S.Z. (2002), “Knowledge management for school leaders: an ecological
framework for thinking schools”, Teachers College Records, Vol. 104 No. 8, pp. 1702-17.
Quinn, J.B., Philip, A. and Sydney, F. (1996), “Leveraging intellect”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 7-26.
Ratnavadivel, N. (1999), “Teacher education: interface between practices and policies, the
Malaysian experience 1979-1997”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 15, pp. 193-213.
Riege, A. (2005), “Three dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35.
Roberts, J. (2006), “Limits to communities of practice”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43
No. 3, pp. 623-39.
Robertson, M., Swan, J. and Newell, S. (1996), “The role of networks in the diffusion of
technological innovation”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 335-61.
Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989), Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools, Longman, New
York, NY.
Smith, H.A. and McKeen, J.D. (2003), “Creating and facilitating communities of practice”,
in Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management, Volume 1: Knowledge
Matters, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Streifer, P.A. (1999), “Putting the byte in educational decision making”, Education Week, Vol. 18
No. 27, March.
Walsham, G. (2001), “Knowledge management: the benefits and limitations of computer
systems”, European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 599-608.
Wasko, M. (2000), “It is what one does: why people participate and help others in electronic
communities of practice”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 155-73.

Corresponding author
Adrienne Curry can be contacted at: accurry13@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints