Investigation into poor knowledge management practice in FlightCentre

This research paper investigates the causes of poor knowledge management practices within FlightCentre brand based on the quantitative analysis of the data collected from the organization employees. The paper explores the theoretical background, literature review, methodology, findings, discussion, recommendations, limitations, and conclusion. The research aims to identify the causes of poor knowledge management practices within FlightCentre band based on the quantitative analysis of the data collected from the organization employees.

SOUTHERN CROSS UNIVERSITY
ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
For use with online submission of assignments
Please complete all of the following details and then make this sheet the first page of each file of your
assignment – do not send it as a separate document.
Your assignments must be submitted as a Word document. If you wish to submit in any other file
format please discuss this with your lecturer well before the assignment submission date.
Student Name: Ritesh Kumar Asre
Student ID No.: 22883623
Unit Name: Industry Research Project: Part B
Unit Code: MNG93218
Tutor’s name: Suman Sen
Assignment No.: 3
Assignment Title: Research Report
Due date: 14 October 2019
Date submitted: 13 October 2019
Declaration:
I have read and understand the Rules Relating to Awards (Rule 3 Section 18 – Academic
Misconduct Including Plagiarism) as contained in the SCU Policy Library. I understand
the penalties that apply for plagiarism and agree to be bound by these rules. The work I
am submitting electronically is entirely my own work.
Signed:
(please type your name)
Ritesh Kumar Asre
Date: 13 October 2019

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND TOURISM
RESEARCH REPORT
INVESTIGATION INTO POOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE IN FLIGHTCENTRE
BY
RITESH KUMAR ASRE
Program: Masters of Information Technology Management
September 2019
The author, Ritesh Kumar Asre, owns copyright and the confidential information contained in this
document. No part of this document may be reproduced or disclosed to any person or organization
without author’s prior written consent

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Knowledge management has proven to be of great significance in the current business environment
where most businesses are becoming multinational. This critical aspect is building a theoretical
foundation from people and processes within organizations, organizational structure, organizational
culture, and organizational performance among others besides the significance of the knowledge
management. Poor knowledge management may lead to a significant corporate risk. This paper has
examined the causes of poor knowledge management at Flight center organization.
The Flight Center Company has been facing various challenges resulting from poor knowledge
management within the organization. The organization clients have been raising complains about
incorrect provision of information, failure of providing timely and accurate follow up information
about travel destination among others. This is a burning issue within the organization; an organization
like Flight center should take much more proactive role in its operations and this cannot be achieved
without an effective knowledge management strategy in place. Following this problem, the main aim of
the research is to identify the causes of the knowledge management practices within the Flight Center
organization.
Various theoretical frameworks and literature related to the subject of the study were also examined for
this study. The study will be majorly based on quantitative analysis as it also employs some qualitative
study to further support the findings. The mixed method enables generalization as well as usefulness of
the results collected from the study. The sample used for this research is Flight Center Travel Group
organization. The survey was conducted with the aid of questionnaires which were distributed to the
organization personnel through Google forms. The questions used in the survey were based on 5-point
scale, a psychometric scale that is common with many researches. On the other hand, the qualitative
data were retrieved from online libraries using various keywords. The research was conducted taking
ethical concerns into account.
The results of the study found various causes of poor knowledge management. It has been found that
ineffective knowledge sharing is one of the major causes of poor knowledge management.
Additionally, lack of rewards for knowledge sharing is also another factor that leads to poor knowledge
management within the organization. Moreover, proper technologies for knowledge management have
been found to cause poor knowledge management. Organization structure and culture have also been
found to be other causes of knowledge management.
KEYWORDS: knowledge management, poor knowledge management, causes of poor knowledge
management, impacts of poor knowledge management

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PROBLEM......................................................................................5
Introduction..................................................................................................................................5
Industry Partner............................................................................................................................5
Research Problem........................................................................................................................5
Significance of the Problem.........................................................................................................6
Research Aim...............................................................................................................................6
Research Questions......................................................................................................................6
Structure of the Report.................................................................................................................7
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................8
Theoretical Background...............................................................................................................8
Literature Review.........................................................................................................................8
Factors Investigated...................................................................................................................11
METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................12
Research Design.........................................................................................................................12
Research Tool............................................................................................................................12
Ethical Concerns........................................................................................................................13
FINDINGS........................................................................................................................................14
Demographic frequency of participants.....................................................................................14
People and Process.....................................................................................................................14
Organizational Structure............................................................................................................15
Technology.................................................................................................................................16
Organizational Culture...............................................................................................................17
Poor Knowledge Management Practices...................................................................................19
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................20
RECOMMENDATION.................................................................................................................21
LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION.........................................................................................23
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................24

INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PROBLEM
Introduction
It is undeniable that we live in a globalized world that is associated with the fast transfer of information
across a wide geographical area with the aid of the internet technology. The knowledge based economy
where significance is placed on effective management of the human capital for organizations to ensure
that they provide their customers with the best services possible has emerged as the consequence of the
globalization. Businesses does not solely compete based on strength and financial capital but they also
compete in knowledge management. Nowadays, knowledge management has become the new
competitive advantage in the business industry (Groff and Jones, 2012, pp.32-49).Moreover, the
current knowledge economy demands that good practices of the knowledge management be put in
place so as to enhance the performance of the organization. One popular saying goes that knowledge is
power. According to this statement, it can be noted that knowledge management is a factor of
fundamental relevance in the current business environment. Besides the significance of the knowledge
management, organizations are confronted with problems concerning the knowledge management
(Maier and Hadrich, 2011, pp. 779-790; (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2014, pp.74). Issues in
knowledge management have shown to be the most corporate risks nowadays.
Industry Partner
The industry partner chosen for this research was FlightCentre Travel Group (FCTG). FCTG is one of
the largest travel agencies in the world and its headquarters is based in Southbank, Brisbane, Australia.
It has operations in 23 countries and has corporate travel management network in more than 90
countries.
FlightCentre has about 2800 shops under various retail and corporate brands (FCTG 2018) and it
employs approximately 19,000 employees globally, 3000 of which are based within Brisbane, Australia
area. Most of the operations are decentralized due to the geographical barriers and time-zones, thus
every market region such as New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom, United States, Singapore, South
Africa etc manage their own marketing, financial, sales, Information technology functionalities which
may or may not be similar in nature.
FlightCentre or FC brand is the largest of the Leisure brand under FCTG. This research paper focused
on the knowledge management problems that are associated with the FlightCentre brand within the
Brisbane and Greater Brisbane areas.
Research Problem
FCTG has been facing challenges concerning knowledge management which is the real problem that
this research seeks to identify.
The problem to be investigated by this research is about poor knowledge of travel destinations by
consultants within FlightCentre brand. This problem has been realized with increase in number of
customer complaints and decrease in customer retention numbers within Flight Centre brand.
The nature of the complaints occurs during pre-travel, in-travel and post-travel. These complaints are
result of incorrect information provided in quotes, failure to provide timely and accurate follow-up
information after quotes are generated, incorrect destination information, lack of understanding of the
products and packages, lack of understanding of customer needs, varying outcome of similar products
and service across different shops and dissatisfied customers with the overall service provided by the
FlightCentre staff.

Based on this problem, it was highlighted that FlightCentre needs to have efficient Knowledge
Management systems or discipline in place to address the issue of customer complaints regarding travel
destination knowledge by reducing the number of complaints and improving overall customer service
Significance of the Problem
Knowledge Management problem is a big issue within the Flight Center organization. This is in the
sense that a business oriented approach to the organization management together with a more
commercial driven organization encourages the airline corporate to take much more proactive role in its
operation. The organization, being an international corporate, collects a huge amount of information
from its customers. This information and the actual data are essential for the corporate to develop new
strategies and come up with a new marketing plan that is essential for the business to prosper. For the
organization to achieve this, an explicit and tacit available knowledge needs to be provided and
analyzed for the organization to have a clear understanding of what they have as well as what they
need, which would not be attained if the organization have inefficient knowledge management (López-
Nicolás and Meroño-Cerdán, 2011, pp.502-509; Koenig, 2012, pp.64).
Additionally, the poor knowledge management may undermine the Flight Center strategies which
would increase the risks including threatening the ability of the organization to achieve growth,
providing an advantage to the competitors of the organization, decreasing the innovation capacity of
the organization as well as increasing vulnerabilities within the corporate among others (Wang and
Wang, 2012, pp.8899-8908).
The impacts can be summarized as the reduction of the specialized knowledge, competitive position
and the unique experience as well as the increase in the risks concerning the loss of the organization
customers, thus making this a problem worth investigating.
This research is important and will not only help Flight Center corporate but will also be essential in
the industry at large. The research seek to explore various factors affecting knowledge management in
the flight center organization and provide recommendation thus enhancing profitability of a business
(Anand and Singh, 2011, pp.926-939). This research will help to:
 Identify causes or poor knowledge management (Pre-Travel, During Travel, Post Travel)
 Reduce the number of customer complaints
 Improve customer retention through better knowledge management practices
Airline agencies should be taken as real enterprises with the goal of being long term profit generators
that can both reward its personnel as it sustain independent development of the organization.
Research Aim
This research aimed to identify the causes of poor knowledge management practices within
FlightCentre band based on the quantitative analysis of the data collected from the organization
employees.
Research Questions
This research seeks to provide solutions to the following questions.
a) What are the factors causing poor knowledge management in Flight Centre brand?
This question is of fundamental relevance in solving the knowledge management featuring in the
organization. It is so because in order to find the relevant solution to the problem at hand, we have
to identify the problem as well as its cause.

b) What needs to be done to improve poor knowledge management practices in Flight Centre
brand?
After identifying the problems, it is important that relevant solutions are also determined in order to
help the organization offer satisfactory services and restore its usual customer retention rate.
Structure of the Report
This paper is structured in the following manner. From this section, we have literature review involving
theoretical framework, after the literature, the paper explore methodologies used during the study
followed by findings then discussion. After then, the paper presents recommendations and then finalize
with the limitations and conclusion.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Background
There was an opportunity to study this critical subject in in-depth and come up with a method that
operationalizes the knowledge management. The researchers considered some initiative concerning this
fundamental area. This section provides some theoretical framework which can be applied in
understanding the knowledge management in the Flight Center Corporate.
KM expansion in business the sector has left several authors trying to make sense of the huge current
body of exceedingly various works. Researchers have scrutinized and written about the kind of jobs
/work assigned to information technology for knowledge creation and KM (Alegre, Sengupta and
Lapiedra, 2013, pp.454-470; Dalkir, 2013). However other work has analyzed variously proposed and
described management techniques that can be applied in KM (Liaw, Hatala and Huang, 2010, pp.446-
454). Most of this reasoning needs to frame research on KM.
KM disclosures the fashionable forecast of such speculative forerunners as business and education
organizations as well as how knowledge management is developed in these fields. Not also forgetting
to examine the unrecognized knowledge management consequences and exposes the essential for
broader knowledgeable foundation such as culture and entrepreneurship (Chiaroni, Chiesa and
Frattini, 2011, pp.34-43). This framework also views the fundamental arrangement of this research
such as knowledge sharing as a transition, knowledge as a process as well as the knowledge
management school that are a concern with the research.
The knowledge-based theory of strategy came as a result of strategy research on knowledge
management. This cork reveals some KM ideas roots that include tacit knowledge, creativity, core
competencies, as well as organizational learning. The constraint of the study sticks in the field of
strategy (López-Nicolás and Meroño-Cerdán, 2011, pp.502-509).
KMRP's recent editorial journal presented the foundation and the direction on the field of knowledge
management, concerning the ideas of the minority sampling of knowledge management experts. On
elaboration of the major ideas, the major input of this item is to advance a taxonomy that elaborates the
way KM has originated its concepts from other intellectual fields. With this, we can learn substantial
intellectual values that forebears gain from knowledge management (Liao and Wu, 2010, pp.1096-
1103).
Literature Review
The following literatures were studied and summarized below as part of this study:
 (Arafa, E., 2015): This study identified issues related to knowledge management in oil and gas
companies and identified practices and activities for managing knowledge. The key KM factors
identified in this literature were People, Process, Organization Culture, Organization Structure
and Technology
 (Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar 2016): This study highlighted the factors that facilitate or obstruct
knowledge management and knowledge sharing in organizations. The key KM factors identified
in this literature were People, Process, Organization Culture, Organization Structure and
Technology
 (Herrmann, N., 2011): This study identified barriers to implementing the ‘prospected’ Knowledge
management process and ways to deal with selected barriers. The key KM factors identified in
this literature were people, process, technology and content

 (Ibidunni et al., 2018): This study identified that tacit Knowledge from customer, staff and
business partners which isn’t stored, transferred or codified is due to organizational culture, lack
of training and mentoring. The key KM factors identified in this literature were Organization
Culture, Technology, People and Processes
 (Nadason et al., 2017): This study identified the barriers that give impact towards the knowledge
sharing between individuals in organizations. The key KM factors identified in this literature were
People, Process and Technology
 (Razmerita et al., 2016): This study identified the Knowledge management factors that drive
employee’s participation and factors that hamper their participation in enterprise social media
platform. The key KM factors identified in this literature were People, Organization and
Technology
 (Khalifa, ZA & Jamaluddin, MY 2012): This study identified the key success factors affecting
knowledge management implementation in a construction industry in Libya. The key KM factors
identified in this literature were Organization Culture, Technology, People and Processes
 (Yip et al., 2012): This study investigated impediments to knowledge sharing in a virtual
community within an organization. The key KM factors identified in this literature were People,
Process and Technology
The findings are summarized in the Table A below
Literature People Proces
s
Culture Structure Technolog
y
Arafa, E., 2015 x x x x x
Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar 2016 x x x x x
Herrmann, N., 2011 x x x
Ibidunni et al., 2018 x x x x
Khalifa, ZA and Jamaluddin, MY
2012 x x x x x
Nadason et al., 2017 x x x
Razmerita et al., 2016 x x x x x
Yip, K., 2011 x x x
Table A: Factors of studied literatures
According to Arafa (2015, pp. 48), experience and knowledge that has been gained for many years can
easily be lost in a project organization when experienced employees are lost, a situation that can easily
be challenged by Knowledge Management. Based on this article, the main aim of research is to give
guidance on implementation procedure of Knowledge Management in industries of gas construction
and oil industries. He identified low KM practice in project management of oil and gas industries of
Libya. Arafa’s research was in three phases: initial interviews, first case study and second case study.
He combined each phase with a relevant literature review and theories.
In the first phase, project and seniors conducted interviews and found out that individuals kept KM in
implicit plan. In the second phase, project manager made a review and analysis but was not successful
but gave an opportunity to identify challenges when adopting KM in organizations. In the last phase of
the research, EPC was used to involve researcher in analysis and interviews hence a lot of value was
added. Practices and activities necessary for managing knowledge were therefore identified. Culture of
organization, culture, technology, process and people were thereafter identified by Arafa as the key
KM factors.

Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar (2016, pp.112.), in their research on Knowledge Management strategies,
aimed at summarizing factors facilitating management and sharing of knowledge in various
organizations. Their research involved both qualitative and quantitative studies in relation to blockages
and antecedents to the processes of sharing and managing knowledge. The two researchers identified
biasness in cooperation as the limitation that frequently prohibited knowledge sharing and
management.
For the purpose of focusing and exploring the same issues in different sectors of developing countries,
future studies on knowledge sharing and management is necessary as per Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar’s
opinions. Politics within organizations, social media and organizational communications can be used as
basis for exploring the relationship of knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer. The aims of Asrar-
ul-Haq and Anwar were met when they finally identified organizational culture, structure, technology,
people and process as the factors facilitating or obstructing management and sharing of knowledge in
various organizations.
The outline provided by Herrmann (2011, pp. 32) on his prospected method of processing Knowledge
Management was based on definition of his organization’s perception of the process of Knowledge
Management. Herrmann aimed at delivering an overview of barriers and highlighted attempts to
lessening them to ensure maintenance and establishment of knowledge management. He outlined and
gave a presentation of blockages to implementation of his prospected Knowledge Management process
sidelining some ideas and methods of dealing with the identified barriers. In his findings, individual
differences in skills, different usage and accessibility of technology and language barriers are the main
cultural challenges that were identified. Being that the author was a German in southern Africa, he
implicitly uncovered the cultural differences and barriers such as routines, technology, content and
other interweaved cultural variances.
According to the research conducted by Ibidunni et al (2018, pp. 66), implicit non-codified knowledge
gotten from staff, customers and partners in a business is as a result of inadequate mentoring and
training as well as poor organizational culture. Their research was focused on empirical relationship
testing between individual implicit knowledge and satisfaction of customers in the industry of
telecommunication. They used structured and semi structured questionnaires from various managers,
customers and administrative personnel in GSM to obtain the factors stated in prior. Their findings
proved an existence of interrelationship between customer satisfaction and individual implicit
knowledge.
Research done by Nadason, Saad and Ahmi, (2017, pp.32-41) on barriers to knowledge sharing within
an organization was very significant especially in strategies of knowledge management in a number of
organizations. Many barriers are impediments to achievement of knowledge management goals and
delivery of positive return on investment. Their research provided a review of main factors affecting
knowledge sharing in organizations to be people, technology, process, organizational barriers as well as
cultural practices.
A documented research by Razmerita, Kirchner and Nielsen (2016, pp.1225-1246), on platforms in
social media enterprise avails new methods of knowledge sharing and communication in the locality of
organization in order to achieve employee’s valuable knowledge and social capital. They aimed at
understanding the factors that hamper or drive their participation in enterprise social media. Their
research in Denmark helped them to identify monetary rewards, management support and enjoyment of
helping others as the main factors that motivate a number of individuals to share knowledge at different
levels in an organization. They also identified technology, people and organization to be the key factors
that hamper the employee’s participation in the platform of enterprise social media.
Knowledge management is a key factor in many organizations. According to Khalifa and Jamaluddin
(2012, pp.161-164), a number of challenges affect knowledge sharing as well as implementation

because of the noticed steady increase in speed of evolving new technologies which calls for new
knowledge and working practices. The authors aimed at identifying key factors affecting
implementation of knowledge management that lead to success in Libya’s construction industry. They
found out that high management support is very vital in prediction of implementation of knowledge
management in addition to factors such as: technology, processes, people and organization culture.
Research made during investigation of under-utilization of crucial “teamroom” in organization by Yip
(2011, pp. 36) yielded quantitative results to be used in identification of barriers to knowledge sharing.
According to the members’ views, the largest barrier involved the methods chosen for knowledge
sharing where face to face was noticed in individuals of same culture and experience. Other prominent
barriers were related to uncertainty and unfamiliarity among members and therefore a better
understanding of face to face communication in form of implicit and tacit knowledge was therefore
necessary. In general, technology, people and process were found to be the key factors affecting
knowledge in an organization’s virtual community.
Factors Investigated
Based on the literature reviews and findings, the following factors were chosen and tested in this
research as shown in the Figure 1 below
Figure 1 Concept Map
This research investigated the 4 independent variables of Organizational Culture, Organizational
Structure, People and Process, and Technology which can cause either positive or negative effects on
knowledge management practices within FlightCentre brand. These 4 independent variables were
tested against the dependent variable to understand correlation between them Relationship between organizational culture and poor knowledge management practices Relationship between knowledge organizational structure and poor knowledge management
practices Relationship between people and processes and poor knowledge management practices Relationship between quality bad technology and poor knowledge management practices

METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This research study was majorly based on quantitative analysis, a technique that is based on structured
data collection as well as some qualitative analysis to increase the usefulness of the study. Since the
aim of the study was to find causes of poor knowledge management practices, in order to establish this
relationship between independent variables and dependent variable, quantitative design was the
recommended approach.
The research questions were tested through this approach. Its main aim was to investigate poor
knowledge management as well as enhancing knowledge management in Flight Canter organization.
Therefore, the data presented in this article covers the possible causes of poor knowledge management
in the organization as depicted in the aim of the research.
Furthermore, the literature reviews studied earlier have already identified key factors and dimensions
related to the research problem therefore this research already knows what data to collect. As a result
this research will be more structured in nature which is another reason Quantitative method was
chosen.
Research Tool
Flight Center is the organization that participated in this study. This sample was selected because the
organization is a knowledge incentive company and it is losing its value due to inefficiency in
knowledge management. Additionally, an international organization of this size have the greatest need
to adopt knowledge management initiatives as they have all the possibilities and resources and can
potentially save the organization from the crisis it is currently undergoing. A request was made to do
research in the organization through a cover letter assuring confidentiality and explaining the research
to be conducted. A number of the organization employees were therefore included in the study. The
scope of the study was on Brisbane headquarters. There are approximately 3000 Flight Center
employees within Brisbane and greater market. Out of the population, there are approximately 400
employees within the travel sector (Source: Core Database, FCTG).
The contribution by the employees was voluntary and was made confidential. As a result, the non-
participants were not subjected to any positive or negative consequences. Since the population size was
only 400, questionnaires were sent to the entire population of 400 Flight Centre brand employees
within Brisbane and Greater Brisbane Market to achieve the minimum of the 100 respondent for
quantitative analysis. The main participants of the study involved the operational staff including
consultants and team leaders. Survey forms were distributed to the participants by means of Google
survey forms. The forms were emailed to the participants of the study after getting approved by the
department. The participants email address was obtained from the organization’s employee
management system. The response from the participants were captured and exported from the Google
forms to SQL database with the aid of SQL queries. Statistical analysis was then done on the database
using the python, excel, Talend Data Profiler and T-SQL tools. The statistical analysis was done on the
database based on counts, minimum, maximum, mean, mode as well as the median to the test central
tendency.
The survey used the questionnaire based on the Likert 5-point scale which is a psychometric scale
which employs questionnaire that is commonly used in research (Chyung et al., 2018). The Likert 5-
point scale assesses the questionnaire items by using scoring such as (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 =
neutral, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree). It is among the most popular question type survey used to
collect feedback from participants. It is basically a series of questions directed towards the employees

where they are expected to select a rating from one extreme to the other which gives a deeper insight
into the employees’ thoughts and feelings.
To ensure that the data used in the survey are valid, the researchers employed pre-validating surveys
which were conducted using quantitative method. Questionnaires were retrieved from various studies
with balance of both negative and positive questions to ensure that the data used were valid.
Qualitative data, on the other hand were accessed with the aid of various reference management
applications and libraries including Google scholar, ACM library, and Endnote. To access the
literature, various keywords were inserted into the library database. Relevant literature was collected
but only a few peer reviewed articles that were coherent with the subject of study were collected and
analyzed (Creswell J.W. and Creswell J.D., 2017, pp.71).
Ethical Concerns
Various ethical issues were considered during the research. The following show the ethical concerns
while doing the research.
The researchers ensure that all data collected remained confidential. This means that any information is
not made accessible to anybody else apart from the researchers (Houghton, Casey, Shaw and Murphy,
2010, pp.534). Confidentiality also ensures that such identification data are excluded from published
reports. This will not put any participant under any kind of risk concerning information breach.
Additionally, the researchers only assessed the research components that were relevant to the initiative
taken. By this, the responsibility of the researchers during the study was to ensure that all tools
including questionnaires are professional in nature (Hermerén, 2015, pp.3-5). Additionally, clear and
concise language was used and wordings did not prejudice anyone.
All information about users was kept anonymous. Anonymity is a sterner method of ensuring privacy
than confidentiality (Tripathy, 2013, pp.1478). The identity of participants was kept unknown to
everyone including the researchers.
All participants were not put in any situation that could lead to any harm, both physical and
psychological harm. To ensure this, all participants’ responses were kept confidential.
The participants’ data were not used without informed consent from the researchers as recommended
by Miller, 2012, pp.29-43). Every participant was informed about what their information will be used
for. Additionally, the information was not disclosed to any third party and the findings of the research
were not disclosed to any form of public forum.
In summary, to meet the ethical concerns, this research
 Collected data that did not put anyone under any kind of risk.
 Collected data that was not sensitive or confidential nature
 Ensured that all the questionnaires were professional in nature
 Used clear, concise language in their wording and not prejudicing anyone.
 Kept the participants anonymous by not capturing their identity information
 Ensured that no participant was placed in any situation where it caused them harm or stress
 Did not sell or distribute the survey data
 Ensured that findings of this study were not released to any form of public forum.

FINDINGS
Demographic frequency of participants
Questionnaires were distributed to employees in order to measure the level of knowledge management
in the Flight Centre brand. Selected employees provided their views with the help of Google docs. Data
was collected and analyzed through excel spreadsheet data analysis tool. A total of 103 employees
responded to the distributed questionnaires which lead to 103 responses used in data analysis. The
participants’ demographic frequency is as shown in the below table 1.
Demograp Gend
er
Employme
nt type Store location Age group Years in the role
Male
Female
Full
Part
Casual
Other
Brisba
Brisba
Brisba
Inner
Brisba
18-25
26-33
34-41
42-49
>=50
0-5 yrs
6-10
11-15
16-20
>20
N
o. 53 50 3
9
1
8
1
8
2
9 22 1
1
2
1
2
6
2
3 13 2
7 26 2
1
1
6 28 27 19 1
6 13
% 51
.5
48
.5
3
8
1
7
1
7
2
8
21
.4
1
1
2
0
2
5
2
2
12
.6
2
6
25
.2
2
0
1
6
27
.2
26
.2
18
.4
1
6
12
.6
Table 1: Demographic frequency of participants
People and Process
The excel data analysis tool was used to analyze data and various findings were identified. A summary
of the findings of the study was as shown in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 below. As clarified by the table,
35 participants strongly disagreed that they feel less important when sharing important knowledge with
others. 30 participants also agreed that they may be too busy to share knowledge with others. However,
48 participants agreed that they should be acknowledged for sharing information.
F1: Independent Variable - People and
Process
Strongly
Disagre
e (1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutra
l (3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
F1.1 Get mentored by experienced
staff on an ongoing basis
Count 1 39 17 35 11
Percent 1.0% 37.9% 16.5% 34.0% 10.7%
F1.2
Provided with adequate
knowledge from peers and
managers to perform my job
Count 0 17 33 47 6
Percent 0.0% 16.5% 32.0% 45.6% 5.8%
F1.3
Feel less important when I
share valuable knowledge to
others
Count 35 22 9 31 6
Percent 34.0% 21.4% 8.7% 30.1% 5.8%
F1.4
Have the fear of being
disciplined if the knowledge I
shared was incorrect
Count 18 50 8 27 0
Percent 17.5% 48.5% 7.8% 26.2% 0.0%
F1.5 Too busy to share knowledge Count 12 47 14 30 0
Percent 11.7% 45.6% 13.6% 29.1% 0.0%
F1.6 There are other important
things that requires my
attention than knowledge
Count 12 35 17 39 0
Percent 11.7% 34.0% 16.5% 37.9% 0.0%

sharing
F1.7 Get sufficient on-job training
to do my job
Count 8 35 23 37 0
Percent 7.8% 34.0% 22.3% 35.9% 0.0%
F1.8 Get acknowledged for sharing
knowledge
Count 16 13 18 48 8
Percent 15.5% 12.6% 17.5% 46.6% 7.8%
F1.9 Get rewarded for sharing
knowledge
Count 13 41 36 11 2
Percent 12.6% 39.8% 35.0% 10.7% 1.9%
Table 2.1: Knowledge management and People and Process (Grouped Data)
F1: Independent Variable - People and Process Mean Median Mode
F1.1 Get mentored by experienced staff on an ongoing basis 3.1553 3 2
F1.2 Provided with adequate knowledge from peers and managers to
perform my job 3.4078 4 4
F1.3 Feel less important when I share valuable knowledge to others 2.5243 2 1
F1.4 Have the fear of being disciplined if the knowledge I shared was
incorrect 2.4272 2 2
F1.5 Too busy to share knowledge 2.6019 2 2
F1.6 There are other important things that requires my attention than
knowledge sharing 2.8058 3 4
F1.7 Get sufficient on-job training to do my job 2.8641 3 4
F1.8 Get acknowledged for sharing knowledge 3.1845 4 4
F1.9 Get rewarded for sharing knowledge 2.4951 2 2
Table 2.2: People and Process Distribution
41 respondents disagreed that with getting rewarded for sharing information, 13 participants strongly
disagreed while 36 participants were neutral. In general the mode of 34 suggests that people and
process has contributed to poor knowledge management in relation in the organization.
Distribution of knowledge management in relation to people and process as per findings from Table 2.2
is shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: People and Process Distribution

Organizational Structure
Results regarding organizational structure suggest that majority of the respondents represented by 49
agreed that everyone participated in decision making as shown in table 3.1.
F2: Independent Variable – Organizational
Structure
Strongly
Disagre
e (1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
F2.1 Everyone participates in the
decision making process
Count 7 30 17 49 0
Percent 6.8% 29.1% 16.5% 47.6% 0.0%
F2.2
Leaders always encourage me
to share new or improved
knowledge within team and
across teams
Count 0 21 13 64 5
Percent 0.0% 20.4% 12.6% 62.1% 4.9%
F2.3
There is a community of
practice in place for sharing
common knowledge among
peers and teams
Count 3 44 19 36 1
Percent 2.9% 42.7% 18.4% 35.0% 1.0%
F2.4
There is a very well defined
knowledge sharing process in
place
Count 22 42 13 24 2
Percent 21.4% 40.8% 12.6% 23.3% 1.9%
F2.5
The organizational knowledge
sharing is horizontally
implemented (integrated)
across the organization
Count 28 30 33 12 0
Percent 27.2% 29.1% 32.0% 11.7% 0.0%
F2.6
All the knowledge I need is
created and stored in a central
place with no departmental
silos
Count 36 35 18 14 0
Percent 35.0% 34.0% 17.5% 13.6% 0.0%
F2.7 Everyone is responsible for
knowledge sharing
Count 0 11 0 32 60
Percent 0.0% 10.7% 0.0% 31.1% 58.3%
Table 3.1: Knowledge management and organizational structure (Grouped Data)
F2: Independent Variable – Organizational Structure Mean Media
n Mode
F2.1 Everyone participates in the decision making process 3.0485 3 4
F2.2 Leaders always encourage me to share new or improved
knowledge within team and across teams 3.5146 4 4
F2.3 There is a community of practice in place for sharing common
knowledge among peers and teams 2.8835 3 2
F2.4 There is a very well defined knowledge sharing process in place 2.4369 2 2
F2.5 The organizational knowledge sharing is horizontally
implemented (integrated) across the organization 2.2816 2 3
F2.6 All the knowledge I need is created and stored in a central place
with no departmental silos 2.0971 2 1
F2.7 Everyone is responsible for knowledge sharing 4.3689 5 5
Table 3.2: Knowledge management and organizational structure Distribution

Based on the results in Table 3.1, 64 respondents agreed that leaders should always encourage them to
share their knowledge with the team. The average and mode show that 33 respondents agreed that
knowledge management within the organization is relatively good. However, 42 participants disagreed
that there is no well-defined knowledge sharing approaches in place. Moreover, 36 respondents
strongly disagreed by supporting that the knowledge they need should be created and kept within the
departmental silos. It is additionally shown that nobody agreed with the idea of being encouraged by
the organization leaders to share new information within the organization team.
Distribution of knowledge management in relation to organizational structure as per findings from
Table 3.2 is shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Organizational Structure distribution
Technology
The study findings in technology showed that majority (34) were happy with the knowledge tools
available in the organization and allowed them to conduct their duties. It is also shown that 44
participants however disagreed with the statement that knowledge systems available in the organization
would provide them with correct information regarding knowledge management as 30 participants
were neutral as depicted from table 4.1 below.
F3: Independent Variable – Technology
Strongly
Disagre
e (1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
F3.1 Happy with the knowledge
tools available to me
Count 12 29 28 34 0
Percent 11.7% 28.2% 27.2% 33.0% 0.0%
F3.2
Knowledge Management tools
that are available to me allows
me to do my job
Count 6 25 35 29 8
Percent 5.8% 24.3% 34.0% 28.2% 7.8%
F3.3 All the knowledge systems
performance is of good quality
Count 10 40 25 27 1
Percent 9.7% 38.8% 24.3% 26.2% 1.0%
F3.4
All the knowledge system in
place provide me with correct
information
Count 6 44 30 23 0
Percent 5.8% 42.7% 29.1% 22.3% 0.0%

F3.5
Knowledge Management
systems are always updated to
reflect changing business
processes and customer needs
Count 9 51 22 21 0
Percent
8.7% 49.5% 21.4% 20.4% 0.0%
F3.6 The knowledge systems
available to me are easy to use.
Count 6 18 35 37 7
Percent 5.8% 17.5% 34.0% 35.9% 6.8%
F3.7 I am provided training how to
use the knowledge tools.
Count 6 43 30 22 2
Percent 5.8% 41.7% 29.1% 21.4% 1.9%
Table 4.1: Knowledge management and Technology (Grouped Data)
F3: Independent Variable – Technology Mean Media
n Mode
F3.1 Happy with the knowledge tools available to me 2.8155 3 4
F3.2 Knowledge Management tools that are available to me allows me
to do my job 3.0777 3 3
F3.3 All the knowledge systems performance is of good quality 2.699 3 2
F3.4 All the knowledge system in place provide me with correct
information 2.6796 3 2
F3.5 Knowledge Management systems are always updated to reflect
changing business processes and customer needs 2.534 2 2
F3.6 The knowledge systems available to me are easy to use. 3.2039 3 4
F3.7 I am provided training how to use the knowledge tools. 2.7184 3 2
Table 4.2: Knowledge management and Technology Distribution
Moreover, 51 participants disagreed with the statement that knowledge management systems were
always updated to reflect the alternating business process. The average and mode showed that 36
participants agreed that the organization’s technology did not support management.
Distribution of knowledge management in relation to technology as per findings from Table 4.2 is
shown in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Technology Distribution

Organizational Culture
From the findings in table 5.1, it is evidence that the majority including 66 of 103 participants did not
hesitate to take advantage of others’ personal knowledge and experience for personal gain. However,
22 participants were not having any stand. 44 respondents disagreed with the statement that there was
flow of knowledge across functional teams. The participants also insisted that some people keep
knowledge to themselves within the organization for various reasons.
F4: Independent Variable – Organizational
Culture
Strongly
Disagre
e (1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
F4.1
Do not hesitate to take
advantage of others’
knowledge and experience for
personal gains
Count 2 7 22 66 6
Percent 1.9% 6.8% 21.4% 64.1% 5.8%
F4.2
A considerable level of trust
exists between co-workers in
this organization
Count 0 19 35 43 6
Percent 0.0% 18.4% 34.0% 41.7% 5.8%
F4.3 Knowledge flows seamlessly
across cross functional teams
Count 21 44 18 18 2
Percent 20.4% 42.7% 17.5% 17.5% 1.9%
F4.4
Everyone regularly participates
in team discussion and
collaboration
Count 1 43 18 41 0
Percent 1.0% 41.7% 17.5% 39.8% 0.0%
F4.5
There is an open
communication culture of
knowledge sharing within this
organization
Count 8 35 28 32 0
Percent 7.8% 34.0% 27.2% 31.1% 0.0%
F4.6
I can compete and perform
better if I knew more than
others
Count 7 26 17 45 8
Percent 6.8% 25.2% 16.5% 43.7% 7.8%
F4.7
The problem of people keeping
knowledge to themselves does
not exist in this organization
Count 24 55 8 16 0
Percent 23.3% 53.4% 7.8% 15.5% 0.0%
F4.8 Teams always compete against
each other
Count 0 40 17 29 17
Percent 0.0% 38.8% 16.5% 28.2% 16.5%
Table 5.1: Knowledge management and organizational culture (Grouped Data)
F4: Independent Variable – Organizational Culture Mean Media
n Mode
F4.1 Do not hesitate to take advantage of others’ knowledge and
experience for personal gains 3.6505 4 4
F4.2 A considerable level of trust exists between co-workers in this
organization 3.3495 3 4
F4.3 Knowledge flows seamlessly across cross functional teams 2.3786 2 2
F4.4 Everyone regularly participates in team discussion and
collaboration 2.9612 3 2
F4.5 There is an open communication culture of knowledge sharing
within this organization 2.8155 3 2
F4.6 I can compete and perform better if I knew more than others 3.2039 4 4

F4.7 The problem of people keeping knowledge to themselves does not
exist in this organization 2.1553 2 2
F4.8 Teams always compete against each other 3.2233 3 2
Table 5.2: Knowledge management and Culture Distribution
Moreover, 40 participants acknowledge that the team always competes against one another. Overall, it
is shown by mean and mode that the organization culture generally contributes to poor knowledge
management.
Distribution of knowledge management in relation to culture as per findings from Table 5.2 is shown in
Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Organizational Culture Distribution
Poor Knowledge Management Practices
Tables 6.1 below provide a general insight concerning the level of knowledge management in FCTG. It
is clear from the findings that the organization surfer from poor knowledge management. This is
supported by 56 participants who agree that there are poor knowledge management practices within
FCTG.
F5: Dependent Variable – Poor Knowledge
Strongly
Disagre
e (1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
F5.1 There are poor knowledge
management practices in FC
Count 3 12 19 56 13
Percent 2.9% 11.7% 18.4% 54.4% 12.6%
Table 6.1: Knowledge management at FC (Grouped Data)
F5: Dependent Variable – Poor Knowledge Mean Media
n Mode
F5.1 Do not hesitate to take advantage of others’ knowledge and
experience for personal gains 3.6214 4 4
Table 6.1: Knowledge management at FC Distribution

19 participants which makes 18.4% of the responses are neutral while 69 participants which equates to
67% of responses agree or strongly agree that the organization system surfers from poor knowledge
management. The remaining participants, however, disagree that the organization experience poor
knowledge management issues.
Figure 5 below summarizes the findings from table 6.1 and 6.2
Figure 5: Poor Knowledge Management Distribution
Figure 5: Poor Knowledge Management Percentages
DISCUSSION
This study was set out to investigate the causes of poor knowledge management within Flight Center
organization. The research questions and the questions provided in the questionnaires proved useful
during the research process. The main results found during the study are discussed below.
People and process
In the test including the relationship between people and process and poor knowledge performance,
many participants disagree that they get rewarded for sharing information. Knowledge sharing is a
fundamental aspect in knowledge management. Knowledge sharing is the only way through which the
organization can create and monetize member engagement among the organization members which
intern enhances customer satisfaction (Wang and Noe, 2010, pp.115-131). Moreover, collaboration and
knowledge sharing is the key to recovering from the issues faced by the organization.
Organizational structure

There is interaction and positive relationship between organizational structure and knowledge
management. The organizational structures meant here include: formalization, complexity,
centralization and integration while items of KM include: sharing, creating and utility. As illustrated by
the findings, there is a positive coefficient between complexity and integration with KM items. There
exist a negative coefficient between formalization and centralization with creation, sharing and utility
of knowledge.
The modal value of 33 meant that many respondents agreed that the organization’s structure highly
provides some support to knowledge management process. However, being that 36 participants
strongly disagreed while 35 participants disagreed with the statement that the needed knowledge is in a
central place. 28 respondents strongly disagreed while 30 respondents disagreed with the idea of
organizational knowledge sharing being horizontal across the organization. This suggests an existence
of ignorance in the knowledge sharing and management processes. For a proper knowledge to be
achieved in an organization, the two fundamental factors must not be ignored. Knowledge management
is essentially involving best sources of knowledge or the right knowledge to the right people. Source of
knowledge and knowledge sharing are the most critical aspects in effective knowledge management
since it requires a lot of time and willingness. The organization therefore needs a lot of effort to
improve its knowledge management.
Technology
Information technology has got a lot of functions in knowledge management. IT is not taken much
seriously by FCTG as the greatest enablers of organization’s knowledge management. This is
evidenced by the findings in table 4. The modal value was found to be 36 illustrating that majority
admitted that the organization did not effectively utilize the potential of information system in
knowledge management. The number of students that strongly disagreed was 6 while 43 respondents
disagreed with the idea of being provided with training on the usability of knowledge tools. In addition
to that, as 6 students strongly disagreed, 44 participants agreed that the knowledge system provided
them with the correct information.
Organizational culture
Participants disagree that there is flow in knowledge management within the organization. Some people
also keep knowledge to themselves for various reasons. This provide the answer to the research
question. But knowledge economy comes with new imperatives and demands. As such, it not
surprising that an effective knowledge flow is of great benefit not only for individuals but also for
companies and national organizations.
Individuals in the organization sometimes possess knowledge but they want to hide the knowledge.
Though studies regarding psychological ownership and knowledge sharing are relatively few, it has
been proven that psychological ownership is the factor that is most related to knowledge hiding as
demonstrated in the following studies (Han, Chiang & Chang, 2010; Li, Yuan, Ning, Li & Li-Ying,
2015). Psychological ownership involve a belief by an individual that the individual possess right to
ownership to an object under question. The willingness of sharing knowledge has been found to be
positively related with a person’s psychological ownership. This is because it is presumed that the
benefits resulting from knowledge sharing are majorly due to knowledge sharing.
Poor knowledge management
In the analysis which involved one dependable variable, it was confirmed by poor knowledge
management in the organization. 13 participants strongly agreed while 56 participants agreed that that
knowledge management is poor. Lack of knowledge management can be costly to an organization. It is
therefore authoritative that the organization finds out solutions to the questions in order to restore their
usual customer holding rates.

Summary
On the other hand, a second question concerning solutions to identified problems was significant. For
organization to overcome the problems, FlightCentre needed an extra effort to be applied on the sector
of knowledge management. The organization should therefore focus on knowledge sharing or
collaboration in addition to source of management. In the environment of competitive business an
organization employees that value knowledge sharing, collaboration can certify a significant benefit to
the organization. In addition to that, FCTG can give solutions to the challenges pertaining cultural
issues by rewarding employees for very valuable act of knowledge sharing. FCTG could have focused
on its information system. Information system plays a significant role of facilitating knowledge
management. The information system is capable to assist experts and knowledge seekers who are
engaged in various processes of acquiring knowledge.
Sharing of knowledge requires enough time and passion. Trainings on skills of knowledge sharing are
vital and most personnel were for the training for the betterment of job performance. In other cases,
nobody totally agreed with the suggestion which also seemed to be significant to most participants.
Knowledge sharing needs a lot of time and willingness. People should get acknowledged when they
happen to share knowledge at any level. The modal value of 34 signified that many people were for
sharing knowledge at any level.
With regards to the respondents in the first part of the questionnaire, everyone should take a passionate
role of decision making. 64 participants encouraged leaders to encourage individuals’ new ideas within
and across teams rather than bringing together communities together to share knowledge among teams
and peer. A well-organized process of knowledge sharing and implementation of knowledge
horizontally across organizations looked very strange to many personnel. There is no central place set
aside for creation and storage of knowledge. A larger number of 60 respondents however suggested
that anybody within an organization should always take part in sharing of knowledge.
Different respondents should be availed with tools for sharing knowledge even through many
respondents could neither agree nor disagree with the idea being able to perform their jobs better when
given knowledge management and sharing tools. A number of them insisted that the quality of
knowledge could not easily improve due to the fact that the system used in performing knowledge was
not efficient. They continued that the systems can only help them in improving the knowledge shared
since they would be given correct information. Half of the participants supported the fact that systems
used to management were capable of reflecting the changes experienced in the business process besides
the needs of customers. Most of them reported that most knowledge systems provided were not all that
difficult to operate and therefore there was no need of being trained to use them.
People should not therefore fear sharing and acquiring knowledge from other people’s knowledge and
experience for personal benefit reason being that there was a lot of trust among those who work within
the same organization according to the participants. Knowledge might not however flow steadily across
all the teams that actively function within an organization. Based on the views of the respondents,
everybody does not always participate in all discussions involving team members except a few and
therefore not everyone provided open ideas on sharing knowledge based on communication culture.
Many respondents insisted that a number of people do not easily expose the knowledge they have and
does not exist in an organization since teams in organizations do not always compete to oppose each
other.
Most of the participants agreed that poor practices of managing knowledge in Flight Centre Travel
Group (FCTG). Findings shown in table 5 clarified that there are a number of issues that regard
knowledge management as justified by 56 participants. This therefore implies that organization should
always focus on knowledge management since it is a fundamental factor when it comes to retaining
increment customers.

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the study of the causes of knowledge management within the organization, various
recommendations can be made. The following shows the recommendations suggested for the
organization to do away with the poor knowledge management.
First off, for the organization to reduce the poor knowledge management, it is suggested that sharing of
knowledge is encouraged among its employees. The knowledge sharing will be essential of the
organization to be successful. This is based on the reason that it facilitates the capabilities of decision
making, stimulating cultural change and innovation as well as building a learning organization. As
suggested by business journals, an organization’s overall performance improves when people do things
differently. Due to this, it is obvious that a proper knowledge management can lead to considerable
benefits to the organization.
It is also suggested that the organization improve its reward programs. These programs can also be
regarded as compensation or motivation. This involves a deliberate use of a pay system as an important
method whereby the efforts of various personnel are channeled towards the achievement of the
objectives of a business. Various organizations use this strategy to improve knowledge management.
This program is used based on the belief that they can reinforce the value of organization personnel
thus improving the knowledge management.
Technology is a very significant tool in knowledge management and knowledge sharing processes.
Information technology plays a key role by ensuring effective knowledge management. Information
technology tools used in business organizations include computers and communication technologies.
They require adequate training for effectiveness in business organizations. These tools facilitate
knowledge management and sharing within and across business organizations. It is therefore necessary
to understand the roles of information technology in KM. Since IT is essential enabler of KM, business
organizations are therefore encouraged to implement computers and any other communication
technology to help in improving speed and effectiveness of knowledge management.
Everyone should participate in decision making process. Decision making involves knowledge sharing
which is very essential for an organization to achieve success. Knowledge sharing facilitates decision
making capabilities; stimulate cultural changes and innovation as well as building learning in an
organization. When everyone takes part in decision making, best experiences in problem solving will
be gained, enable better and faster decision making, improve delivery to customers, and stimulate
growth and innovation in the organization as well as reducing the possible losses of know-how by
employees.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Knowledge management is therefore very vital for an organization to succeed. Poor enactment of
knowledge in Flight Centre was the core reason for its customer retention. This report highly
concentrates on the factors contributing to the poor knowledge management in Flight Centre. This
report further majored on how better practices of knowledge management can be incorporated into the
organization by providing recommendable solutions.
The research experienced various limitations. The limitations incurred during the research project are:
the research was only focused on Brisbane branch of the organization. Thus this may interfere with the
accuracy. Additionally, there may be biasness in the selection of the literature used for this article.
These limitations may affect the validity of the research to a certain extent. However, the researchers
tried everything possible to reduce the limitations to come up with the best study possible.
Future research is needed to clarify the impacts of formalization, centralization, integration and
complexity as independent variables on creation, sharing and utility of knowledge with SEM approach.
More research is also necessary to do an exploration on causal relationship between organizational
components with knowledge management and design a better model to evaluate implementation.
Everybody in the organization should be responsible when it comes to knowledge sharing and
management within organizations. This is because they are the key behind any success of
telecommunication organizations just like any other organization.

REFERENCES
Alegre, J., Sengupta, K. and Lapiedra, R., 2013. Knowledge management and innovation performance
in a high-tech SMEs industry. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), pp.454-470.
Anand, A. and Singh, M.D., 2011. Understanding knowledge management. International Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology, 3(2), pp.926-939.
AtoZmath, viewed 10 October 2019, https://atozmath.com/StatsG.aspx?q=1
Arafa, E., 2015. The Impact of Knowledge Management on Project Success (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Portsmouth), pp. 48.
Asrar-ul-Haq, M. and Anwar, S., 2016. A systematic review of knowledge management and knowledge
sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), pp.112.
Azorín, J.M. and Cameron, R., 2010. The application of mixed methods in organisational research: A
literature review. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 8(2), p.95.
Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Sabherwal, R., 2014. Knowledge management: Systems and processes,
pp.74. Routledge.
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F., 2011. The Open Innovation Journey: How firms dynamically
implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation, 31(1), pp.34-43.
Chyung, S., Swanson, I., Roberts, K. and Hankinson, A. (2018). Evidence-Based Survey Design: The
Use of Continuous Rating Scales in Surveys. Performance Improvement, 57(5), pp.38-48.
Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D., 2017. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches, pp.71. Sage publications.
Dalkir, K., 2013. Knowledge management in theory and practice, pp. 210. Routledge.
FCTG Annual Report 2018, Flight Centre Travel Group Annual Report 2018, viewed 17 November
2018, http://www.fctgl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/04-FLT-FY18-FULL-YEAR-RESULTS-
PRESENTATION.pdf
Groff, T. and Jones, T., 2012. Introduction to knowledge management. Routledge, pp.32-49.
Hermerén, G., 2015. Ethical considerations in chimera research. Development, 142(1), pp.3-5.
Herrmann, N., 2011. Barriers for an efficient management of knowledge: Experiences from a Southern
African organisation. Knowledge management beyond borders, p.29-32
Hislop, D., Bosua, R. and Helms, R., 2018. Knowledge management in organizations: A critical
introduction. Oxford University Press, pp.53.
Houghton, C.E., Casey, D., Shaw, D. and Murphy, K., 2010. Ethical challenges in qualitative research:
examples from practice, pp.534. Nurse researcher.

Ibidunni, A.S., Ibidunni, O.M., Oke, A.O., Ayeni, A.W. and Olokundun, A.M., 2018. Examining the
relationship between tacit knowledge of individuals and customer satisfaction. Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 24(1), pp. 66.
Khalifa, Z.A. and Jamaluddin, M.Y., 2012. Key success factors affecting knowledge management
implementation in construction industry in Libya. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 6(5), pp.161-164.
Koenig, M.E., 2012. What is KM? Knowledge management explained, pp.64. KM World, 4.
Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W., 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational
and psychological measurement, 30(3), pp.607-610.
Liao, S.H. and Wu, C.C., 2010. System perspective of knowledge management, organizational
learning, and organizational innovation. Expert systems with Applications, 37(2), pp.1096-1103.
Liaw, S.S., Hatala, M. and Huang, H.M., 2010. Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to
assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers &
Education, 54(2), pp.446-454.
López-Nicolás, C. and Meroño-Cerdán, Á.L., 2011. Strategic knowledge management, innovation and
performance. International journal of information management, 31(6), pp.502-509.
Maier, R. and Hadrich, T., 2011. Knowledge management systems. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Management, Second Edition (pp. 779-790). IGI Global.
Mao, H., Liu, S., Zhang, J. and Deng, Z., 2016. Information technology resource, knowledge
management capability, and competitive advantage: The moderating role of resource
commitment. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), pp.1062-1074.
Masa’deh, R.E., Shannak, R., Maqableh, M. and Tarhini, A., 2017. The impact of knowledge
management on job performance in higher education: The case of the University of Jordan. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, 30(2), pp.244-262.
Miller, T., 2012. Reconfiguring research relationships: regulation, new technologies and doing ethical
research. Ethics in qualitative research. 2nd edn. London: Sage, pp.29-43.
Nadason, S., Saad, R.A.J. and Ahmi, A., 2017. Knowledge Sharing and Barriers in Organizations.
Indian-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance, 1(4), pp.32-41.
Nazir, S., Shafi, A., Qun, W., Nazir, N. and Tran, Q.D., 2016. Influence of organizational rewards on
organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Employee Relations, 38(4), pp.596-619.
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R., 2015. The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a
synthesizing process. In The essentials of knowledge management (pp. 95-110). Palgrave Macmillan,
London.
Obeidat, B.Y., Al-Suradi, M.M., Masa’deh, R.E. and Tarhini, A., 2016. The impact of knowledge
management on innovation: An empirical study on Jordanian consultancy firms. Management
Research Review, 39(10), pp.1214-1238.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E. and Nicholl, J., 2010. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed
methods studies. Bmj, 341, pp. 4587.
Paulin, D. and Suneson, K., 2015. Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge barriers–
three blurry terms in KM. Leading Issues in Knowledge Management, 2(2), p.73.
Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K. and Nielsen, P., 2016. What factors influence knowledge sharing in
organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal of knowledge
Management, 20(6), pp.1225-1246.
Singh, S.K., 2018. Sustainable people, process and organization management in emerging
markets. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(3), pp.774-776.
Tripathy, J.P., 2013. Secondary data analysis: Ethical issues and challenges. Iranian journal of public
health, 42(12), p.1478.
Wang, S. and Noe, R.A., 2010. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
research. Human resource management review, 20(2), pp.115-131.
Wang, Z. and Wang, N., 2012. Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert systems
with applications, 39(10), pp.8899-8908.
Wisdom, J.P., Cavaleri, M.A., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Green, C.A., 2012. Methodological reporting in
qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods health services research articles. Health services
research, 47(2), pp.721-745.
Yip, K., 2011. Exploring barriers to knowledge sharing: A case study of a virtual community of
practice in a Swedish multinational corporation, pp. 36.
Zamir, Z.B. and Park, I., 2017. The Impact of Knowledge Capture and Knowledge Sharing on
Employees’ Outcomes, pp.34-79.
Han, T. S., Chiang, H. H., & Chang, A. (2010). Employee participation in decision making,
psychological ownership and knowledge sharing: mediating role of organizational commitment in
Taiwanese high-tech organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21(12), 2218-2233.
Li, J., Yuan, L., Ning, L., & Li-Ying, J. (2015). Knowledge sharing and affective commitment: the
mediating role of psychological ownership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6), 1146-1166.