Knowledge Management Enablers and Barriers in the Army: An Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach

Knowledge Management has assumed great importance in performance of institutions1 “Organizational knowledge is the most important capital of current century organizations”2 as expressed by 2014. Development of technology influenced KM3. in 2008 identified that “KM is the renaissance of thinking, creating, sharing, leveraging and applying the knowledge, expertise and intellectual capital to retain knowledge before employees leave the organization”4. KM is a combination of complex techniques5; which range from systematic processes which could be formal or informal as brought out by6-9. These are now exploited by establishments to nurture10 and propagate knowledge across the organization11 utilising technologies. Knowledge gained on military aspects over centuries gradually consolidates itself as the primary source of Knowledge management in the army. This aspect has been incorporated into training and doctrine. At the functional level, a great amount of knowledge is acquired and consolidated; however, tacit knowledge is regularly lost when experienced people retire. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is a standard practise or a tool to handle complex interrelated issues to define inter-se / relative importance12,13. Experts assisted in developing the relationship matrix, culminating inan ISM model.


Introduction
Knowledge Management has assumed great importance in performance of institutions 1 "Organizational knowledge is the most important capital of current century organizations" 2 as expressed by 2014. Development of technology influenced KM 3 . in 2008 identified that "KM is the renaissance of thinking, creating, sharing, leveraging and applying the knowledge, expertise and intellectual capital to retain knowledge before employees leave the organization" 4 .
KM is a combination of complex techniques 5 ; which range from systematic processes which could be formal or informal as brought out by [6][7][8][9] . These are now exploited by establishments to nurture 10 and propagate knowledge across the organization 11 utilising technologies.
Knowledge gained on military aspects over centuries gradually consolidates itself as the primary source of Knowledge management in the army. This aspect has been incorporated into training and doctrine. At the functional level, a great amount of knowledge is acquired and consolidated; however, tacit knowledge is regularly lost when experienced people retire.
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is a standard practise or a tool to handle complex interrelated issues to define inter-se / relative importance 12,13 . Experts assisted in developing the relationship matrix, culminating inan ISM model.

Objective
This study aims to identify the Enablers and Barriers (EBs) of KM, their relationship and impact as critical success factors in the implementation of KM in the Army using Interpretive Structural Modeling Technique.
The Organised based on ISM Modelling and Enablers/ Barriers of KM. The key words used for literature search were enablers and barriers of Knowledge Management, ISM, Driving and Dependence Power. In the process their definitions, factors / enablers have been dwelt upon.

Specific Areas of Review
In depth understanding of Knowledge Management, its enablers and barriers, related issues published so far and to analyse a comprehensive relationship using ISM. The definition of KM as applicable to this studyis "systematic, organized, explicit and deliberate on-going process of creating, disseminating, applying, renewing and updating the knowledge for achieving organizational objectives" 14 .

Knowledge Management Processes
For the present study, we adopt "Knowledge Acquisition (KA), Knowledge Creation (KC), Knowledge Storage (KST) and Knowledge Sharing (KSH)" processes proposed by 15 in view of its comprehensiveness with a slight modification of notations.

Organizations operating in a Closedenvironment
Focus on knowledge resources has been a major method of gaining a strategic advantage 16 . Organizations operating in a closed information environment have the requirement to maintain high security. To allow free flow of knowledge and information presents a considerable challenge 17 . Military transformation means evolution of "a knowledge and network based organization" and this would be the primary Military knowledge Management strategy 2 . KM in the defence environment would result in rational decisions in operations and logistics including aid to civil authorities.
Knowledge management in the army encompasses the power of group knowledge nurtured by creating, collecting and compiling, then organizing, finally, sharing and transferring 18 .
In 19 exemplify "in a military environment knowledge is sometimes needed in more mission-critical situations like a battlefield, where real-time decisions can have life or death consequences and where knowledge delivered late is useless".
"The contributions of military organizations to societal knowledge touch nearly every aspect of human endeavours. "in 20 .
Time tested Processes, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), hierarchy and Leadership to steer it is dominant in a closed environment. 21 Although Erwin and Tiron 22 reported that the US Army had been one of the most fervent adopters of knowledge management. In contrast, limited information is available, of other national military organizations practicing knowledge management.

Barriers
In a similar pattern the barriers have been shortlisted likely areas to be impacted are summarised. Refer Table  2. List of Barriers. Interaction with experts and survey of literature facilitated the identification of EBs. These have been highlighted; Refer Table 3. Summary of Research Work for Short Listing of EBs. This also indicates contribution of a variety of researches towards short listing the EBs.

Research Gaps
Limited publications are available, on the relationship between Enablers and Barriers (EBs) of KM and their impact for implementation of KM in the Army.
Analyse how EBs influence the KM processes and the part they play on the dimensions of making Army Knowledge enabled. Lack of tools and/or inadequate information systems, poor information quality Technology Davenport (1997) 49 Overpopulation of the knowledge management systems with non-essential information.

Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM)
ISM methodology identifies complexities, defines the order and direction of relationships among elements of a system. Graphical interpretation of complex but definite relationship is the final outcome of this method.

The sequence of action for ISM process is
• Identify key elements relevant to the issues with help of experts and survey • Establish a one to one contextual relationship between elements. • A structural self-interaction matrix also known as SSIM is evolved using two elements at a time based on the relationship between them. • Next, from the above SSIM, create a reachability matrix.  Guidelines and Processes SoPs 4 .
Incentives for Implementation 7 .

Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM)
The VAXO Matrix as developed, refer Table 5. Structural Self-interaction matrix (SSIM), is a result of interaction with a group of senior officers of the army and academicians of repute. Relevance and grouping of shortlisted Enablers / Barriers wereitrated basedon theircontextual relationship. The rule for constructing the SSIM is :- • X -EB (i) and EB(j) will complement /influence each other; • O -EB(i) andEB(j)are unrelated.

Reachability Matrix
Initial reachability matrix is evolved by binary substitution of V,A,X,O by 0,1 in the SSIM. The rule for substitution to be followed is as follows:-• All Vs will be substituted by 1 and the reciprocating A will be substituted by 0 ; • All As will be substituted by 0 and the reciprocating V will be substituted by 1 ; • All Xs will be substituted by 1. And All Os will be substituted by 0.

Final Reachability Matrix
To arrive at the final reachability matrix the concept of transitivity is to be understood. This is explained using the example referred in Figure 1. Transitivity.
• Consider factor 'x' relates to factor 'y'and 'y' relates to factor'z' . • Term transitivity implies factor 'x' is also related to factor 'z' .
• Similarly factor 'x' relates to factor 'w' implies,factor 'w' relates to factor 'y . • Since, ISM approach is based on expert opinion, conceptual inconsistency is detected in a qualitative way, in case of on such complex relationships. Since, there was no transitivity;now, initial reachability matrix has been used for further analysis. Tabulated summary of driving power and the dependence power can be referred in Table 6. Initial Reachability Matrix (Driving & Dependence Power).
• Summation of all elements horizontally indicates the driving power. • Summation of all elements attributes vertically indicates dependence power.

Levels of Partitions
A total of five iterations is noticed refer Table 7. Levels of Partitions.
• The final reachability matrix culminates in the formation of the reachabilityset and antecedent set for each EB. • The reachability set, consists of all factors (including itself) and those that it influences to achieve the outcome.
Incentives for Implementation • Antecedent set is defined asall factors, that it gets influenced by including itself to achieve the outcome, • Intersection of these sets is determined for all the EBs. • EBs which hasreachability set valueequal to intersectionset valuethen, they occupy the top level in the ISM hierarchy. • Thus, the top mostlevel factorwillassist any other factor above its own level. • Now this top most level factoris separated from the rest. • This process if repeated for the next level and similar iterations for subsequent levels. • Thus, each factorhas a definite level.Then,diagraph and the final ISM modelare built based on these levels.

ISM Digraph and Model
The initial reachability matrix leads to structural model. Initial directed graph, or initial digraph is a diagrammatic representation of the relationship between any two EBs, asshown by an arrow which points from one to the other. Elimination oftransitivity (refer the ISM methodologypara 4 above)leads to the final digraph refer Figure 2: Final digraph depicting the relationship among the KM EBs. This is now used to develop further to generate the ISM-based model refer Figure 3. ISM Based Model.

Compendious
The ultimate aim of ISM with MICMAC analysis has been to identify the priorities of factors considered based on their inter-relationships. The essence of this classification of EBs is to arrive at the driving power and dependence power of each EBs and its status.
For example it is observed that EB1 has a driving power of 9 and a dependence power of 1(Refer Table  6: Initial Reachability Matrix ( Driving & Dependence Power). This has been depicted in cluster 4 shown in Figure 3. ISM Based Model. The priorities that emerged and can be classified as follows:-Quadrant I Autonomous.This quadrant consists of autonomous EBs (low"driving power", low"dependence power"). These EBs are relatively disassociated from other; in the current context no autonomous EBs exists. Quadrant II Dependent This quadrant has EBs ("low driving power","high dependence power"). In the present case, EB7 Short Tenures, EB8 Ownership and EB9 Awareness are in this category. Quadrant III Linkage In the Third quadrant EBs ("high driving", " dependence power"). These EBs will have influence on other EBs with reverse effect on themselves. In this case, EB5 Organisation Culture and EB6 Incentive for Implementation fall in this Category.

Quadrant IV Independent/ Drivers
The fourth quadrant contains independent EBs ("very high driving power", "low dependence power"). In this case, EB1 Role of Leadership, EB2 Technological Infrastructure; EB3 Guidelines Processes SOPs; EB4 Organisation Structure are in this category.

Discussion
In reality, understanding the status or hierarchy of EBs indicate the modus operandi for successful KM implementation.
EB1 Role of Leadership and its commitment is most significant EB as it has its strong driving power and weak dependence power. In the ISM Model, EB1 is thus positioned at the lowest level. This implies that this element drives the KM process. If and when it plays a pivotal role, then success is guaranteed or else, i.e. lack of leadership will result in insurmountable barrier for KM to flourish.
Similarly, EB3-Guidelines, processes and SOPs & EB4-Organisation Structure are placed at the fifth level with strong driving power & weak dependence power. In the Army, a well-defined hierarchy already exists and stringent adherence to SOPs & polices contribute towards uniformed standards. Therefore, they play an important role in KM implementation.
EB2 Technical Infrastructure is independently positioned at Level Four. This is an enabler, a tool and a facilitator. It acts as a catalyst &assists in making the working condition of sharing, archival & retrieval user friendly.
EB5 Organisation Culture & EB6 Incentives for Implementation (Level Three); Their, High Driving power & Higher Dependence power, should be nurtured by the Military Establishments. The establishment must encourage KM implementation with incentives. Also create an Organisation Culture for sharing & handling information on "Need to Know" basis.
Also, EB2 Technology Infrastructure, EB5 Organisation Culture and EB6 Incentive for Implementation are termed as "strategic barriers"as they are found to be in the third and fourth levels of the ISM model.
They are key elements in knowledge sharing, support communication, collaboration, and encourage quest for knowledge and information.
These EBs require senior leader intervention for KM success.
EB7 Short Tenures & EB9 Awareness. These EBs are at level two with weak driving power strong dependence power. Both depend on the drivers to influence them. In a military environment transfers are frequent, the knowledge / wisdom shared in the form of Handing Taking over notes alone is not adequate. Since, dependence power is high, need for drivers like leadership, structure, process, using technology must lend itself to create awareness & overcome the challenges of short tenures.
Similarly, EB8 Ownership issues with strong dependence power and weak driving power is positioned at the uppermost level. This indicates that the drivers must ensure that each & every member is committed and accountable. Ownership must be encouraged to the extent that an individual on his own free will enjoys & cultivates the essence of KM process.
In MICMAC Diagram (Refer Figure 4) we notice that there is no autonomous EBs; this means that there are no weak drivers and weak dependents. Thus, it can be concluded that all the balance EBs are relevant and the degree of importance as critical success factors for KM implementation in the army.

Conclusion and Future Directions
Enablers and Barriers, based on their relative levels, are the key in the KM implementation process. It can also be observed from Figure 4 that conclusively, all nine EBs are relevant although they exhibit a varying degree of relative importance. The four critical EBs are Role of Leadership, Guidelines, processes and SOPs, Organizational structure and Technological Infrastructure. Way Ahead. It is recommended that future research could use this method for initial model (ISM). Then quantify the framework obtained from ISM model using Analytical hierarchy process (AHP). In addition, there will be a definite need to focus on:-Firstly, driving power factors; such as sub-centers of Leadership, next, areas which require changes in the Organisation hierarchy and lastly, modification to processes & SoPs which will accommodate KM in the Army.
Secondly, the dependence Power sub-centers of Ownership, challenges of short tenures and methods to introduce incentives togive impetus, for KM to succeed.
Thirdly, impact of "Continuity or truncated tenures";"Ownership and Awareness" at functional direction & conceptual levels in the Armed Forces, need to be further researched.