International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)

Volume 10, Issue 2, February 2019, pp.873–882, Article ID: IJMET_10_02_091

Available online at https://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJMET?Volume=10&Issue=2
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

READINESS ANALYSIS (CASE STUDY:
IT SOLUTION COMPANY)
Rosna, Emil Robert Kaburuan
Information Systems Management Department, BINUS Graduate Program - Master of
Information Systems Management, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia

ABSTRACT
The service industry as a provider of information Technology Company is certainly
aware that knowledge is an organizational asset and a key element that enables
competitive advantage in business. PT GDA adopts innovations and technology that are
currently developing as new knowledge and developed into products and services.
Knowledge in this company is a major asset that drives to be more innovative and
improve the competitiveness of companies in business as a provider of optimal and
leading technology solutions. Knowledge management (KM) is a concept that is needed
to manage and make explicit knowledge. PT GDA requires a Knowledge Management
System (KMS) as an information system that can be applied to support KM processes and
mechanisms with the support of human resources, technology and tools. The
implementation of this system is to avoid the risk of ignorance and loss of knowledge in
organizations with the movement of human resources. This paper compares and reviews
Knowledge Management Success Factors (KMCSFs) from previous studies so that it
became KMCSFs in accordance with PT GDA. This paper aims to analyze the readiness
of KMS implementation in this company by analyzing the data obtained through a
questionnaire. Descriptive statistic resulted in an average value for each aspect, namely
people, process, and technology and the mean score of all aspects to determine the level
of readiness.
Key words: Knowledge Management, Knowledge Management System, Information
Technology, Success Factors, Readiness
Cite this Article: Rosna, Emil Robert Kaburuan, Knowledge Management System
Readiness Analysis (Case Study: IT Solution Company), International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 10 (2), 2019, pp. 873–882
https://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJMET?Volume=10&Issue=2

1. INTRODUCTION
Knowledge is the greatest asset for individuals and every organization, but can be a resource that
is not properly utilized and neglected if it is not managed efficiently and effectively. Successful

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 873 editor@iaeme.com

 Rosna, Emil Robert Kaburuan

organizations know that knowledge in action gets results in accelerating the learning process,
preventing the risk of not knowing, repeating mistakes, repeating the same work, and maintaining
knowledge assets when human resources move, temporary leave or retirement. Knowledge is a
key element in competitive differentiation, even more relevant than money, especially in service
industries such as banks, consultants or information technology providers [1]. Intellectual capital
can be seen as the basis of competitive advantage [2].
PT GDA is an IT solution company company that provides software services and products to
companies in various fields including banking, finance, retail, government institutions, etc. This
company adopts innovation and technology that is currently developing like big data. Human
resources that expert this technology are still difficult to find. Based on these needs, PT GDA
needs to implement KMS. Current documentation is spread on project-based work teams. Before
the implementation of KMS, the analysis of company readiness needs to be done so that it can
meet KM initiatives that fit the needs of the company. This readiness assessment is very essential
for the successful implementation of KM in the future.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Knowledge Management Critical Success Factors
For the success of KM in an organization it is necessary to pay attention to the components of
KM in the form of factors that are often known by various designations such as the determinants
of KM success (KMCSFs) that are evaluated in assessing readiness to support the successful
implementation of KM. People, processes, and technology are the three main components of KM.
People factor is the most dominant factor in terms of time and cost, while technology is the easiest
and fastest as a supporting factor [3]. Alavi and Leidner focus on information technology to
support effective KM processes [4].
Skyrme and Amidon stated that there were 7 factors that contributed to the success of KM
from a number of factors including strong links to business imperatives, compelling vision and
architecture, knowledge leadership, knowledge-creating and sharing culture, continuous learning,
a well-developed technology infrastructure, systematic organizational knowledge processes [5].
Davenport and Prusak stated that there were 9 factors that led to the success of projects related to
knowledge consisting of knowledge-oriented culture, technical and organizational infrastructure,
senior management support, link to economics or industry value, a modicum of process
orientation, clarity of vision and language, nontrivial motivational aids, some level of knowledge
structure, multiple channels for knowledge transfer [6]. Liebowitz proposes six main materials
that must get attention in the success of KM in organizations including support of senior
management, chief knowledge officers (CKO) or equivalent, knowledge management
infrastructure, knowledge knowledge and repositories, knowledge management systems and
tools, incentives [7]. Becerra and Sabherwal [8] stated KM infrastructure consists of organization
culture, organization structure, information technology infrastructure, common knowledge, and
physical environment. Wong and Aspinwall discussed 11 factors that influence the success of
implementing KM consisting of leadership and leadership support, culture, information
technology, goals and strategies, evaluations, organizational infrastructure, organizational
activities and processes, incentives, resources and training, human resource management [9]. Lee
and Choi proposed a framework consisting of KM enabler, process, organizational creativity, and
organizational performance [10]. The process within the framework is the knowledge creation
process which consists of socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (SECI)
by Nonaka and Takeuchi [11]. Razi and Karim combine the research of Lee and Choi [10] with
several other studies as KM enablers and add performance expectancy and effort expectancy from
KM as individual acceptance dimensions. These factors influence the intention to be involved in
SECI's knowledge creation process [12]. Mukhlasin and Budi combined KM success factors from

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 874 editor@iaeme.com

 Knowledge Management System Readiness Analysis (Case Study: it Solution Company)

several researchers such as Lee and Choi [10] and several other researchers by linking the
solutions and foundations of KM Becerra and Sabherwal [8] to measure the value of KM
implementation readiness [13]. Huang and Lai identify factors and variables including
environments, individual characteristics, KM characteristics, organizational characteristics, IT
Infrastructure, cultural factors to the successful implementation of KM [14].
Dalkir [15] combines several main stages in the KM cycle that are integrated from several
KM cycles from researchers including capture - creation, sharing - dissemination, acquisition -
application. The stages of the KMS process are in the form of a cycle because knowledge is
dynamic and is constantly updated. The stages include creating, capture, refine, store, manage,
and disseminate [16]. Alavi and Leidner [4] stated that KM involves different but interdependent
processes including creation (SECI), storage, retrieval, transfer and application. Easa discussed
the relationship between the SECI model as a process of converting innovation knowledge in the
Egyptian banking industry [17]. Lee and Kelkar found several important implications between
the SECI model and ICT [18]. Other studies that discuss processes are related to KM cycles [19],
[20], [21], [22], [23]. Previous research combined the SECI model [11] with other KMCSFs in
accordance with the focus and results of observations and research on the object of the research.

Table 1 Summary of KM Readiness Factors

Factors References
Organization culture [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[12],[13],[14]
Organization structure [6], [7],[8] ,[9],[10],[12],[13],[14]
Information technology infrastructure [4], [8],[5],[6],[9],[10],[12],[13], [14]
Common knowledge [8],[13]
Physical environment [8],[13],[14]
SECI [10],[11],[17], [18],[19]
KM cycle [19,[20],[21],[22],[23]

2.2. KM Readiness Measurement Model

For measuring the level of KM readiness using the assessment model made by Aydin and Tasci
[24]. The average value of 3.41 can be identified as the expected level of readiness. Average 3.41
is determined after identifying the critical level. 5 assessment points have 4 intervals, so 4/5 =
0.8. The results of the analysis for the level of readiness are determined by figure 1.

Figure 1 Readiness Measurement Model [24]

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Defining Aspect, Variables with Indicators
There are 3 aspects, namely people, process, and technology. This aspect consists of SECI's
knowledge creation process, organizational culture, organizational structure, and general

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 875 editor@iaeme.com

 Rosna, Emil Robert Kaburuan

knowledge. People aspect refers to humans, culture individually and organizations, ways of
thinking, behaving related to knowledge in the corporate community. Process aspects consist of
processes that exist in the KM cycle which consist of create, capture, refine, store, manage, and
dissemination. The knowledge process starts to be created (identified), identified as something
that is valuable (capture), then knowledge is placed in one context so that it can be followed up
(refined). Knowledge must be stored in a good format on the repository so that it can be accessed
easily in the organization (store). Knowledge must remain up-to-date, this must be reviewed
regularly to keep it relevant and accurate (manage). Knowledge must be stored in useful forms
and can be accessed easily. Technology includes information technology infrastructure and
physical environments such as knowledge centers that support the KM process.

3.2. Data Collection

This study uses questionnaires to all employees at PT GDA. The results of observations,
interviews, and literature studies will provide guidelines for designing research instruments. The
People aspect has 20 items which are divided into 7 dimensions, namely the dimensions of
socialization, externalization, combination, internalization, organization culture, organization
structure, and common language. Process aspect have 14 items which are divided into 6
dimensions, namely dimensions of create, capture, refine, store, manage, and dissemination. The
Technology aspect has 5 items which are divided into 2 dimensions, namely the IT Infrastructure
and physic environment dimensions.

Table 2 Aspect, Variables with Indicators

Aspects Variables Indicators References
People Discussion and face to face [10]
Collection of social information from
[10], [17]
Socialization outside and inside the company
Transfer tacit knowledge [10], [17],[18]
Level of creative dialogue [10], [17]
Encouragement of seeking knowledge
[10], [17],[18]
to the expert
Externalization
Exchange of ideas [10], [17]
Level of acquisition, collaboration and
[10],[18]
integration
Documentation encouragement [10], [17]
Combination
Level of support in the team [10], [18]
Level of personal experience [10], [17]
Internalization Simulation and trial levels [10], [17],[18]
The level of support and help actively in
[10], [12]
the organization
The level of response to the intentions,
behavior, and skills of other parties in [10], [12]
the organization
The level of opportunity, variation,
Organization satisfaction, and encouragement for
[10], [12]
Culture learning and development in the
organization

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 876 editor@iaeme.com

 Knowledge Management System Readiness Analysis (Case Study: it Solution Company)

Level of authority and control over

[10], [12]
decisions
Organization The level of formal rules, procedures
[10], [12]
Structure and standard policies
The existence of a collection of
organizational knowledge that includes [13]
Common all organization-specific information
knowledge There is an understanding of KM [13]
The level of creation of new knowledge [19]
Encourage documentation [19]
Create Level of flexibility [19]
The level of getting tacit knowledge [20]
Capture Identification of knowledge [21]
Level of knowledge filtering [22]
Clarification of knowledge in
[22]
Refine organizations
Process
Use of knowledge repositories in
[23]
organizations
Store
Ease of access to knowledge repository [23]
Level of knowledge integration [21][23]
Procedures and policies for
Manage [21][23]
documentation
Level of knowledge sharing in
[21][23]
organization
Dissemination
Encouragement to share knowledge [23]
Availability of information technology
[13]
infrastructure in organizations
Use of information technology related
Technology [13]
to the KM process
IT Infrastructure
There are facilities or procedures to
[13]
support data and information security
Special room [13]
Physic
Workspace design [13], [14]
Environment
The population in this study were 42 active employees at PT GDA and all of them will be
taken as research respondents.

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The stages of data processing using the SPSS 2.5 statistical application test the validity and
reliability of the results of the questionnaire. To calculate the readiness value of KMS
implementation in this study, the average calculation of the overall value of each aspect is namely
the people, process and technology aspects.

4.1. Validity and Reliability Test

Validity test is used to determine the feasibility of the items in a questionnaire in defining a
variable. This list of questions generally supports a certain group of variables. Validity test should

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 877 editor@iaeme.com

 Rosna, Emil Robert Kaburuan

be carried out on each question tested for validity. The result of r count is compared with r table
with sig 5%. If r table <r count then valid. The value of r table for respondents is 38 people with
sig 5% is 0.312.

Table 3 Validity Test Result of Variables

Aspects Variables Items r count Validity
People Socialization Q1 0.819 valid
Q2 0.875 valid
Q3 0.820 valid
Externalization Q4 0.893 valid
Q5 0.902 valid
Q6 0.804 valid
Combination Q7 0.874 valid
Q8 0.903 valid
Q9 0.887 valid
Internalization Q10 0.877 valid
Q11 0.863 valid
Q12 0.880 valid
Organization Culture Q13 0.898 valid
Q14 0.868 valid
Q15 0.900 valid
Organization Structure Q16 0.885 valid
Q17 0.861 valid
Q18 0.928 valid
Common Knowledge Q19 0.897 valid
Q20 0.872 valid
Process Create Q21 0.898 valid
Q22 0.885 valid
Q23 0.906 valid
Capture Q24 0.886 valid
Q25 0.903 valid
Q26 0.886 valid
Refine Q27 0.893 valid
Q28 0.874 valid
Store Q29 0.864 valid
Q30 0.684 valid
Manage Q31 0.891 valid
Q32 0.899 valid
Dissemination Q33 0.887 valid
Q34 0.894 valid
Technology IT Infrastructure Q35 0.901 valid
Q36 0.914 valid
Q37 0.943 valid
Physic Environment Q38 0.898 valid
Q39 0.902 valid
The approach taken to test whether the question instrument shows consistent results when
done repeatedly is to calculate the alpha coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) for each measured
variable. Reliability testing is done to assess the consistency of the research instruments. A
research instrument can be said to be reliable if Cronbach's Alpha is greater than 0.6. The
reliability test results with SPSS resulted in the value of Cronbach's Alpha being 0.991 meaning
reliable.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 878 editor@iaeme.com
 Knowledge Management System Readiness Analysis (Case Study: it Solution Company)

The following summarizes the results of answers from respondents for the questionnaire with
5 choices of answers, SA is Strongly Agree, A is Agree, N is Neutral, D is Disagree, SD is
Strongly Disagree.

Table 4 Summary of Respondents' Answers

No Questions SD D N A SA Mean
The company encourages detailed face-to-face discussions about
1 0 6 13 19 0 3.3421
work issues
2 The company holds meetings, seminars to discuss work updates 0 6 6 24 2 3.5789
The company emphasizes sharing knowledge with suppliers and
3 0 6 13 18 1 3.3684
customers
4 The company emphasizes creative and important dialogue 1 8 4 21 4 3.5000
The company requested to document knowledge obtained from
5 1 8 7 20 2 3.3684
seminars, workshops and training programs
The company encourages the active search for knowledge to the
6 0 7 11 19 1 3.3684
more expert
The company emphasizes making manuals and documents about
7 1 7 7 19 4 3.4737
products and services
The company emphasizes building a database for products and
8 1 8 3 23 3 3.5000
services
Use of information and knowledge from old work documents to
9 0 8 7 17 6 3.5526
create new documents
The company emphasizes liaison activities that are active
10 1 6 6 21 4 3.5526
between organizational units
The company facilitates access to training programs, workshops
11 0 7 8 20 3 3.5000
and seminars
Form a team as a model for conducting experiments and sharing
12 0 8 5 19 6 3.6053
results with other work units
I am willing to work actively with other partners in and outside
13 1 8 6 19 4 3.4474
the work unit
I believe colleagues have the ability and expertise according to
14 1 6 6 20 5 3.5789
their field of work
Companies provide individual development opportunities in
15 addition to formal training such as work assignments or job 2 7 5 22 2 3.3947
rotation
16 I can make decisions without approval 1 5 6 22 4 3.6053
17 I can act without supervision 1 7 7 18 5 3.5000
Regulations and procedures formally within the company are not
18 0 8 3 23 4 3.6053
over emphasized
19 The company provides specific organizational information 0 9 7 19 3 3.4211
20 I understand the concept of knowledge management 0 7 5 22 4 3.6053
21 I actively document knowledge and experience 0 8 6 20 4 3.5263
The company encourages documenting information and
22 knowledge obtained from seminars, workshops and training 0 6 8 19 5 3.6053
programs
23 I can express ideas, opinions openly 2 7 7 20 2 3.3421
24 The company holds meetings for regular discussions 0 7 7 19 5 3.5789
25 I was able to identify the knowledge needed to support the work 0 9 4 23 2 3.4737
I feel the benefits of open discussions either individually or in
26 groups within the company, especially in finding solutions to 0 7 7 19 5 3.5789
work problems
Evaluation and analysis activities on information in the form of
27 manuals or reports must be carried out before being 0 7 4 25 2 3.5789
documented
28 I realize the importance of cloning knowledge 0 8 8 15 7 3.5526

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 879 editor@iaeme.com

 Rosna, Emil Robert Kaburuan

The company emphasizes the storage of documentation on the

29 1 6 9 19 3 3.4474
repository according to the rules
The company emphasizes storing documentation indexed and
30 0 11 11 15 1 3.1579
centralized
I realize the importance of organizing documentation properly
31 0 7 9 20 2 3.4474
according to company rules
The company emphasizes the integrity of documentation
32 0 7 4 23 4 3.6316
between work units
There is good cooperation between work units in terms of
33 0 8 7 18 5 3.5263
getting information and knowledge
34 The company appreciates and rewards dividers of knowledge 0 7 5 24 2 3.5526
Our company provides IT support for collaborative work
35 0 6 10 17 5 3.5526
regardless of time and place
Our company provides IT support for communication among
36 1 6 5 23 3 3.5526
members of the organization
Our company provides IT support to find and access information
37 0 8 6 21 3 3.5000
needed
There is a special room within the organization to meet and
38 0 10 4 22 2 3.4211
share knowledge with adequate technological facilities
The design of work space makes it easy to interact between
39 0 6 8 18 6 3.6316
individuals in order to share knowledge

4.2. Result of KM Readiness Assessment

The results of the descriptive analysis to calculate the mean score of each aspect of people are
3.4934, the process is 3.5000, and technology is 3.5316 and the overall mean score is 3.5001 at
level 4 which means at level 4 that is ready but necessary improvement.
The following is the PT GDA KM readiness chart of the mean score of each dimension.

Figure 2 KM Readiness Chart

From the results of the descriptive analysis by measuring the mean score of each item, only
one item, the mean score (Q30) relating to the process aspect for store is 3.1579 and the mean
score per dimension is 3.3026 and it still does not meet the expected level of readiness 3.41.

5. CONCLUSION
This study measures the readiness of KM at PT GDA with 3 aspects which are important
components of KM, namely people, process, and technology. Assessment uses descriptive
analysis method with a level of KM readiness level. Based on the Aydin and Tasci model [24],
the readiness level of KM is at level 4 meaning that it is ready and needs improvement. Of all the

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 880 editor@iaeme.com

 Knowledge Management System Readiness Analysis (Case Study: it Solution Company)

supporting factors that need most attention are the process aspect for store factors because they
have the lowest mean score (3.3026). Based on the results of the analysis of the level of KM
readiness, PT GDA can implement KMS that is tailored to the needs and conditions of this
company.

REFERENCES
[1] Gratton, L. and Ghoshal, S. Managing Personal Human Capital: New Ethos for the
‘Volunteer’ Employee’, European Management Journal, 21 (1), 2003,1-10.
[2] Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know, Harvard Business Scholl Press, Boston, 2000.
[3] Bhatt, Dilip.(2000).EFQM Excellence Model and Knowledge management
Implications.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.573.6798&rep=rep1
&type=pdf
[4] Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management
Systems:Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 2001,107–136.
[5] Skyrme, D., & Amidon, D. The knowledge agenda. Journal of Knowledge Management,
1(1),1997,pp. 27 – 37.
[6] Davenport, T. H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. Successful knowledge management
projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 1998,43-57.
[7] Liebowitz, J. Key ingredients to the success of an organization’s knowledge management
strategy. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(1),1999, pp.37-40.
[8] Becerra-Fernandez, I & Sabherwal, Rajiv.Knowledge management: Systems and processes
(2nd ed.). M. E. Sharpe, Inc, 2015.
[9] Wong, K. Y. and Aspinwall, E. Is Knowledge Management Equivalent to Information
Technology?, Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Knowledge Management,
Oxford University, Oxford, 2003, 989-97.
[10] Lee, H. and Choi, B. Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational
Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 20(1), 2003,179-228.
[11] Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.,1995.
[12] Razi, M. J. M. and Karim, N. S. A. An Instrument to Assess Organizational Readiness to
Implement Knowledge Management Process, Knowledge Management: Theory, Research
and Practice, Proceedings Knowledge management 5th International Conference, 2010,323-
328.
[13] Mukhlasin, H. and Budi, I. Analisis Pengukuran Tingkat Kesiapan Penerapan Manajemen
Pengetahuan: Studi kasus Badan Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Keuangan, Kementerian
Keuangan, Journal of Information System, 13(1), 2017, 11-20.
[14] Huang, L., and Lai, C. An investigation on critical success factors for knowledge management
using structural equation modeling, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,40, 2012,24-
30.
[15] Ms. Prajakta S. Ratnaparkhi and Dr. Pradeep K. Butey, Summary: Smart Decision Making
Using Fuzzy Logic for Knowledge Management System, International Journal of Computer
Engineering and Technology (IJCET) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 41-50
[16] Rajendra S.Pujari, Dr.Pallavi P Jamsendekar and Dr.Rajesh Kanthe, Knowledge Management
System a Panacea for Rural Public Administration, International Journal of Management
(IJM) Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013), pp. 180-187

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 881 editor@iaeme.com

 Rosna, Emil Robert Kaburuan

[17] Dalkir, K. Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press,2017.
[18] Rainer, R., Cegielski, C. and Prince, B. Introduction to Information Systems (5th ed.). New
York: Wiley, 2014.
[19] Easa, N. F. H. Knowledge Management and The SECI Model: A Study of Innovation in The
Egyptian Banking Sector, Doctor's thesis, University of Stirling,2012.
[20] Lee, C. S., & Kelkar, R. S. ICT and knowledge management: perspectives from the SECI
model,2011. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471311312401.
[21] Chienhsing, S. K., & Su, W. P. Which mode is better for knowledge creation?. Management
Decision, 49(7), 2014, 1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111151136.
[22] Dzekashu, W. G. & McCollum, W.R. (2014). A Quality Approach to Tacit Knowledge
Capture: Effective Practice to Achieving Operational Excellence. International Journal of
Applied Management and Technology, 13(1),2014,52–63.
https://doi.org/10.5590/IJAMT.2014.13.1.04.
[23] Dr. S. Ravichandran, Critical Success Factors (Css) For Effective Implementation of
Knowledge Management System – A Case Study in Software Project Organization,
International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET) Volume 3, Issue 1,
January- June (2012), pp. 355–361
[24] Sokhanvar, S., Matthews, J., & Yarlagadda, P. (2014). Importance of Knowledge
Management Processes in a Project-based organization: a Case Study of Research Enterprise.
Procedia Engineering, 97, 2014, 1825–1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.336
[25] Chung, T. R., & Galletta, D. (2011). Knowledge Refinement Effectiveness. Thirty Second
International Conference on Information Systems,1–20.
[26] Ranjbarfard, M., Aghdasi, M., López-Sáez, P., & Emilio Navas López, J. (2014). The barriers
of knowledge generation, storage, distribution and application that impede learning in gas and
petroleum companies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(3), 494–
522.https//:doi:10.1108/jkm-08-2013-0324
[27] Aydin, C. H., & Tasci, D.Measuring Readiness for e-learning Reflections from Emerging
Country. Educational Technology and Society, 8 (4),2005, pp. 244-257.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 882 editor@iaeme.com