Knowledge management model for nonprofit sector in Thailand

Abstract

This investigation presents the findings from nonprofit organizations (NPOs) toward knowledge management model that practitioners and researchers can implement to strengthen NPOs further. The study adopted a mixed-research approach. An in-depth interview was conducted with NPOs operating in Thailand. Furthermore, a national survey was administered to 213 NPOs to examine knowledge sharing enablers, which effectively implemented knowledge management activities. Analysis of quantitative data indicated four enablers, including leadership, trust, technology infrastructure, and organizational culture, were affected significantly by the NPOs. Qualitative findings were updated critical categorizes of knowledge needs in comparing with the previous study. Major findings illustrated the knowledge creation process through four modes: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. The study proposed the knowledge management in NPOs model related to the knowledge-based approach towards a new approach for organizational innovations. This paper contributes to the development of literature in the knowledge management in NPOs domain, primarily the research domain related to knowledge needs and knowledge management practices in the nonprofit sector.

Keywords

knowledge management KM model knowledge sharing nonprofit organizations Thailand

About the authors

Knowledge management (KM) field has arrived and constituted an emerging discipline to support the organizations in the business environment (Wiig, 1997). KM field currently has a better understanding of its application and scientific approaches, concentrating on addressing both academic and practical challenges (Heisig, 2009). Studies of the KM field have been progressed remarkably in practice and academic side. However, there were various contradictions that the scholars have recognized. KM is still expanding in its early stages with existing problems regarding the KM process, objectives, and how to measure KM activities in business and scientific communities (Diakoulakis et al., 2004). KM studies on the for-profit sector were a background for the nonprofit sector. Various investigations and initiatives were carried out in order to generate a common understanding of KM in these sectors. Heisig (2009) noted that it was critical to have a shared understanding of KM discipline about a common model, particularly for the for-profit sector. The model should include the core elements, such as KM activities, processes, resources, concepts, and KM principles. Despite many KM model developed in the literature, a framework focusing on KM practices is extremely limited. From non-profit perspective, this study emphasizes the development of the KM model for nonprofit organizations (NPOs), including re-identifying knowledge needs and try to categorize broadly theoretical themes of needs in the organizations, with discover the enablers which allow to trigger knowledge creation and sharing among these organization, and having deeply understanding the processes of KM in the nonprofit environment. Furthermore, an evidence-based model for managing knowledge in the NPOs has emerged, especially in developing countries. Thailand was chosen as a model because of the investigator's practical and academic experience in the country. This country naturally appropriated the prototype of a developing country with a high presence of operating non-profit institutions, where has more than 75,000 NPOs are operating in various sectors.

According to Weber et al. (2002: 5), a model or framework is “…a holistic and concise description of the major elements, concepts and principles of a domain. It aims to explain a domain and define a standardized schema of its core content as a reference for future design implementations. A KM framework explains the world of KM by naming the major KM elements, their relationships, and the principles of how these elements interact.” Following this rationale, the study indicates that the KM-NPO model should be a “descriptive framework” which identifies KM essential attributes that influence the achievement or failure of KM initiatives within the NPOs (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001).

Moreover, Diakoulakis et al. (2004) mentioned that the environmental factor is one of the core elements of the KM model, which concerned both intra- and extra-organizational elements in the organization. From this view, the study also identifies enabling factors that allow promoting knowledge sharing and creation in the NPOs. The background of the KM-NPO model is a platform of systematic relationships in the organizations, which connect to the core components such as knowledge needs, enabling factors, and the KM process.

Research objective

The main purpose of this investigation aims to propose a KM model of the nonprofit sector in Thailand, is developed from:

Identifying knowledge needs of the nonprofit sector in Thailand.

Examining the knowledge sharing enablers that promote KM activities and affect the success of their operations; and

Investigating the knowledge management processes of selected NPOs in Thailand.

Literature review

The investigations of KM-NPOs domains was based on a theoretical background of KM literature on for-profit organizations (Ragsdell et al., 2014). Moreover, there were different aspects between the NPOs and for-profit organizations in nature, including management practices, operational structures, requirements of legal status, among others (Hume et al., 2012). Studies in the KM field have investigated various aspects of the nonprofit environment (Fullwood & Rowley, 2021). Recently, knowledge integration examined in the NPOs, which demonstrated that the integration of knowledge could improve the capabilities and strategic effectiveness of the NPOs (Bersisa & Rory, 2020). Curado et al. (2021) revealed that organizational culture was an antecedent and has positively impacts to knowledge sharing in the non-profit context. Similarity, Chang et al. (2021) explored the relationship of organizational culture, knowledge sharing, organizational behavior, and innovation in indigenous organizations. This study demonstrated that culture would significantly influence behavior and innovation in the organization. Furthermore, knowledge need is a new research domain, which Rathi, Given & Forcier (2016) examined. The authors contributed to the KM field's literature development and original identified categories and sub-categories in terms of knowledge needs within the NPOs in developed countries. The study developed an evidence-based model of knowledge needs in the NPOs that both practitioners and scholars can apply. By comparing of Canadian and Australian NPOs, the study identified five main categories indicating the knowledge needs types in the NPOs, including management and organizational practices, resources, community, sectoral knowledge, and situated knowledge. There were multiple sub-categories representing the types of knowledge needs in the NPOs. The study is the first investigation conducting on knowledge needs of the nonprofit context.

The NPOs have not only utilized financial gains and resources from the donors but also tried to create social values for the community (Lettieri et al., 2004). Therefore, the NPOs must manage organizational resources effectively and efficiently; the NPOs also strive to use KM activities; for instance, knowledge sharing practices are crucial in providing better services to the communities. Scholars have made many efforts to examine knowledge sharing practices and motivational factors which promoted KM activities in nonprofit sectors. For example, Natalia, Victor & Celina (2009) investigated the effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factor to knowledge sharing activities. It noted that knowledge sharing activities improved by the intrinsic factor; however, extrinsic factor was not significant on knowledge sharing. It also demonstrated that the employee of the NPOs having intrinsic reasons rather than financial supports. Recently, Oliveira & Pinheiro (2020) study identified four barriers of tacit knowledge sharing in the nonprofit sector, including personal, communicational, technological, and resource barriers. The research confirmed that individual characteristics, organizational structure, and culture were conducive to share tacit knowledge within examined organizations. In terms of knowledge sharing enablers, the literature confirmed that knowledge sharing activities were influenced by various enablers such as organizational culture, technology infrastructure, leadership, trust, and the knowledge sharing process.

Organizational culture

According to Kazi (2005), one of the necessary conditions to ensure that knowledge transfer effectively among the members is organizational culture. Basing on this perspective, Trong Tuan (2012) emphasized that culture is a continual process of establishing and reestablishing identity inside and around an institution. Organizational culture is one of the enablers of knowledge sharing within organizations. The cultural dimensions impact motivation of knowledge sharing and commitment to leadership (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Sackmann & Friesl (2007) study demonstrated that different cultural backgrounds in various organizational levels had negatively affected knowledge sharing activities. Thus, a suitable organizational culture might be built to encourage sharing knowledge among the employee and their partners.

Technology infrastructure

Technology and its application are considered vital enablers in a knowledge-based economy. Moreover, technology infrastructure indicates essential roles in KM processes in the organization (Islam et al., 2015). Studies on technology infrastructure for creating new knowledge and knowledge sharing confirmed by some KM scholars (Harrison & Daly, 2009; Ho, Kuo & Lin, 2012; Islam, Jasimuddin & Hasan, 2015) illustrated that technology infrastructure was an essential element to enhance KM activities. In the nonprofit sector, Forcier, Rathi & Given (2013) revealed that social media was valuable technology tools for KM activities, which not only for promotional purposes but also to foster the engagement in term of collaborative works in the NPOs. However, the research on technology infrastructure and its dimensions lacks much attention from scholars, particularly from a nonprofit perspective.

Leadership

It is a process of social influence that one person can be inspired other people to achieve in a common task (Zaccaro, 2007). Leadership components were identified as a key success factor for KM initiatives in the organizations (Al Dari et al., 2018). In the literature, the leadership dimension influencing knowledge sharing has been studied from various perspectives. For instance, Al Dari, Jabeen, & Papastathopoulos (2018) noted that leadership inspiration positively affects promoting knowledge sharing in the organizations. The study also revealed that leadership roles for solving problems and improving organizational productivity in the firms. From a nonprofit perspective, Zapata Cantu & Mondragon (2016) mentioned that a lack of leadership from general management might be an obstacle to knowledge sharing processes within the NPOs.

Trust

Rotter (1967: 651) explained that interpersonal trust is “as an expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, promise, verbal, or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon”. According to Ismail Al-Alawi, Yousif Al-Marzooqi & Fraidoon Mohammed (2007), interpersonal trust was a necessary component of organizational culture, and it has significant concern for knowledge sharing. Moreover, the members require trust within the teams to share their knowledge in the organization (Gruenfeld et al., 1996). From the NPOs perspective, volunteer's trust in the successful project organization and their need to share the knowledge appeared to be presented partly by volunteer's perception and confidence, which also supported building knowledge sharing behaviors (Ragsdell et al., 2014). Furthermore, the study revealed two types of trust have developed from the nonprofit context, including trust in the management and quality of project knowledge.

Knowledge management process

Aside from determining the suitable enables for the development of KM activities, all proper types of knowledge conversion were found, which is helpful for effective KM processes at the organization. Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) introduced a model of knowledge creation conversion between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge at the organizational level. The knowledge-creating theory revisited through the SECI model and ba - a shared context (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). This model includes four schemes, including socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003; Diakoulakis et al., 2004). In detail, the following illustrates the vital components of in this model.

Socialization: knowledge conversion of tacit-to-tacit knowledge

Socialization is the process of conversion in order to create new tacit knowledge through sharing experiences.

Externalization: knowledge conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge

The externalization mode is the process to articulate from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge in the organization.

Combination: knowledge conversion of explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge

Combination is the process of conversion from initial explicit knowledge to other forms in more complex and systematic manners in the organization.

Internalization: knowledge conversion of explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge

Internalization occurs as the process of embodying explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge.

From the studies of KM concepts and theories, many models developed in for-profit and nonprofit perspectives. For instance, Lettieri, Borga & Savoldelli (2004) mainly contributed to contextualizing KM in the NPOs by developing a model regarding KM process and performance improvement. Granados, Mohamed & Hlupic (2017) identified knowledge activities that allowed to create society, environment, and economy in social enterprises. This study also described critical elements of knowledge conversion for both internal and external environments in the organizations.

Method

A mixed research method was used in this study. The explorative stage of this study was conducted from April 2020 to May 2021. The study aims were twofold: to identify types of knowledge needs in the NPOs, investigate knowledge sharing enablers and KM processes, and design a model for knowledge creation in the nonprofit sector. Quantitatively, a nationwide survey was delivered to the NPOs in Thailand. The NPOs surveyed were related to various content domains, including education, health, community development, capacity training, policy engagement, livelihoods, and others. The survey was developed based on the findings of a pilot study with a case study at an NPO in Thailand; the study also used a mixed research method through in-depth interviews and organizational surveys. Following a robust research instrument, interview and survey questions were created for the study. The researchers reviewed relevant literature to inform the inclusion of these questions built from previous studies in the KM field (e.g., Al Dari, Jabeen & Papastathopoulos, 2018; Islam, Jasimuddin & Hasan, 2015; Ho, Kuo & Lin, 2012). The survey questions were uploaded in Google Forms, which generated one unique link sent to each invited organizational email address. It was ensured that only one informant was gained per invitation. After two weeks, a reminder email was sent to the informants to encourage participation from potential responses to finish the survey. Email addresses were kept in a secure master list and were only used to send survey invitations. The last four-part questionnaire was designed in a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicated “strong disagree” and five indicated “strong agree”.

The findings of knowledge needs and KM processes are based on the analysis of qualitative questions identified according to the insights from key informants in 31 NPOs in Thailand. For instance, the specific questions were: “Could you please describe the categories of knowledge types at your organization? how is the organization filling the knowledge needs at your organization?”. The key informants were also asked to provide more information on describing knowledge activities and processes with their organizations in Thailand. The key informants from 31 NPOs were senior directors and managers, country directors, founders, monitoring and evaluation manager, and others.

There were two components to the data analysis:

Quantitative data related to knowledge sharing enablers in the NPOs, and

Qualitative data related to types of knowledge needs and KM processes among the organizations.

The procedures of this study were divided into four phases, as below:

Phase 1: Examining of knowledge sharing enablers that promoted KM activities and affected the organizational successes. In this phase, data were collated by using the online questionnaire survey with 213 staffs of NPOs in Thailand (Table 1). The respondents were from diverse backgrounds. The critical research variables for this process were the enablers, which triggered knowledge sharing activities in the nonprofit sector.

Table 1.

Information of the respondents.

	Respondents’ information		No.	%
	Respondents’ information		213	100.0
1	Types of NPOs	Social Welfare Service	105	49.2
		Cremation Welfare Service	10	4.7
		Trade Association, Chamber of Commerce	3	1.6
		Employee, Labor Association	18	8.6
		Religious Organization	17	7.8
		Political Organization	60	28.1
		Other	0	0.0
2	Age group	25 years and below	15	7.0
		26–35 years	46	21.5
		36–45 years	78	36.7
		46–55 years	49	22.8
		56 years and above	25	12.0
3	Working experience	1–5 years	36	16.7
		6–10 years	64	30.0
		11–15 years	57	26.7
		16–20 years	28	13.3
		21 years and above	28	13.3

Phase 2: Investigating knowledge needs and KM processes of selected NPOs in Thailand. The data of this phase were collected by in-depth interviews, which were conducted with key informants from the NPOs (Table 2). Each interview was 60 to 90 min. The key informants requested to set up interview places, including offline and online options. The issues of data collection were categories of knowledge needs and the processes among examined NPOs.

Table 2.

Information of the interview informants.

Informant	Gender	Job title	NPOs’ Sector of activity
INF1	Female	Executive Director	Education and health network
INF2	Male	Country Director	Education and youth development
INF3	Male	Founder and Director	Social and charitable services
INF4	Male	Director and Founder	Social services and community development
INF5	Male	Country Director	Child sponsorship and emergency relief
INF5	Female	Executive Director	Refugee assistance
INF7	Female	Program Specialist	Capacity building
INF8	Male	Managing Director	Human rights
INF9	Male	Program Manager	NGO networks and supports
INF10	Female	O.I.C (Director)	Elder care, migration, and handicap
INF11	Male	Sr. Coordinator	Capacity building
INF12	Female	Sr. Officer	Education and policy
INF13	Male	Sr. Coordinator	Education
INF14	Male	Program Director	Education
INF15	Male	Sr. Officer	Capacity building
INF16	Male	Regional Manager	Human trafficking
INF17	Female	Program Director	Social services, education, livelihoods, and policy advocacy
INF18	Male	Executive Director	Tourism
INF19	Female	Sr. Coordinator	Education
INF20	Male	Program Specialist	Capacity building
INF21	Female	Program Manager	Health care
INF22	Male	Sr. Officer	Capacity building
INF23	Female	Foundation Manager	Strengthen community organizations, career, and natural resources
INF24	Male	Sr. Officer	Education and regional collaboration
INF25	Female	Sr. Research Fellow	Environment and capacity development
INF26	Male	Country Director	International advocacy
INF27	Male	M&E-KM Advisor	Capacity building
INF28	Male	Center Director	Environment, development, and capacity development
INF29	Male	Country Director	Medical professionals
INF30	Male	Program Director	Education and vocational Training
INF31	Female	Executive Director	Community development, livelihoods, shelter, camp management

Phase 3: Data analysis and synthesis. All collected data were analyzed and synthesized into both quantitative and qualitative formats. In detail, quantitative data were analyzed by SPSS 18.0. Furthermore, the values of the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient were determined. Qualitatively, the data were analyzed and synthesized by Atlas.ti 7.5. The data structured into table format as following steps; firstly, the researchers were extracted and listed the contents into themes found in the data collection processes; moreover, these items were grouped into similar components to reduce duplication and redundancy. Secondly, the researchers re-organized these items found in each examined NPOs to identify the most and most minor themes in all NPOs. Finally, the research results were summarized on the frequencies of data found in knowledge needs and KM processes in the NPOs.

Phase 4: Development of KM model for nonprofit sector (called KM-NPO model). In this phase, the researchers used the study's results of phase 3 to develop an appropriate KM model based on the theories used and applied according to the research framework. The KM-NPO model was indicated in descriptive format. This model presented all research components such as knowledge sharing, KM processes, and types of knowledge needs in the NPOs.

Findings and discussion

The KM-NPO model was formed from the research findings, which followed the components: (1) Types of knowledge needs existing among the NPOs in Thailand, (2) Knowledge sharing-enablers enhancing knowledge activities, and (3) Knowledge management process in the examined organizations. In detail, these components are discussed below.

Knowledge needs: an update of evidence-based categorization

The findings revealed broad categories and sub-categories of knowledge needs in a nonprofit context. This knowledge needs to be clarified specific, which is generated from different types of organizations in Thailand. The findings were aligned with the study of Rathi, Given & Forcier (2016); however, some sub-categories were updated or not appeared in the paper. The research was adopted the clarification of knowledge needs by Rathi, Given and Forcier (2016). In summary, knowledge needs in exampled organizations fell under five main categories, namely:

Knowledge needs about organizational practices and management knowledge,

Knowledge needs about the resource (resource knowledge),

Knowledge needs about the community (community knowledge),

Knowledge needs about the sector, and

Situated knowledge

Table 3 indicated in detail these categories of knowledge needs within the NPOs. The updated sub-categories for Thailand context also presented table findings below. As seen in Table 3, multiple overlaps among these sub-categories were found in the findings and the list of Rathi, Given & Forcier (2016). However, there were some unique sub-categories, which were updated or not presented in previous studies.

Table 3.

The knowledge needs in the NPOs in Thailand.

Categories	Sub-categories	Comparing with the study of Rathi, Given & Forcier (2016)
Organizational practices and management knowledge	Strategic management knowledge	R
	Internal governance knowledge	R
	Process and practical knowledge	R
	Products and services knowledge	NR
	Knowledge about the organizational history	NR
	Intervention knowledge	U
Resource knowledge	Knowledge about sources of finance and funding	R
	Knowledge about tools and technologies	R
	Knowledge about intellectual resources	NR
	Knowledge about human resources	R
	Knowledge of other resources	NR
	Knowledge about information needs	U
	Knowledge about social capital	U
Community knowledge	Knowledge about clients and customers	NR
	Knowledge about volunteers	NR
	Knowledge about donors	R
	Knowledge about experts	R
	Knowledge of other community partners and stakeholders	R
	Cultural knowledge	R
Sectoral knowledge	Domain-specific knowledge	NR
	Knowledge about professional and industry standards	R
	Knowledge of best practices	R
	Knowledge about governing bodies	R
	Knowledge of partners, competitors, and other organization	R
	Knowledge of interorganizational networks and networking	R
	Updating knowledge	U
Situated knowledge	Bureaucratic directives knowledge	R
	Regulatory knowledge	R
	Political knowledge	R
	Geographical knowledge	R
	Economic knowledge	R
	Recorded knowledge	NR
	Current affairs	NR

Key:

• R = Sub-categories were represented in some form within the study of Rathi, Given & Forcier (2016)

• NR = Sub-categories were not appeared comparing with the study of Rathi, Given & Forcier (2016)

• U = Sub-categories were updated from this study's findings.

As can be seen from the table, the study's findings prove that most sub-categories were aligned with Rathi's investigation. However, the findings revealed that seven sub-categories were not presented in the NPOs in Thailand. Additional categories in terms of knowledge needs in the NPOs also added in the result. The key informants mentioned that they favored seeking the information to make the decisions, which could then be applied to both organization and individual situations. For instance, one NPO director expressed:

“We are thinking and discussing with our organization staff how we can ensure the staff have analytical skills or how we can decide based on the information.”

Furthermore, in terms of sectoral knowledge needs, the study demonstrated that updating knowledge was essential with the NPOs. Meanwhile, knowledge needs about the project or program intervention to the community or stakeholders were noted as an additional sub-category, as one key informant noted:

“I think our aspects can be one what specific conditions and specific environment that we are working on. That is one thing we would like to have. […] We need to know what the trend and intervention of the program are looking at. Because we respond to the national development plan, needs, and strategy […], We are doing a baseline study and need an assessment to determine what we need to know. I think it should be how we looked at our specific knowledge needs.”

The finding also realized that key informants expected to have knowledge about social capital in resource knowledge. As one informant informed “we need to know and create the working network as well as identify who are our future stakeholders and experts”. Social capital are defined, broadly and generally, as an individual characteristic and kind of potential resources in the organizations that may be mobilized (Anheier, 2014).

Knowledge-sharing enablers: affecting a knowledge-intensive organization

In terms of quantitative results, the findings reveal that the informants believed that all knowledge sharing enables, including organization culture, technology infrastructure, leadership, and trust, were willing to share the knowledge among their organizations. In detail, the top two enablers allowing for sharing the knowledge were leadership ( $\bar{x} = 3.84$ ) and trust ( $\bar{x} = 3.80$ ). In addition to the top two enablers, the informants shared that both organizational culture ( $\bar{x} = 3.47$ ) and technology infrastructure ( $\bar{x} = 3.58$ ) were supported to motivate knowledge activities in the NPOs. Furthermore, the Cronbach alpha values showed more than 0.7, which demonstrated that all sessions of the data presented high internal consistency. Table 4 summarized of mean and Cronbach alpha values from the findings.

Table 4.

The summary of research variables at the NPOs.

Knowledge sharing enablers		Responses (N = 213)
Knowledge sharing enablers		Number	Mean	Cronbach's alpha
1	Organizational culture	15	3.47	0.886
2	Technology infrastructure	4	3.58	0.821
3	Leadership	4	3.84	0.897
4	Trust	6	3.80	0.941

The NPOs staffs naturally have willing to share knowledge among their colleagues, which can also lead to a very supportive attitude as intrinsic motivation. Natalia, Victor & Celina (2009) demonstrated this statement by indicating that intrinsic factors, for instance, honesty and self-confidence, significantly influence knowledge sharing in the nonprofit context. In terms of organizational culture, the study's results note that sharing culture is strongly enabled for knowledge activities in the NPOs. This finding was aligned with the study of Vuori & Okkonen (2012), which illustrated that general attitude did not set any barriers to knowledge sharing in for-profit organizations. From this finding, it can be assumed that the NPOs were encouraged their staff to share the knowledge. If knowledge sharing in their organization is not working, it means that the staff are not motivated enough.

Moreover, the studies of KM in the for-profit sector confirmed that technology infrastructure has a moderating effect on knowledge sharing in the companies, such as the study of Islam, Jasimuddin & Hasan (2015). Unlike the for-profit community, the application of KM was limited, and the NPOs encountered limited resources (Rathi, Given & Forcier, 2016). Therefore, with positive responses from the informants, this study's results can be assumed to be quite eager to share their knowledge if technology infrastructure is available and supported in the nonprofit environment.

Zapata Cantu & Mondragon (2016) was highlighted that lack of leadership was a significant barrier to KM-NPOs. The informants were strongly expressed that leadership inspiration was found as a positive enabler contributing to knowledge sharing at the NPOs. It indicated in the highest number of the mean value ( $\bar{x} = 3.84$ ). It seems that leadership has an important role to create a knowledge-intensive organization. Leadership inspiration for knowledge sharing was revealed in the literature of KM-for-profit sector (e.g., Al Dari, Jabeen & Papastathopoulos, 2018). However, KM-NPO literature was not many investigations conducted in this research domain. As the second most vital enabler for knowledge sharing, personal trust is remarkably effective in sharing the NPOs. This trust is indicated in both individual (co-workers) and organization levels. This finding was aligned with Zapata Cantu & Mondragon (2016) study, which noted that volunteers’ personal trust is an organizational enabler in supporting the organizational efforts reaching its goals.

Knowledge management process: Km-NPOs model

KM processes in the NPOs were presented in this study by analyzing modes of knowledge conversion proposed by Nonaka, Toyama & Konno (2000). Figure 1 illustrated a KM-NPOs model. The findings are detailed in the succeeding sections.

Conversion of tacit-to-tacit knowledge. In the NPOs, tacit knowledge mostly socialized among their staffs is related to meetings, including formal and informal perspectives, field trips, social gatherings, and learning labs. This correlates to the nature of the NPOs – knowledge-intensive organizations, where the tacit knowledge was shared and transferred as a voluntary process. Moreover, the NPOs have been faced the limitation of resources. Therefore, these organizations trended to create a freely knowledge-based environment for the staff can be learned the experiences from each other. In this process, tacit knowledge shared through common experiences is highlighted by understanding the contexts, for instance, culture, stakeholder's needs and experiences, internal knowledge sharing sessions, and others.

Conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge

The findings noted that there were various ways to articulate the knowledge at exampled organizations in Thailand. It is critically indicated in the forms of assemblies, dialogues, progress meetings, and communication products. Tacit knowledge was externalized via images, symbols, and languages. For instance, the knowledge is conceptualized into e-briefing, snapshot, templates, guidelines, and others. Furthermore, this knowledge conversion-related processes of knowledge dissemination between the NPOs and relevant donors and stakeholders. This is a philosophical perspective of the NPO's commitment connected to their partners.

Conversion of explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge

It has been found that the NPOs combined explicit knowledge by reports, databases, standards, and learning systems. For example, the key informants revealed that reports were “a better way” for sharing their works and achievement with the communities. This finding confirmed that the conversion process from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge was mainly expressed by systemized and packaged explicit knowledge in these organizations in Thailand. The informants also revealed that their organization is striving to package knowledge systematically; however, the limitation of budgets or funding is an obstacle.

Conversion of explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge

This process is related to internalize the explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge in the organizations. The findings were realized that the NPOs embodied the knowledge by implementing specific knowledge activities such as training, study tours, learning by doing, mistakes, and best practices. Several informants also mentioned its usage impacting the success of program or project implementation within their organizations. They vigorously concentrated that the NPOs should be put more effort to exercise organizational knowledge internally. This correlates organizational learning process. With this process, the tacit knowledge was embedded in forms of actions and practices, for example, working groups and labs.

Conclusion

From the findings of previous studies in KM-NPOs, it can be concluded that KM is a significant factor to increase the effectiveness of management in the knowledge-based economy. Using KM application, the nonprofit sector may enable the development of organizational knowledge resources; trigger innovation, which leads to the ultimate success of NPO's program implementation. These research findings were determined in bodies of KM perspectives in the NPOs in Thailand. The study fundamentally re-identified both categories and sub-categories of knowledge needs in the nonprofit environment. The list of knowledge needs was updated in this study. Mainly, by using quantitative analysis, the study examined four critical knowledge sharing enablers, such as organizational culture, leadership, technology infrastructure, and trust, which significantly impact knowledge activities in these organizations. This study's result also indicated that the respondents highlighted that all enablers were important to create a knowledge-intensive environment in their organization. From the findings, it can be noted that the NPO directors should have put more effort to encourage employee's commitment to knowledge activities aiming to reach the organizational missions and goals. In the KM process in these organizations, this investigation presented a model of KM - descriptive framework for the NPOs. The framework indicated how knowledge conversion in these organizations is constructed as social relationships at sample organizations (McAdam & McCreedy, 1999).

In practical implications, alongside the identification of enablers promoting knowledge sharing via an effective organizational design in the NPOs, the study recommends that NPO's management team evaluate knowledge needs at both the organization and individual level to guarantee that vital link between the organization and the organization community needs. By developing the KM-NPOs model, this research advocates that these organization managers design KM mechanisms to identify knowledge flows, covert between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge to trigger the organizational innovation. Also, the KM-NPOs model was proposed basing on KM practices of the nonprofit sector. Therefore, it can be applied to the management perspective of any NPOs in Thailand.

The following steps should be included refinement and consolidation of the proposed KM-NPOs model. The authors strongly recommended that both normative and explicative capacities can be evaluated. The investigation has been done for the NPO's situation, which allowed an in-depth understanding of KM practices in Thailand; however, a broad generalization is not possible from the perspectives of all developing countries. Moreover, the authors propose the scholars related to KM in nonprofit aspects should exam the following three investigation streams: (1) further comparing main attributes of knowledge needs in diverse contexts; (2) the definition and adding more promoted enablers of knowledge sharing practices; and (3) assessment of KM-NPOs model, to avoid an ineffective usage and management.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Kulthida Tuamsuk

About the authors

Quang Ngoc Le. (MEd in Leadership and Management, Quang Nam University, Vietnam and National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan). Since 2017, he has been working as an advisor and knowledge officer in both Vietnam and Thailand. Currently, he is a Deputy Director of Scientific Management Department, Dong A University, Vietnam. His research interests are knowledge sharing, knowledge needs, and knowledge management in the non-profit sector. Email: ngocquangvhdl@gmail.com; quangln@donga.edu.vn

Kulthida Tuamsuk. (D.A. in Library and Information Science, Simmons College, USA). Dr Tuamsuk is a Professor and a Senior researcher of the Department of Information Science, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University (KKU), Thailand. She is internationally well-known as an active committee of international organizations and consortium in Asia Pacific. Her research interests are knowledge management, digital humanities, metadata, ontology, digital learning, and smart learning. Email: kultua@kku.ac.th, Corresponding author.

References

Al Dari

Jabeen

Papastathopoulos

(2018) Examining the role of leadership inspiration, rewards and its relationship with contribution to knowledge sharing. Journal of Workplace Learning 30(6): 488–512.

Anheier

(2014) Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. Abingdon: Routledge.

Bersisa

Rory

(2020) The role of knowledge integration in shaping the capabilities and success of a charity: An in-depth case study analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management 25 (7): 1689–1707.

Chang

W-J

D-C

Keliw

(2021) Organizational culture, organizational citizenship behavior, knowledge sharing and innovation: A study of indigenous people production organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management 25(9): 2274–2292.

Curado

Henriques

Oliveira

, et al. (2021) Organisational culture as an antecedent of knowledge sharing in NGOs. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 21(3): 1–13.

Davenport

Prusak

(1998) Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Diakoulakis

Georgopoulos

Koulouriotis

, et al. (2004) Towards a holistic knowledge management model. Journal of Knowledge Management 8(1): 32–46.

Forcier

Rathi

Given

(2013) Knowledge management and social Media: A case study of two public libraries in Canada. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 12(04): 1350039.

Fullwood

Rowley

(2021) The role of knowledge sharing in volunteer learning and development. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 32(1): 121 139.

10.

Granados

Mohamed

Hlupic

(2017) Knowledge management activities in social enterprises: Lessons for small and non-profit firms. Journal of Knowledge Management 21(2): 376–396.

11.

Gruenfeld

Mannix

Williams

, et al. (1996) Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67(1): 1–15.

12.

Harrison

Daly

(2009) Leveraging health information technology to improve patient safety. Public Administration and Management 14(1): 218.

13.

Heisig

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

14.

Kuo

Lin

(2012) How social identification and trust influence organizational online knowledge sharing. Internet Research 22(1): 4–28.

15.

Hume

Clarke

Hume

(2012) The role of knowledge management in the large non profit firm: Building a framework for KM success. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 17(3): 82–104.

16.

Islam

Jasimuddin

Hasan

(2015) Organizational culture, structure, technology infrastructure and knowledge sharing: Empirical evidence from MNCs based in Malaysia. Vine 45(1): 67–88.

17.

Ismail Al-Alawi

Yousif Al-Marzooqi

Fraidoon Mohammed

(2007) Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management 11(2): 22–42.

18.

Kazi

(2005) Knowledge management in the construction industry: A socio-technical perspective. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

19.

Lettieri

Borga

Savoldelli

(2004) Knowledge management in non-profit organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management 8(6): 16–30.

20.

McAdam

McCreedy

(1999) A critical review of knowledge management models. The Learning Organization 6(3): 91–101.

21.

Natalia

Víctor

Celina

(2009) The influence of employee motivation on knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management 13(6): 478–490.

22.

Nonaka

Takeuchi

(1995) The knowledge creation company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

23.

Nonaka

Toyama

(2003) The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 1(1): 2–10.

24.

Nonaka

Toyama

Konno

(2000) SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning 33(1): 5–34.

25.

Oliveira

MJSP

Pinheiro

(2020) Factors and barriers to tacit knowledge sharing in non-profit organisations – a case study of volunteer firefighters in Portugal. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 12(3): 1294–1313.

26.

Ragsdell

Espinet

Norris

(2014) Knowledge management in the voluntary sector: A focus on sharing project know-how and expertise. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 12(4): 351–361.

27.

Rathi

Given

Forcier

(2016) Knowledge needs in the non-profit sector: An evidence-based model of organizational practices. Journal of Knowledge Management 20(1): 23–48.

28.

Rotter

(1967) A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality 35: 651–665.

29.

Rubenstein-Montano

Liebowitz

Buchwalter

, et al. (2001) A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decision Support Systems 31(1): 5–16.

30.

Sackman S and Friesl M (2007) Cultural impacts on knowledge sharing in project teams- results from a simulation study. Journal of Knowledge Management 11(6): 142–156.

31.

Trong Tuan

(2012) Behind knowledge transfer. Management Decision 50(3): 459–478.

32.

Vuori

Okkonen

(2012) Knowledge sharing motivational factors of using an intra-organizational social media platform. Journal of Knowledge Management 16(4): 592–603.

33.

Weber

Wunram

Kemp

, et al. (2002) Standardisation in knowledge management–towards a common KM framework in Europe.

34.

Wiig

(1997) Integrating intellectual capital and knowledge management. Long Range Planning 30(3): 399–405.

35.

Zaccaro

(2007) Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist 62(1): 6–16.

36.

Zapata Cantu

Mondragon

(2016) Knowledge management in Mexican NPOs: A comparative study in organizations with a local and national presence. Journal of Knowledge Management 20(1): 69–87.