![](bg7.png)
improvement of the available medical knowledge
and its dissemination.
5 CONCLUSIONS
KM as a whole is a complex process, which requires
more than an optimal information and
communication infrastructure. “The success of KM
initiatives depends equally on the active
involvement of everyone throughout the
organization, as well as on their consistency with the
organization’s broader business strategy and culture”
(Ergazakis, 2005).
Siemens Healthcare Clinical Knowledge
Management Project is continuously reviewed,
assessed and analyzed to identify the quality of its
knowledge assets and resources. At a more detailed
level, the company’s information system, its
processes and its knowledge enabling technology is
examined.
For many years, Siemens has followed a KM
with clear objectives and approaches and enjoyed
strong commitment from top management.
Since 2001, Siemens has been among the best
finalists in MAKE, the European Most Admired
Knowledge Enterprises ranking, which is conducted
annually by the UK-based consulting firm Teleos. In
2010, the organization achieved first place for the
third time (2003, 2004, 2010).
The Siemens Healthcare Academy, the Clinical
Competence Centers, as well as Clinical Knowledge
Base of Siemens Healthcare are a constructive
example of the company’s successful KM and
education strategy. The organizational benefit of the
Siemens Healthcare Clinical Knowledge
Management concept is the improved operational
efficiency of finding relevant information when
needed and greater confidence in the quality and
relevance of that information.
The whole point of KM is to make sure that the
knowledge available in an organization is applied
productively for the benefit of the organization.
REFERENCES
American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC), 2003.
Measuring the Impact of Knowledge Management. In
Best Practices Report.
Bhatti, W.A., Zaheer, A., Rehman, K.U., 2011. The effect
of knowledge management practices on organizational
performance: A conceptual study. African Journal of
Business Management, Vol.5 (7), pp. 2847- 2853.
Bose, R., 2003. Knowledge Management- enabled health
care management systems: capabilities, infrastructure,
and decision- support. Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 24, pp.59- 71.
Brown, G., Knowledge Management Metrics.
http://www.ispi.org/archives/resources/KnowledgeMa
nagementMetrics_Brown.pdf.
Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W., Beers, M.C., 1998.
Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan
Management Review, pp. 43-57.
DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R., 2003/1992. The DeLone
and McLean model of information systems success: A
Ten- Year Update. Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol.19, No.4, pp. 9-30.
Ergazakis, K. 2005 Knowledge Management in
Enterprises: a research agenda. Intelligent Systems in
Accounting, Finance and Management, Vol.13,pp. 17-
26.
Gamble, P.R., Blackwell, J. 2001, Knowledge
Management- A state of the art guide. British Library,
p. 203.
Hoss R., Schlussel, A., 2009. How do you measure the
Knowledge Management Maturity of your
Organization? Metrics that assess an Organization’s
KM State.
Jadoon, I.K., Hasnu, S.A.F., 2009. Collaboration
Dichotomies in Knowledge Management Success.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 10
No. 4.
Jennex, M.E., Smolnik, S., Croasdell, D., 2008. Towards a
consensus knowledge management success definition.
In Strategies for Knowledge Management Success,
Information Science Reference.
Jennex, M.E., Smolnik, S., Croasdell, D., 2012. Where to
look for knowledge management success. IEEE,
pp.3969- 3978.
Metaxiotis, K., 2006. in Schwartz, D. G. Healthcare
Knowledge Management. Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Management, pp.204-210.
Robertson, J., 2003. Metrics for Knowledge Management
and Content Management. www.steptwo.com.au/
papers/kmc_metrics/index.html.
Webtrends, 2013. http://webtrends.com/products/analytics
and http://webtrends.com/products/integration/
sharepoint/.
WhenMeasuringPerformanceMakestheDifference-QualityandSuccessofaClinicalKnowledgeManagementProject
425