Education Administrators’ Views about Knowledge Management
Vasso Stylianou and Andreas Savva
Department of Computer Science, School of Sciences and Engineering, University of Nicosia, Nicosia 2417, Cyprus
Keywords: Knowledge Management, Higher Education.
Abstract: Sustainable development of human resources within Higher Education Institutions (HEI) involves utilizing
the current human capital in ways which will allow it to persevere and grow individually and collectively.
Such development may be achieved through knowledge management (KM) practices. Quality levels of
education offerings may be elevated through the dissemination and enhancement of knowledge and practice,
in learning and teaching, within and across universities and colleges. On its road to KM success an
organization must give the necessary attention to a number of factors which are considered critical. Amongst
these is the need to have a KM strategy and successful leadership. Thus, this research was initiated to
investigate the viewpoints of top executives in a HEI regarding KM practices in education. Among other
things, the administrators put emphasis on the need for efficient collaboration and communication channels
to be established and enabled by the appropriate Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Their
comments and highlights may serve to broaden our understanding regarding future steps in the process of
establishing KM in HE.
1 INTRODUCTION
Within Higher Education Institutions (HEI) there is a
plethora of knowledge in many different areas of
concentration. Such knowledge, if managed
efficiently, should be valuable not only for the HEIs
themselves but for the society in general. Provided that
appropriate Knowledge Management (KM) practices
shall be put in place, a HEI can, not only, achieve
sustainable development of human capital but may
effectively improve the level and quality of the
knowledge services that it offers. A KM strategy which
will be led by a KM-enabling leadership is essential.
This research was initiated to investigate the
viewpoints of top executives in a HEI located in
Cyprus regarding KM practices in education. Their
comments and highlights may serve to broaden our
understanding regarding future steps in the process of
establishing KM in Higher Education (HE).
2 THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
2.1 The Value of KM for HE
Knowledge and Knowledge Management are laid
down in the definition: “Knowledge management is
an organized and systematic approach encompassing
knowledge processes such as the creation, usage,
storage, share, transfer and retrieval of knowledge in
order to improve business performances” (HEFCE,
2009). Thus, KM is closely related to the core
strategic goals of Higher Education (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Core Strategic Aims for HE, Source (HEFCE,
2009).
Sharing knowledge effectively is often as
important as the original research and scholarship.
Professional practice in knowledge exchange can be
the engine of economic and social regeneration, and
Stylianou, V. and Savva, A.
Education Administrators’ Views about Knowledge Management.
DOI: 10.5220/0010674900003064
In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2021) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 161-168
ISBN: 978-989-758-533-3; ISSN: 2184-3228
Copyright
c
 2021 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
161

the driver of business and institutional innovation.
An example of best practice in this direction is the
creation of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP)
(GOV.UK, 2021) between the industry and academia.
Sustainable development of human capital in HE can
be achieved through knowledge management
practices. The quality of education offered can also
be realized via the dissemination and enhancement of
knowledge and practice in learning and teaching
within and across universities and colleges.
In (Stylianou, 2015), the author presents a
compiled list of driving forces which formulate a
need for a KM system in academic institutions. The
list includes the following:
- The need to maintain knowledge as the most
important asset of academic institutions.
- The fact that participants in educational
environments are often engaged in huge
duplication efforts (Robson, Norris, Lefrere,
Collier, & Mason, 2003) which may involve re-
creating existing teaching materials, etc.
- A sudden increase of available online teaching
and learning material on campus; a great volume
of this material was generated during the COVID-
19 period out of need for online education for all
disciplines and levels of study.
- The importance of excellence in teaching and in
knowledge exchange, as these are highly regarded
as excellence in research (HEFCE, 2009).
- The desire of HE institutions to deliver lifelong
learning.
- The need to deliver HE to, and widen the
participation of, under-represented groups.
- The existence of a truly competitive knowledge-
based economy and an open inclusive society,
both very knowledge intensive.
- The need to enhance quality by the dissemination
of knowledge and practice in learning and
teaching across universities.
- The need to share good practice through networks
which will connect all parties concerned within an
institution, between institutions, and between
them and the society.
It has been twenty years ago that researchers such
as Kidwell and co-researchers (Kidwell, Vander,
Karen, & Johnson, 2001), were outlining significant
opportunities for academic institutions to apply
knowledge management practices to support their
mission. With the convergence of e-business and KM
using common portals, it is possible to extend the
organization’s communities to include the customer
in the generation and exchange of knowledge and
thus gain an effective competitive advantage
(Kidwell, Vander, Karen, & Johnson, 2001).
2.2 KM in HEIs
In the 21st century HEIs: a) help to create the
knowledge, skills, and values that underpin a civilized
society; b) can transform the lives of individuals
substantially; and c) drive innovation and economic
transformation (Browne, 2010). Universities,
according to Boulton and Lucas (Boulton & Lucas,
2008) can also be part of the process of producing a
successful knowledge economy. Amongst other
benefits of pursuing KM, one may include, according
to Milam (Milam, 2001), that KM will enable
universities to increase student retention and
graduation rates, retain a technology workforce,
expand Web-based offerings, analyse the cost-
effective use of technology, and do other things
necessary to compete in an environment where
institutions cross state and national borders to meet
students’ needs.
Some published evidence about KM practices in
HEIs from around the world is available in the
following articles: On tacit knowledge transfers in
Australian HEIs by Chugh, (Chugh, 2017) and
(Chung, 2015); KM in Nigerian universities as
presented by Ojo (Ojo, 2016); KM in Indian
universities by Bhusry and Ranjan (Bhusry & Ranjan,
2011); Arntzen and co-researchers (Arntzen,
Worasinchai, & Ribiere, 2009) on KM practices at
Bangkok University; Petrides and Nodine (Petrides
& Nodine, 2003), on educational institutions across
the USA which received grants to implement KM
practices; and Ramachandran and co-researchers
(Ramachandran, Chong, & Ismail, 2009) on practices
of KM processes in public and private HEIs in
Malaysia. Cranfield and Taylor (Cranfield & Taylor,
2008) claim that universities in general, and UK HEIs
in particular, do have a significant level of KM
activities, which Rowley (Rowley, 2000) contends is
important to recognize and use as foundations for
further development. Cranfield and Taylor (Cranfield
& Taylor, 2008) performed a case study between
seven HEI in the UK. Two HEIs were engaging in
KM in a systemic and institutional-wide way, and a
further two had champions engaging in KM overtly
within their faculty.
It remains that, HEIs should deploy KM practices
to support every aspect of their mission – from
education to public service to research. An
institution-wide approach to KM can lead to
exponential improvements in sharing knowledge,
leverage the knowledge capital and enable the
organization to become more effective (Laal, 2011).
Blackman and Kennedy (Blackman & Kennedy,
2009) claimed that strategic success in the university
KMIS 2021 - 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
162

is dependent on deeper understandings of the nature
and role of knowledge management.
After investigating the role of the Academic
Board and the University Council in an Australian
university, Blackman and Kennedy (Blackman &
Kennedy, 2009) concluded that in the case studied,
the type of knowledge targeted was narrow and
committee members were focused on processes that
did not effectively enable the creation or transfer of
knowledge.
3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Objectives
The role of leaders in knowledge management is very
important. Knowledge leaders through their strategic
visions, motivation, and effective communication
will be the change agents who through their practices
will make knowledge transfer effective (Debowski,
2006).
Thus, this study was initiated to:
(i) Capture the perceptions of administrators in
a HEI regarding “the knowledge
organization”;
(ii) Identify their involvement in existing or
planned KM practices in the HEI; and
(iii) Establish needs and perceived opportunities
relating to KM, according to the executive
management of the HEI.
This qualitative study may serve to broaden our
understanding regarding future steps in the process of
establishing KM in HE.
3.2 The Research Methodology
Interviews constitute a popular method of collecting
qualitative data. Though they can be designed as
required, there is a preference for semi-structured
interviews which being open-ended, allow the
definition of terms before analysis takes place, and
aim to explore what the interviewee thinks [Banister
et al, 1994; Miller, Glassner, 1997; Dvale, 1996, cited
in (Pavlou, 2001)]. At the same time focused semi-
structured interviews allow the interviewee the time
and scope to talk about his/her opinions on a
particular subject. The focus of the semi-structured
interviews is decided by the researcher along with the
areas s/he is interested in exploring (Central, 2007).
Data collection through interviews is a very time
consuming and expensive process, and processing
and analysing the data collected is more complicated
than analysing quantitative data. On the other hand,
interviews, especially personal face-to-face ones, are
a “process of open discovery” (Hussey & Hussey,
1997) and this is the strength of this data collection
method.
This study involved a literature review
(referenced throughout the paper) for collecting
secondary data, and a qualitative research
methodology for the collection of primary data via a
number of face-to-face individual and semi-
structured interviews with top executives of a HEI
located in Cyprus. During the interviews we
collected information regarding the executives’
opinions, views, and experiences in relation to current
KM activities and future plans.
4 RESEARCH FINDINGS
The qualitative data collected from the interviews
held with the organization’s top administrators, were
transcribed, compiled and summarized. The main
findings of the study are presented below.
4.1 Establish Current Practices in
Relation to Key KM Practices
4.1.1 Collecting/Capturing Existing
Knowledge
A lot of useful data were found to be stored in
different forms, some manual, other electronic, by
different departments. Examples of these data
included: student data, employee data, data on
facilities’ utilization, library utilization, feasibility
studies, quotations, etc. A big volume of various
types of documents was stored in different offices. A
lot of student-related data were captured and
disseminated via a Student Information System (SIS).
Data about employee tasks and duties were recorded
in job descriptions, performance appraisals/
evaluations, some dedicated databases used for
keeping track of certain employee activities, task
allocation tables, etc.
The recording of previous practices, best
practices, or changes in practices for experience
sharing, was not a common practice in the
organization.
These were some interesting comments received
by some administrators:
Education Administrators’ Views about Knowledge Management
163

“I suspect that people have their own documents
and when they leave, they throw them away.” (Top
Administrator A)
This of course is a typical example of knowledge
loss.
Another administrator said:
“I think that documents are collected but
probably are not centrally tracked and they are not
broadly available and accessible.” (Top
Administrator L)
Real-time expert contact was used by
administrators for IT, legal, taxation and other advice.
Some of these experts were the institution’s
employees and others were external associates.
Communication via the phone was mostly used.
Regarding the issue of seeking/using experts here
is what some administrators said:
“I contact people based on my perceptions
regarding their knowledge and expertise.” (Top
Administrator J)
“I do not use a network of experts… There may
be a need for ad-hoc networks to be created to serve
different purposes e.g., different projects. I just have
in mind some people specializing on different areas
who I consult with when I need them.” (Top
Administrator L)
Administrators were not making much use of
Decision Support Tools. Some analysis of student
data were built in the SIS. Additionally, some
analytics were used for marketing and digital
marketing, advertising, recruiting efforts results’
analysis, etc. There was also some built-in
functionality in the catalogue and other systems used
in the library and in the Learning Management
Systems (LMS), mostly Moodle, used for course
delivery.
In the absence of other dedicated or not
knowledge bases, most administrators reached out to
the Internet to fulfil most of their daily job-related
information needs such as the need to stay informed
about the competition, the local and international
state of affairs in the political, economic, and other
arenas, etc. Additionally, they checked their emails;
received feedback from associates e.g., local and
overseas agents; received feedback from students;
looked for surveys, read articles, journals, reports,
statistical analyses, the local and international press,
etc.
“We do not have a bank of research
areas/interests by different academics. We need a
dynamic database to keep these data.” (Top
Administrator L)
To conclude, a great deal of data which recorded
explicit knowledge were already available in the
organization but very little tacit knowledge was
recorded.
4.1.2 Organizing and Storing Knowledge
No authority/office was held responsible for the
collection of the organization’s documented
knowledge at a centralized repository. There was a
tendency to move from paper to electronic storage
and many documents were scanned and stored. Some
old documents were also stored by individuals/
departments but no real data warehouses were
maintained. Most document storage was done on an
ad-hoc basis and individuals and departments stored
what they believed was important. Such storage was
done on people’s personal computers or the email
server of the organization for the documents which
were transferred via email between organization
members. This eventually created an abundant
storage of the same exact documents. Some
departments used cloud storage facilities such as the
Dropbox. Furthermore, there was no Document
Management System (DMS) in place at the
organization and no Content Management System
(CMS) either.
In the accounting department all supporting
documents were stored and kept for ten years.
Archives of students’ past data were maintained in the
SIS. Archives of emails were also kept on the email
server. Some offices kept extensive archives of the
data they were responsible for and some did not.
Several administrators raised their concern about
the absence of a central repository and clear
directions and responsibilities assigned to a specific
office/officer for its maintenance.
One top administrator in fact said when asked
about the maintenance of archives:
“No. Big problem. No archives; the university’s
history is being lost!” (Top Administrator A)
It was a general impression that “documents are
scattered around”. Many administrators expressed
the opinion that it was important to create a
repository for the whole organization.
4.1.3 Disseminating/Sharing Knowledge
between Those Who Need It, When
and Where They Need It
Intra-departmental and inter-departmental
collaboration between associates was restricted to
personal face-to-face contact, attendance in meetings,
over the phone conversations and email exchange.
Most tacit knowledge such as best practices,
solutions, mistakes, etc. was shared in departmental
KMIS 2021 - 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
164

meetings. Most knowledge that had been recorded in
a written form was shared via email attachments.
Some limited use of shared folders and cloud
facilities for document storage and exchange was
evident. Examples of such facilities used were the
Dropbox for cloud storage and Google Docs, an
online word processor which offers for real-time
collaboration with other people. Most student-related
data necessary to support different daily routine tasks
were available via the SIS. Some, again student-
related, information was passed on between certain
departments, specifically the Admissions, Academic
Affairs, and the Finance department, using bulletin
boards included in the SIS. A different board, called
the Collection Info Board, was used to record
financial conversations/agreements with the student.
This board was of restricted access to a few
individuals.
Additionally, some knowledge appears in
publications, some regular and some one-time, which
were published by the institution. Such publications
included a Distance Learning Newsletter, a Corporate
Social Responsibility Newsletter, a Student Affairs
publication, the Sports Office newsletter, department
and school publications, etc.
Effective and efficient communication channels
are necessary for knowledge sharing. On this issue
the following data were collected:
- Establishing avenues of communication with
students and faculties:
On the aspect of communication with the
students, the student intranet network was the
preferred mode of communication for most of the
information which was of student interest such as the
student’s academic record, registration, grades,
events organized etc. More student intranet networks
were also in place for the delivery of course-related
information; for example, a Moodle intranet platform,
a second Moodle intranet for distance learning
courses and students, a Moodle intranet for PhD
students and faculties (under development), etc.
Students were many times reached using text
messages forwarded to their mobile devices, or
through social media networks. The HEI’s website
was also very inclusive of a lot of information
regarding the institution, programs of study, other
services, events, associated organizations, etc.
On the aspect of communication of the
administration with the faculties there was a faculty
intranet network which was mainly enabling the
faculty to administer the delivery of courses to
students but was also used to support the faculty with
certain tasks such as the ordering of books, as well as
with information regarding academic and other
policies, faculty evaluations, announcements, useful
forms and other. Discussion forums were available
via this intranet but they were not promoted or used.
Most communication between the administration and
the faculty body as well as between faculties, was
again taking place via emails which were also used as
the main form of disseminating knowledge included
in emails as attachments.
- Establishing avenues of communication with
other staff members:
The absence of a staff network was seen by many
administrators as a major drawback in the efforts of
staff members, including administrators, to
communicate and share information and knowledge
effectively and efficiently.
Here are some of their comments:
“No intranet for the staff! – Forms should all be
electronically available and submitted
electronically.” (Top Administrator C)
“…we are planning to create a staff intranet. It
has been delayed... The administration uses emails a
lot because there is no staff intranet.” (Top
Administrator I)
To direct all email communication, especially
since such communication presented the main form
of communication between the organization’s
employee force including the administration, several
email lists had been created and were being utilized.
Other than these, no web-based communities, chat
rooms, or online forums were used for employee
communication. Forums were sometimes used for
course content delivery by faculties.
There was currently no portal available to support
collaboration, knowledge sharing and document
management. Also, there were no IT-enabled internal
networks of knowledge employees, and no IT-
enabled established Communities of Practice (CoP)
such are learning networks, thematic groups, or
special interest groups. Many established committees
were of course active within the HEI, some academic
such are Department committees, School committees,
the Senate, etc., some administrative such are the
Executive Council, a Marketing committee etc. More
committees were established on an ad-hoc basis such
as a committee comprised of top administrators
involved in Marketing, Communications,
Recruitment and Admissions. Collaborations with
external partners were also maintained via established
bodies such are the Rectors’ Council, a Librarians’
Union, several academic, professional, research, and
other associations and networks.
Limited use of groupware software to support
collaboration was made. The technology mentioned
Education Administrators’ Views about Knowledge Management
165

to be used included Dropbox for shared folder access
and Google Docs.
Several administrators expressed the viewpoint
that more need to be done in relation to
disseminating/sharing knowledge and enriching
communication, especially the internal
communication between members of the staff. As
some administrators put it:
“Communication between relating departments
may not be developed to the necessary degree.” (Top
Administrator L)
“Need to provide in a systematic way all this
wealth of experience / knowledge / expertise so that
someone will be able to use it if they take over a
position in our units… We want to establish a system
for the transfer of knowledge.” (Top Administrator
B)
“If we do not have a platform and no
infrastructure for knowledge sharing, we cannot talk
about motivation. I do not think a lot of the people
are aware of this term, KM; maybe we do it without
knowing it is that.” (Top Administrator J)
On the opposite end some other administrator
said:
“There is good communication between relating
departments.” (Top Administrator F)
As data were stored at the individual or
department level it did not necessarily become
accessible to others, individuals or departments, who
might have had a use for them. In that case they
selected to either maintain their own data or do
without them.
The institution was doing a good job in organizing
and/or holding conferences, trade shows, seminars,
educational summits, training sessions, and/or panel
discussions. Most of these were organized for the
students, some for the faculty, and very few for the
staff members. Sometimes they were being
organized by the faculty but oftentimes they were
organized by the appropriate HEI’s offices. The
problem was oftentimes attendance.
4.2 Administrators’ Opinions
Regarding Being a ‘Knowledge
Organization’ (KO)
The last question was asked as a summary of the
administrators’ viewpoints. Administrators were
asked to take a stance whether the institution was a
knowledge organization, following a definition of a
knowledge organization as a learning organization
(LO) that practices KM efficiently.
These were some of the responses to the question
whether the institution was a knowledge
organization:
“LO Yes. We are in process to become a KO.
Moving towards the right direction.” (Top
Administrator B)
“Problems not recorded. Experts not involved in
problem solving. To economize we need to spend.”
(Top Administrator C)
“Has the willingness to be but it is not structured
everywhere. Even academic departments are not
keeping a central database. One lecturer that teaches
a course and another lecturer teaching the same
course may not be sharing any information. Learning
is not done in a structured way. We may be confusing
the part of what is personal intellectual property and
organizationally-collected intellectual property. …
It is a problem of policy to achieve efficiency and
effectiveness within departments. … There is input –
we measure it. The output is not measured! We have
the willingness to become a KO but we lack the
structure and the how-to.” (Top Administrator D)
“No. There is room for improvement to become
both a LO and a KO. Some departments may be
better at it than some other departments. I may know
where to find information and who has it but someone
not in an administrative position may not know who
to talk to, or the procedure.” (Top Administrator F)
“No. Big room for improvement in both
directions.” (Top Administrator H)
“We are developing but we are not a model of a
LO or a KO. There is room for improvement.” (Top
Administrator I)
“No. Maybe we do sporadically and on an ad-
hoc basis. I do not think we have sat down and really
thought about it.” (Top Administrator J)
“We are quite efficient but could be more efficient
with the use of certain IT tools. For example, if we
are looking for a document and to find it we need to
make several calls then definitely there is room for
improvement. We lack KM efficiency.” (Top
Administrator K)
“… If you asked me whether we would succeed to
replace some experienced employee without losing
much of his/her knowledge I would say that we would
to a 70%, or a percentage above average. Most of
the things are documented but we could become a lot
better. Between administrative departments since we
know what each department is responsible for there
is no confusion and no problem in approaching the
right people, or those who have the knowledge when
we need something.” (Top Administrator L)
Before considering the final comments of
administrators it is worth noting at this point that there
KMIS 2021 - 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
166

were no dedicated budgets or spending for KM in the
institution. “We provide funds when a need arises” an
administrator said. This ascertainment could relate to
some of the comments made below.
4.3 Identifying the Need for Knowledge
Management and Other
Suggestions
Administrators’ views often pointed out a need for
KM practices and offered justification for KM efforts
to be initiated even though not all felt comfortable
using the term KM. These were some of their
comments and/or suggestions:
“KM practice should be considered a critical
success factor. The institution does not really measure
the effectiveness of its KM practices. We need to invest
diligently in KM.” (Top Administrator B)
“There has not been a specific identification of
the need for KM.” (Top Administrator D)
“We need a system that will unite all the systems
found in the different offices to bring all the
knowledge together for people to use it.” (Top
Administrator E)
“I am still not sure if I fully understand the
concept of KM. If it only involves the sharing of
knowledge then that is something we do all the time.
I am assuming there is something else behind it as
well. I like this idea about a portal that will collect
everything; I believe it will be very useful; we do not
have it and it would be very important to proceed with
such a portal’s creation. … Most of the things are
documented but we could become a lot better.” (Top
Administrator L)
“... It is something that I believe it is of paramount
importance, that we should be using it and it is a
matter of people getting accustomed to this culture of
thinking.” (Top Administrator J)
“We understand the importance of KM and
transfer of knowledge but the main challenge for us is
time. We need to invest if we want to develop this the
right way so unless we have time to invest, both in
terms of human resources and financial resources, we
are going to develop something which is not going to
give us the ultimate that we can get. We need to invest
on it!” (Top Administrator B)
“There is commitment in the organization from
people in this direction. Every time we approach
people with information there is response, there is
readiness, but sometimes it is hindered by the fact that
people may not have the time to get involved in
processes that would facilitate this process. … We
are under-staffed in many departments due to
financial constraints.” (Top Administrator I)
“IT systems and support within the university is
suffering. There are no systems that would allow the
sharing of knowledge, sharing of documents,
collaborative work, … I hope that the organization
gets convinced about the need for more IT support
and in particular the need for IT support for KM and
that a more systematic approach is introduced
relating to the introduction of IS in the organization.
As a first step an MIS director could be appointed and
be a member of the Executive Council so as to bring
IS-related issues at this top decision-making body.
All moves currently made are non-systematic and
may be spasmodic but they are not recognized as such
by the executive board and others who are not aware
of what IT and IS have to offer.” (Top Administrator
K)
“There is great room for IT and IS utilization in
the direction of KM.” (Top Administrator L)
5 FURTHER RESEARCH AND
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In conclusion, there seemed to be big room for
improvement in many areas which related to KM and
the implementation of KM practices. In particular,
administrators felt that immediate efforts should be
directed to establishing collaboration channels
especially between employee members of the
organization. The absence of a portal to support
collaboration, knowledge sharing and document
management was especially noted. The availability
of a faculty and a student intranet was enabling the
distribution of some information to these two groups.
But, the unavailability of a basic staff intranet
network was seen by several administrators as a
drawback in their efforts to collaborate with
colleagues, staff members, and to share knowledge
and information. Plans for the creation of a staff
network were on the way.
The study which was initiated on KM helped the
HEI administration establish the need for taking
action towards creating a KM strategy and
implementation plan. The present study though it
only investigated the current status of the HEI
practices in KM, has set the way forward.
The next steps will include investigating a KM
strategy and appropriate methodology to be used by
HEIs in establishing KM.
As mentioned earlier this study may serve to
broaden our understanding regarding establishing
KM in HE.
Education Administrators’ Views about Knowledge Management
167

REFERENCES
Arntzen, A., Worasinchai, L., & Ribiere, V. (2009). An
Insight into Knowledge Management Practices at
Bangkok University. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 13(2), 127-144.
Bhusry, M., & Ranjan, J. (2011, September). Knowledge
Collaboration in Higher Educational Institutions in
India: Charting a Knowledge Management Solution.
International Journal of Computer Science Issues,
8(5(3)), 332-341.
Blackman, D., & Kennedy, M. (2009). Knowledge
Management and Effective University Governance.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6), 547-563.
Boulton, G., & Lucas, C. (2008). What are Universities for?
(ed.): LERU (League of European Research
Universities).
Browne, J. (2010). Securing a Sustainable Future for
Higher Education: An Independent Review of Higher
Education Funding & Student Finance.
Central, S. (2007). Focused (Semi-structured) Interviews.
Retrieved August 2021, from Sociological Research
Skills Research Methods: http://www.sociology.
org.uk/methfi.pdf
Chugh, R. (2017). Barriers and Enablers of Tacit
Knowledge Transfer in Australian Higher Education
Institutions. International Journal of Education and
Learning Systems, 2, 272-276. Retrieved August 2021,
from http://www.iaras.org/iaras/filedownloads/ijels/20
17/002-0029(2017).pdf
Chung, R. (2015). Do Australian Universities Encourage
Tacit Knowledge Transfer? 7th International Joint
Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge
Engineering, and Knowledge Management, (pp. 128-
135).
Cranfield, D., & Taylor, J. (2008). Knowledge
Management and Higher Education: a UK Case Study.
The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management,
6(2), 85-100.
Debowski, S. (2006). Knowledge Management ( ed.).
Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons.
GOV.UK. (2021, 06 16). Knowledge Transfer
Partnerships: What the are and how to apply. Retrieved
from GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/know
ledge-transfer-partnerships-what-they-are-and-how-to-
apply#what-is-a-knowledge-transfer-partnership
HEFCE. (2009, June). Strategic Plan 2006-11. Retrieved
from Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE): www.hefce.ac.uk
Hussey, R., & Hussey, J. (1997). Business Research: A
Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate
Students ( ed.). New York: Palgrave.
Kidwell, J., Vander, L., Karen, M., & Johnson, S. (2001).
Applying Corporate Knowledge Management Practices
in Higher Education. In G. (Bernbom, Information
Alchemy: The Art and Science of Knowledge
Management. EDUCAUSE Leadership Series 3 (pp. 1-
24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Laal, M. (2011). Knowledge Management in Higher
Education. Procedia Computer Science, 3(Available
online at www.sciencedirect.com), 544-549 .
Milam, J. (2001). Knowledge Management for Higher
Education. ERIC Digest.
Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Ojo, A. (2016). Knowledge management in Nigerian
universities: A conceptual model. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management,
11, 331-345. Retrieved August 2021, from
https://www.researchgate.net
Pavlou, P. (2001). The Application of Quality Driven
Assessment Models in the Health Care Sector;
Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Salford.
Petrides, L., & Nodine, T. (2003). Knowledge Management
in Education: Defining the Landscape. Retrieved
August 2021, from Institute for the Study of Knowledge
Management in Education: www.iskme.org
Ramachandran, S., Chong, S., & Ismail, H. (2009). The
Practice of Knowledge Management Processes; a
Comparative Study of Public and Private Higher
Educaiton Institutions in Malaysia. The Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems,
39(3), 203-222.
Robson, R., Norris, D., Lefrere, P., Collier, G., & Mason, J.
(2003). Share and Share Alike: the e-Knowledge
Transformation Comes to Campus. EduCAUSE Review
Online, Sept. Oct.(https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/
pdf/erm0351.pdf).
Rowley, J. (2000). Is Higher Education Ready for
Knowledge Management? The International Journal of
Educational Management, 14(7), 325-333.
Stylianou, V. (2015). Educational Intelligence; Knowledge
Management and Higher Education: A Case Study
Using a Stakeholder Approach. DProf. Dissertation;
Middlesex University, UK.
KMIS 2021 - 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
168