IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i17p3673-d1225359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Knowledge Quality Using Fuzzy MCDM Model

Author

Listed:
  • Chiu-Chi Wei

    (Ph.D. Program of Management, Chung Hua University, Hsinchu City 30012, Taiwan)

  • Chih-Chien Tai

    (Ph.D. Program of Management, Chung Hua University, Hsinchu City 30012, Taiwan)

  • Shun-Chin Lee

    (Ph.D. Program of Management, Chung Hua University, Hsinchu City 30012, Taiwan)

  • Meng-Ling Chang

    (Ph.D. Program of Management, Chung Hua University, Hsinchu City 30012, Taiwan)

Abstract

The purpose of knowledge management is to excavate the tacit knowledge accumulated by each enterprise member through the knowledge proposal system. Each knowledge proposal must be assessed, and after passing the quality assessment, the knowledge proposal will be stored in the knowledge repository and shared with other employees who need the knowledge at work. In the long run, the capabilities of all employees will gradually enhance and the competitiveness of enterprises will naturally increase. The correct assessment of knowledge quality is the key to the success of knowledge management. Some scholars propose to use the AHP (analytical hierarchical process) to determine the quality of knowledge. The problem with this approach is that the AHP can only obtain the relative quality of all knowledge, not the actual quality of knowledge. Therefore, this study proposes a fuzzy assessment model to measure knowledge quality, which includes a knowledge quality fuzziness index (KQFI) and a checking gate. First, experts conduct linguistic evaluation on the weight of criteria and knowledge quality. All linguistic evaluations are then integrated into a knowledge quality fuzziness index (KQFI), which is compared with a fuzzy threshold (FT); then, the level of goodness of KQFI to FT is obtained. If it is greater than 0.5, it means that the quality of the knowledge proposal is qualified; otherwise, it means that the quality of the knowledge proposal is unqualified. This study uses a case including five experts and nine knowledge proposals to demonstrate the applicability of the method. The results show that the method finally judges six knowledge instances as qualified and three as unqualified. The results show that the proposed method can indeed assist enterprises to effectively screen knowledge proposals.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiu-Chi Wei & Chih-Chien Tai & Shun-Chin Lee & Meng-Ling Chang, 2023. "Assessing Knowledge Quality Using Fuzzy MCDM Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:17:p:3673-:d:1225359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/17/3673/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/17/3673/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Kő & Réka Vas & Tibor Kovács & Ildikó Szabó, 2019. "Knowledge Creation from the Perspective of the Supply Chain. The Role of ICT," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 41(3), pages 311-329, September.
    2. Wang, Reay-Chen & Chuu, Shian-Jong, 2004. "Group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a manufacturing system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(3), pages 563-572, May.
    3. Graciela Corral de Zubielqui & Noel Lindsay & Wendy Lindsay & Janice Jones, 2019. "Knowledge quality, innovation and firm performance: a study of knowledge transfer in SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 145-164, June.
    4. Mehwish Waheed & Kiran Kaur, 2016. "Knowledge quality: A review and a revised conceptual model," Post-Print hal-03882160, HAL.
    5. Cheng, Ching-Hsue & Lin, Yin, 2002. "Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 174-186, October.
    6. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    7. Guangquan Zhang & Jie Lu, 2003. "An Integrated Group Decision-Making Method Dealing with Fuzzy Preferences for Alternatives and Individual Judgments for Selection Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(6), pages 501-515, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chuu, Shian-Jong, 2011. "Interactive group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 279-289, August.
    2. Ana X. Halabi & Jairo R. Montoya-Torres & Nelson Obregón, 2012. "A Case Study of Group Decision Method for Environmental Foresight and Water Resources Planning Using a Fuzzy Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 205-232, March.
    3. Lu, Jinfeng & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3).
    4. Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj, 2016. "Managing Telecommunications for Development: An Analysis of Intellectual Capital in Nigerian Telecommunication Industry," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 1-30, March.
    5. Soufiane Mezzourh & Walid A Nakara, 2009. "Governance and innovation : A Knowledge-based approach [La gouvernance de l'innovation : une approche par la connaissance]," Post-Print halshs-01955966, HAL.
    6. M. Max Evans & Ilja Frissen & Anthony K. P. Wensley, 2018. "Organisational Information and Knowledge Sharing: Uncovering Mediating Effects of Perceived Trustworthiness Using the PROCESS Approach," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-29, March.
    7. Chris Kimble & José Braga Vasconcelos & Álvaro Rocha, 2016. "Competence management in knowledge intensive organizations using consensual knowledge and ontologies," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1119-1130, December.
    8. Maurizio Zollo, 1998. "Strategies or Routines ? Knowledge Codification, Path-Dependence and the Evolution of Post-Acquisition Integration Practices in the U.S. Banking Industry," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 97-10, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    9. Duniesky Feitó Madrigal & Alejandro Mungaray Lagarda & Michelle Texis Flores, 2016. "Factors associated with learning management in Mexican micro-entrepreneurs," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, vol. 32(141), pages 381-386, December.
    10. David Vallat, 2015. "Une alternative au dualisme État-Marché : l’économie collaborative, questions pratiques et épistémologiques," Working Papers halshs-01249308, HAL.
    11. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    12. Christoph P. Kiefer & Pablo Del Río González & Javier Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2019. "Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 155-172, January.
    13. Pang, Jifang & Liang, Jiye, 2012. "Evaluation of the results of multi-attribute group decision-making with linguistic information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 294-301.
    14. Ahammad, Mohammad Faisal & Tarba, Shlomo Yedidia & Liu, Yipeng & Glaister, Keith W., 2016. "Knowledge transfer and cross-border acquisition performance: The impact of cultural distance and employee retention," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 66-75.
    15. Arkadiusz Kijek & Tomasz Kijek, 2019. "Knowledge Spillovers: An Evidence from The European Regions," JOItmC, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Liuan Wang & Lu (Lucy) Yan & Tongxin Zhou & Xitong Guo & Gregory R. Heim, 2020. "Understanding Physicians’ Online-Offline Behavior Dynamics: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 537-555, June.
    17. Anders Melander & Tomas Mullern & David Anderssson & Fredrik Elgh & Malin Löfving, 2022. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap in Collaborative Research—in Dialogues We Trust," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 655-677, October.
    18. Schilling, Melissa A. & Green, Elad, 2011. "Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1321-1331.
    19. Carmelina Bevilacqua & Yapeng Ou & Pasquale Pizzimenti & Guglielmo Minervino, 2019. "New Public Institutional Forms and Social Innovation in Urban Governance: Insights from the “Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics” (MONUM) in Boston," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, December.
    20. Shahid Qureshi & Sarfraz Mian, 2021. "Transfer of entrepreneurship education best practices from business schools to engineering and technology institutions: evidence from Pakistan," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 366-392, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:17:p:3673-:d:1225359. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.