INTRODUCTION:

“You cannot manage Knowledge-nobody can. What you can do is to manage the environment in which knowledge can be created, discovered, captured, shared, distilled, validated, transferred, adopted, adapted and applied.” -Ghris Collison and Geof Parcel, 2007. “Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have significant opportunities to apply Knowledge Management (KM) practices to support every part of their mission” -Kidwell, 2001. KM can be used to support educational administration, which in turn supports teaching and learning. Educational administrators and teachers have begun to look at how they might use information systems to assist in creating effective learning environments.

Vennila Gopal and Dr. K Shobha (2012) mentioned Petides and Guiney (2002) in their paper that with the combination of KM and ICT tools, the education institution will be able to provide better education facilities, administrative services, strategic planning process, student retentions, teaching-learning process, cost effectiveness, data transfer, collaboration, research, faculty development, admissions, expand new web based offerings, students and alumni services, research process curriculum development, work analysis etc. Farida Hasanali, (2003) of American Productivity and Quality Centre (APQC) discussed following five critical success factors for KM:

1) Leadership

2) Culture

3) Structure, Roles and Responsibilities

4) Information Technology (IT) Infrastructure

5) Measurement

So HEIs needs the above factors for successful implementation of KM. Let us check in this paper whether HEIs of Mumbai is ready for implementation of KM or not?

HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDIA:

According to MHRD Ministry of India, in the year 1950-51 Universities were just 28, which increased to 677 in the year 2014. In same way, number of colleges increased from 578 in 1950-51 to37,204, as on 31st March, 2013. The current higher education system in India is massive with over 30 million students enrolled across 45000 institutions. The government, on its part, has increased the higher education budget and implemented several technology initiatives to improve the quality of higher education. Indian government has taken number of steps for leveraging the use of ICT in higher education. In the 11^th and 12^th Five year plans Government has introduced various measures to recognize the importance of Knowledge Management in the education sector. Sam Pitroda, chairman of National Knowledge Commission of India (2006) stated in the report that Higher education must provide accountability to the society and create accountability within. There must be stringent information disclosure norms for all educational institutions. There must be a focusing on upgrading infrastructure, improving the training of teachers and continuous assessment of the syllabi. It is particularly important to enhance the ICT infrastructure. Websites and web based services would improve transparency and accountability. A portal on higher education and research would increase interaction and accessibility. A knowledge network would connect all universities and colleges for online open resources. So the central government gave the importance to the technology, digitalization, ICTand improvement of infrastructures etc for the higher education in the five year plans. Let’s us check how much work is done in the education sector worldwide with respect to ICT and KM.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

D. S. Thakur and K. S. Thakur (2005) in their paper “Approaches to Knowledge Management in Higher Education” stated that one of the most important KM activities of any academic organization is to collect and disseminate knowledge in the organisation. But there is no organized KM system in several institutions of higher education in India. Most of the organizations never give preferences to internal knowledge and most of the past knowledge is lost through attrition and changes in the organisation. In the absence of the proper system much of the knowledge and its resources remain unidentified, unrecorded, uncodified and unutilized. Authors suggest following ways of sharing knowledge in Higher Education:

· Talks and discussions;

· Lectures;

· Debates and Conversations;

· Conferences, Workshops and Seminars;

· Appreciate the Talents at Workplaces;

· Knowledge Sharing workspace;

· Intranet, Extranet and Internet;

· Greater Room for people to take Risks and Experiment.

Kowta Sita Nirmala Kumaraswamy (2009) in her thesis “An Empirical Study of Collaborative Knowledge Sharing Strategy to Enhance Organizational Learning with Special Reference to IT Education under Management Faculty of University of Pune” assesses and suggests the ways to enhance a collaborative knowledge sharing culture in academic institutions. She emphasizes on five factors for collaborative knowledge sharing in an organisation.

· Work culture

· Interaction

· Willingness to Share knowledge

· Recognition

· Information Technology.

Vennila Gopal and Dr. K. Shobha (2012) stated in their research paper “Knowledge Management in Higher education” that HEIs with the combination of KM and ICT the education institution will be able to provide better education facilities. With 100 respondents studying in under graduate colleges in Coimbatore they draw following conclusions:

· Libraries, internet, knowledge server, social media, emails, peer groups are the main sources of knowledge acquisition. But knowledge through participatory learning like seminar, workshop, debate, group discussion is low. Their contribution of articles to display boards and college magazines are also low.

· The students’ interest towards ‘Knowledge storage’ is less, so greater consideration should be given to it as it would help future reference. The above discussion shows us that HEIs are getting ready for KM.

OBJECTIVES:

The main objective of the study is to check Mumbai HEIs are competent or not for implementing KM. Following are the secondary objectives of the research.

a) To study the use of Information and Communication (ICT) –a main component of Knowledge Management, among the teaching staff.

b) To study key drivers for Knowledge Management Practices such as Organisational Culture, Leadership and Technology.

c) To check the environment and culture of the HEIs.

DATA COLLECTION:

Primary and secondary data are collected for this study. Secondary data is collected by visiting various libraries, thesis, books, research papers, journals, periodicals, reports, newspapers, projects, magazines, websites, conference proceeding etc. Primary data is collected through multi options, closed ended questionnaire and through observation method and informal interview. Questionnaire was reframed after pilot survey and Google form and Excel sheet were prepared as soft copy of questionnaire. For data analysis SPSS Package (version 20) is used. Colleges prepare IQAC report every year and RAR report before the NAAC team visit and upload on their website. These reports were also referred. To do this empirical research, Arts and Commerce degree colleges of Mumbai and suburban Mumbai districts are selected as population. Cluster sampling and convenient sampling were used for data collection. Mumbai city district and its suburban district were divided into 6 zones. A like 6 loksabha seats Mumbai 6 clusters are:

1) Mumbai Central Zone: It includes KariRoad to Matunga, Lower Parel to Khar and Sewri to Kings Circle stations.

2) Mumbai South Central zone: It includes Sion to Vidhyavihar, GTB Nagar to Mankhurd Station.

3) Mumbai North Zone: It includes Borivali to Goregaon stations.

4) Mumbai North East Zone: It includes Ghatkopar to Mulund including Pawai.

5) Mumbai West Zone: It includes Santacruz to Jogeshari stations.

6) Mumbai South Zone: It includes Mumbai CST to Chinchpokli and CST to Cotton Green and Churchgate to Mahalaxmi stations.

Out of total 118 colleges, 70 colleges were approached out of which 64 colleges allowed to meet their staff. Around 1400 aided and unaided staff was approach either personally or via Email or WhatsApp or Google form. Besides colleges, orientation program and refresher program centres were visited and questionnaire was distributed. Out of which 712 responses of 71 college staff was received and accepted, rejecting 40 incomplete responses. Data is collected from September 2015 to August 2016.

HYPOTHESIS:

Following Null Hypothesis are tested.

1. There is no significant difference in organisational culture scores of six different zones.

2. There is no significant difference in organisational leadership scores of six zones.

3. There is no significant difference in technology scores of six different zones.

4. There is no significant difference in availability of ICT among six different zones.

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND INTERPRETATION:

Following data were obtained from the six zones of Mumbai.

Table 1. Zone wise data Collection:

Zone	Frequency
Central	98
South Central	111
North	65
North east	170
North west	135
South	133
Total	712

To check the organisational environment of HEIs and its pattern of exchanging data among staff questions were asked to them.

Table 2. Prevailing System of Exchanging Data in the Organization:

		Excellent	Very good	Good	Not satisfied	Poor	Total
Zone	Central	2	8	31	45	12	98
	South Central	2	17	56	30	6	111
	North	2	8	29	17	9	65
	North east	3	22	72	53	20	170
	North west	1	10	60	52	12	135
	South	3	6	71	40	13	133
Total		13	71	319	237	72	712

Source: primary data, SPSS 20

Table 3. Supports of Colleagues for Exchange of Data:

		Excellent	Very good	Good	Not satisfied	Poor	Total
Zone	Central	1	4	39	39	15	98
	South Central	0	7	50	43	11	111
	North	0	9	21	25	10	65
	North east	2	7	65	67	29	170
	North west	2	7	54	50	22	135
	South	0	5	56	53	19	133
Total		5	39	285	277	106	712

Source: primary data, SPSS 20

Table 4. Supports of Heads for Exchange of Data:

		Excellent	Very good	Good	Not satisfied	Poor	Total
Zone	Central	1	2	30	38	27	98
	South Central	0	12	49	37	13	111
	North	0	6	19	23	17	65
	North east	2	5	69	49	45	170
	North west	2	7	49	53	24	135
	South	1	5	49	55	23	133
Total		6	37	265	255	149	712

Source: primary data, SPSS 20

Table 5. Pearson’s Correlations of Organisational Culture and Exchange Data Variables:

	Organisational Culture score	System of institution for exchanging of data	Support of Colleagues for exchange of data	Support of heads for exchange of data
Organisational Culture score	1	.504	.487	.522
System of institution for exchanging data	.504	1	.670	.595
System of institution for exchanging data
Support of Colleagues for exchange of data	.487	.670	1	.645
Support of Colleagues for exchange of data

The above table shows organisational culture and the system of exchanging the data has the positive and significant correlation. If the organization culture will improve it will not only help in improving the institutional system of exchanging the data, but also in support of colleagues and heads for exchange of data. The table 6 below also shows positive relationship between Organisational leadership and exchange of data. The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Improved leadership will lead to improve exchange of data This shows KM factors are inter linked and related to each other. So HEIs should focus on improving its leadership and organisational culture so as to gain the fruits of KM. Open and dynamic leaders will not only lead the organisation ahead it will build sound organisational culture which in turn will boost the morale of the employees. According to the APQC leadership and organisational culture are two the most important factors for KM.

Table 6. Pearson’s Correlations of Organisational Leadership and Exchange of Data Variables:

System of institution for exchanging data	Support of Colleagues for exchange of data	Support of heads for exchange of data
.495	.478	.506

Now let’s check zone wise organisational culture, leadership and Technology.

Null Hypothesis-H₀₁: There is no significant difference in organisational culture scores of six different zones.

Alternate Hypothesis-H₁₁: There is significant difference in organisational culture scores of six different zones.

To test above null hypothesis ANOVA is obtained and F-test is applied.

F Test results show that calculated p-value is 0.006. It is less than standard p-value 0.05. Therefore test is rejected. Null hypothesis is rejected. Hence alternate hypothesis is accepted. So conclusion is there is significant difference in organisational culture scores of six different zones. To understand findings of the hypothesis mean score for each zone is obtained. It is presented in the following table.

Table 7. Zone wise Organizational Culture score:

Zone	N	Mean
Central	98	74.2602
South Central	111	68.4685
North	65	73.5385
North east	170	74.9412
North west	135	76.0185
South	133	72.1241
Total	712	73.3883

Above table indicate that for all 712 respondents organisational cultural score is 73.3883. Score of North West (76.94), North east (76.01), Central (74.26) are above average score and scores of North zone is (73.53), South zone is (72.12) and for South central zone is (68.46).

Differences between mean scores are significant or not, are tested using POST HOC test. The Results are as follows. If Significant Value is less than 0.05 then difference between two mean score is significant. If significant value is greater than 0.05 then difference between two mean scores is not significant.

Result shows Organisational culture score for central zone is greater than south central zone and it is significant. Central zone organisational culture score is greater than north zone but not significant. Central zone is less than north east zone, but difference is not significant.

The mean of South central is less than all the other zones and except South zone all other 4 zone’s significant value is less than standard value, so null hypothesis is rejected and significant difference exit between south central and 4 zones for organizational culture. So analysis is as follow:

Ø South Central zone’s organizational culture is different than Central, North, North West and North East zones.

Ø North West zone’s organizational culture is different than South zone.

Null Hypothesis-H₀₂:

There is no significant difference in organisational leadership scores of six zones.

Alternate Hypothesis-H₁₂:

There is significant difference in organisational leadership scores of six zones.

ANOVA –F Test results indicate that calculated p-value is 0.003. It is less than standard p-value 0.05. Therefore test is rejected. Null hypothesis is rejected. Hence alternate hypothesis is accepted. Conclusion is there is significant difference in organisational leadership scores of six different zones. Post Hoc Tests showsOrganisational leadership score for central zone is greater than south central zone and it is significant. Central zone organisational leadership score is greater than north zone but not significant. Central zone score is greater than north east zone, but difference is not significant.

The mean of South central is less than all the other zones and all the zones’ significant value is less than standard value, so null hypothesis is rejected and significant difference exit between south central and 5 zones for organizational leadership. So analysis shows the following findings:

South Central zone’s organizational leadership is different than Central, North, North West and North East and South zones.

Null Hypothesis-H₀₃:

There is no significant difference in technology scores of six different zones.

Alternate Hypothesis-H₁₃:

There is significant difference in technology scores of six different zones.

F test is applied. The calculated p-value is 0.016. It is less than standard p-value 0.05. Therefore test is rejected. Null hypothesis is rejected. Hence alternate hypothesis is accepted. Conclusion is there is significant difference in technology scores of six different zones.

The Post Hoc Tests shows Organisational technology score for central zone is greater than south central zone and it is significant. Central zone organisational technology score is greater than North, North East and South zone but not significant. It’s less than North West but again not significant.

The mean of South central is less than all the other zones expect South and the other four zone’s significant value is less than standard value, so null hypothesis is rejected and significant difference exit between South Central and 5 zones for technology. So analysis is as follows: South Central zone’s technology score is different than Central, North, North West and North East zones.

Let’s check another hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis H₀₄= There is no significant difference in availability of ICT among six different zones.

Alternative Hypothesis H₁₄= There is significant difference in availability of ICT among six different zones.

The F test shows Significant value is 0.000 which is less than standard P value 0.05 so null hypothesis is rejected means alternative hypothesis is accepted. There is significant difference among six zone regarding availability of ICT.

Table 8. Mean score of Availability and Usage of ICT Tools:

Zones	Availability of ICT Tools Mean score	Usage of ICT Tools Mean score
Central	20.2643	12.1011
South Central	17.3767	11.9709
North	18.6837	12.3098
North East	18.9095	10.7585
North West	17.8856	12.1719
South	19.4432	15.8989

Table 8 indicates South Central zone has the lowest mean for availability of the ICT and second last for it usage. Central zone has the highest mean with second highest the South zone for the availability of ICT in HEIs. South zone has the highest usage of ICT in its institutes among all zones.

Table 9. Correlations between Availability of ICT, Organisational Culture and Organisational Leadership:

	Availability of ICT tools	Organisational Culture score	Organisational leadership score
Availability of ICT tools	1	.104	.105
Organisational Culture score	.104	1	.866
Organisational leadership score	.105	.866	1

The above correlation analysis demonstrates that there is positive correlation among availability of ICT with organisational culture and leadership. If organisational culture and leadership is sound there will be better availability of ICT Tools.

Analysis of colleges withNAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) results:

According to NAAC website, “Assessment and Accreditation is broadly used for understanding the “Quality Status” of an institution. In the context of Higher Education, the accreditation status indicates that the particular Higher Educational Institutions– a College, a University, or any other recognized Unit therein, meets the standards of quality as set by the Accreditation Agency, in terms of its performance, related to the educational processes and outcomes, covering the curriculum, teaching-learning, evaluation, faculty, research, infrastructure, learning resources, organisation, governance, financial well being and student services. Each college has to go under NAAC accreditation after five years continuously. A+ is the highest score followed by A and C is the lowest. Better the score of NAAC, more the chances of improved KM.

Table 10. NAAC Score of Colleges:

zone		A	A+	B	B+	B++	C	NA	total
	Central	16	38	24	14	0	0	6	98
	South Central	69	0	1	30	0	0	11	111
	North	42	0	3	16	0	0	4	65
	North east	86	0	12	0	0	0	72	170
	North west	44	0	10	38	21	12	10	135
	South	31	4	80	10	0	0	8	133
Total		288	42	130	108	21	12	111	712

111 respondents’ colleges have not gone under NAAC accreditation from the sample

Table 11. Pearson’s Correlations between NAAC Grade and Organisational Culture, Organisational Leadership, ICT Availability and ICT Usage:

	NAAC Grade	Organisational Culture score	Organisational leadership score	Availability of ICT tools	Usage of ICT tools
NAAC Grade	1	.082	.101	.262	.213
Organisational Culture score	.082	1	.866	.104	.125
Availability of ICT Tools	.262	.104	.105	1	.434
Usage of ICT tools	.213	.125	.112	.434	1

The above table shows there is a positive correlation among the NAAC results and Organisational culture, leadership, availability of ICT tools and its usage. College having good score in organisational leadership and culture will have good score in NAAC too. Many colleges need to work hard for better score.

Researcher has extracted the following details about the colleges from the RAR Report and IQAC report from the institute’s website. This will help the researcher to cross verify with responses and find out the proper the availability infrastructure and environment of the institute.

· Use of ICT in Teaching and Learning (TLP) is possible when enough infrastructures are available timely to the staff. Personal computer and Laptop is one of it. Researcher found that bearing few colleges like Tolani college, S. K. Somaiya etc have given individual PCs to the staff other colleges have either department PCs or staff room PCs, laptop.

· Only 17 colleges have provided Wi-Fi facilities in the staffroom and or in the campus to their faculties. So only nearly 27% colleges only have given the Wi-Fi facilities to their staff. Use of ICT, Open source mostly depends on internet. So its hurdle if internet facility is not available.

· Open Access refers to online research outputs that are FREE of all restrictions on access and FREE of many restrictions on use. Open Access is a very useful source for TLP. But more than 54% colleges have failed to utilize it.

· INFLIBNET centre (Information and Library Network Centre) is an autonomous Inter – University Centre of the UGC. It has provided the platform to faculties and researchers to host their open access journals, theses and dissertations via OJAS, Shodhganga, and Shodhgangotri and so on. 77% colleges have subscribed the INFLBNET.

· Besides INFLBNET there are many data based available like ERIC, EBSCO, IndiaStat, Questia, etc. nearly 30% colleges have subscribed for it for their staff. Colleges under Kelavani Mandal like N.M., Mithibai and Podar, Xavier, Ruia etc colleges have other online sources to refer.

Expect few colleges like St. Xavier’s college, Tollani College, Podar Collegemost of the colleges either have to improve their ICT infrastructure or its use or the organisational culture or its leadership style. So above data analysis shows us that there is difference among the six zones with respect of ICT, Leadership, Culture, exchange and sharing of data among the staff. Availability of ICT is highest in Central zone followed by South zone and lowest in South Central zone. Usage of ICT is highest in South zone and lowest in North east zone. South central zone has lowest score in Oranisation culture, leadership and technology. North West has highest score in organisational culture and leadership whereas Central zone has uppermost score in technology. The above analysis also proved there is significant difference among the zones. So HEIs need to improve in one or the other aspect. HEIs are still not ready for KM implementation in Mumbai.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS:

Even as liberalization delivers significant economic gain, there is a glaring lack of reform in the system of higher education in the country according to NR Narayana Murthy, the cofounder of Infosys. Advocating the need for higher education to solve everyday problems, Murthy was insistent that while technology and the adoption of digital platforms can help, these are not foolproof solutions. So with ICT, the Organisational Culture, Environment, Leadership etc play an important role in education sector. Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo writethe best university in the US despite having excellent teachers on their payroll,are increasingly embracing the “flippedclassroom” format, where students listen to video lecture at home and spend class time applying their knowledge, solving problems, discussing examples etc. Professors guide that discussion wherever necessary. This video lectures are free of cost. So, on the one hand competition is increasing in HEIs worldwide and on other hand HEIs in Mumbai are struggling for basic infrastructure. So in order to serve the society in better way, for the benefit of the all stakeholders and to compete with the international HEIs, Mumbai colleges need to develop better organisational environment, install good ICT infrastructure and motivate staff to use more ICT. Dynamic leadership, open and trusted environment, better sharing of explicit and tacit knowledge among the stakeholders will lead towards the implantation of KM. M Laal, (2011) states four pillars of KM: (1) Leadership, (2) Organisation, (3) Technology and (4) Learning. The above analysis also shows these factors are inter related, so HEIs should focus on it to gain the fruits of KM. M Laal further states that in this chaotic and complex 21^st century, the pace of evolution has entered wrap speed and those who can’t learn, adapt and change from moment to moment simply won’t survive. So HEIs of Mumbai has to gear up fast and should try their best to implement KM.

REFERENCES:

1. Banerjee and Duflo (2017, February, 16). A more Democratic learning. Indian Express, p.13.

2. Collison, Ghris and Geof Parcel (2007): Learning to Fly: Practical Knowledge Management from Leading and Learning Organizations, Research and Market.

3. Gala Shaili and Pawar Sangeeta (2017). An Empirical Study of Use of Information and Communication Tools (ICT) among the Faculties of Arts and Commerce Degree Colleges of Mumbai. Special issue of International Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies (Impact Factor 5.78). ISSN 2319-4766.

4. Hasanali Farida (2003) Critical Success Factors of Knowledge Management.Retrieved from

5. http://providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/Critical_Success_Factors_of_KM.pdf

6. Kalaiselvi K (2013): A knowledge management approach for sharing and transferring tacit Knowledge in higher education domain, Faculty of Science and Humanities, Anna University, Chennai.

7. KidwellJillinda, Karen Vander Linde and Sandra Johnson (2000). Applying Corporate Knowledge Management Practices in Higher Education Educause Quarterly November 4, 2000. p 28-34 retrieved from https://eservices.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1333567649.6599Knowledge.pdf

8. Kowta Sita Nirmala Kumaraswamy (2009). An empirical study of collaborative knowledge sharing strategy to enhance organizational learning with special reference to IT education under management faculty of university of Pune, University of Pune.

9. Laal Marjan (2011). Knowledge Management in Higher Education, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 3, 544-549.retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050910004655

10. Murthy Narayan. (2017, January, 19). Tech Not the Ultimate Cure, We Need Good People to Man It- Interview. The Economics Times.

11. Pitroda Sam, Chairman of the National Knowledge Commission (2006): Letter to Prime Minister

12. Thakur D. S. and Thakur K. S. (2005). Approaches to Knowledge management in Higher education, Annals ofLibrary and Information studies, ISSN: 0972-5423 Vol.52 (4) retrieved from http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/4005

13. Vennila Gopal, Dr. K Shobha. (2012). Knowledge Management in Higher Education,Asian Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities, online ISSN 2249-7315,Vol.2, Issue 8, August.

14. http://www.naac.gov.in/assesment_accreditation.asp

15. http://mhrd.gov.in/university-and-higher-education

Websites of Colleges for RAR or IQAC report (referred from April 2016 to August 2016):

http://mithibai.ac.in/Common/Uploads/TabbedContentTemplate/943_Download_AQAR%202014-15%20(Mithibai%20College).pdf

http://www.chinaicollege.com/naac-criteria-v2.pdf

http://www.tolani.edu/tcc/

http://www.rapodar.ac.in/library.php

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://tktopenightcollege.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ANNUAL-QUALITY-ASSURANCE-REPORT-2011-12.pdf and gws_rd=crandei=bRinV7ZsxeK-BKyKm7gN

http://gnkhalsa.edu.in/pdf/aqar/aqar2014-15.pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0mJ9cBGo_x3WmZzMGp0dGprWHM/view?pref=2andpli=1

http://www.vesasc.org/AQAR2015-16.pdf

http://siwscollege.edu.in/IQAC/AQAR2014-15.pdf

http://www.rjcollege.edu.in/library.html

http://www.chinaicollege.com/naac-criteria-v2.pdf

http://mnwc-sndt.com/NAAC_RAR.html

http://www.chowpattybhavans.com/Downloads/Bhavans%20NAAC%20Acredition%20Part%20I.pdf

http://xaviers.edu/naac/RAR.pdf

http://sydenham.ac.in/pdf/AQAR_2014_15.pdf

http://www.nmcollege.in/NAAC_accredition.aspx

http://www.nmcollege.in/NMAdmin/KnowledgeBank/AddDocument/ssr1.pdf