A multi‐stakeholder engagement framework for knowledge management in ICT4D
Authors: 
Manoj A. Thomas, Yan Li, Vera Sistenich, Ken Ngoy Diango, Diulu KabongoAuthors Info & Claims
Manoj A. Thomas, Yan Li, Vera Sistenich, Ken Ngoy Diango, Diulu KabongoAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 1384 - 1400
Abstract
Knowledge management (KM) is increasingly important to the field of information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D). Yet, scant literature has addressed KM in the ICT4D context. This study takes an important step toward addressing this gap by conceptualizing KM in the context of ICT4D based on the people‐process‐technology perspective. To elicit KM factors most relevant to ICT4D, a Delphi study is conducted with a panel of experts representing three key stakeholder groups (beneficiaries, partners, and designers) with cumulative experience of leading ICT4D projects in 25 countries. Based on the Delphi study findings, 16 factors relevant to KM in ICT4D are synthesized. A multi‐stakeholder engagement framework for KM in ICT4D and an activity checklist are proposed. The study contributes to the body of knowledge by providing insights into the differing views of stakeholders related to KM practices in ICT4D projects. Practitioners may find the framework and checklist useful in coordinating and managing KM in ICT4D projects. As development initiatives become increasingly knowledge focused, the study calls upon researchers for more enquiry in this progressive area of study.
References
[1]
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107–136.
[2]
Anantatmula, V. S., & Kanungo, S. (2010). Modeling enablers for successful KM implementation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 100–113.
[3]
Andoh‐Baidoo, F., Osatuyi, B., & Kunene, K. N. (2014). Architecture for managing knowledge on cybersecurity in Sub‐Saharan Africa. Information Technology for Development, 20(2), 140–164.
[4]
APQC . (2018). APQC's knowledge flow process framework. https://www.apqc.org/resource-library/resource-listing/apqcs-knowledge-flow-process-framework
[5]
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reis, 77/78, 345–348.
[6]
Bagheri, S., Kusters, R. J., & Trienekens, J. J. (2017). Eliciting end users requirements of a supportive system for tacit knowledge management processes in value networks: a Delphi study. Paper presented at the 2017 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC).
[7]
Brady, S. R. (2015). Utilizing and adapting the Delphi method for use in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1609406915621381.
[8]
Conger, S. (2015). Knowledge management for information and communications technologies for development programs in South Africa. Information Technology for Development, 21(1), 113–134.
[9]
Cummings, S., Regeer, B. J., Ho, W. W., & Zweekhorst, M. B. (2013). Proposing a fifth generation of knowledge management for development: investigating convergence between knowledge management for development and transdisciplinary research. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 9(2), 10–36.
[10]
Donate, M. J., & de Pablo, J. D. S. (2015). The role of knowledge‐oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360–370.
[11]
Donner, J., & Toyama, K. (2009). Persistent themes in ICT4D Research: priorities for intermethodological exchange. 57th Session of the International Statistics Institute, Durban, South Africa, 17–21.
[12]
Edwards, J. S. (2019). Knowledge management: Theories and practices. In Connecting adult learning and knowledge management (pp. 139–156). Springer.
[13]
Fletcher, A. J., & Marchildon, G. P. (2014). Using the Delphi method for qualitative, participatory action research in health leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 1–18.
[14]
Forsgren, N., Sabherwal, R., & Durcikova, A. (2018). Knowledge exchange roles and EKR performance impact: extending the theory of knowledge reuse. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(1), 3–21.
[15]
Fteimi, N. (2015). Analyzing the literature on knowledge management frameworks: Towards a normative knowledge management classification schema. Paper presented at the the 23rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Münster, Germany.
[16]
Girard, J., & Girard, J. (2015). Defining knowledge management: Toward an applied compendium. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 3(1), 1–20.
[17]
Groves, L. (2015). Beneficiary feedback in evaluation. Department for International Development, Evaluation Department. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/beneficiary-feedback-in-evaluation
[18]
Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015.
[19]
Heeks, R. (2017). Information and communication technology for development (ICT4D). Routledge Publishing.
[20]
Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge management‐comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 4–31.
[21]
Henderson, R. J., Johnson, A. M., & Moodie, S. T. (2016). Revised conceptual framework of parent‐to‐parent support for parents of children who are Deaf or hard of hearing: A modified Delphi study. American Journal of Audiology, 25(2), 110–126.
[22]
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (1999). Description and analysis of existing knowledge management frameworks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS‐32. Abstracts and CD‐ROM of Full Papers.
[23]
Hsu, M.‐H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C.‐H., & Chang, C.‐M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self‐efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human‐Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169.
[24]
ICAI . (2014). DFID's approach to delivering impact: Terms of reference. Department for International Development, Evaluation Department. https://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/ICAI-Impact-ToRs-FINAL-040314.pdf
[25]
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141–1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141
[26]
Jain, L., Kumar, H., & Singla, R. (2015). Assessing mobile technology usage for knowledge dissemination among farmers in Punjab. Information Technology for Development, 21(4), 668–676.
[27]
Kamhawi, E. M. (2012). Knowledge management fishbone: a standard framework of organizational enablers. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16, 808–828.
[28]
Karanasios, S. (2014). Framing ICT4D research using activity theory: a match between the ICT4D field and theory? Information Technologies & International Development, 10(2), 1–18.
[29]
Kelly, P. R. (2018). An activity theory study of data, knowledge, and power in the design of an international development NGO impact evaluation. Information Systems Journal, 28(3), 465–488.
[30]
Kinney, T. (1998). Knowledge management, intellectual capital and adult learning. Adult Learning, 10(2), 2–3.
[31]
Krone, M., & Dannenberg, P. (2018). A spatial perspective on access to knowledge and mobile phone use. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 109(5), 613–628.
[32]
Lai, H., & Chu, T.‐H. (2000). Knowledge management: A review of theoretical frameworks and industrial cases. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
[33]
Lakshman, C. (2007). Organizational knowledge leadership: A grounded theory approach. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 51–75.
[34]
Li, Y., & Thomas, M. A. (2019). Adopting a theory of change approach for ICT4D project impact assessment‐the case of CMES project. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries.
[35]
Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705–737. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148817
[36]
Lin, C. I. C., & Myers, M. D. (2015). Extending ICT4D studies: The value of critical research. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 697–712.
[37]
Massey, A. P., Montoya‐Weiss, M. M., & O'Driscoll, T. M. (2002). Knowledge management in pursuit of performance: Insights from Nortel Networks. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.2307/4132333
[38]
Mengesha, G. H., & Garfield, M. J. (2019). A contextualized IT adoption and use model for telemedicine in Ethiopia. Information Technology for Development, 25(2), 184–203.
[39]
Meyer, E. T., Shankar, K., Willis, M., Sharma, S., & Sawyer, S. (2019). The social informatics of knowledge. Wiley Online Library.
[40]
Muriithi, P., Horner, D., & Pemberton, L. (2016). Factors contributing to adoption and use of information and communication technologies within research collaborations in Kenya. Information Technology for Development, 22(sup1), 84–100.
[41]
OECD . (2009). Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management. http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/18074294.pdf
[42]
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29.
[43]
Ragab, M. A., & Arisha, A. (2013). Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), 873–901.
[44]
Renken, J., & Heeks, R. (2013). Conceptualising ICT4D project champions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information and Communications Technologies and Development: Notes‐Volume 2.
[45]
Rubenstein‐Montano, B., Liebowitz, J., Buchwalter, J., McCaw, D., Newman, B., Rebeck, K., & Team, T. K. M. M. (2001). A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 5–16.
[46]
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
[47]
Sanghani, P. (2009). Knowledge management implementation: holistic framework based on Indian study. PACIS 2009 Proceedings, 69.
[48]
Schmidt, R. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763–774.
[49]
Scholl, W., König, C., Meyer, B., & Heisig, P. (2004). The future of knowledge management: an international delphi study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270410529082
[50]
Shin, M., Holden, T., & Schmidt, R. A. (2001). From knowledge theory to management practice: towards an integrated approach. Information Processing & Management, 37(2), 335–355.
[51]
Shongwe, M. M. (2016). An analysis of knowledge management lifecycle frameworks: Towards a unified framework. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 140–153.
[52]
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
[53]
Stenmark, D. (2002). Information vs. knowledge: The role of intranets in knowledge management. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
[54]
Stern, E., Stame, N., Mayne, J., Forss, K., Davies, R., & Befani, B. (2012). Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations. https://oecd.org
[55]
Stratton, C., Sholler, D., Bailey, D., Leonardi, P., & Rodríguez‐Lluesma, C. (2016). Competing institutional logics in ICT4D education projects: A South American study. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development.
[56]
Sumsion, T. (1998). The Delphi technique: an adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 153–156.
[57]
Suorsa, A., & Huotari, M. L. (2014). Knowledge creation and the concept of a human being: A phenomenological approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1042–1057.
[58]
Tang, L., & Hu, G. (2013). Tracing the footprint of knowledge spillover: Evidence from US–C hina collaboration in nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(9), 1791–1801.
[59]
Thomas, M. A., & Li, Y. (2015). A Citizen‐Centric Framework for ICTE Capacity Development in Haiti. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, Sri Lanka.
[60]
van Biljon, J. (2020). Knowledge mobilization of human–computer interaction for development research: core issues and domain questions. Information Technology for Development, 26(2), 551–576.
[61]
Van Biljon, J., Marais, M., & Platz, M. (2017). Digital platforms for research collaboration: using design science in developing a South African open knowledge repository. Information Technology for Development, 23(3), 463–485.
[62]
Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T. A., Rai, A., & Setia, P. (2019). Governance and ICT4D initiative success: a longitudinal field study of ten villages in rural India. MIS Quarterly, 43(4), 1–24.
[63]
Vong, W.‐T., Then, P. H., & Teo, T.‐H. (2017). Empowering rural youth for socio‐economic benefits: A case study of knowledge management practices in Sarawak. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 21(4), 57–77.
[64]
Walsham, G. (2017). ICT4D research: reflections on history and future agenda. Information Technology for Development, 23(1), 18–41.
[65]
Zhang, P., Yan, J. L. S., & Hassman, K. D. (2013). The intellectual characteristics of the information field: Heritage and substance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2468–2491.
[66]
Zhao, Y., Du, J. T., Pang, N., Yan, H., & Raju, J. (2021). CFP: JASIST Special Issue on “ICT4D & Intersections with the Information Field”. Journal of the Association of Information Science and Technology. https://www.asist.org/2021/03/17/cfp-jasist-special-issue-on-ict4d-intersections-with-the-information-field/
Recommendations
Global agenda and ICT4D in Africa
In 1996, as part of the global ICT for development phenomenon, the Africa Information Society Initiative (AISI) was launched as the action framework for the building of ICT infrastructure in Africa. Its goals included the digital connection of every ...
The broader context for ICT4D projects: a morphogenetic analysis
This paper demonstrates the value of Archer's morphogenetic approach (MA) in understanding and explaining the complexity of the broader context within which many developing country information and communication technology (ICT) projects are implemented. ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Association for Information Science and Technology.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
United States
Publication History
Published: 08 November 2023
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 22 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in