Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The MinK framework: towards measuring individual knowledge

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

Knowledge is the currency of the current economy and a vital resource for sustaining organisational performance in today’s knowledge-based intensively competitive business environment. To avoid the detrimental consequences of knowledge loss, managers are urged to identify where knowledge stocks exist and how knowledge flows within their organisations by identifying knowledge holders among their employees. Although some studies have attempted to use different methods to measure knowledge at the organisational level, very few have addressed the individual knowledge holder. Moving from a critical literature review of the existing knowledge measurement approaches, this paper proposes a novel framework that enables organisations to measure individual knowledge in the business context using a set of metrics, which are subsequently validated via a series of in-depth interviews with senior managers. A summary of the managers’ views on individual knowledge measurement is presented, and reflections on the industry application of the proposed framework and recommendations for its improvement are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Laham A, Tzabbar D and Amburgey TL (2011) The dynamics of knowledge stocks and knowledge flows: innovation consequences of recruitment and collaboration in biotech. Industrial and Corporate Change 20 (2), 555–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron A (2011) Measuring human capital. Strategic HR Review 10 (2), 30–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boda G and Szlavik P (2007) Alternative accounting to manage intellectual capital. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 5 (1), 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolisani E and Oltramari A (2012) Knowledge as a measurable object in business contexts: a stock-and-flow approach. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 10 (3), 275–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bontis N (2001) Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews 3 (1), 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bontis N and Crossan MM and Business RISO (1999) Managing an Organisational Learning System by Aligning Stocks and Flows of Knowledge: An Empirical Examination of Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management, and Business Performance. University of Western Ontario, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bose R (2004) Knowledge management metrics. Industrial Management & Data Systems 104 (6), 457–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooking A (1996) Intellectual Capital. Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli A and Tishler A (2004) The relationships between intangible organisational elements and organisational performance. Strategic Management Journal 25 (13), 1257–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M, Huang M and Cheng Y (2009) Measuring knowledge management performance using a competitive perspective: an empirical study. Expert Systems with Applications 36 (4), 8449–8459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport T and Prusak L (2000) Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson L (1997) Developing intellectual capital at Skandia. Long Range Planning 30 (3), 366–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson L and Malone M (1997) Intellectual Capital: Realising Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. Harper Business, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahey L and Prusak L (1998) The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review 40 (3), 265–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flamholtz EG, Kannan-Narasimhan R and Bullen ML (1993) Human resource accounting today: contributions, controversies and conclusions. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 8 (2), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith JK (1969) The New Industrial State. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisig P (2009) Harmonisation of knowledge management – comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe. Journal of Knowledge Management 13 (4), 4–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermanson RH (1964) Accounting for Human Assets. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State University, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang MJ, Chen MY and Yieh K (2007) Comparing with your main competitor: the single most important task of knowledge management performance measurement. Journal of Information Science 33 (4), 416–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen K, Hofman-Bang P and Nordby Jr. R (2005) The IC rating. Journal of Intellectual Capital 6 (4), 570–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kannan G and Aulbur WG (2004) Intellectual capital: measurement effectiveness. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (3), 389–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R and Norton D (1996) The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalifa M, Yu A and Shen K (2008) Knowledge management systems success: a contingency perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management 12 (1), 119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerro A, Iacobone FA and Schiuma G (2012) Knowledge assets assessment strategies: organizational value, processes, approaches and evaluation architectures. Journal of Knowledge Management 16 (4), 563–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz J and Suen C (2000) Developing knowledge management metrics for measuring intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (1), 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz J and Wright K (1999) Does measuring knowledge make ‘cents’? Expert Systems with Applications 17 (2), 99–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology.

  • Luthy D (1998) Intellectual capital and its measurement. Proceedings of the Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference (APIRA). Osaka, Japan.

  • Malhotra Y (2003) Measuring knowledge assets of a nation: knowledge systems for development. Invited Research Paper sponsored by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Keynote Presentation at the Ad Hoc Group of Experts Meeting at the United Nations Headquarters, New York City, NY. Citeseer.

  • Marr B, Schiuma G and Neely A (2004) Intellectual capital: defining key performance indicators for organizational knowledge assets. Business Process Management Journal 10 (5), 551–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka IA and Takeuchi HA (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacharapha T and Ractham V (2012) Knowledge acquisition: the roles of perceived value of knowledge content and source. Journal of Knowledge Management 16 (5), 724–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petra A and Annelies W (2012) Disentangling value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management 16 (3), 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulic A (2000) VAIC™ – an accounting tool for IC management. International Journal of Technology Management 20 (5), 702–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos J, Edvinsson L and Roos G (1998) Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape. New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serenko A, Bontis N, Booker L, Sadeddin K and Hardie T (2010) A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008). Journal of Knowledge Management 14 (1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skyrme D (2003) Measuring Knowledge and Intellectual Capital. Business Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrme D (2005) Measuring knowledge: a plethora of methods. Skyrme knowledge connections. [WWW document] http://www.skyrme.com/insights/24kmeas.htm (accessed 15 January 2013).

  • Stewart B (1994) EVA: fact and fantasy. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 7 (2), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart T (1998) Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations. Doubleday, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby KE (1993) The intangible assets monitor. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 2 (1), 73–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby KE (1997) The New Organizational Wealth: Managing & Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin J (1969) A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 1 (1), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver SC (2001) Measuring economic value added: a survey of the practices of EVA proponents. Journal of Applied Finance 11 (1), 50–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham HA (2008) Practical tools for exploring data and models. [WWW document] http://www.had.co.nz/thesis/seminar.pdf (accessed 30 January 2013).

  • Yu S, Kim Y and Kim M (2007) Do we know what really drives KM performance? Journal of Knowledge Management 11 (6), 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Pharos University in Alexandria, Egypt, for its support of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 3S Group, College of Business, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland

    Mohamed A F Ragab & Amr Arisha

Authors
  1. Mohamed A F Ragab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amr Arisha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed A F Ragab.

Additional information

Correction

In the online version originally published 19th August 2013 the second author’s name was misspelled. This has been corrected in this final version.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ragab, M., Arisha, A. The MinK framework: towards measuring individual knowledge. Knowl Manage Res Pract 13, 178–186 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.40

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.40

Keywords

Search

Navigation