Taxonomy Approach for Organizing Knowledge in Academic Institutions

Home , Taxonomy

IBIMA Publishing Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/JOKM/jokm.html Vol. 2013 (2013), Article ID 241646, 13 pages DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646

Research Article Taxonomy Approach for Organizing Knowledge in Academic Institutions

Suzana Basaruddin 1, Haryani Haron 2 and Siti Arpah Noordin 2

1Universiti Selangor, Bestari Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

2Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Correspondence should be addressed to: Suzana Basaruddin; [email protected]

Received Date: 2 December 2012; Accepted Date: 14 July 2013; Published Date: 31 December 2013

Academic Editor: Nicoleta Sîrghi

Abstract

Knowledge organisation is critical to ensure that knowledge is being distributed widely in an organisation. There are a lot of approaches to organise and manage knowledge. One approach that has been found for so long but has not been explored to its optimum is taxonomy approach. This paper presents how taxonomy approach is able to provide an alternative solution to managing and organising knowledge in the institutes of higher learning (IHL). In the study, qualitative methods namely document analysis using thematic analysis, observations, and semi- structured interviews were employed during data collection. This study highlights the taxonomy concept and approach, and proposes a corporate taxonomy framework in IHL environment. A clear taxonomy concept and approach discussed in this article is for the future development and implementation of the taxonomy in IHL.

Keywords: Corporate taxonomy, knowledge organisation, knowledge management, institutions of higher learning, academic institution.

Introduction This huge expectation of the society has put a high pressure on IHLs’ stakeholders in Academic institutions and knowledge are terms of organizing knowledge shared, two components that complement each distributed, and reused freely in the other. Institutes of higher learning (IHL) institutions. Many research studies are responsible for making the society suggested to the IHLs’ knowledge better in terms of knowledge in all organisation and knowledge management domains, and for developing to support the stakeholders’ expectation. knowledgeable societies for countries in However, there are still loopholes in the many domains. Among the responsibilities process of organising and managing of IHL in knowledge provision are in knowledge. The knowledge organisation advancing products and services, and knowledge management approaches commercialisation, publications, strategy, must suit to the dynamic and multi- policy, teaching and learning, curriculum, dimensional components of the IHLs. promotion, and performance in public and private sectors (Basaruddin et al., 2013).

______

Cite this Article as : Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), "Taxonomy Approach for Organizing Knowledge in Academic Institutions," Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, Vol. 2013 (2013), Article ID 241646, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management 2

Taxonomy approach is supporting dynamic Literature Review and multi-dimensional components and has been introduced to classify living Roles of Knowledge things. It was then applied to the other areas using the concept of classification, The researcher has found and analysed 14 controlled vocabulary, and thesaurus. Well- academic articles that highlight the roles of developed taxonomy is able to act as a knowledge in IHL. The results of analysis, single central reference, and therefore organised by education, industry and eliminates the problem of distributed government sectors, are depicted in Table knowledge source in the organisation. 1.

Table 1: Roles of Knowledge in Education, Industry and Government

Sector Roles of knowledge Author/s Education Stimulating academic publications Consilz (2008) Accomplishing the national higher education Sirat (2010); Morni et al. strategic plan 2020 (2009) Improving the teaching and learning Consilz (2008); Yin (2007); Rogers (1999) Enhancing curriculum to meet rapid technology Chandran et al. (2010) changes Fulfilling individual academic promotion criteria Hassan et al. (2008); Yu (2009) Industry Extensive study impact on product and services Rothaermel and Thursby (2008); Rogers (1999) Promoting the commercialisation Geuna and Muscio (2009) Education, Monitoring the implementation of policies and Power (2007) Industry and programs, and in refining policy Government Fulfilling organisation performance criteria Yu (2009)

The nine important roles of knowledge in knowledge is unstructured (Mohayidin et the three sectors shown above reveal the al. (2007) and, Hamidi and Jusoff (2009), role of knowledge and its contribution to iv); knowledge is not recognised as the development of human capital that is strategic knowledge asset ((Rahman and important for country development. IHL Hamidi 2006, Metcalfe 2006); and finally v) contributes by stimulating knowledge knowledge is not classified and presented exchange, conducting knowledge base as a central and as a standard element activities like workshops, seminars and (knowledge taxonomy) (Lambe 2011; conferences, and producing graduates that Abdullah et al. 2004). All of these problems fulfil the requirements of the industries. laid the foundation of this research Knowledgeable societies and communities (Basaruddin et al. 2013). are expected to contribute to the economy and development of countries. While The researchers of the previous studies knowledge plays an important role in related to knowledge in IHL also proposed country development, in the knowledge a few solutions related to managing IHL providers’ environment (IHL); knowledge knowledge. Hassim et al. (2005) and has not being optimised (Barnett 2000; Mohayidin et al. (2007) proposed a general Mohayidin et al. 2007; Geuna and Muscio knowledge management system for IHL; 2009). Among the issues are i); knowledge Hamidi and Jusoff (2009), Rahman and is not supporting decision making (Rahman Hamidi (2006) and Basaruddin and Haron and Hamidi 2006; Daud 2010; Morni et al. (2011), developed Organisational Memory 2009; Hamidi and Jusoff 2009), ii); Information System (OMIS) and knowledge is scattered (Hamidi and Jusoff Organisational Memory System (OMS). All 2009, Rahman and Hamidi 2006), iii); of the solutions suggested a computer-

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 3 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management

based system to manage knowledge. recognised industry standard. Therefore Anyhow, Sheng et al. (2010) found that taxonomy is able to be the centralized developing more computer-based systems reference and to solve the scattered shall not help in finding a solution to the knowledge assets issues. Knowledge scattered knowledge asset. Instead, this taxonomy focuses on ensuring efficient will actually invent more distributed knowledge sharing and access among knowledge resources instead of the organisational members (Sharma et al. unmanaged existing ones. Due to that, 2010; Nickerson 2009; Malafsky 2011). taxonomy approach has been highlighted to provide an alternative solution to The Advantages of Having Taxonomy manage existing knowledge resources in IHL. Taxonomy offers huge benefits and is crucial for the processing, storage, Taxonomy is able to act as a map of management and searching of knowledge knowledge domain (Nickerson 2009). in organisations (Subramaniam et al. 2010; Lambe (2011) and Wyllie et al. (2011) Jung 2008). It has universal applications of clearly mention that knowledge taxonomy grouping knowledge so that it can be could provide standard and common systematically developed, stored and understanding of subjects in organisations. reused (Malafsky 2011). The following Malafsky (2011) describes knowledge table elaborates on five advantageous taxonomy as being precise, does not points of taxonomy derived from the overlap, has independent content, reflects literature review. organisational access needs and is a

Table 2: Advantages of Taxonomy

No Advantages of Description Taxonomy 1 Taxonomies contribute The knowledge domains and benefits associated with taxonomies to making explicit show that the latter are limited to the content of documents and knowledge available databases, but able to activate the tacit knowledge that resides when necessary. within people (Nikerson et al. 2009). They help the mapping and categorisation of tacit knowledge embedded in staff expertise (Nikerson et al. 2009; Malafsky 2011). 2 Taxonomy is meant for Taxonomy has to be treate d as an integral part of the knowledge managing local management strategy of the organisation. When the strategy is resources ; managing implemented as a project, taxonomies are a key task that needs to experts and internal be planned and implemented by teams equipped with the information (Delphi necessary knowledge and skills. All organisation’s strategies group 2004, Malafsky (vision, mission and plan), resources (assets and liabilities), and 2011). stakeholders (staffs, customers, and suppliers) should be reflected in their corporate taxonomy. 3 Taxonomy as a search The main benefit of taxonomy is th at, when information is well - tool organised and consistent across an organisation, staff will spend less time searching and browsing. As a search tool for investigation, alternative search shows that the user does not want to navigate more than four layers down in the hierarchy, and with extensive searching using taxonomy, the user will get the result faster and intuitively to enrich their research experience and leverage their expertise (Woods 2004; Cisco and Jackson 2005; Hedden 2008; Lytras and Pouloudi 2006; Serrat 2010; Sarmento et al. 2005; Malafsky 2011). 4 Taxonomy may support The purpose of taxonomy is to find information and documents the way of working and to contribute to a broader vision of knowledge management and then, identify different ways for the organization staff to work together. This is because memory structures could become

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management 4

taxonom y structures (Nickerson et al. 2009). Collective tacit memories of staff shall help in completing taxonomy construction. Taxonomy is able to promote collaboration and sharing and distribution between units and departments of an organization (Woods 2004; Cisco and Jackson 2005; Sharma et al. 2010; Malafsky 2011). It also helps put knowledge into practice by making sense of the knowledge of the organization and creating a common item and way of working. 5 Taxonomy can perform It helps in understanding the conceptual organisation structure at an initial navigation and categorisation of business documents; standardising things, level to assist and linking ideas, concepts and words (Choksy 2006; Gilchrist 20110; accelerate research and Muhammad 2010; Lytras and Pouloudi 2006; Forward and discovery or exploratory Lethbrige 2008; Sarmento et al. 2005; Wyllie at al 2011). It will guide (Hedden 2008; also act as a front-end to search so that a new comer of the subject Serrat 2010; Sharma area may begin the research process by navigating through 2010). taxonomy (Woods 2004; Cisco and Jackson 2005). This shall help as a communication and training device and shall provide history as well (Malafsyk 2011). The well structured business systems should be able to drive better design of business systems, information and knowledge flow (Serrat 2010). Taxonomy has also been described as having the ability to enable business processes, protecting intellectual property (Gilchrist 2001) and depicting a network of relationships as well as intensifying the information and knowledge flow (Sarmento et al. 2005). A well- structured corporate taxonomy shall be able to support enterprise portal (Barquin 2001), especially in the construction of contents as required by the organisation. Figure 1 projects the main five taxonomy benefits to an organisation derived from the study on taxonomy benefits from related literature.

As the foundation for all activities within Malafsky 2011]). In managing Science and the corporation is related to documents, Information System (IS) fields, the taxonomy can gather a wide range of importance of taxonomy is well recognised corporate objectives, such as enabling (Sharma et al. 2010). This is agreed by business processes, protecting intellectual Malafsky (2008) when he notes that in property, and building the foundation for information sciences, the study of CT has compliance (Gilchrist 2001). Ultimately, been subject to considerable and taxonomies need to reflect the working longstanding interest among both environment and culture of the organisation researchers since the 90’s. Lambe (2011) in for which they are created (Wyllie et al. his presentation of “Taxonomies and 2011). Since working environments change Knowledge Management” revealed a continuously, taxonomies should also be survey results of 187 taxonomy flexible and adaptive to the changing professionals conducted from September environment (Cisco and Jackson 2005). to October 2009. The ecosystem of This study shall address taxonomy from taxonomy work shows taxonomy related the dimensions of knowledge for IHL. work has been done in various disciplines. Before that, the study explores on They are most populated in information taxonomy applications, concepts and and knowledge management, information approaches. science, and library science domain order by most popular domains. Following them Taxonomy Applications are linguistic, information technology, cognitive psychology and business Taxonomy is a structured and classified analytics domains in descending order. information and knowledge in an Other than that are philosophy, organisation (Nikerson et al. 2009; Sharma management, publishing and editorials, et al. 2008; Lytras and Pouloudi 2006; respectively. Taxonomy concept has been

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 5 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management

applied to wider disciplines and domains. followed by business management and Most taxonomy applications have been research management. Other application practiced in the area of content areas include instructional design, IT management and metadata management, management, software design, system followed by archives and records analytics and technical writing. management, digital asset management, document management, information Lambe (2007) study was supported by Lars architecture and data management. (2004) and Muhammad et al. (2010) who Zooming to the sub-level of the taxonomy claimed that taxonomy was used to start work ecosystem, taxonomies have been knowledge management (KM) project. applied to intranet management, usability Figure 1 projects taxonomy applications in design, text mining and web management various domains.

Information and knowledge management More Taxonomy Library science application Content management Metadata management

Knowledge management, Information management, Archives and record mgmt, Digital asset management, Documents mgmt, Information architecture, Data mgmt, Knowledge management, Librianship

Publishing and editorial, Intranet mgmt, Usability design, Text mining, Web mgmt

Business & mgmt Research mgmt

Instructional design IT mgmt System design Software analytics Less taxonomy Technical writing application Fig 1. Taxonomy Work (Lambe, 2011)

Lambe (2011) has not directly included through observation and semi-structured education domain in his study. The interviews at one public academic researcher noticed that from the lens of institution in Selangor, Malaysia noticed education, the taxonomy application falls taxonomy has been used in administration mostly under information, knowledge that is in filing – in assigning filing code and management and information technology letter reference code. Other than library domain. Bloom's taxonomy is the widely classification system being used, the usage used taxonomy in education domain (Gina of Bloom’s taxonomy and filing taxonomy and Russel 2004). Some other examples of are the evidence that taxonomy has been taxonomies in education can be found on used at institutions level (corporate Taxonomy Warehouse website: ‘Cyc taxonomy) and is a clear proof that Education Taxonomy Suite’, ‘Education, taxonomy is one way to record tacit Skills & Children's Services Thesaurus’, knowledge, manage internal information, ‘Gale Education Thesaurus’ and ‘WAND as part of search tool, support way of Education & Training Taxonomy’. While working and as initial navigation level of other taxonomies might be used internally related subject in IHL. Researcher believes in academic institutions, initial inspection that there’s a lot more opportunities in

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management 6

classifying unstructured knowledge in components related to taxonomy. Gina and these institutions. Russell (2004) and Lambe (2007) categorised knowledge taxonomy into Taxonomy Concepts three main features or types: classification scheme, semantic representation, and In the category of semantic taxonomy, knowledge map. Nickerson et al. (2009) word taxonomy has been interchangeably gave an example of established used with classification and structure classification scheme as Dewey Decimal (Cisco and Jackson 2005; Nickerson 2009; Classification (DDC) mostly uses in Sharma et al. 2008; Lytras and Pouloudi libraries. An example of semantic 2006; Lambe 2011). Taxonomy has also representation given was a search engine been related to a controlled vocabulary and while the knowledge map concept was said thesaurus. In order to understand to assure the global picture of a scenario or taxonomy clearly, the researcher digs into condition. taxonomy related words from Lambe 2(007). The findings show that the three In most taxonomy descriptions, taxonomy words (classification, controlled has been reflected in the form of a vocabulary, and thesaurus) have hierarchy. This is argued by Lambe 2011). established a relationship with taxonomy. He elaborated the taxonomy form could be The basis of semantic taxonomy is when from a simple list to a complex system map. the items are classified. Classified items Sharma et al. (2008) in their functionalities when sorted into alphabetical order of taxonomy builders and classifiers become controlled vocabulary, and the mentioned four basic forms of taxonomy latter when assigned a relationship with that are tree or node, map, star others will become thesaurus. (polyhierarchies) and folder (list). Lambe (2007) reveals additional three forms from When dealing with bases of explicit Sharma et al. (2008) that are: hierarchies, knowledge stored in electronic format, any matrices and facets. Each form has its own taxonomy utilised is tightly coupled with usage preference and level of complexity. the body of metadata utilised to define, The levels of complexity generally increase identify, point, describe and characterize from list to system maps. Table 3 depicts the contents of the knowledge base (Lambe the taxonomy forms (Lambe, 2007 and 2007). Sharma et al. (2010) have come up Sharma et al., 2008) and Table 4 with Functionalities of Taxonomy Builders summarises the representation levels of and Classifiers that project all the main taxonomy forms (Lambe 2007).

Table 3: The Taxonomy Forms

Author/Taxonomy form

List Tree/ node Hierarchies Polyhierarchi es/star Matrices Facets SystemMaps Sharma et al. (2008) √ √ × √ × × √ Lambe (2007) √ √ √ √ √ √ √

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 7 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management

Table 4 : The Complexity and Representation Level

Less Suitable representation complex No Taxonomy form Taxonomy 1 Lists < 12 items, items do not have many level sub items 2 Tree unambiguous relationship of subordinates and superordinates 3 Hierarchies inclusiveness, relational consistency, inheritance and mutual exclusivity 4 Polyhierarchies more than one main organising principle at work. 5 Matrices categorise content along with multiple dimensions 6 Facets main type of organising principle are transparent More and well understood complex 7 System maps visual knowledge domain taxonomy

Besides the above suitable criteria for arrangements and some representations of choosing taxonomy forms, complexity of specific domain in conceptual map, for the the taxonomy is also found to be a deciding purpose of generalisation in the factor for choosing the right taxonomy organisation. form. The investigator found out from the literature (Lambe,2007; Sharma et. al, Taxonomy Development Approaches 2008) that the number of words is aligned with the degree of complexity for each The simplest taxonomy development taxonomy form. System maps support the stages done by Malafsky 2008 consist of most complex taxonomy forms and huge two levels: information and knowledge numbers of vocabularies. While the list is identification, and Draft taxonomy the simplest form of taxonomy, it would development, while Sharma et al. 2008, contain few vocabularies. Trees, Whittaker and Breininger (2008), Connelly hierarchies, polihierarchies, matrices and 2007, Nie et al. 2007& woods 2004 went facets are supporting simple to complex through five levels of taxonomy taxonomy form ranging from a small development phases that are: i) number of vocabularies to a bigger one. Information and knowledge identification, ii) Taxonomy draft development, iii) While analysing articles about taxonomy, Taxonomy draft testing and verification, iv) the researcher found mutual Taxonomy finalisation and finally v) understanding of taxonomy. Taxonomy Taxonomy presentation. Table 5 depicts project should involve controlled the compilation taxonomy development vocabularies, logical business phase from the literature.

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management 8

Table 5: Compilations of Taxonomy Development Phase

Researcher (year) Taxonomy Development phase Information Draft Draft Taxonomy Taxonomy and taxonomy taxonomy finalisation presentation Knowledge development testing and identification verification Lambe (2011) aaa aaa aaa aaa - Rajesh et. al (2011) aaa aaa aaa aaa - Hevner and aaa aaa aaa - - Chatterjee, (2010) Serrat (2010) aaa aaa aaa - - Nickerson (2009) aaa aaa aaa aaa - Forward and aaa aaa aaa aaa - Lethbridge (2008) Malafsky (2008) aaa aaa - - - Sharma et. al aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa (2008) Whittaker and aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa Breininger (2008) Connelly (2007) aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa Nie et. al (2007) aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa Choksy (2006) aaa aaa aaa - - Woods (2004) aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa

On average, the thirteen taxonomist Methodology compilations of taxonomy development phase show there is an agreement on the In this study, the researcher uses document development phases of taxonomy that analysis method to extract the literature consists of i) information and knowledge review of taxonomy concept and identification phase, ii) draft taxonomy approaches, and the knowledge development phase, iii) Draft taxonomy organization and management of IHL. The testing and verification phase and articles from various journals, conferences, taxonomy finalisation. Five taxonomists books and technical papers related to added a fifth phase that is v) taxonomy knowledge taxonomy and academic presentation phase. Some taxonomists institutions were analyzed using thematic include the taxonomy presentation during analysis. There are six themes analyzed and the finalisation of taxonomy phase. depicted in Table 6.

Table 6: Thematic Analysis

No Theme No of articles analyzed 1 Roles of knowledge 11 2 Advantages of taxonomy 17 3 Taxonomy applications 9 4 Taxonomy concepts 9 5 Taxonomy development 13 6 Taxonomy framework 23

For knowledge organization and structured interview involved one person management issues, the researcher who is in charge of IT in main library, one conducted semi-structured interviews and person in charge of archive unit, one observation at one public academic person in charge of IT in research unit, and institution in Selangor, Malaysia. A semi- two coordinators of one faculty. The

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 9 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management

interview aimed at investigating and different taxonomies; most of the time, exploring taxonomy usage in academic produced taxonomies only matched the background. The two coordinators and studied environment and requirements. three heads of curriculum units were also Since there is a limited amount of interviewed to investigate knowledge knowledge taxonomy in IHL context assets in IHL. The sub-study of knowledge produced before, a specific and assets in the IHL, also supported by comprehensive study is necessary document analysis, involved published (Abdullah et al. 2004). Developing vision, mission, strategic planning and all specialised and dedicated taxonomy, in its documents in curriculum unit shared links environment, is an advantage because it published through curriculum unit will not be influenced by the classification websites. Using the thematic analysis of an item that is not necessary or does not approach, it was found that curriculum even exist in IHL. Lambe (2007) management is among the most important emphasised taxonomy as artificial memory. items addressed and therefore must be The action is supporting the final outcome organized and managed wisely by the IHL. of taxonomy produced; shall be applied as content in developing a corporate memory Result system (CMS) for the IHL. Figure 2 projects the proposed framework where corporate As a result of knowledge assets studied in taxonomy could be used as content in CMS. IHL, this exercise focuses on curriculum management. Different scenarios project

Fig 2. Conceptual Framework of IHL CMS Focusing on Curriculum Management

As a knowledge producer, IHL should play Therefore, as an alternative to manage and its role in managing knowledge. One of the reuse corporate knowledge in corporate ways to manage it is by preserving the memory system, this study presents a new memories in IHL; that is by having a CM. approach by optimising corporate CM with the use of technology is able to act taxonomy that has been said to provide as a centralize knowledge repository (the various benefits to organisations. CMS). CT shall provide pertinent In the proposed framework, the strategic knowledge structure required by IHL. content will be structured and classified (as

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management 10

CT) to fit in as CMS content provider. CMS grant number 600-RMI/DANA 5/3/RIF model is adapted from Stein and Zwass (553/2012). (1995) Organisational Memory Information System (OMIS) model. This References model is going to be used as the basis in developing a CMS prototype for IHL. Abdullah, R., Shahabudin, S., Alias, R. A. & Selection of appropriate model has been Selamat, M. H. (2004). 'The Development of based on literature study on CMS model. Knowledge Management System for Public OMIS model by Stein and Zwass (1995) has Higher Learning in Collaborative been divided into two functions that are Environment Using Lotus Notes Software,' effective and mnemonic functions. In Proceedings of Knowledge Management effective function the model concentrates International Conference and Exhibition on integration, adaptation, goal attainment, (KMICE) 2004, 14-15 February 2004, pattern and maintenance, while in Penang, Malaysia, 454-465. mnemonic function, the model has been focusing on knowledge acquisition, Abdul Rahman, A. & Hamidi, S. R. (2006). retention, maintenance and finally search "Organisational Memory Information and retrieval. System Case Study in Faculty of Computer Science and Information System UTM," Conclusions International Conference on Technology Management , 4-5 December 2006, As a complex entity that is approximate to Putrajaya, Malaysia, 1-14. knowledge, IHL has to take the responsibility to organise and manage Barnett, R. (2000). "University Knowledge knowledge so that it is available for the in an Age of Super Complexity," Higher needs of community and society of Education, 40, 409-422. knowledge. One approach that supports the complexity of the academic environment is Basaruddin, S. & Haron, H. (2011). taxonomy approach. The latter has not "Knowledge Taxonomy for Developing being explored extensively in IHL. As a Organisational Memory System (OMS) for straight forward approach, it offers a high Public Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) flexibility for supporting complex in Malaysia," Proceedings of the 2nd knowledge organisation and management International Conference of Software in IHL. CM in IHL should be organised and Engineering Computer Systems (ICSECS) manageable using the taxonomy approach 2011, 27-29 June 2011, Pahang, Malaysia, so that it can be retained extensively in the Part II, CCIS 80, 43-57. dynamic academic environment. Basaruddin, S., Haron, H. & Noordin, S. A. A detailed literature study was done and (2013). 'Proposed Framework of Corporate the findings have been derived to form the Taxonomy for Academic Institutions,' conceptual framework of the CMS in IHL. Proceedings of 20th International Business While the framework has drawn some lines Information Management (IBIMA) for the study, a specific scope focusing on Conference , 25-26 March 2013, Kuala strategic knowledge assets of IHL is Lumpur, Malaysia, 54-67. necessary to be used as a benchmark for the study. Data collection of the study Chandran, D. P. K., Yee, K. S., Mohd Harizan, should be based on the specific strategic M. H., Chee, C. K., Teoh, T. H. & Chong, K. F. knowledge assets of IHL before they are (2010). "Success Story of Collaboration presented in the form of taxonomy as a between Intel and Malaysian Universities content of the CMS. to Establish and Enhance Teaching and Research in Electronic Packaging," 34th Acknowledgment International Electronic Manufacturing Technology (IEMT) Symposium, 30 Thank you Research Management Institute November – 2 December 2010, Melaka, UiTM for sponsoring this research under Malaysia, 1-6.

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 11 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management

Cheng, Y. C. (2007). "Future Developments Hassan, A., Tymms, P. & Ismail, H. (2008). of Educational Research in the Asia-Pacific "Academic Productivity as Perceived by Region: Paradigm Shifts, Reforms, and Malaysian Academics," Journal of Higher Practice," Education Research Policy and Education Policy and Management, 30(3), Practice, 6, 71-85. 283-296.

Clarke, D. S. G. (2008). "The Last 50 Years Hassim, Y. M. M., Mokhtar, S. & Hamid, S. of Knowledge Organisation: A Journey (2005). "The Development of OMIS in through My Personal Archives," Journal of Academic Setting," Integrated Series in Information Science, 34(4), 427-437. Information Systems, 22, 235-253.

Consilz, T. (2008). "Teacher as Researcher Lambe, P. (2007). Organising Knowledge - and the Importance towards Malaysia's Taxonomies, Knowledge and Education Prospect," 2008 Asian Forum on Organisational Effectiveness Business Education International http://www.assoc- Conference , 3 December 2008, Kuala amazon.com/e/ir?t=knowledgjoltw- Lumpur, Malaysia, 1-7. 20&l=ur2&o=1, Chandos Publishing (Oxford). Daud, N. (2010). "Quality of Work Life and Organisational Commitment Amongst Lambe, P. (2011). 'Taxonomies and Academic Staff: Empirical Evidence from Knowledge Management,' [Online], Malaysia," Proceedings of 2010 [Retrieved 12 December 2011], International Conference on Education and http://wiki.sla.org/download/attachments Management Technology (ICEMT), 2-4 /54264068/Taxonomy_KM_Lambe.pdf. Novermber 2010, Cairo, Egypt, 271-275. Lambe, P. (2011). "The Unacknowledged Duarte, V. & Sarkar, S. (2011). "Separating Parentage of Knowledge Management," the Wheat from the Chaff – A Taxonomy of Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), Open Innovation," European Journal of 175-197. Innovation Management, 14(4), 435 – 459. Li, S.- T., Tsai, M.- H. & Lin, C. (2010). Forward, A. & Lethbridge, T. C. (2008). "A "Building a Taxonomy of a Firm's Taxonomy of Software Types to Facilitate Knowledge Assets: A Perspective of Search and Evidence-Based Software Durability and Profitability," Journal of Engineering," Proceedings of the 2008 Information Science, 36 (1), 36-56. Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research: Meeting Lytras, M. D. & Pouloudi, A. (2006). of Minds (CASCON'08), 27-30 October "Towards the Development of a Novel 2008, Ontario, Canada, 179–191. Taxonomy of Knowledge Management Systems from a Learning Perspective: An Garshol, L. M. (2004). "Metadata? Thesauri? Integrated Approach to Learning and Taxonomies? Topic Maps! Making Sense of Knowledge Infrastructures," Journal of It All," Journal of Information Science, 30(4), Knowledge Management, 10(6), 64–80. 378-391. Macgregor, G. (2011). "Knowledge Geuna, A. & Muscio, A. (2009). "The Representation in the Social Semantic Governance of University Knowledge Web," Library Review, 60(8) 723 – 735. Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature," Minerva, 47, 93-114. Malafsky, G. P. (2008). "Organising Hamidi, S. R. & Jusoff, K. (2009). "The Knowledge with Ontologies and Characteristic and Success Factors of an Taxonomies," [Online]. [Retrieved 20 Organisational Memory Information December 2011], System," Computer and Information Science http://www.techi2.com/download/Malafs Journal, 2(1), 142-151.

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management 12

ky%20KM%20taxonomy_ontology.pdf. Rogers, F. R. (2009). 'The Win-Win of Research from the Editor's Notebook Metcalfe, A. S. (2006). Knowledge (1999),' [Online], [Retrieved 12 December Management and Higher Education: A 2011], Critical Analysis, Idea Group Inc. http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/reprint/172 /4/877.pdf Mohayidin, M. G., Kamaruddin, M. N. & Margono, M. I. (2007). "The Application of Rothaermel, F. T. & Thursby, M. (2008). Knowledge Management in Enhancing the "Incubator Firm Failure or Graduation?: Performance of Malaysian Universities," The Role of University Linkages," Research Electronic Journal of Knowledge Policy, 34, 1076–1090. Management, 5(3), 301-312. Sarmento, A., Ramos, I., Calvarho, J. A., Morni, F., Abu Talip, M. S., Bujang, F. & Lopez, F. & Morais, P. (2005). 'A Research Jusoff, K. (2009). "APEX University: Is It the Approach Classification for KM,' IRMA Malaysian Way Forward?," Proceedings of International Conference , 15-18 May 2005, 2009 International Conference on Computer California, USA, 1-6. Technology and Development , 13-15 November 2009, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, Sharif, M. N. A., Mohamad, K. M., Alias, R. A., 523-526. Shahibudin, S. & Zakaria, N. H. (2004). "Knowledge Management Framework for Muhammad, S., Nawi, H. S. A. & Lehat, M. L. Representing Lessons Learned System for (2010). "Taxonomy of K-Portal for Institute Communities of Practice in Institutions of of Higher Learning in Malaysia: A Higher Learning," Malaysian Journal of Discovery," Proceedings of Information Computer Science, 17(1), 1-12. Retrieval & Knowledge Management, (CAMP), 16-18 March 2010, Shah Alam, Sharma, R. S., Chia, M., Choo, V. & Samuael, Malaysia, 358-361. E. (2010). "Using a Taxonomy for Knowledge Audits: Some Fields Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U., Munterman, Experiences," Journal of Knowledge J. G. & Isaac, H. (2009). "Taxonomy Management Practice, 11(1). Development in Information Systems: Development of a Taxonomy of Mobile Sharma, R. S., Foo, S. & Morales-Aroyo, M. Applications," Proceedings of 17th (2008). "Developing Corporate Taxonomies European Conference in Information for Knowledge Audit Ability: A Framework Systems , Verona, Italy, 1138-1149. for Good Practices," [Online], [Retrieved 12 December 2010], Nie, K., Ma, T. & Nakamori, Y. (2007). http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/sfoo/publi "Building a Taxonomy for Understanding cations/2008/2008Knowledge- Knowledge Management," Electronic Organisation_fmt.pdf Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 453-466. Sirat, M. B. (2010). "Strategic Planning Directions of Malaysia's Higher Education: Power, C. (2007). "Educational Research, University Autonomy in the Midst of Policy and Practice in an Era of Political Uncertainties," Higher Education, Globalisation," Education Research Policy 59, 461-473. Practice, 87-100. Vahedi, M. & Irani, F. N. H. A. (2011). Rajesh, R, Pugazhendhi, S. & Ganesh, K. "Information Technology (IT) for KM," (2011). "Towards Taxonomy Architecture Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011), 444- of Knowledge Management for Third-Party 448. Logistics Service Provider," Benchmarking: An International Journal, 18(1) 42-68.

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646 13 Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management

Wasiak, J., Hicks, B., Newnes, L., Dong, A. & Wyllie, J., Skyrme, D. & Lelic, S. (2005). Burrow, L. (2010). "Understanding "Taxonomies: Frameworks for Corporate Engineering Email: The Development of a Knowledge," [Online] [Retrieved 5 January Taxonomy for Identifying and Classifying 2011], Engineering Work," Research in http://www.arkgroupaustralia.com.au/doc Engineering Design, 21(1), 43-64. uments/TaxonomiessecondeditionSummar y_000.pdf Whittaker, M. & Breininger, K. (2008). "Taxonomy Development for KM," World Yu, M. L., Hamid, S., Ijab, M. T. & Soo, H. P. Library and Information Congress: 74th (2009). "The E-Balanced Scorecard (E-BSC) IFLA General Conference and Council , 10-14 for Measuring Academic Staff Performance August, Québec, Canada, 1-10. Excellence," The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, Williams, K., Chatterjee, S. & Rossi, M. 57(6), 813-828. (2010). "Design of Emerging Digital Services: A Taxonomy," Integrated Series in Information Systems, 22(2010), 235-253.

______

Suzana Basaruddin, Haryani Haron and Siti Arpah Noordin (2013), Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.5171/2013.241646