Knowledge Management and the Sustainable Development of Social Work
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
the paper is devoted to the application of the knowledge management principles in the development of social work. There is no doubt that the topic is of vital importance as the number of skilled social workers is decreasing not only in Slovenia, it is a European phenomenon.
However, the current version of the paper needs to be improved.
Firstly, the originality/purpose of the paper should be reasoned sufficiently in the Introduction. Moreover, the main aim of the paper should be highlighted both in the Abstract and in the Introduction. And also the importance of the research - WHY is it worth exploring the use of knowledge management in social work in Slovenia (particular for non-Slovenian readers).
The literature review demonstrates an adequate use of the relevant literature. Which is the contribution to the related literature?
Materials and Methods - is the sample of 98 respondents sufficient to generalize the results of the research?
In table 3, authors present the forecast of the availability of female social workers up to 2032 - please, indicate which method was used for the prediction.
Discussion - could you compare your findings with other studies developed in Slovenia or other European countries? Are there any differences or similarities?
Conclusions - please, avoid in-text citations in this section of the paper (preferably in Discussion).
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS
REVIEWER 1
Dear authors,
the paper is devoted to the application of the knowledge management principles in the development of social work. There is no doubt that the topic is of vital importance as the number of skilled social workers is decreasing not only in Slovenia, it is a European phenomenon.
However, the current version of the paper needs to be improved.
Answer to the review: Thank you for your positive encouragement and relevant suggestions for further improvements.
1) Firstly, the originality/purpose of the paper should be reasoned sufficiently in the Introduction.
Answer to the review: Thank you for you valid suggestion. We include additional explanations regarding the originality / purpose of our research in the revised text (Introduction).
We explain that what is needed for the successful implementation of knowledge management in the public sector is the development of a research area that has been largely unexplored (Špaček, 2016).
See Introduction, lines 112-114.
Moreover, we believe it is of crucial importance to develop a better understanding of knowledge management in general and in the particular context of the public sector, including social work organizations. Appropriately implementing knowledge management in practice through the more systematic and effective capture, dissemination, transfer and implementation of knowledge in the context of the public sector, including social work services, is perceived as important due to its impact on influencing public policies (Riege & Lindsay, 2006), improving the wellbeing of social services users and the quality of services and programs (Hardina, 2005; Ukil, 2016) as well as ensuring an adequate number of skilled social workers.
See Introduction, lines 147-154.
We also redefine our intended contributions to aim to contribute to the underdeveloped literature on implementing knowledge management in the public sector (Massaro et al., 2015) and especially in social work (Austin et al., 2008; Leung, 2014). With our theoretical analysis and empirical examination that links knowledge management and social work we consider the positive effects of knowledge management on the availability of skilled social workers. Doing so, we intend to answer the call of researchers to contribute towards the theoretical advancement of the knowledge management field within the public sector context (Al Ahbabi et al., 2019). Moreover, our paper continues with the tradition of Kahn (1993), who started exploring how professional caregivers can organize in more effective ways, in particular how can they share (or transfer) and implement knowledge in order to deliver high-quality services and ensure wellbeing for their users. Our novel focus on knowledge management in social work also offers significant promise as an area of exploration in the public sector context (Henttonen, Kianto & Ritala, 2016). By studying social work centers, our research goes beyond the typical focus of previous research on knowledge management in the public sector that was conducted mainly within the education and research sectors (Massaro et al., 2015). We also do believe that we can position our work to the knowledge-based view of the organization (Grant, 1996; Hislop, Bosua & Helms, 2018; Kogut & Zander, 2003), that emphasizes the important role of knowledge in organizations. In our study we argue that knowledge is the potential primary source that can influence the functioning of social work centers. Following the knowledge-based view is also a path that is recommended by some social work researchers (i.e. Edge, 2005; Fitch, 2006). We also aim to contribute to the overlooked social dimension of sustainability. Additionally, we also a methodological foundation as our quantitative approach answers the calls of researchers (Soydan, 2008) to promote methodological diversity in the field of social work. In addition, theoretical contributions are more in detail explained in the revised version of the discussion in the section 4.1. Theoretical Implications. Moreover, we intend to also offer some concrete practical suggestions for social work managers and employees that are more in detail explained in the revised text of the discuss under the section 4.2. Practical Implications.
Hopefully, with our revised aimed contributions we are able to satisfy the criteria of originality and utility as proposed in the 2x2 matrix in Corley and Gioia (2011).
Corley, K. G. & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building Theory About Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12-32.See Introduction, lines 217-244.
2) Moreover, the main aim of the paper should be highlighted both in the Abstract and in the Introduction.
Answer to review: We agree. Therefore, we incorporate our main aim in both the Abstract and in the Introduction of our revised version of the paper. We include the section in the Abstract that explains that our paper builds on current research about knowledge management in social work settings to demonstrate that knowledge management can have a positive impact in helping to fulfil the important role of social work in any ageing society. We believe that with our research we contribute to the underdeveloped literature about knowledge management in the public sector and especially in social work settings.
See Abstract, lines 21-26.
Regarding the Introduction, we believe that we partially addressed and emphasized our main aim in the answer to the previous comment indicated by reviewer 1.
See answer to review 1).
3) And also the importance of the research - WHY is it worth exploring the use of knowledge management in social work in Slovenia (particular for non-Slovenian readers).
Answer to review: Thank you for your meticulous review. We include in our revised version of the text an explanation why in our opinion it would be beneficial to focus on knowledge management in social work in Slovenia. According to the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2019) social work centers were included in the reorganization process as the Ministry is aware that a modern, professional and effective system of social care is needed in order to appropriately address the increasingly demanding and complex needs of services users. Nowadays, stakeholders in the social work field in Slovenia (i.e. Social Protection Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, 2017) acknowledge that for the successful solution of the needs of services users they need broader knowledge that is available in many different fields (including (knowledge) management) and Bjorkenheim (2007) posits that the role of knowledge and knowledge management in the whole process are particularly important. Another potential opportunity for knowledge management is the observation of Bloice and Burnett (2016) that argue that knowledge management is continuously spreading beyond its original private sector focus and is creating links to other disciplines (such as social work) that were hard to imagine at the beginning of knowledge management. A characteristic of the Slovenian context is that public sector managers and employees are in a deficit when it comes to knowledge in (knowledge) management topics. As social work is an important part of the public sector this gap in knowledge is also present in social work. Moreover, we believe that the potential of knowledge management in social work is high as it is a field that is nowadays underdeveloped and underutilized in practice (also partially indicated in the later part of our paper with the low to moderate mean values regarding the current extent and effectiveness of knowledge management practice in social work).
See Introduction, lines 199-211.
4) The literature review demonstrates an adequate use of the relevant literature. Which is the contribution to the related literature?
Answer to review: Thank you for your valid suggestion. We believe that with our paper we make four theoretical contributions. The first contribution is to the underdeveloped literature about knowledge management in the public sector (Massaro et al., 2015) and especially in social work settings (Austin et al., 2008; Leung, 2014). With this, we answer calls of researchers to theoretically advance the field (Al Ahbabi et al., 2019). Our second contribution is to the knowledge-based view of the organization (Grant, 1996; Hislop, Bosua & Helms, 2018; Kogut & Zander, 2003). Our study emphasizes the important role of knowledge in social work centers as potentially the primary source influencing their functioning. Such a paradigm shift was also recommended by some social work researchers (i.e. Edge, 2005; Fitch, 2006). We also aim to contribute to the social dimension of sustainability, which was neglected in previous research (Cuthill, 2010; Vavik & Keitsch, 2010). We also aim to provide a methodological foundation with our quantitative approach that is following the orientation to promote methodological diversity in the context of social work research (Soydan, 2008).
See Introduction, lines 217-244 and Discussion, Theoretical Implications, lines 427-461.
5) Materials and Methods - is the sample of 98 respondents sufficient to generalize the results of the research?
Answer to review: Thank you for your valid remark. In our opinion it is not sufficient enough. Therefore, we included in the existing version of our paper in the limitations section the limitation that addresses generalizability. We state that we cannot confirm our findings across the whole field of social work, as we included only a proportion of managers and employees employed in social work centers. Additionally, in the future research section we propose to include more social work organizations, with the aim to draw final conclusions related to the field. This is an important opportunity as the whole topic of knowledge management is still fairly innovative and unexplored in social work settings and thus offers potential for future exploration for both researchers and practitioners. However, we hope that new information about knowledge management practice in Slovenian social work centers generated by our research is greater than the limitations of our research.
See Discussion, Limitations and Future Research Directions, lines 556-559 and lines 563-564.
6) In table 3, authors present the forecast of the availability of female social workers up to 2032 - please, indicate which method was used for the prediction.
Answer to review: We apologize for the mistake. We indicate that we use a multiple decrement model to forecast our prediction.
See Case study of Slovenian female social workers, line 407.
7) Discussion - could you compare your findings with other studies developed in Slovenia or other European countries? Are there any differences or similarities?
Answer to review: Thank you for this comment. According to our knowledge, this is the first study in the Slovenian academic area that deals with knowledge management in social work centers and utilizes the multiple decrement models to predict the availability of skilled social workers. Therefore, we believe that it would be extremely difficult to compare our results with other studies in Slovenia.
Moreover, when conducting a thorough literature review combining the research topics of knowledge management and social work there are only a couple of relevant results, i.e. listed below:
Downes, T.V. (2014). An evaluation of knowledge management practices in nonprofit community services organizations in Australia (doctoral dissertation). Southern Cross University, Australia. Jang, K. (2013). An Understanding of Optimal Knowledge Management for Social Work Practice: Based on a Process-Oriented Conceptualisation of Knowledge Integration. The British Journal of Social Work, 43(7), 1364-1383. Leung, Z. C. S. (2014). Knowledge management in social work – The interplay of knowledge sharing platforms. International Social Work, 57(2), 143-155. Leung, Z. C. S. (2010). Assessing Knowledge Assets: Knowledge Audit of a Social Service Organization in Hong Kong. Administration in Social Work, 34(4) 361-383. Leung, Z. C. S. (2009). Knowledge Management in Social Work: Types and Processes of Knowledge Sharing in Social Service Organizations. The British Journal of Social Work, 39(4). Leung, Z. C. S. (2007). Knowledge Management in Social Work – Towards a Conceptual Framework. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 25(1/2), 181-198.
However, only one of the proposed papers utilizes a quantitative approach to knowledge management in social work and none utilizes multiple decrement models. Therefore, we believe it would difficult also to compare our results with other European countries regarding our studied topic.
On the basis of the Ageing report 2018, we believe that most European countries suffer from the lack of skilled workforce that provides social services to users. We could potentially hypothesize that the differences could arise from the number of successfully trained and involved “migrant” workers from foreign countries in specific European countries. However, in the scope of this paper such a statement could be misleading for the reader and we would prefer to exclude it from our text. To conclude, we do agree that it would be extremely beneficial for future research to make such comparison and we include your valuable suggestion in the future research section of our paper.
European Commission. (2017). The 2018 Ageing Report. European Commission: Luxemburg.
See Discussion, Limitations and Future Research Directions, lines 563-564.
8) Conclusions - please, avoid in-text citations in this section of the paper (preferably in Discussion).
Answer to review: We apologize for the mistake. We relocate the text with citations to as proposed to the Discussion part of our paper. Additionally, we also omit part of the text to avoid unnecessary duplication.
See Discussion, Practical Implications, lines 462-552.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposes a KM-inspired model for measuring the quality of social work policies. The work was validated on the case of Slovenia based on public data.
We need research at the intersection of KM and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development. Therefore I welcome the initiative of this paper, but important revisions should be applied to make the paper coherent with respect to the state goals and title, especially in its relation to Knowledge Management as a scientific discipline:
Content-wise:
The role of KM is not argued very well. Most of the paper discusses issues pertaining to the challenges and requirements of social work (and social sustainability, which is a good fit for the journal), but the link to Knowledge Management feels like an afterthought. It is not very clear what particular KM practice is investigated here (including knowledge processes, knowledge assets, knowledge workers). KM feels more like a "buzzword" added to the paper (and the naming of the constructs) - a deeper connection to KM as a scientific discipline should be established.
This becomes obvious in the Discussion and Conclusions section that repeatedly say "it is important to...", "it would be beneficial to..." but fail to actually conclude the paper in terms of KM impact and KM recommendations. What exactly are the KM activities taken into consideration and what do they have to do with the statistical data on number of employees, number of female workers and age? The notion of "improvements due to KM activities" is repeated a number of times but never detailed in a way that is relevant for KM scholars. The constructs presented in Table 1 are very high level and do not convey the specificity of KM in social work context - they should be characterized in more domain-specific terms. What exactly is, for example, knowledge creation, in Slovenian social work (what knowledge assets are we talking about, what knowledge processes, what knowledge transfer channels and knowledge work roles?). Perhaps a dedicated section providing background on what KM means in a social work context would help the reader in this respect (currently a footnote only briefly mentions the fact that knowledge creation was investigated through 2 items; earlier it is said that "Therefore, in our paper we consider knowledge management as the ability of social workers to be able to better utilize their existing resources for achieving the wellbeing of service users."... this is too little, too vague and not informative for readers with KM background).
Try to identify KM frameworks that provide at least a theoretical lens to interpret the results of the study. Try to articulate a workflow/process for reusing your measurement model to cases other than Slovenia, in order to make results relevant beyond this particular case.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS
REVIEWER 2
The paper proposes a KM-inspired model for measuring the quality of social work policies. The work was validated on the case of Slovenia based on public data.
We need research at the intersection of KM and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development. Therefore I welcome the initiative of this paper, but important revisions should be applied to make the paper coherent with respect to the state goals and title, especially in its relation to Knowledge Management as a scientific discipline:
Answer to review: Thank you for your positive comments and relevant suggestions for improvements.
1) The role of KM is not argued very well. Most of the paper discusses issues pertaining to the challenges and requirements of social work (and social sustainability, which is a good fit for the journal), but the link to Knowledge Management feels like an afterthought.
Answer to review: We apologize that we were not able to present the scientific discipline of knowledge management in a sufficient manner. Moreover, you are right when emphasizing the dominant role of issues that are related to the scope of the Sustainability journal. However, we hopefully improved our revised version of our paper with a particular focus on knowledge management and specifically explaining our constructs in more detail.
2) It is not very clear what particular KM practice is investigated here (including knowledge processes, knowledge assets, knowledge workers). KM feels more like a "buzzword" added to the paper (and the naming of the constructs) - a deeper connection to KM as a scientific discipline should be established.
Answer to review: Thank you for your detailed review.
Regarding the particular KM practice investigated. We believe that we measure the extent of knowledge management with management responsibility / support for knowledge management. We emphasize that management support is a well established construct in the literature and can be perceived as the degree to which management understands the importance of knowledge management and the extent to which it participates in its implementation and activities (Lin, 2011). As argued by Azmee, Kassim & Abdullah (2017) the support and active participation of managers could significantly influence the positive outcomes of knowledge management in organizations. Moreover, to measure the extent of knowledge management we also focus on the already established four basic knowledge management process stages (Alavi & Leidner, 2001) (knowledge creation, knowledge storage and retrieval, knowledge transfer and knowledge implementation). To measure effectiveness of knowledge management we focus on the proposed changes in soft measures (enhanced collaboration, enhanced communication, enhanced learning and enhanced performance) by Anantatmula (2007). We believe that improvements in such constructs could later results in improvements also in terms of service quality for the end user. The involvement of effectiveness of knowledge management is important as organizations should be able to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge management and its overall contribution to organizational performance. As knowledge is considered as an intangible strategic asset of an organization, its measurement possesses a serious challenge (Bharadway, Chauhan & Raman, 2015).
See Introduction, lines 67-91.
Moreover, regarding knowledge assets, we agree with Kogut and Zander (1996) that an organization’s knowledge or intellectual assets are generally considered the most critical for its long-term successful functioning. If we refer to the distinction of knowledge assets of Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000), we believe that we at least partially cover with our items in the questionnaire experiental knowledge assets (tacit knowledge and know-how of individuals), conceptual knowledge assets (explicit knowledge), routine knowledge assets (organizational culture) and systemic knowledge assets (databases). We hope that this is also evident from the more detailed structure of our revised presentation of constructs.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-34.See Introduction, lines 77-78 and Materials and Methods, lines 272-291.
Additionally, nowadays we can refer to social work organizations as knowledge intensive organizations as they are reliant on the knowledge of their employees so that they can provide services, rather than relying on their physical capital (Lettieri, Borga & Savoldelli, 2004). Therefore, social workers can be considered as knowledge workers.
See Introduction, lines 168-170.
Regarding the naming of constructs. We do believe that the naming of constructs is appropriate as it is suggested in the existing literature. In the revised version of our paper we explain the importance of management support and the ability to measure the effectiveness of knowledge management. We also more specifically explain the relevance of each knowledge management process stage. We state that knowledge creation typically involves tapping the tacit and in most cases, highly subjective, insights, informal skills and practice (or know-how) of individual employees in ways that an organization can act on (Ward et al., 2018). Moreover, we argue that for organizations it is also important to appropriately arrange and store their knowledge as it enables them quicker and easier access and distribution of knowledge within the organization (Heisig, 2009). Regarding knowledge transfer, we posit that it is another integral part of knowledge management as it enables organizations to absorb and appropriately use knowledge of paramount importance for their functioning and follows the key goal of turning knowledge into organizational assets and resources (Dawson, 2001). To conclude, we argue that knowledge implementation is the final stage of the knowledge management process that creates real value for the organization by making knowledge active and relevant (Downes, 2014). All of our constructs and how they were measured are also more in detail explained in the revised section Material and methods in a response to your later comment that they were at a very high level in the previous version of text.
See Introduction, lines 67-91 and Materials and Methods, lines 272-291.
Regarding the deeper connection to KM as a scientific discipline. We explain that knowledge and the way it is managed has been with humankind since the beginning of time (Jashapara, 2011) and that today in the knowledge economy an organization’s ability to manage knowledge effectively is increasingly more crucial (Dalkir, 2005). Moreover, Hicks, Dattero and Galup (2006) suggest that knowledge management can equip employees with real time information so that they can react appropriately and make decisions that will allow them to successfully fulfil organizational goals.
See Introduction, lines 63-67.
2) This becomes obvious in the Discussion and Conclusions section that repeatedly say "it is important to...", "it would be beneficial to..." but fail to actually conclude the paper in terms of KM impact and KM recommendations. What exactly are the KM activities taken into consideration and what do they have to do with the statistical data on number of employees, number of female workers and age? The notion of "improvements due to KM activities" is repeated a number of times but never detailed in a way that is relevant for KM scholars.
Answer to review: Thank you for your comment.
KM impact/improvement and KM recommendations: We try to better structure the possible impact or improvement and knowledge management recommendations with a more detailed explanation of our theoretical implications (also to the literature of knowledge management):
Contribution to the literature of knowledge management research is applying and testing components of knowledge management to the public sector. Contribution to the knowledge-based view of the organization. Contribution to the previously neglected aspect of sustainable development, the social dimension of sustainability. Methodological foundation – promoting methodological diversity in social work research with the use of quantitative approaches.Our theoretical implications are more in-depth explained in the whole version of the revised text.
See Discussion, Theoretical Implications, lines 427-461.
Moreover, we try to better structure especially the recommendations section with a more detailed explanation of our practical implications. We suggest that we used the results of our research to propose a number of relevant practical recommendations especially for managers and also for employees in social work organizations. Although their primary goal is not to create profit, we do believe they could still benefit from our suggestions. Social work organizations indeed have the responsibility to deliver high-quality services to their users and contribute to the wellbeing of society as a whole (Bloice&Burnett, 2016). Individuals employed in such organizations have become increasingly more aware that like other organizations functioning in the context of the public sector they must respond to the growing complex demands of their users, while being exposed to a diminishing amount of resources available. Consequently, they are considering making internal improvements in order to maximize their available resources (Dimovski et al., 2017). We believe, that our model provides clear reasoning for how improvements related to knowledge management activities could benefit the social work field.
Some examples of concrete recommendations are listed below:
To advance informed debate and decision making. To create knowledge networks and organize work in teams. To encourage delivering strong messages from top management. To change their human resource management practices towards more knowledge-based compensation.Our practical implications are more in-depth explained in the whole version of the revised text.
See Discussion, Practical Implications, lines 462-552.
The activities that are taken into consideration are explained in the introduction section of our revised paper (management responsibility / support for knowledge management, knowledge management process stages and constructs (changes in soft measures) that measure effectiveness of knowledge management). Moreover, all constructs are more in detail explained in the revised section Materials and methods. We include organization size, gender and age as control variables in our research. In the opinion of Bernerth and Aguinis (2016) the inclusion or exclusion of control variables can have important consequences on the substance of research conclusions. In knowledge management, organization size can potentially affect the ability of an organization to i.e. implement knowledge (Aragon-Correa, Garcia-Morales & Cordon-Pozzo, 2007). Similarly, age (Radaelli et al., 2011) and gender (Feingold, 1994) can potentially influence the overall level of knowledge management in an organization. We also included those statistical data to internally check whether our data sample is representative regarding the overall population of employees in the public sector (social work context).
Aragon-Correa, J. A., Garcia-Morales, V. J. & Cordon-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and organizational learning's role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 349-359. Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best‐practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229-283. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 116(3), 429. Radaelli, G., Mura, M., Spiller, N. & Lettieri, E. (2011). Intellectual capital and knowledge sharing: the mediating role of organizational knowledge-sharing climate. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 9, 342-352.
We hope that a presentation of our content in terms of theoretical implications, practical implications and limitations and future research in the discussion chapter is also more appropriate and relevant for readers and scholars.
4) The constructs presented in Table 1 are very high level and do not convey the specificity of KM in social work context - they should be characterized in more domain-specific terms. What exactly is, for example, knowledge creation, in Slovenian social work (what knowledge assets are we talking about, what knowledge processes, what knowledge transfer channels and knowledge work roles?).
Answer to review: We agree. Therefore we provided a more detailed insight into how we measured all of our 9 proposed constructs:
Management responsibility / support (specific manager dedicated for knowledge management, management support for knowledge management and existing incentive structure) Knowledge creation (creation of new ideas and critical evaluation of those new ideas) Knowledge storage and retrieval (standard procedures and existing databases) Knowledge transfer (knowledge readily available for transfer and insight about specific individuals that possess certain knowledge) Knowledge implementation (impact on organizational performance and whether it is actually used in daily practice) Enhanced collaboration (improved collaboration and improved team work) Enhanced communication (existing communication structure) Enhanced learning (improved innovativeness, learning, competences and experience) Enhanced performance (improved processes, better decision making and overall better functioning).See Materials and Methods, lines 272-291.
Regarding the part of your comment that was focused characterizing the constructs in more domain specific terms we do believe that there is not enough theoretical background that is related to knowledge management in the context of social work. Such a statement is in line with Edge’s (2005) proposition that there is a lack of discussion in social work literature in knowledge management. Similarly, in a later part of our research it was expressed by our respondents that establishing a common ground in terms of terminology about knowledge management in social work is problematic. Therefore, any effort to justify structured approaches such as knowledge management in the context of social work is demanding and challenging (perhaps even out of the scope of this paper). However, during our research we found that many social work centers already engage in some knowledge management related activities informally. Such activities typically include knowledge implementation, knowledge transfer, knowledge storage, training and education. However, we do believe that the sub-topics of specific constructs that we additionally explained are general enough so that respondents should typically understand what is measured (i.e. incentive structure, better decision making, etc.). We are also open to include the exact items used in our questionnaire that were utilized to measure the aforementioned constructs. By doing so we do believe we would also partially respond to your comment of reusing our measurement model to cases other than Slovenia.
See Materials and Methods, lines 272-291.
Knowledge assets and knowledge processes were discussed in previous answers to your comments.
See answer to review 2).
Regarding knowledge transfer channels, we followed the proposition of Grant and Dumay (2015) that knowledge transfer in organizations is typically driven by communication processes and information flow and that it requires individuals to come together to exchange ideas and share knowledge with each other (Alhamoudi, 2015). We gained insight of respondents whether knowledge transfer occurs in any possible form, i.e. the form suggested by Holtham and Courtney (1998): informal vs. formal and personal vs impersonal.
Alhamoudi, S. (2015). Knowledge Management Strategies in the Public Sector – Case Study. China-USA Business Review, 14(3), 159-170. Grant, K. A. & Dumay, J. (2015). Leading Issues in Knowledge Management (Volume 2). United Kingdom: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. Holtham, C. & Courtney, N. (1998). The Executive Learning Ladder: A Knowledge Creation Process Grounded in the Strategic Information Systems Domain. In E. Hoadley & I. Benbasat (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems (594-597). Baltimore: MD.If we refer to the knowledge worker roles, we are familiar with the typology of Reinhardt et al. (2011), however we do believe that such a distinction is beyond the scope of our research and we did not distinguish between social workers that identify themselves as controllers, helpers, learners, linkers, etc.. Moreover, as expressed by some respondents that indicated partial confusion with some of the used terminology, we do believe that referring to knowledge worker roles would contribute to an additional amount of confusion in this stage of the research.
Reinhardt, W., Schmidt, B., Sloep, P. & Drachsler, H. (2011). Knowledge Worker Roles and Actions— Results of Two Empirical Studies. Knowledge and Process Management, 18(3), 150-174.5) Perhaps a dedicated section providing background on what KM means in a social work context would help the reader in this respect (currently a footnote only briefly mentions the fact that knowledge creation was investigated through 2 items; earlier it is said that "Therefore, in our paper we consider knowledge management as the ability of social workers to be able to better utilize their existing resources for achieving the wellbeing of service users."... this is too little, too vague and not informative for readers with KM background).
Answer to review: You are right. Therefore, we include additional explanations about knowledge management in the context of social work. Such as that due to various (objective) barriers such as time and energy many of the social work knowledge remains hidden in organizations (Beddoe, 2011). We additionally explain why discussing knowledge management in the context of social work can be very important as often the ability of such organizations to achieve their goals is in close correlation to the experience and skills of their employees (Bloice & Burnett, 2016). Especially their access to knowledge, and the skills of employees to use knowledge effectively, importantly influences realizing the benefits to individuals and their lives that the organizations primarily aim to achieve. Therefore, a knowledgeable, highly skilled and competent workforce is the integral component when discussing transformation of outcomes for their services users. Especially the role of knowledge is in empowering employees with resources, skills and the ability to seek and share knowledge, and implement it in practice as an integral part of their everyday tasks and learning activities (Research and Innovation in Social Services, 2010). We also include some limitations that are related to knowledge management in social work such as that it is also important to acknowledge the conditions of social work such as high staff turnover, lack of training and education and lack of preparation for additional tasks as they can all hamper the successful functioning of social work organizations and successful implementation of knowledge management (Alexanderson, 2006).
6) Try to identify KM frameworks that provide at least a theoretical lens to interpret the results of the study.
Answer to review: Thank you for your valid suggestion. We aim to better structure our theoretical contributions. In particular we believe that the overarching theory of our work is the knowledge-based view of the organization, thus making it potentially easier to interpret our results. As mentioned in the previous answer to your review comment 2), we do believe we make four theoretical contributions (knowledge management research applied in the context of public sector, knowledge-based view of the organization, social dimension of sustainability, methodological diversity in social work research).
See Discussion, Theoretical Implications, lines 427-461.
7) Try to articulate a workflow/process for reusing your measurement model to cases other than Slovenia, in order to make results relevant beyond this particular case.
Answer to review: We completely agree. Hopefully, our more detailed insight into the measurement of our 9 proposed constructs could provide a better representation of the sub-topics related to each particular construct (i.e. knowledge creation –> creation of new ideas and critical evaluation of those ideas). We are also open to include the exact items that were used to measure a specific construct, i.e. knowledge creation:
My organization has policies in place to allow employees to present new ideas without fear and ridicule (Debowski, 2006). My organization has methods to critically analyze ideas for future use (Debowski, 2006).We do believe that such items used could be reused beyond our particular case. We would also find it extremely beneficial to be able to compare our result with i.e. other European countries or globally. Therefore, we also include such a statement in the revised version of the text that proposes future research directions.
See Discussion, Limitations and Future Research Directions, lines 563-564.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors revised the paper carefully, added the missing information which improves the overall quality of the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has some important improvements that partially satisfy my previous comments, especially with respect to detailing the measurement approach and the theoretical implications.
The domain-specific aspects of KM in social work are still vague, but I consider this draft acceptable for publication.
