Knowledge management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_management

Knowledge management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices used in an organization to
identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences. Such insights and
experiences comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes
or practice.
An established discipline since 1991 (see Nonaka 1991), KM includes courses taught in the fields of
business administration, information systems, management, and library and information sciences ( Alavi
& Leidner 1999). More recently, other fields have started contributing to KM research; these include
information and media, computer science, public health, and public policy.
Many large companies and non-profit organizations have resources dedicated to internal KM efforts, often as
a part of their 'business strategy', 'information technology', or 'human resource management' departments
(Addicott, McGivern & Ferlie 2006). Several consulting companies also exist that provide strategy and
advice regarding KM to these organizations.
Knowledge Management efforts typically focus on organizational objectives such as improved performance,
competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, integration and continuous improvement
of the organization. KM efforts overlap with organizational learning, and may be distinguished from that by
a greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and a focus on encouraging the sharing
of knowledge. KM efforts can help individuals and groups to share valuable organizational insights, to
reduce redundant work, to avoid reinventing the wheel per se, to reduce training time for new employees, to
retain intellectual capital as employees turnover in an organization, and to adapt to changing environments
and markets (McAdam & McCreedy 2000) (Thompson & Walsham 2004).

Contents

1 History
2 Research
o 2.1 Dimensions
o 2.2 Strategies
o 2.3 Motivations
o 2.4 Technologies
o 2.5 Knowledge Management and Collaboration
o 2.6 Knowledge managers
3 See also
4 References
o 4.1 Notes
5 External links

History
KM efforts have a long history, to include on-the-job discussions, formal apprenticeship, discussion forums,
corporate libraries, professional training and mentoring programs. More recently, with increased use of
computers in the second half of the 20th century, specific adaptations of technologies such as knowledge

bases, expert systems, knowledge repositories, group decision support systems, intranets, and
computer supported cooperative work have been introduced to further enhance such efforts.

[1]

In 1999, the term personal knowledge management was introduced which refers to the management of
knowledge at the individual level (Wright 2005).
In terms of the enterprise, early collections of case studies recognized the importance of knowledge
management dimensions of strategy, process, and measurement (Morey, Maybury & Thuraisingham 2002).
Key lessons learned included: people, and the cultures that influence their behaviors, are the single most
critical resource for successful knowledge creation, dissemination, and application; cognitive, social, and
organizational learning processes are essential to the success of a knowledge management strategy; and
measurement, benchmarking, and incentives are essential to accelerate the learning process and to drive
cultural change. In short, knowledge management programs can yield impressive benefits to individuals
and organizations if they are purposeful, concrete, and action-oriented.
More recently with the advent of the Web 2.0, the concept of knowledge management has evolved towards a
vision more based on people participation and emergence. This line of evolution is termed Enterprise 2.0
(McAfee 2006). However, there is an ongoing debate and discussions ( Lakhani & McAfee 2007) as to
whether Enterprise 2.0 is just a fad that does not bring anything new or useful or whether it is, indeed, the
future of knowledge management (Davenport 2008).

Research
KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the earlier 1990s. It was initially supported solely by practitioners,
when Scandia hired Leif Edvinsson of Sweden as the worlds first Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO). Hubert
Saint-Onge (formerly of CIBC, Canada), started investigating various sides of KM long before that. The
objective of CKOs is to manage and maximize the intangible assets of their organizations. Gradually, CKOs
became interested in not only practical but also theoretical aspects of KM, and the new research field was
formed. The KM ideas taken up by academics, such as Ikujiro Nonaka (Hitotsubashi University), Hirotaka
Takeuchi (Hitotsubashi University), Thomas H. Davenport (Babson College) and Baruch Lev (New York
University). In 2001, Thomas Stewart, former editor at FORTUNE Magazine, published a cover story
highlighting the importance of intellectual capital of organizations. Since its establishment, the KM
discipline has been gradually moving towards academic maturity. First, there is a trend towards higher
cooperation among academics; particularly, there has been a drop in single-authored publications. Second,
the role of practitioners has changed. Their contribution to academic research has been dramatically
declining from 30% of overall contributions up to 2002, to only 10% by 2009 (Serenko et al. 2010).
A broad range of thoughts on the KM discipline exists with no unanimous agreement; approaches vary by
author and school. As the discipline matures, academic debates have increased regarding both the theory and
practice of KM, to include the following perspectives:

Techno-centric with a focus on technology, ideally those that enhance knowledge sharing and
creation.
Organizational with a focus on how an organization can be designed to facilitate
knowledge processes best.
Ecological with a focus on the interaction of people, identity, knowledge, and environmental factors
as a complex adaptive system akin to a natural ecosystem.

Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM include People, Processes, Technology (or)
Culture, Structure, Technology, depending on the specific perspective (Spender & Scherer 2007). Different KM
schools of thought include various lenses through which KM can be viewed and explained, to include:

File MSI - 2

community of practice (Wenger, McDermott & Synder 2001)

[3]
social network analysis
[4]
intellectual capital (Bontis & Choo 2002)
[5]
information theory (McInerney 2002)
[6][7]
complexity science
[8]
constructivism (Nanjappa & Grant 2003)

[2]

The practical relevance of academic research in KM has been questioned (Ferguson 2005 ) with
action research suggested as having more relevance (Andriessen 2004) and the need to translate the
findings presented in academic journals to a practice (Booker, Bontis & Serenko 2008).

Dimensions
Different frameworks for distinguishing between knowledge exist. One proposed framework for categorizing
the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit
knowledge represents internalized knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as
how he or she accomplishes particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge
represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be
[9]
communicated to others. (Alavi & Leidner 2001).
Early research suggested that a successful KM effort needs to convert internalized tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge in order to share it, but the same effort must also permit individuals to internalize and
make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort. Subsequent research into
KM suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an
oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory. Specifically, for
knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., symbols outside of our heads)
(Serenko & Bontis 2004). Later on, Ikujiro Nonaka proposed a model (SECI for Socialization,
Externalization, Combination, Internalization) which considers a spiraling knowledge process interaction
between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). In this model, knowledge
follows a cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and explicit
knowledge is 're-internalized' into implicit knowledge.
A second proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between
embedded knowledge of a system outside of a human individual (e.g., an information system may have
knowledge embedded into its design) and embodied knowledge representing a learned capability of a
human bodys nervous and endocrine systems (Sensky 2002).
A third proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between the
exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the transfer or exploitation of "established
knowledge" within a group, organization, or community. Collaborative environments such as communities of
practice or the use of social computing tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer .

[10]

Strategies
Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related activities. Different
organizations have tried various knowledge capture incentives, including making content submission
mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance measurement plans. Considerable controversy exists
over whether incentives work or not in this field and no consensus has emerged.
One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge (push strategy). In such an instance, individuals
strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge repository, such as a database, as well as

File MSI - 3

retrieving knowledge they need that other individuals have provided to the repository .
also commonly known as the Codification approach to KM.

[11]

This is

Another strategy to KM involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated with a
particular subject on an ad hoc basis (pull strategy). In such an instance, expert individual(s) can provide
their insights to the particular person or people needing this (Snowden 2002). This is also commonly
known as the Personalization approach to KM.
Other knowledge management strategies for companies include:

rewards (as a means of motivating for knowledge sharing)

storytelling (as a means of transferring tacit knowledge)
cross-project learning
after action reviews
knowledge mapping (a map of knowledge repositories within a company accessible by all)
communities of practice
expert directories (to enable knowledge seeker to reach to the experts)
best practice transfer
competence management (systematic evaluation and planning of competences of individual
organization members)
proximity & architecture (the physical situation of employees can be either conducive or
obstructive to knowledge sharing)
master-apprentice relationship
collaborative technologies (groupware, etc)
knowledge repositories (databases, bookmarking engines, etc)
measuring and reporting intellectual capital (a way of making explicit knowledge for companies)
knowledge brokers (some organizational members take on responsibility for a specific "field" and
act as first reference on whom to talk about a specific subject)
social software (wikis, social bookmarking, blogs, etc)

Motivations
A number of claims exist as to the motivations leading organizations to undertake a KM effort .
Typical considerations driving a KM effort include:

[12]

Making available increased knowledge content in the development and provision of products and
services
Achieving shorter new product development cycles
Facilitating and managing innovation and organizational learning
Leveraging the expertise of people across the organization
Increasing network connectivity between internal and external individuals
Managing business environments and allowing employees to obtain relevant insights and
ideas appropriate to their work
Solving intractable or wicked problems
Managing intellectual capital and intellectual assets in the workforce (such as the expertise and
know-how possessed by key individuals)

Debate exists whether KM is more than a passing fad, though increasing amount of research in this field may
hopefully help to answer this question, as well as create consensus on what elements of KM help determine

the success or failure of such efforts (Wilson 2002) .

[13]

Technologies
File MSI - 4

Early KM technologies included online corporate yellow pages as expertise locators and document
management systems. Combined with the early development of collaborative technologies (in particular
Lotus Notes), KM technologies expanded in the mid-1990s. Subsequent KM efforts leveraged semantic
technologies for search and retrieval and the development of e-learning tools for communities of practice
[14]
(Capozzi 2007).
More recently, development of social computing tools (such as bookmarks, blogs, and wikis) have allowed
more unstructured, self-governing or ecosystem approaches to the transfer, capture and creation of
knowledge, including the development of new forms of communities, networks, or matrixed organizations.
However such tools for the most part are still based on text and code, and thus represent explicit
knowledge transfer. These tools face challenges in distilling meaningful re-usable knowledge and ensuring
[15]
that their content is transmissible through diverse channels
(Andrus 2005).
Software tools in knowledge management are a collection of technologies and are not necessarily acquired
as a single software solution. Furthermore, these knowledge management software tools have the advantage
of using the organization existing information technology infrastructure. Organizations and business decision
makers spend a great deal of resources and make significant investments in the latest technology, systems
and infrastructure to support knowledge management. It is imperative that these investments are validated
properly, made wisely and that the most appropriate technologies and software tools are selected or
combined to facilitate knowledge management. A set of characteristics that should support decision makers
[16]
in the selection of software tools for knowledge management are available .
Knowledge management has also become a cornerstone in emerging business strategies such as Service
Lifecycle Management (SLM) with companies increasingly turning to software vendors to enhance
[17]
their efficiency in industries including, but not limited to, the aviation industry.

Knowledge Management and Collaboration

Development of Web2.0 added new dimension to knowledge management process. The web-based
collaborative tools, such as wiki, made it possible for corporate employees to continuosly contribute and
access information to / from central repository. Companies that implemented wiki-style knowledge base
reported significant increase in productivity once the habit of contribiting, sharing and accessing
knowledge is instilled.
Virtual worlds further increased collaborative opportunities in the process of knowledge sharing. Unlike
Web2.0 applications, in virtual worlds a team can work synchronously. The new generations of virtual
worlds tools, allow the team not only meet and exchange ideas verbally, but document them by creating flow
charts and diagrams of concepts, processes or procedures that are -- explicitly or implicitly -- are a part of
the organizational knowledge base.

Knowledge managers
"Knowledge manager" is a role and designation that has gained popularity over the past decade. The role has
evolved drastically from that of one involving the creation and maintenance of knowledge repositories to one
that involves influencing the culture of an organization toward improved knowledge sharing, reuse, learning,
collaboration and innovation. Knowledge management functions are associated with different departments in
different organizations. It may be combined with Quality, Sales, HR, Innovation, Operations etc and is likely
to be determined by the KM motivation of that particular organization.
Knowledge managers have varied backgrounds ranging from Information Sciences to Business
Management. An effective knowledge manager is likely to be someone who has a versatile skills portfolio
File MSI - 5

and is comfortable with the concepts of organizational behavior/culture, processes, branding & marketing
and collaborative technology.

See also

Competitive intelligence
Complexity theory and organizations
Collective intelligence
Collective unconscious
Concept map
Data mining
DIKW
Enterprise content management
Enterprise 2.0
Enterprise bookmarking
Enterprise social software
Human-computer interaction
Information ecology
Knowledge community
Knowledge economy
Knowledge ecosystems

Knowledge engineering
Knowledge management software
Knowledge market
Knowledge representation
Knowledge tagging
Knowledge transfer
Knowledge worker
Knowledge-based theory of the firm
Management information system
Metaknowledge
Ontology
Organizational memory
Personal information management
Sensemaking
Semantic web
Social network
Sociology of knowledge
Value network analysis

References

Addicott, Rachael; McGivern, Gerry; Ferlie, Ewan (2006). "Networks, Organizational Learning and
Knowledge Management: NHS Cancer Networks". Public Money & Management 26 (2): 8794.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=889992.
Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy E. (1999). "Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and
benefits". Communications of the AIS 1 (2). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=374117.
Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy E. (2001). "Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues". MIS Quarterly 25 (1): 107
136. http://web.njit.edu/~jerry/CIS-677/Articles/Alavi-MISQ-2001.pdf.
Andriessen, Daniel (2004). "Reconciling the rigor-relevance dilemma in intellectual capital
research". The Learning Organization 11 (4/5): 393401.
Andrus, D. Calvin (2005). "The Wiki and the Blog: Toward a Complex Adaptive Intelligence
Community". Studies in Intelligence 49 (3). http://ssrn.com/abstract=755904.
Benbasat, Izak; Zmud, Robert (1999). "Empirical research in information systems: The practice of
relevance". MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 316.
Bontis, Nick; Choo, Chun Wei (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and
Organizational Knowledge. New York:Oxford University Press. ISBN 019513866X.
http://choo.fis.toronto.edu/OUP/.
Booker, Lorne; Bontis, Nick; Serenko, Alexander (2008). "The relevance of knowledge management
and intellectual capital research". Knowledge and Process Management 15 (4): 235246.
http://foba.lakeheadu.ca/serenko/papers/Booker_Bontis_Serenko_KM_relevance.pdf.
Capozzi, Marla M. (2007). "Knowledge Management Architectures Beyond Technology". First
Monday 12 (6). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1871/1754.
File MSI - 6

Davenport, Tom (2008). "Enterprise 2.0: The New, New Knowledge Management?". Harvard
Business Online, Feb. 19, 2008.
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/davenport/2008/02/enterprise_20_the_new_new_know_1.html.
Ferguson, J (2005). "Bridging the gap between research and practice". Knowledge Management
for Development Journal 1 (3): 4654.
Lakhani, Andrew P.; McAfee (2007). "Case study on deleting "Enterprise 2.0" article". Courseware #9607-712, Harvard Business School. http://courseware.hbs.edu/public/cases/wikipedia/.
McAdam, Rodney; McCreedy, Sandra (2000). "A Critique Of Knowledge Management: Using A
Social Constructionist Model". New Technology, Work and Employment 15 (2).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=239247.
McAfee, Andrew P. (2006). "Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration". Sloan
Management Review 47 (3): 2128. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/themagazine/articles/2006/spring/47306/enterprise-the-dawn-of-emergent-collaboration/.
McInerney, Claire (2002). "Knowledge Management and the Dynamic Nature of Knowledge".
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (12): 10091018.
http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~clairemc/KM_dynamic_nature.pdf.
Morey, Daryl; Maybury, Mark; Thuraisingham, Bhavani (2002). Knowledge Management: Classic
and Contemporary Works. Cambridge: MIT Press. p. 451.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=8987.
Nanjappa, Aloka; Grant, Michael M. (2003). "Constructing on constructivism: The role of
technology". Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education 2 (1).
http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.pdf.
Nonaka, Ikujiro (1991). "The knowledge creating company". Harvard Business Review 69 (6 NovDec): 96104. http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2007/07/the-knowledge-creating-company/es.
Nonaka, Ikujiro; Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 284.
http://books.google.com/books?id=B-qxrPaU1-MC.
Sensky, Tom (2002). "Knowledge Management". Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 8 (5): 387395.
http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/8/5/387.
Snowden, Dave (2002). "Complex Acts of Knowing - Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness".
Journal of Knowledge Management, Special Issue 6 (2): 100111. doi:10.1108/13673270210424639.
http://www.cognitive-edge.com/articledetails.php?articleid=13.
Spender, J.-C.; Scherer, Andreas Georg (2007), "The Philosophical Foundations of Knowledge
Management: Editors' Introduction", Organization 14 (1): 528, http://ssrn.com/abstract=958768
Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick (2004), "Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual
capital literature: citation impact and research productivity rankings", Knowledge and Process
Management 11 (3): 185198, doi:10.1002/kpm.203,
http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/mktg/nbontis//ic/publications/KPMSerenkoBontis.pdf
Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick; Booker, Lorne; Sadeddin, Khaled (2010), "A scientometric
analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994-2008)",
Journal of Knowledge Management 14 (1): 1323, doi:10.1108/13673271011015534,
http://foba.lakeheadu.ca/serenko/papers/Serenko_Bontis_JKM_MetaAnalysis_Published.pdf
Thompson, Mark P.A.; Walsham, Geoff (2004), "Placing Knowledge Management in Context",
Journal of Management Studies 41 (5): 725747,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=559300
Wenger, Etienne; McDermott, Richard; Synder, Richard (2002). Cultivating Communities of
Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge - Seven Principles for Cultivating Communities
of Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. pp. 107136. ISBN 1578513308.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2855.html.
Wilson, T.D. (2002). "The nonsense of 'knowledge management'". Information Research 8 (1).
http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html.

File MSI - 7

Wright, Kirby (2005). "Personal knowledge management: supporting individual knowledge worker
performance". Knowledge Management Research and Practice 3 (3): 156165.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500061.

Notes
1. "Introduction to Knowledge Management". Unc.edu.
http://www.unc.edu/~sunnyliu/inls258/Introduction_to_Knowledge_Management.html. Retrieved 15
January 2010.
2. (PDF). http://www.crito.uci.edu/noah/HOIT/HOIT%20Papers/TeacherBridge.pdf. Retrieved 15
January 2010.
3. (PDF). http://www.ischool.washington.edu/mcdonald/ecscw03/papers/groth-ecscw03-ws.pdf.
Retrieved 15 January 2010.
4. Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows Program; Observations in Knowledge Management:
Leveraging the Intellectual Capital of a Large, Global Organization with Technology, Tools and
Policies. IBM, Global Business Services. 2002.
http://www.ndu.edu/sdcfp/reports/2007Reports/IBM07%20.doc. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
5. "Information Architecture and Knowledge Management". Iakm.kent.edu.
http://iakm.kent.edu/programs/information-use/iu-curriculum.html. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
6. Snowden, Dave (2002). "Complex Acts of Knowing - Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness".
Journal of Knowledge Management, Special Issue 6 (2): 100 - 111.
7. SSRN-Knowledge Ecosystems: A Theoretical Lens for Organizations Confronting Hyperturbulent
Environments by David Bray. Papers.ssrn.com. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=984600. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
8. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/wyssusek02sociopragmatic.html
9. "SSRN-Literature Review - Knowledge Management Research at the Organizational Level by David
Bray". Papers.ssrn.com. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991169. Retrieved 15
January 2010.
10. "SSRN-Exploration, Exploitation, and Knowledge Management Strategies in Multi-Tier
Hierarchical Organizations Experiencing Environmental Turbulence by David Bray".
Papers.ssrn.com. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961043. Retrieved 15
January 2010.
11. (PDF). http://www.cs.fiu.edu/~chens/PDF/IRI00_Rathau.pdf. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
12. http://tecom.cox.smu.edu/abasu/itom6032/kmlect.pdf
13. (PDF). http://myweb.whitman.syr.edu/yogesh/papers/WhyKMSFail.pdf. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
14. "p217-ricardo.pdf" (PDF). http://elvis.slis.indiana.edu/irpub/HT/2001/pdf53.pdf. Retrieved 15
January 2010.
15. "Knowledge Management". www.systems-thinking.org. http://www.systemsthinking.org/kmgmt/kmgmt.htm. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
16. Smuts, Hanlie; Van der Merwe, AJ; Loock, M (2009), Key characteristics in selecting software tools
for Knowledge Management, 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems,
Milan Italy (May 2009).
[dead link]
17. Aviation Industry Group. "Service life-cycle management"
, Aircraft
Technology: Engineering & Maintenance, February-March, 2005.

File MSI - 8