Knowledge and Process Management

Volume 18 Number 1 pp 4555 (2011)

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/kpm.365

& Research Article

An AHP-Based Framework for Selecting

Knowledge Management Tools to
Sustain Innovation Process
Michele Grimaldi 1* and Pierluigi Rippa 2
1
University of Cassino, DIMSAT, Cassino, Italy
2
University of Naples Federico II, DIEG, Naples, Italy

This paper presents a framework based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology to select the most
appropriate set of Knowledge Management (KM) tools to support the innovation processes in organizations. The
framework builds on the theoretical foundations underlying organizational KM to identify key KM processes
enabling innovation. The AHP is a multi-criteria decision support technique that can be used to analyse and compare
those KM tools that best support innovation processes. Organizations can select the most suitable KM tool by using
the proposed framework to identify gaps and overlaps in the extent to which the capabilities provided and utilized by
their current KM tools portfolio meet the KM needs of the organization to sustain the innovation. The main
contributions of this work are the list of KM processes to support an innovation activity and the hierarchy of
importance of such processes able to support the selection process of a KM tool. The framework can be of use to
managers and other practitioners because of its ease of implementation. An illustrative example of a case study for the
application of the framework is provided. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION industries and global markets requires the effective

The continuously increasing pressure of compe-
tition and global markets is forcing organisations to
become more innovative in their attempts to
increase their overall competitiveness (Tidd et al.,
1997). Innovation is closely associated with the body
of knowledge referred to collectively as knowledge
management (KM). In this connection, knowledge is
considered as a potential key resource for attaining
competitive advantage. It is proposed that an
increase in the knowledge available to an organis-
ation results in increased levels of innovation
(McAdam and McCreedy, 2000). Effective KM has
parallels with effective innovation. For innovation
to take place, a company needs caring people who
are willing to share knowledge and experience for
the greater good of the company and creative
people who have the ability to turn ideas into
practical products and services (Brand, 1998).
Furthermore, to be innovative in highly competitive
*Correspondence to: Michele Grimaldi, University of Cassino,
DIMSAT, Via G. Di Biasio 43, Cassino (FR) 03043, Italy.
E-mail: m.grimaldi@unicas.it
use of knowledge and hence effective KM.
The knowledge-based theory of the rm is built
on the notions that that knowledge exists within the
people, products, and processes and that knowl-
edge is the key organisational asset that enables
sustainable competitive advantage, particularly
in hyper-competitive environments (Alavi and
Leidner, 1999). To be able to use knowledge
effectively it is necessary that it be managed
hence the importance of KM. KM can be dened as a
systematic discipline and set of approaches that
enable information and knowledge to grow, ow
and create value in an organisation. Inside an
organisation, the practices of KM are increasingly
seen as providing a guide to the development of a
more organic and holistic way of understanding
and exploiting the role of knowledge in the
processes of managing and doing work.
Successful and innovative organisations share
certain characteristics, which range from their
technology infrastructure to a strong belief in the
value of knowledge sharing and collaboration.
Technology has a fundamental role in the support
of KM, because it can help barriers of time
and distance to collapse. However, although these

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

46 M. Grimaldi and P. Rippa
characteristics are important there are other charac-
teristics that should guide the acquisition of technol-
ogy.
Although there are a large number of tools that
potentially support KM are available in the software
market: however, few researchers or practitioners
have proposed a framework to aid in the evaluation
and selection of KM tools (Ngai and Chan, 2005).
Moreover, no framework has been developed to
support the selection of a KM tool to sustain an
innovation process.
It should also be observed that since a rms
selection make use of specic KM tools and their
implementation are closely related to its competi-
tive strategy. Thus, since the adopted strategy
reects managements decision on how to respond
to external reality (Zack, 1999), managerial percep-
tions should therefore shape the evaluation criteria
they use to assess KM tools and the assessment of
the expected benets of KM. As a result, managers
experience and acquaintance with the context are
likely to be important in the selection of the most
proper KM tool.
This paper is primarily concerned with providing
a framework to select the KM tools that support
innovation processes within organisations. This
framework is likely to be useful to many organis-
ations. The methodological framework is based on a
decision support technique called analytic hierar-
chy process (AHP) taking into account the strategic
intangible assets and the specic context of the
company. The framework is based on pair-wise
comparisons between several factors that affect the
selection of the most appropriate KM tool to sustain
an innovation process.
The paper is organised as follows. Section two
discusses the research literature on innovation
processes supported by KM and KM tools available
to support innovation processes. Section three
describes the development of the AHP method-
ology for selecting KM tools. Section four depicts
how to apply the AHP-based framework to a
specic company. Section ve reports the ndings
and provides conclusions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Innovation process driven by KM
One of the initial challenges in innovation research
is dening exactly what innovation is. Common to
all denitions is that an innovation is something
new or novel. Beyond newness, denitions vary
with academic perspective and application (Burgelman
and Sayles, 1986).
Zairi (1994), in discussing a broad denition of
innovation, states: what makes innovation challen-
ging is the fact that it is very difcult to agree on a
common denition, and also to decide which rms
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
are the most innovative and how to quantify
innovation activity. Another denition states that
innovative companies are especially adroit at
continually responding to change of any sort in
their environments and are characterised by
creative people developing new products and
services (Peters and Waterman, 1982). These
denitions emphasise change as a key part of
innovation in organisations where innovation
encompasses the harnessing of creative ability
within individuals and the workforce, in response
to change.
Innovation is an interactive process characterised
by technological interrelatedness between various
subsystems (Teece, 2001) as well as by organis-
ational complexity as it involves various actors and
functions. Above all, the organisations which use
innovation to differentiate their product are on
average twice as protable as other organisations
(Tidd et al., 1997). Viewed this way, the innovation
process can be considered as a core business process
(Adamides and Karacapilidis, 2006).
The concept of innovation as a business process
has evolved over the years, from purely sequential
linear models of technology push (from R&D to
market) and market pull (from market to R&D) to a
coupling and matching process where interaction is
the critical element (Rothwell, 1992). Currently, the
research literature presents the innovation process
as a continuous multi-actor process that requires
high levels of integration at both inter- and intra-
rm levels.
During the development of innovative concepts,
individuals from diverse functions, as well as
potential users, are involved in different activities,
which can be broadly organised into four phases
(Tidd et al., 1997). In the scanning phase, ideas on
exploiting internal or external opportunities are
placed for consideration. Discussion, ltering and
structuring for decision making take place through
formal and informal organisational routines and
procedures. In the subsequent development phase,
the organisation is concerned with what to do with
the innovation concepts that have been developed.
There are three inputs to this phase: the outputs of
the previous phase, internal technological assess-
ment and the t of the innovation concept with the
overall business. The innovations that pass this
phase may be considered to be qualied to pass to
the next phase of the innovation process. In the next
phase, the resources required for its implementation
are considered. Finally, in the implementation
phase, the actual development activities (design,
prototyping, testing) are carried out.
All the phases of the innovation process contain
decision-making routines, which involve individ-
uals with diverse backgrounds, knowledge, skills
and cognitive spheres. In the majority of cases,
decision making is a participative process that
begins with an initial idea, continues with the
Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 4555 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm

exploration of alternative ideas, before it is focused
on the exploitation of the most appropriate and
promising of them (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998).
Turning to the relevance of KM to innovation, we
rst note that KM may be considered to include new
knowledge construction, knowledge embodiment,
knowledge dissemination and knowledge use/
benet. Further, KM may be considered to be the
process of critically managing knowledge to meet
existing needs, to [. . .] exploit existing knowledge
[. . .] and to develop new opportunities (Quintas
et al., 1997). Thus, KM has the potential to be a
catalyst for innovation within organisations. McA-
dam and McCreedy (2000) analysed the possible use
of KM within organisation as a catalyst or vehicle
for increasing innovation, and hence competitive-
ness. Demerest (1997), adopting the social construc-
tionist models of KM considers that KM consists of a
highly recursive ow involving four key activities:
1. Knowledge construction and innovation;
2. Knowledge embodiment and innovation;
3. Knowledge dissemination and innovation;
4. Knowledge use/benet and innovation.
This model may be linked to the knowledge-
based theory of the rm, which suggests that
organisations facilitate the management of knowl-
edge during its whole life-cycle (Alavi and Leidner,
1999) from creation and identication (construction)
to application (use/benet) getting through storage,
capitalisation and consolidation (embodiment) and
sharing and distribution (dissemination) (Tiwana,
2000; Wiig, 1997). During the life cycle of knowl-
edge, competences can be developed and/or
enhanced by implementing one or more of these
processes.
Looking at this process in more detail the
knowledge construction process consists in the
creation or in the identication of knowledge
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Knowledge construc-
tion has been widely recognised to be strategically
important for organisational learning and inno-
vation. Knowledge is generated either as explicit or
tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge consists in
anything that can be documented, archived and
codied, often with the help of IT. Tacit knowledge
lies in the minds of people and it is harder to
capture, evaluate, share and leverage.
Secondly, the constructed knowledge needs to
be preserved, organised and made easy accessible
through the knowledge embodiment process; this
process permits subsequent location and assess-
ment of knowledge and includes information
tracking and retrieval. Knowledge embodiment
involves applying the knowledge acquired to a
range of other domains and contexts thus expand-
ing the meaning of the knowledge. It is also
necessary in this phase to consider knowledge
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AHP-Based Framework 47
disposition, validation and evolution after the use of
knowledge.
Thirdly, the knowledge dissemination process
concerns the diffusion and the sharing of knowl-
edge among organisational members (Teece, 2001);
it involves the practical problem of transferring
knowledge within the organisation. Knowledge
transfer is more complex than a communication
problem because knowledge resides in the minds of
organisational members and their behaviours, tools,
tasks (and their sub-tasks), and organisational
routines (Argote and Ingram, 2000). Knowledge
transfer in an organisational context is also made
more challenging since much of the relevant
knowledge is tacit or hard to articulate.
Finally, the knowledge use and benet process is
related to the utilisation and the exploitation of
previously constructed, embodied and dissemi-
nated knowledge and concerns the retention of
knowledge, acquired in the previous processes, for
further utilisation (Davenport and Prusak, 2000;
Despres and Chauvel, 1999). This is the end goal of
knowledge practice. KM has only very limited value
if created knowledge cannot be utilised to its
potential. Knowledge utilisation may be considered
to involve knowledge re-creation, producing and
value adding processing.
KM tools supporting innovation processes
To properly analyse the role of KM tool in
supporting innovation, it is necessary to consider
the role of technology and Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) in KM. The term
knowledge technologies refers to the methods and
information systems that support KM tools (Mertins
et al., 2003). ICTs plays an important role in KM
since they facilitate many of the people-based
activities that are important to KM success.
Organisations are adopting tools and implement-
ing information systems designed specically to
facilitate the construction, the embodiment, the
dissemination and the use of organisational knowl-
edge (Alavi, 1997; Bartlett, 1996; Sensiper, 1997).
These KM tools have the capability to integrate,
classify, and codify knowledge from various
sources, the ability to enable search retrieval and
discovery knowledge, and the capacity to support
knowledge sharing between people or other agents
(Benbya et al., 2004; Ruggles, 1997; Wensley, 2000).
KM tools can be dened as all those instrument that
include anything that serves as a means for
performing functions, processes, operations or tasks
in KM.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) in their SECI model
propose that the major objective of a KM system is to
transform tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge
and vice versa. A further purpose of KM tools lies in
their enhancing the ability of employees to recreate
value-added knowledge and increase their com-
Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 4555 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
48 M. Grimaldi and P. Rippa

Table 1 The KM tools and the involved KM processes

KM tools Denition Involved KM

processes

Business A set of methodologies and architectures that transform raw data into meaningful and Construction
intelligence useful information. It allows business users to make informed business decisions with use/benet
real-time data that can put a company ahead of its competitors. Moreover, it allows
identifying signicant trends or patterns, giving key stakeholders the ability to make
better decisions.
The typical applications of those tools are in business reporting for sales, marketing,
management reporting, business process management, budgeting and forecasting,
nancial reporting and similar areas.
Content A set of technologies that support the evolutionary life cycle of digital information and Construction
applications higher-value documents. Those digital information and documents are often referred dissemination
to as content or digital content in form of text, such as documents, multimedia les,
such as audio or video les, or any other le type, which follows a content lifecycle
which requires management.
It may support the import and creation of documents, the identication of all key users
and their roles, the assignment of roles and responsibilities to different instances of
content categories, the ability to track and manage multiple versions of a single instance
of content, the ability to publish the content to a repository to support access to the
content.
Archiving/e-discovery solutions are examples of Content management to store,
search, and retrieve data or information about data, while document management
supports the management and retention of higher-value intellectual property, such as
contracts, deals, legal matters, standard operating procedures, regulatory submissions,
engineering schematics, plant and facilities maintenance materials, and patent sub-
missions.
Data A structured collection of records or data that is stored in a computer system. The Construction
management structure is achieved by organising the data according to a database model, or embodiment
tools collection of databases, designed to help managers make strategic decisions about
their business. As the database is achieved, datamarts are analytical data stores
designed to focus on specic business functions for a specic community within an
organisation. Datamarts are often derived from subsets of data in a data warehouse,
though in the bottom-up data warehouse design methodology the data warehouse is
created from the union of organizational datamarts. The term data warehousing
generally refers to the combination of many different databases across an entire
enterprise. Data warehouses contain a wide variety of data that present a coherent
picture of business conditions at a single point in time.
Collaborative Collaborative software (also referred to as groupware or workgroup support systems) Use/benet
tools designed to help employees involved in a common task achieve their goals. dissemination
Groupware is the basis for computer supported cooperative work. A single gateway embodiment
through which employees, customers, or partners can retrieve and share knowledge.
Portals can help reduce the inconvenience and inefciency caused by using multiple
applications by integrating a wide range of application programs, so that information
can be exchanged and shared irrespective of a type of application.
Web platforms are broad and general-purpose platforms that support business
exibility and speed requirements by exploiting new and enhanced forms of appli-
cation development and delivery (Web 2.0). Web platforms use Web technologies to
provide programmatic access to functionality on the Web, including capabilities
enabled not only by technology but also by community and business aspects.

panys intellectual asset by collaborating with
knowledge workers and leveraging existing intel-
lectual assets.
It is generally accepted that there is no one size ts
all solution to the use of technology to support of
KM in organisations (Edwards et al., 2005). More-
over, it is difcult to provide a characterisation of
exactly what each organisation has to do to support
innovation using KM tools. Different KM tools are
appropriate in different contexts and organisations
need to nd the solution that is right for their context.
I Table 1 we provide details of a variety of KM tools,
which classies each tool in terms of the KM
processes that they potentially support. In the next
section, an AHP-based framework to aid managers
in selecting the most suitable KM tool supporting an
innovation process is proposed.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
AHP-BASED FRAMEWORK
The proposed methodological framework builds on
the assumption that a KM tool is a tool that can be
used to promote organisational innovation. Several
major outcomes, which are associated with the

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 4555 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm

application of KM tools, have been identied. In
order to identify and select the KM tools, several
criteria related to business s have been examined as
moderators of the relationship between the goal
(innovation process) and the alternative KM tools.
The analytic hierarchy process
The AHP, developed by Saaty (1980), is a multi-
objective decision-making methodology. The AHP
enables decision makers to structure a complex
problem in the form of a simple hierarchy and to
evaluate a large number of quantitative and
qualitative factors in a systematic way under
conicting multiple criteria. This decision-making
approach is mainly applied to decision problems
with several evaluation norms under uncertain
circumstances. It is a exible and powerful tool for
handling both qualitative and quantitative multi-
criteria problems (Carlucci and Schiuma, 2006). The
AHP is aimed at integrating different measures into
a single overall score for ranking decision altern-
atives. Its main characteristic is that it is based on
pair-wise comparison judgments.
The AHP rstly structures the decision problem
in the form of a hierarchy to capture the basic
interrelated elements of a problem and then derives
ratio scales to integrate the perceptions and
objectives into an overall synthesis. AHP combines
both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In the
qualitative sense, it decomposes an unstructured
problem into a systematic decision hierarchy.
The AHP further utilises a quantitative approach
that employs pair-wise comparison to determine
the priority weights and the overall ranking of the
alternatives. In the hierarchy, the overall goal
(usually the selection of the best alternative) is
located at the highest level; elements with similar
features (usually evaluation criteria or sub-criteria)
are grouped at the same middle level and decision
variables (usually candidate alternatives) are situated
at the lowest level. Finally, in the AHP, the relative
weights of every component are calculated and, then,
aggregated and synthesised for the nal measure-
ment relating to each of the decision alternatives.
The AHP has been applied in the eld of KMS and
KM tools. Chen et al. (2007) adopted the AHP in
order to locate the importance weight of each KMS
model in the KM information system and to
correlate the importance weight of each model to
the key implementation factors. Yurdakul (2004)
implemented the AHP approach as a strategic
decision-making tool to justify machine tool selec-
tion. In addition, the AHP has been applied to
support KM in order to analyse and compare KM
tools in the software market (Ngai and Chan, 2005)
and to measure the soundness of e-business
(Capece, 2009). Another study has proposed a
fuzzy AHP approach to evaluate knowledge portal
systems as development tools (Kreng and Wu,
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AHP-Based Framework 49
2007). Finally, in the eld of KM strategies, a method
based on the Analythic Network Process has been
developed to help companies that need to evaluate
and select a favourable strategy (Wu and Lee, 2007).
In this study, the AHP is used to determine the
degree of importance, to establish the priority of each
element of the hierarchical structure, and, as a
consequence, to apply a normative multi-criteria
analysis method in order to select the most appro-
priate KM tool in context. The hierarchical structure
has been designed in order to give managers the
possibility of tracing the direct linkage of the
assessment results to the examined elements at each
level of the hierarchy, and to support decision makers
in deriving the measures of the quantitative inuence
of every factor on the process of KM tool selection.
The rst level of the hierarchical structure
condenses the company goals and assumes, there-
fore, the highest degree of signicance. The second
and third levels of the hierarchical structure represent
the criteria and sub-criteria used in selecting the KM
tool. The lowest level of the hierarchical structure
contains the decision alternatives.
Identication of the criteria for the selection
The success of KM depends strongly on the selection
of initiatives that align with organisational goals. The
best approach to target KM initiatives explores the
current situation in the context of the goals and
objectives of the organisation, and identies the
initiatives that can be integrated into the general
solutions that will support those goals and objectives.
It is possible to dene three different organisational
goals, which can be expressed in terms of knowledge
improvements, performance improvements, and
network improvements.
Knowledge improvement
Specically knowledge improvements refer to the
value creation capability of an organisation through
the resources owned by individuals with the aim of
generating new knowledge, such as know-how,
capabilities, skills and expertise (Grimaldi et al.,
2008). This category of improvements concerns the
capability of employees to create value through
their available intangible resources with the pur-
pose of distributing and sharing knowledge and
generating new knowledge. Such elements are
evaluated on the basis of their capability to support
the innovation process, exploit new markets or,
more generally, generate adding value processes.
Performance improvement
The success of KM partially depends upon the
achievement of benets in terms of industrial
processes, organisation and management pro-
cedures and upon the information systems of the
companies extent of use, which itself may be tied to
system quality, information quality, and usefulness
Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 4555 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
50 M. Grimaldi and P. Rippa
(DeLone and McLean, 2003). System quality is
inuenced by attributes such as easy of use,
characteristics of human-computer interface, and
exibility and effectiveness of search mechanisms.
In a short-term organisational view, KM initiatives
should be directly linked to explicit and important
aspects of organisational, process, and human
resource performance (Reyes and Raisinghani,
2002; Tyndale, 2002) such as level of inter and
intra-communication, time to market, cost savings,
competitive positioning, and market shares.
Network improvement
KM initiatives can support networks of knowledge
workers through all the internal and external relation-
ships with stakeholders. Knowledge has assumed the
role of strategic resource not only for companies
operating autonomously, but also for companies
joining in networks or inter-organisational collabor-
ation with customers, competitors, suppliers, sub-
contractors and partners (Ritter and Gemunden,
2003). In particular, these opportunities can be
evaluated whether stakeholders are in a position to
plan future operations and to participate in company
business processes, through the establishment of
long-term and stable relationships (Cricelli and
Grimaldi, 2010). Knowledge-based inter-organis-
ational collaboration affects the innovation initiatives
of the involved companies, from incremental improve-
ments to radical change, by combining competences,
sharing resources, distributing risks. In other words,
knowledge networks offer the possibility of exploiting
potential cognitive synergies and accessing knowledge
wherever they are located within the network (Wilk-
inson and Young, 2002).
Sub-criteria
The third level of the hierarchy embraces all the
appropriate sub-criteria, which specify the contents
and meaning of the criteria.
Cost
Cost is a common factor inuencing the purchaser
in choosing the software (Davis and Williams, 1994).
Ngai and Chan (2005) note that cost, in this context,
is simply the expenditure associated with KM tools
and includes product, license training, mainten-
ance, and software subscription costs. Also
included is the basic cost of the KM tool and the
cost of the KM tool in term of number of users and
training provided to customers.
Time
Time is referred to the period of implementation
needed to adopt the KM tool. It is strictly related to
the level of infrastructure needed by the tool, to the
KM training and product-specic user training, and
to the time taken for the installation.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Functionality
Functionality refers to those features that the KM
tool performs and, generally, to how well the
software can meet the users needs and require-
ments. Based on a review of the literature, the KM
processes supported by a set of listed KM tools have
been identied and depicted in Table 1.
Reliability
The IEEE denes reliability as the ability of a
system or component to perform its required
functions under stated conditions for a specied
period of time. More specically we use the term to
refer to the ability of the system to meet the
requirements of the customer in terms of usability
and functionality.
The alternatives
At the lowest level of the hierarchy, a list of
alternatives provides the decision points that are
evaluated against this hierarchy. The alternatives
represented in the hierarchy are comprise four sets
of KM tools, as represented in Table 1: Business
intelligence, content applications, data management
tools, and collaborative tools.
The output of the methodological framework
consists in the hierarchical structure, as presented in
the Figure 1, where all the variables are arranged in
such a way that each of them directly inuences the
selection of KM tools.
The pair-wise comparison
In the hierarchy, criteria, sub-criteria, and alterna-
tive KM tools are independent components, so that
AHP is sufcient to calculate their weights with
respect to their parent components. To do this, all
the elements at the same level are pair-wise
compared using the ratio scales 1,3,5,7 and 9 as
Saaty (1994) suggested, by means of a pair-wise
comparison matrix.
Specically the computation of the different
weights is made by asking the importance of each
attribute with respect to each of the others, at a peer
level. For example, in order to determine the relative
importance of the four main criteria, a 4  4 matrix is
formed. Decision makers compare criteria for their
relative importance and alternatives for their
relative preferences, using words such as equal,
moderate, strong, very strong and extreme. Thus,
one of the questions that one may ask when using
pair-wise comparison is How much is the cost
constraint factor preferred over the time constraint
factor with respect to the criteria knowledge? The
answer can be equally, moderately, strongly, very
strongly, or extremely. The verbal responses are
then quantied and translated in a score through
the nine-point scale shown in Table 2.
Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 4555 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm

Figure 1 The hierarchical structure.
In the pair-wise comparison matrix (Table 3),
rows and columns of the pair-wise comparison
matrix are allocated to the components belonging to
the same parent component in the decision hierarchy.
The weight of component i compared to component
j with regard to the parent component is determined
using Saatys scale and assigned to the (i, j)th position
of the pair-wise comparison matrix. Automatically,
the reciprocal of the assigned number is assigned to
the (j, i)th position.
Once the pair-wise comparison matrix is formed,
the weights of components are calculated by solving
for the eigenvector of the pair-wise comparison
matrix. The relative weights of the criteria and the
sub-criteria are estimated by calculating the eigen-
values for their judgments matrices with these
relative weights aggregated.
Once the weights of components of the decision
hierarchies are calculated, they are synthesised to
obtain the ranking scores of alternative KM tools.
Weights are synthesised from the highest level
down by multiplying weights by the weight of their
corresponding parent component in the level above
and adding them for each component in a level
Table 2 Saatys 19 scale for pairwise comparison
Intensity of Denition
weight
1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance
5 Strong importance
7 Very strong importance
9 Absolute importance
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values
Reciprocals of If activity i has one of the above non-zero numbers assigned to it when compared to activity j,
above non-zero then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i
numbers
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AHP-Based Framework 51
according to the component it affects (Yurdakul,
2004).
AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
We applied the AHP-based framework to a medium
enterprise, which is located in Naples (Italy) and
designs and manufactures a complete range of slush
machines and drink refrigerators. Its started pro-
duction in 1961. Currently the company has three
product lines, corresponding to different appli-
cation areas, technical specications and nature of
use, and to better satisfy market requirements: slush
machines, cold drink dispenser, and accessories.
The continuous technological innovation and reno-
vation of products constitute intense and continuous
laboratory processes. This innovation and renovation
processes are two fundamental elements to the
companys philosophy. In particular, the companys
continuous focus on innovation results on the more
rened focus on innovative technology, applicative
innovation, managerial innovation and aesthetic
innovation. Given its policy of constant innovation,
Explanation
Two activities contribute equally to the objective
Experience and judgment slightly favour one over another
Experience and judgment strongly favour one over another
An activity is strongly favoured and its dominance is
demonstrated in practice
The importance of one over another afrmed on the highest
possible order
Used to represent compromise between the priorities listed
above
Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 4555 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
52 M. Grimaldi and P. Rippa

Table 3 Pair-wise comparison matrix
i j ...
i 1/1 aij
j aji 1/1
... 1/1
...
the company has always worked to keep its products
up to date and anticipating market requirements.
The company intends to sustain a new innovation
process and is considering purchasing a KM tool. In
particular, the companys managers would like to
know if the adoption of a KM tool would be of help to
support the process of a new product development.
In order to illustrate the application of the frame-
work, the entrepreneur of the company has been
interviewed. After the analysis of the data utilising
AHP, we asked the entrepreneur a validation of the
results. In the next section, the we discuss the
application of AHP. Finally, we discuss the results
and develop some conclusions.
Calculation of the weights of the components
in the hierarchy
As a rst step in the application of the framework,
the priorities of the three criteria are pair-wise
compared with respect to the goal of choosing the
most suitable KM tool, using Saatys 19 scale and a
... pair-wise comparison matrix was compiled (Table 4).
The weights of the criteria are obtained by the
AHP methodology: (0.758; 0.151; 0.091) respectively
provide the priority weights for the criteria
1/1 performance, network, knowledge.
Subsequently, for each of the three criteria, the
four sub-criteria are compared pair-wise and
compiled in a pair-wise comparison matrix. The
relative comparisons among the sub-criteria are
provided by the four comparison matrixes with
respect to each of the three criteria (Tables 57).
By analyzing the three sub-criteria pair-wise
comparison matrixes, the priorities of the sub-
criteria are obtained by the AHP methodology. With
respect to Performance, the local weights are (0.573;
0.266; 0.088; 0.073) respectively for cost, function-
ality, reliability, and time. With respect to network,
the local weights are (0.524; 0.296; 0.101; 0.080)
respectively for Functionality, Cost, Time, and
Reliability. With respect to knowledge, the local
weights are (0.461; 0.364; 0.121; 0.053) respectively
for time, functionality, reliability and cost.
Finally, for each of the four criteria and for each of
the three sub-criteria, the four KM alternative tools
are pair-wise compared and compiled in a pair-wise
comparison matrix. As an example for relative
comparison among the KM alternative tools, the
comparison matrix among the alternatives with
respect to performance\cost is provided in Table 8.

Table 4 Criteria pair-wise comparison matrix

Knowledge Performance Network

improvement improvement improvement

Knowledge improvement 1/1 1/7 1/2

Performance improvement 1/1 6
Network improvement 1/1

Table 5 Sub-criteria pair-wise comparison matrix with respect to knowledge

Cost Time Functionality Reliability

constraints constraints constraints constraints

Cost constraints 1/1 1/7 1/6 1/3

Time constraints 1/1 2 3
Functionality constraints 1/1 5
Reliability constraints 1/1

Table 6 Sub-criteria pair-wise comparison matrix with respect to performance

Cost Time Functionality Reliability

constraints constraints constraints constraints

Cost constraints 1/1 6 4 4

Time constraints 1/1 1/5 1
Functionality constraints 1/1 4
Reliability constraints 1/1

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 4555 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
 AHP-Based Framework 53

Table 7 Sub-criteria pair-wise comparison matrix with respect to network

Cost Time Functionality Reliability

constraints constraints constraints constraints

Cost constraints 1/1 7 1/5 4

Time constraints 1/1 1/2 1
Functionality constraints 1/1 4
Reliability constraints 1/1

Table 8 KM alternative tools pair-wise comparison matrix with respect to performance\cost

Business Content Data Collaborative

intelligence applications management tools tools

Business intelligence 1/1 6 6 6

Content applications 1/1 1/4 1/3
Data management tools 1/1 2
Collaborative tools 1/1

By analysing the comparison matrix in Table 8,
the priorities of the KM alternative tools are
obtained by the AHP methodology. The local
weights are (0.649; 0.177; 0.115; 0.059) respectively
for business intelligence, data management tools,
collaborative tools, and content applications.
Synthesis of the weights to obtain the ranking
scores
The global weights of KM alternative tools are
calculated by synthesising and combining the
weights of criteria with the weights of sub-criteria
and weights of KM alternative tools. The greater the
ranking score of an alternative, the greater the
preference for that alternative. The alternative with
the highest ranking score is selected for recommen-
dation to the company management. The calculated
weights of the 4 possible typologies of KM tool are
shown in Table 9.
Discussion of the results
For this illustrative case study, business intelligence
is recommended as the best KM tool alternative, as
it dominates other alternatives both for the criteria
knowledge and performance. The company man-
agement found the results of the application of the
framework consistent with their ndings.
Table 9 Ranking scores of KM tool alternatives
Alternative KM tools Ranking scores
Business intelligence 0.559
Content applications 0.103
Data management tools 0.213
Collaborative tools 0.125
The ranking scores of other alternatives are very
low indicating their low contribution to the
innovation strategy of the company. With regard
to the criterion network, the alternative data manage-
ment tools dominate the others, thus resulting the
second best choice. Moreover, it is noted that with
regard to the sub-criteria cost and functionality with
respect to all the three criteria, business intelligence
is always preferred over others. The only situation
where another alternative, namely data manage-
ment tools, is preferred over business intelligence is
that of sub-criteria time and reliability with respect
to criterion network.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION
The adoption of a KM tool to support an innovation
process can lead to strategic advantage to the extent
that the innovation process is enhanced. A KM tool
can capture, organise, share and leverage knowl-
edge elements, along with the necessary support
and training to insure a successful launch of KM
solutions within an organisation. In our paper, a
systematic framework is proposed using AHP to
evaluate an appropriate KM tool to support an
innovation process in an organisation. The frame-
work was developed and implemented for a real
problem situation at an innovative Italian company.
The usefulness of the model was examined through
observing its effect on the decision-making process
in selecting an appropriate KM tool.
The ranking scores are the outcomes of the
framework and show the contribution of an
alternative to the innovation strategy of a rm.
The user can obtain not only a ranking of the
alternatives but also the degree of dominance
among the alternatives using the scores. As the
difference between two scores gets larger, the

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 4555 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
54 M. Grimaldi and P. Rippa
attractiveness of the higher-scored alternative, and
consequently its dominance, increases compared to
the lower-scored alternative. The application of the
model also provides the weights for the components
of the decision hierarchies. The rm can follow
through the calculations and see the contributions of
any component in the ranking scores. The com-
ponents whose weights are high (above a certain
threshold value determined by the rm) can be
considered as critical ones; and the alternatives that
score low in the critical components can be directly
eliminated from further consideration. Although
the approach can be used alone as shown in the
illustrative example, it can be easily integrated with
other approaches.
The study has several implications for managers
or entrepreneurs who intend to evaluate KM tools to
support an innovation process. The main contri-
bution of the paper is the AHP model presented in
Figure 1. This framework provides a useful
guideline as a structured and logical means of
synthesising judgements for evaluating appropriate
KM tools. It helps structure a difcult decision. The
second contribution of the paper is the identication
of functionalities of the KM tools listed in the model
to support an innovation process. This we have
identied the features of KM tools have been
examined and identied. Third, decision makers
can compare different scenarios and possibilities
with respect to appropriate multi-criteria analysis of
AHP, which provides a real time, interactive and
graphical display of the overall priorities.
Finally, with the aid of the computer tool, expert
choice, it is shown that the AHP methodology and
the proposed framework can be easily implemented
and applied to select the KM tools supporting
innovation processes.
REFERENCES
Adamides E, Karacapilidis NI. 2006. Information technol-
ogy support for the knowledge and social processes of
innovation management. Technovation 26(2): 5059.
Alavi M. 1997. KPMG Peat Marwick US: One Giant Brain,
Case 9-397-108. Harvard Business School: Boston, MA.
Alavi M, Leidner DE. 1999. Knowledge management
systems: issues, challenges, and benets. Communi-
cations of the AIS 1(2): 135.
Argote L, Ingram P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: a basis for
competitive advantage in rms. Organizational Beha-
viour and Human Decision Processes 82(1): 150169.
Bartlett C. 1996. McKinsey & Company: Managing Knowl-
edge and Learning, Case 9-396-357. Harvard Business
School: Boston, MA.
Benbya H, Passiante G, Belbaly N. 2004. Corporate Portal:
a tool for knowledge management synchronization.
International Journal of Information Management 21:
201220.
Brand A. 1998. Knowledge management and innovation
at 3M. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(1): 1722.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Burgelman RA, Sayles LR. 1986. Inside Corporate Inno-
vations: Strategy, Structure, and Managerial Skills. The
Free Press: New York.
Capece G. 2009. Technological and conceptual accessibil-
ity to measure the soundness of an e-business. Knowl-
edge and Process Management 16(2): 4964.
Carlucci D, Schiuma G. 2006. Knowledge asset value
spiral: linking knowledge assets to companys
performance. Knowledge and Process Management 13(1):
3546.
Chen SC, Yang CC, Lin WT, Yeh TM, Lin YS. 2007.
Construction of key model for knowledge management
system using AHP-QFD for semiconductor industry in
Taiwan. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Manage-
ment 18(5): 576598.
Cricelli L, Grimaldi M. 2010. Knowledge-based Inter-
Organizational Collaborations. Journal of Knowledge
Management (JKM) 14(3): 348358.
Davenport TH, Prusak L. 2000. Working Knowledge: How
Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard
Business School Press: Boston, MA.
Davis L, Williams G. 1994. Evaluating and selecting simu-
lation software using the analytic hierarchy process.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems 5(1): 2332.
DeLone WH, McLean ER. 2003. The DeLone and McLean
model of information systems success: a ten-year
update. Journal of Management Information Systems
19(4): 930.
Demerest M. 1997. Understand knowledge management.
Journal of Long Range Planning 30(3): 374384.
Despres C, Chauvel D. 1999. Knowledge management(s).
Journal of Knowledge Management 3(2): 110120.
Edwards JS, Shaw D, Collier PM. 2005. Knowledge man-
agement systems: nding a way with technology. Jour-
nal of Knowledge Management 9(1): 113125.
Grimaldi M, Rippa P, Ruffolo M. 2008. A methodology to
evaluate the organizational impact of it on knowledge
management: an Italian case study. Journal of IT Cases
Applications and Research (JITCA) 10(2): 824.
Kreng VB, Wu C-Y. 2007. Evaluation of knowledge portal
development tools to Taiwan stone Industry using a
fuzzy AHP approach. European Journal of Operational
Research 176(3): 17951810.
Leonard D, Sensiper S. 1998. The role of tacit knowledge in
group innovation. California Management Review 40(3):
112132.
McAdam R, McCreedy S. 2000. A critique of knowledge
management: using a social constructionist model. New
Technology Work and Employment 15(2): 155168.
Mertins K, Heisig P, Vorbeck J. 2003. Knowledge Manage-
ment: Concepts and Best Practices. Springer: Berlin.
Ngai Eric WT, Chan WC. 2005. Evaluation of knowledge
management tools using AHP. Expert System Application
29(4): 889899.
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Com-
pany: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of
Innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.
Peters TJ, Waterman RH. 1982. In Search of Excel-Lence.
Harper and Row: New York.
Quintas P, Lefrere P, Joues G. 1997. Knowledge manage-
ment: a strategic agenda. Long Range Planning 30(3):
385391.
Reyes P, Raisinghani MS. 2002. Integrating information
technologies and knowledge-based systems: a theoreti-
cal approach in Action for enhancements in production
and inventory control. Knowledge and Process Manage-
ment 9(4): 256263.
Ritter T, Gemunden HG. 2003. Interorganizational
relationships and networks: an overview. Journal of
Business Research 56: 691697.
Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 4555 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm

Rothwell R. 1992. Development towards the fth gener-
ation model of innovation. Technology Analysis and
Strategy Management 4(1): 7375.
Ruggles R. 1997. Knowledge Management Tools. Butter-
worth-Heinemann: Oxford.
Saaty TL. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-
Hill: NewYork.
Saaty TL. 1994. How to make a decision: the analytic
hierarchy process. Interfaces 24(6): 1943.
Sensiper S. 1997. AMS Knowledge Centers Case N9-697-068.
Harvard Business School: Boston, MA.
Teece DJ. 2001. Strategies for managing knowledge
assets: the role of rms structure and industrial
context: 125144. In Nonaka I, Teece DJ (eds).
Managing Industrial Knowledge. Sage Publications:
London.
Tidd J, Bessant J, Pavitt K. 1997. Managing Innovation:
Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational
Change. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.
Tiwana A. 2000. The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Prac-
tical Techniques for Building a Knowledge Management
System. Prentice-Hall PTR: New Jesrsey.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AHP-Based Framework 55
Tyndale P. 2002. A taxonomy of knowledge management
software tools: origins and applications. Evaluation and
program planning 25: 183190.
Wensley A. 2000. Tools for Knowledge Management, BPRC
Conference on Knowledge Management: Concepts and Con-
troversies, 1011 February. University of Warwick: Cov-
entry.
Wiig KM. 1997. Integrating intellectual capital knowledge
management. Long Range Planning 30(3): 399405.
Wilkinson I, Young L. 2002. On Cooperating Firms,
relations and networks. Journal of Business Research 55:
123132.
Wu W-W, Lee Y-T. 2007. Selecting knowledge manage-
ment strategies by using the analytic network process.
Expert Systems with Applications 32: 841847.
Yurdakul M. 2004. AHP as a strategic decision-making
tool to justify machine tool selection. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology 146(3): 365376.
Zack MH. 1999. Managing codied knowledge. Sloan
Management Review 40(4): 4558.
Zairi M. 1994. Measuring Performance for Business Results.
Kluwer Academic Publishers: London.
Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 4555 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
Copyright of Knowledge & Process Management is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.