1.1. Research Background

In Thailand, as in other countries, the nonprofit sector originated in religion and a very long historical establishment (Pongsapich, 1993). Various forms of the Thai nonprofit sector include foundations, associations, social development, health and social services, advocacy, and cultural activities (Pongsapich, 1993). In Thailand, nonprofit organizations (NPOs) gained more than 136 million Thai Baht (approximately US$4.3 million) in 2013 (National Statistical Office, 2014). According to the National Statistical Office survey, there were as many as 76,685 NPOs that employed 923,198 people in the whole country. However, 65,457 NPOs, or 85.4 percent, used information and communications technology and computers in their operation. Beyond their economic contributions, NPOs also contributed to their communities through qualitative social value and cultural efforts (Lettieri et al., 2004). To achieve the mission of social contribution, NPOs need to identify their knowledge needs and develop organizational capabilities and resources. Although NPOs have significantly contributed to the community and society, knowledge management-nonprofit organizations (KM-NPO) have not gained much attention from researchers (Rathi et al., 2016) and in published papers, especially in Asia.

1.2. Need for the Study

According to Ragsdell et al. (2014), KM studies on the for-profit sector provide a theoretical foundation for investigating KM-NPO domains. However, there are many distinctions between for-profit organizations (FPOs) and NPOs, such as organizational design, management structures, and legal status (Hume et al., 2012). Unlike FPOs, NPOs concentrate on creating societal value rather than maximizing financial gains (Lettieri et al., 2004). The nonprofit sector strives to secure various funding, donations, volunteers, and community support (Rathi et al., 2016). NPOs must also manage their assets and resources effectively and efficiently in the context of the competitive marketplace.

When investigated empirically, there were various ways to define nonprofit sectors regarding their inputs, such as income or labor supply. The nonprofit sector is defined as an “important economic actor” having a significant contribution to national economic development and providing voluntary activities (Lyons & Passey, 2006, p. 90) and employment activities (Rathi et al., 2016). This sector can also be called the third sector or voluntary sector. Following the Johns Hopkins University project’s definitions, NPOs consist of five essential characteristics: organized, private, nonprofit-distributing, self-governing, and voluntary (Salamon & Anheier, 1997). This structural-operational definition, which encompasses NPOs, can fulfill diversity functions such as improving public goods and offering positive externalities for society (Salamon & Anheier, 1997). Therefore, the nonprofit sector has strived to donate its efforts to develop the community and society where it has implemented its activities. The KM literature also confirmed that KM could facilitate NPOs to have better products for their partnerships or stakeholders (Lettieri et al., 2004). However, Rathi et al. (2016) revealed that KM and its application had been limited in NPOs. Both KR and technical resources must be identified and documented to support organizational success. This investigation presents a categorization of knowledge and technology resources for the KM practices of NPOs in Thailand. From the practical side, this categorization of KR and technology resources can help NPO leaders make decisions regarding organizational design and investment.

1.3. Scope of the Study

During the “Industry 4.0” revolution, valuable knowledge resources (KRs) and technology resources are vital for dynamic competitive advantage (Karia, 2018), especially in the for-profit sector. Recently, KRs have become a research interest in various fields, such as information technology (Chuang et al., 2013), operation (Vivares-Vergara et al., 2016), and logistics (Ding et al., 2015). However, given the significant role of organizational resources, including technology and human resources, it remains unclear how organizations can optimize KRs and technology resources to create organizational development to gain a competitive advantage. Recently, studies on KM for the nonprofit sector have been conducted from various perspectives. In terms of KR studies, most investigations have focused on FPOs; hence, a lack of researchers attend to this field for NPOs. For instance, the study conducted by Huck et al. (2011) shows that NPOs combined Web 2.0 technology and low-tech solutions to reach knowledge needs within tight resource constraints. This study did not concentrate on how to group and clarify KRs in the nonprofit context. From the practical perspective, developing KRs to shape processes for the dissemination, creation, and attainment of organizational knowledge has a rich history in FPOs. However, the reality indicated that NPOs encountered limitations with KRs and budget allocations. Moreover, no specific studies emphasize both KRs and technology resources for KM activities from nonprofit perspectives in Thailand. Thus, identification of the KR-NPOs is necessary. This present study, therefore, aims to fill this gap.

1.4. Research Objectives

This investigation is part of a study on developing the KM model for the nonprofit sector in Thailand. The objectives of this study were to identify the types of both KRs and technology resources and categorize them using evidence-based findings from nonprofit perspectives.

2.1. KM-NPOs

NPOs primarily encounter real competition, such as seeking funding in complex and uncertain environments (Ragsdell, 2013), and KM plays a critical role in these functions (Huck et al., 2011). In these contexts, NPOs must manage their resources and capabilities to create different approaches to organizational and KM practices and to provide better services to communities (Grant, 1996; Rathi et al., 2016). Organizational KRs emerge, along with human resource development and retention processes, through the development of skills, knowledge, and expertise (Hu et al., 2015; Karia, 2018).

Zapata Cantu and Mondragon (2016) noted that there were three critical aspects of studies of KM and its contribution to an organizational competitive advantage. First, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) demonstrated that firm employees play an essential role in knowledge creation processes at organizations. Second, at the organization level, knowledge will be created and shared among the organizational members, so that it may be known to all. Third, generated knowledge will be combined and integrated into existing knowledge-based platforms among organizations (Zárraga & Manuel García‐Falcón, 2003). Huck et al. (2011) mentioned that both large NPOs and FPOs have exact operational needs, such as technology and human resources, IT needs, and customer services.

Moreover, NPOs primarily adopted critical management practices from FPOs (McAdam & Reid, 2000) and then later adopted them from other NPOs and public organizations (Cong & Pandya, 2003). Therefore, the literature on critical KM-FPOs provides the foundation for investigating studies in the nonprofit sector (Ragsdell et al., 2014). The investigation of KM-NPOs was conducted from a different point of view; moreover, it received less attention than NPOs from KM scholars (Huck et al., 2011; Lettieri et al., 2004; Zapata Cantu & Mondragon, 2016). For example, Zapata Cantu and Mondragon (2016) identified individual and organizational components that enable NPOs to share and create knowledge. Rathi et al. (2016) clarified the types of knowledge needed within NPOs. This study created significant contributions in KM-NPOs and identified the specific requirements of knowledge in the nonprofit environment. Furthermore, the effectiveness of KM practices in NPOs was evaluated in a study by Downes and Marchant (2016). This study demonstrated that the extent and effectiveness of KM are moderate, although KM is more extensive with a formal framework in Australian NPOs. NPOs lack organizational resources or technical capabilities. Therefore, they use alternative solutions, both technical and nontechnical, aiming to retain implicit knowledge (Sébastien Matzkin, 2008). From the academic context, there was a research gap in the KM-NPO literature on KRs from the nonprofit perspective.

2.2. Knowledge and Technology Resources

In general, the theory of resource-based views in an organization is confirmed by scholars. Song et al. (2005 p. 26) mentioned that it is “a unique bundle of tangible and intangible resources and emphasizes the protection of firm core competencies comprising these resources.” Therefore, the resources include all strengths and advantages that enable the improvement of the organization’s effectiveness. KRs have been identified and declared in the literature. In nature, the KRs are described as durable, inimitable, and nontransferable. Thus, KRs can sustain their advantage over time (Hu et al., 2015; Karia, 2018). In this way, the KRs approached and rationalized the human-specific skills and experiences of staff in the organizations (Reuber, 1997).

There are two related KR definitions, involving knowledge assets and intellectual property. Regarding knowledge assets, organizational assets consist of tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge relating to expertise, know-how, best practices, and intellectual property (Hu et al., 2016; Li & Chang, 2009). According to Wilkins et al. (1997), intellectual property includes human intellect such as innovative ideas, business processes, and unique methods that create valuable sources for the marketplace. Hu et al. (2016) also revealed that intellectual property is a subset of knowledge assets, indicated as a carrier of KRs. KRs are referred to as a type of organizational resource embodying tacit and explicit knowledge from the two perspectives mentioned above. Tacit knowledge was defined by Nonaka et al. (2000) and is deeply rooted in the actions, working procedures, emotions, ideas, and values within an organization. This knowledge involves comprehensive cognizance of the human mind and body, which makes it hard to share and transfer to others.

On the other hand, explicit knowledge is the information or data that can be easily captured, systematized, or shared in the form of manuals, documents, and scientific formulae (Nonaka et al., 2000). This knowledge can be shared, combined, and transformed among organizations (Hu et al., 2016). Furthermore, Karia (2018) determined that KRs were rationalized as human skills and experiences. This can be viewed as human capital in the organization. This capital involves more intangible resources in nature (Kong & Prior, 2008). This study adopted the above approach; KRs are mainly composed of intangible organizational resources in NPOs.

Technology resources encompass advanced technologies and equipment, such as IT and information systems, web-based systems, corporate databases, etc. Technology resources in the for-profit sector have been identified in the literature. For instance, Karia (2018) found that both KRs and technology resources created cost advantages for logistics firms, which moved the era of digital and technology innovation in the context of developing countries. This study illustrated that technology resources comprise new or technologically advanced equipment, web-based knowledge or information systems, and facilities. For this study’s purpose, technology resources have been investigated intensively from technology-oriented perspectives in NPOs. In short, this paper considers organizational resources as encompassing human-oriented and technology-oriented aspects in NPOs, both of which may be considered for tangible and intangible perspectives.

2.3. Knowledge Resources in the NPOs

Polanyi (1962) noted that knowledge has been conceptualized, such as explicit and tacit knowledge in organizations. For the nonprofit sector, tacit knowledge occupies the workforce. It is mainly composed of voluntary staff, who give their passion for addressing social issues and development (Zapata Cantu & Mondragon, 2016). Moreover, NPOs have encountered a challenge in developing organizational memory, because the turnover rate among the staff in such organizations is very high. This challenged the nonprofit sector to create an environment to develop knowledge-based resources within organizations. Therefore, KM is critically concerned for these organizations in terms of the generation and sharing of knowledge.

In the nonprofit context, the study of Huck et al. (2011) clarified both internal and external knowledge sources. External knowledge sources are workshops and societies in the nonprofit community. Meanwhile, internal knowledge sources are volunteers, society members, and clients. This study also identified workshop events as a potential resource for NPOs. Interestingly, this finding demonstrated that society members are critical information sources as a type of tacit knowledge for organizational activities and policy decisions. Lettieri et al. (2004) proposed six main knowledge taxonomy groups in NPOs: administrative knowledge, managerial knowledge, training knowledge, marketing knowledge, operational knowledge, and miscellaneous. A KR is tacit knowledge at both the individual and organizational levels. Furthermore, Granados et al. (2017) emphasized the importance of tacit knowledge among NPOs. There is experiential knowledge, including organizational and individual experiences, skillsets, reputation, and conceptual knowledge.

In summary, both KRs and technology resources are the most important for KM in for-profit firms, but nonprofit scholars have ignored it; consequently, there is a lack of both theoretical and empirical research confirmation to recognize either how KRs and technology resources support KM practices or the extent to which organizational resources are categorized. Therefore, there is an urgent demand for research to examine and identify critical KRs and technology-specific resources in the nonprofit context.

3.1. Research Design

To explore the KRs in NPOs, this study used a qualitative approach. The study adopted a purposive sample of organizations with a snowball sampling approach. Sample organizations were selected from primary sources, including the Thailand directory of nongovernmental organizations (Wongkhomthong & Wagatsuma, 2001), the online registry system of the government, the Civil Society Organization directory of the Center for Civil Society and Nonprofit Management from Khon Kaen University, and other listings of NPOs in Thailand. The final list of investigated NPOs was identified before sending invitation letters for the interviews. The in-depth interviews were conducted with 31 senior and middle senior executives, country directors, program managers, founders, and others from NPOs in Thailand. To protect the confidentiality and anonymity of key informants’ information and their organizations, the key informants were labeled INF1, INF2, […] INF31. The list of key informants is indicated in Table 1. These organizations work in various fields, such as education and training, health care, social and community development, tourism, capacity building, refugee assistance, environmental issues, and others. The investigated organizations were from different fields, reflecting this study’s aim to maximize the information yield from the key informants. Moreover, it allowed for exploring different phenomena and evidence within organizations (Pickard, 2013).

Interview questionnaires of the study were divided into four sessions. Session one indicated the key informant’s understanding regarding technology and KRs. Session two investigated KRs and their categories in the NPOs. Session three consisted of questions regarding technology resources and their components. Finally, session four included the questions relating to the linkages between KRs and technology resources and how to develop them from non-profit perspectives.

The main research variables were included in two aspects: the main categories of the KRs and how existing technology resources are used within the NPOs. In detail, the interviewees stated their knowledge and awareness relating to resource-specific information and knowledge that is used for both internal and external organizational needs. The key informants clarified that categories of KRs existed within the organizations. Last, the study also concentrated on exploring what technical aspects are developed and examining NPOs in Thailand. Furthermore, to avoid confusion in the phrase “knowledge resources” during interviews, the key informants were permitted to use other words, such as “information resources” or “information sources.” This allowed the interviewees to share more insights concerning the KRs within their organizations.

3.2. Data Collection

Synchronous interviews were set up, both face-to-face and online, over five months from March to July 2020. Initially, the key informants selected interview locations where they could perceive more freedom to share their knowledge relating to the research topic. Unfortunately, because COVID-19 had been spreading widely, the rest of the key informants were referred to interview sessions via online video tools such as Skype and Zoom. Each interview’s duration was from 1 to 1.5 hours, and it was transcribed verbatim. Before conducting the interviews, the researchers requested the informant’s permission for recording. Furthermore, the in-depth interview questions used were based on obtaining the following (see Appendix):

Regarding validity for qualitative research, the main researcher has been well trained in the research ethics of social sciences. Furthermore, the validation process has been reinforced via an interview protocol and includes information sheets and consent letters. The interview documents were reviewed and approved by the research ethics committee of Khon Kaen University, Thailand. Additionally, Granados et al. (2017) noted that trust, openness, and building empathy during the interview sessions had been assured by the research validity.

3.3. Data Analysis

In terms of the analytical data process, qualitative data were initially analyzed in academic directions, which helped the researchers identify research themes, including acronyms and vocabulary. In the first stage, when each interview was completed and transcribed, qualitative data analysis involving initial coding produced themes relating to understanding the key informant’s organizational context. These research themes served as initial deductive codes for the study. Moreover, transcription codification was conducted on a line-by-line basis, which allowed us to remove the differences and familiarities among the transcripts. All interview transcripts were recorded, uploaded, and analyzed by Atlas ti. 7.5 software. In the next stage, these deductive codes were reclarified and finalized into inductive codes. In the final stage, the inductive codes allowed the researchers to build up the main research components of the KRs and technology resources within the NPOs.

4.1. Categorization of Knowledge Resources in the NPOs

The evidence-based findings of KRs illustrated in this investigation transcend existing models given the concentration, particularly in the nonprofit context. This diagram presents five vital components of the KRs discovered by elements that apply among the examined NPOs.

Qualitative data from NPOs in Thailand have been proposed to clarify five critical KR categories (Fig. 1). These categories are presented as follows:

Fig. 1

Five main categories of the KRs in the NPOs. KRs, knowledge resources; NPOs, nonprofit organizations.

4.2. Technology Resources in the NPOs

Technology resources are physical components such as technologies, equipment, and facilities used for operational purposes in organizations. Qualitative data have revealed that these resources can be understood as digital organization resources. The types of resources have been clarified into internal and external technology resources.

4.2.2. External Technology Resources

External technology resources can be categorized as network resources, which connect the data and information among and beyond the boundaries of organizations. Using digital technologies, NPOs have shared and disseminated their knowledge and expertise in various ways. This can be grouped into three levels: unilevel, bilevel, and multilevel. As one key informant explained:

“We realized on the database of United Nations (UN), International Labour Organization (ILO), Asia Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, and the governments. We also think that need assessment, reports, and policy briefs are available from these organizations, [because] they already collected as well as they collaborated with the governments” (INF19).

In addition to databases, external technology resources are formed as global sharing platforms or collaboration systems (INF30), learning labs (INF07), M&E systems (INF15), and others. The examined NPOs would like to use more digitalized technologies for their operational activities. However, NPOs are charitable institutions that rely on or utilize funding from donors and agencies. Therefore, several informants noted the limitations of extra budgets, which were barriers to using technology resources externally.

In short, a deeper engagement with the study results in NPOs revealed two exciting findings in identifying and categorizing both KRs and technology resources in a nonprofit context. First, the interpretation of critical components of the KRs concept map (Fig. 2) profoundly illustrates how NPOs were used as sources of knowledge and technology. Second, organizational resources were recognized in this study throughout the analytical data process (Fig. 1), including five critical KRs (human resources, organizational practices, partnership or stakeholder involvement, operational practices, and others) and two technology resources (internal resources and external resources).

 

Fig. 2

Concept map depicting knowledge and technology resources in the nonprofit organizations.