A new institutional reading of knowledge management technology adoption

Carlo Rizzi, Diego Ponte and Matteo Bonifacio

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a new institutional perspective of knowledge Management technology adoption through an empirical study of a knowledge intensive rm. Design/methodology/approach The research involved collection of qualitative data about knowledge management practices. The analysis was carried out over a six month period by means of ethnographic research and a series of interviews. It focused mainly on the personnel involved in Knowledge Management initiatives within two information technology units of a telecommunication rm. Findings This article proposes a new institutional perspective of knowledge management as an alternative of the instrumental point of view. The authors argue that knowledge management initiatives are better understood if considered as rational myths instead of rational choices. Research limitations/implications The paper has some limitations. First, the research is based on a single case study; secondly, the authors acknowledge the difculty in having full access to decision-making rooms or corridors of power where institutional pressure is exerted. To improve the theoretical framework and the methodological approach, both qualitative and quantitative analyses are recommended. Originality/value Why do organizations, even in the face of the poor results produced by knowledge management initiatives, continue to invest nancial and organizational resources in knowledge management related technologies? This article proposes that this apparently irrational behaviour can be explained when evaluating knowledge management initiatives, rather than in their instrumental value, as symbolic means to legitimate the organization in an environment where the management of knowledge is said to be a core feature of modern organizations. Keywords Knowledge management, Organizational analysis, Communication technologies, Technology led strategy Paper type Case study

Carlo Rizzi, Diego Ponte and Matteo Bonifacio are all based at the Department of Organizations Studies at the Faculty of Economics, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.

Introduction
During the last few decades a growing number of contributions in the eld of knowledge management (thereafter KM) have put forward a series of doubts and critiques about the added value and the effectiveness of KM technologies and solutions (Ruggles, 1998). From a practical perspective, empirical evidence shows that KM initiatives and systems are often deserted by users (Andriessen et al., 2003; Desouza, 2003; Newell et al., 2001; Walsham, 2001). On the other hand, what is striking is the fact that organizations, even when facing disappointing results and dissatisfaction with these tools (Rigby, 2001; Rigby and Bilodeau, 2005) are continuing to invest a signicant amount of money and effort in the implementation of ICT based KM applications (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2007). When facing the apparent contradiction between poor results and increasing organizational efforts to implement KM initiatives, one could argue that organizations are irrational as they are subject to what some authors have called irrational escalation (Staw, 1997). In fact, from

DOI 10.1108/13673270910971842

VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009, pp. 75-85, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 75

a rational perspective, one would suggest that, instead of continuing wasting energy and resources in a failing course of action, managers should either change their implementation strategies or stop them completely. Another way to see this paradox without calling for some presumed irrationality is to challenge the main assumption surrounding both the KM supporters and its doubters. This assumption states that KM initiatives should be evaluated in their instrumental value (KM applications are tools to manage knowledge). An alternative hypothesis is to consider KM initiatives for their symbolic value; namely, as initiatives that give some meaning to the role of the organization and its members in the wider social context. This assumption shift, coherent with a New Institutional perspective, allows reconsidering the adoption of KM applications as a way to legitimate both the organizational goals and the organization itself in an environment where the management of knowledge is said to be a core feature of modern organizations. This environment is dened as Knowledge society and populated by Knowledge workers (thereafter KWs) (Drucker, 1993) and Knowledge intensive companies (thereafter KICs) (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Organizations seek such legitimacy in order to gain access to resources or increase their credibility and respectability with various stake holders. The paper is organized as follows: the next section briey outline the new institutional approach and its interpretation of technology adoption and utilization. It further depicts the research hypotheses about a possible new institutional reading of KM tools and initiatives. Then it introduces the case study where the research hypotheses were explored. Finally, the last section briey discusses the ndings of the case study and concludes this work addressing some limitations and future work.

The new institutional approach

The new institutional framework is a set of heterogeneous studies which nd a common element in that they refuse to see society as a product of purposefully oriented agents (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991). Starting from the seminal works of Weber (1978) and Selznick (1947), the new institutional approach (Zucker, 1987) investigates the material and symbolic pressures carried out by institutions to inuence human and organizational behaviours. On the other hand, it criticizes the usefulness of technical and efciency based criteria to analyze organizational performance while proposing that these are socially dened on the basis of what is considered as respectable and legitimate (Scott, 2001). Thus the successful organization is the one able to show its adherence to the institutionalized rules, thus earning and maintaining the social trust needed to ensure and stabilize access to resources (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Within this framework, the institutionalized organization is dened as the entity whose behaviours are heavily inuenced by the institutional pressures exerted by the surrounding environment: the nation, the public sector, informal opinion groups and professional networks. While these inuences imply a reduction of decisional alternatives, the diminished freedom is rewarded by less unpredictable behaviours from those institutions the organization depend on. In such a way the rm avoids environmental turbulence and uncertainty (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 1991; Scott and Meyer, 1991). The new institutional framework proposes some useful concepts for analysing organizational dynamics. These concepts are briey reviewed below (Di Maggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977):
B

The formal structure as a rational myth. The structure of the organization, rather than being a means to rationally pursue organizational objectives, is the result of institutionalized rules, norms and values. These act as highly rationalised myths for the rm and for society in general, and as pre-designed behavioural patterns (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1990). In this sense, the choice of a particular structure is not made and evaluated on the base of a supposed technical functionality, but rather on the base of its conformity to rational myths and fashions. Such conformity produces social legitimacy

PAGE 76 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009

while constraining the set of available organizational options (Selznick, 1996; Jepperson, 1991; Meyer and Scott, 1983; Blau and Scott, 1962).
B

The decoupling as a means to avoid conict. If on the one hand the formal structure is adopted to gain social legitimacy, on the other hand, work may need to be carried out according to models that do not conform to the rational myth. To manage this inconsistency, the organization needs to establish loosely coupled relationships between the formal structure and its technical activities as well as between different organizational units. This slack reduces the risk of establishing working activities in ways that may be counterproductive or unacceptable; on the other hand, it avoids conicts related to the possibility of evaluating or comparing the technical performances between different units. The logic of trust and the principle of benevolent inspection to preserve decoupling. Within the institutionalized organization, the controls, inspections and evaluations of the operative activities are reduced to a minimum to avoid the emergence of contradictions and inconsistencies. Social institutional pressures lead to isomorphism. Rational myths and values are not just a product of the organization, but are rather generated by the wider social environment. To be legitimate, the organization tries to conform to these myths by emulating those organizations that are generally considered more legitimate (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975). As a consequence, within the same institutional context, organizations tend to become more similar rather than differentiating themselves.

Technology and new institutionalism

From a new institutional perspective, technology can be seen in two major ways. A more traditional interpretation has suggested considering technology as the core that expresses the way in which work is actually carried out. As such, it should be preserved and protected from institutional myths and pressures (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). In this sense, technology represents the instrumental dimension of the organization, which exists under the surface of the institutional level that protects this core from external pressures. The organization appears as a decoupled structure made up of a symbolic level, whose role is to comply with rational myths, and a technological level which has the role of performing the instrumental function of the organization (such as producing goods or performing services) (Thompson, 1967). Another perspective reveals the often ambiguous and variable nature of technology whose adoption is increasingly the combination of what is technically possible and what is socially acceptable (Hounshell, 1984; Noble, 1984; Davis and Taylor, 1976; Emery and Trist, 1965), rather than the mere result of some form of technical determinism or economic efciency. As a consequence technology itself can be considered as an institutional vehicle, incorporating those rational myths and values that make the organization that adopts it a legitimate organization (Scott, 2001). From this second perspective technology is not anymore a core to be protected by institutional myths and pressures. Rather technology is a formal structure itself, being a symbolic layer of rational fashions. As such it is adopted to seek external recognition. If this is the case, technology would be subject to the same institutional dynamics outlined above. First, technological tools themselves could be decoupled from actual working practices that would continue to operate side by side with technology. Second, since technology becomes an integral part of the institutionalized structure, activities aimed at verifying the effectiveness of the adopted technology are carried out invariably rejoicing in the technological myth and not obtaining an objective verication of its utility (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). So, adopting rational principles to analyze the use of technology within an institutionalized context is often useless, since they are unable to explain the back-patting rules that are behind them. Third, technology might play a major role in forming a bridge between the organization and its institutionalized environment (Scott, 2001). In fact, technological tools and methods derive from those institutional professional networks that

VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 77

both inuence organizational choices by proposing legitimate technologies and act as a vehicle, through technology, to legitimate behavioural and value systems. In this sense, a researcher would observe isomorphic processes at the technological level. As such, technology has been recognized as subject to isomorphic processes (Beck and Walgenbach, 2005; Currie and Suhomlinova, 2006).

This study, additionally takes into consideration the increasingly symbolic value expressed by technology in the modern era, exploring in more depth the idea that the use of technology can be fruitfully analyzed in terms of institutional rather than instrumental dynamics. In particular, it focuses on one of the most celebrated technological fashions, that of knowledge management (KM) investigating the following research hypotheses:
B

KM technologies, as part of a formal structure, can be seen as a celebration of the organizational identity as a Knowledge Intensive Company (KIC). KM technologies are vehicles through which these myths are imported from the outside as a means to legitimate the organization in a wider knowledge society.

To explore such hypotheses in the context of a KIC the authors observe that:
B

The formal knowledge structure of the KIC is embedded in KM technologies in addition to those structures that are externally conveyed by various institutional networks. These structures are supposedly rational as they are imbued with instrumental values such as performance, efcacy or efciency. On the other hand, these structures and, consequently, technologies, are institutional myths as they are decoupled from the way in which people actually operate. Decoupling exists to avoid a conict between legitimate and actual behaviours and such an existence is possible thanks to a logic of benevolent inspection. In this sense, the authors observe that these technologies are chosen, changed, and updated regardless of the evaluation of their performance. Moreover, different and overlapping solutions may coexist. Further, KM technologies and solutions should be subject to isomorphic dynamics as an organization tends to adopt KM technologies and solutions which are already used and recommended by other organizations and professional networks. This is because use of new technology becomes a marker of their legitimacy regardless of their proven performance or applicability in the specic organizational context.

The conrmation of these hypotheses would lead us to conclude that analyzing KM technologies in terms of their instrumental value is like judging fashion clothes for their capacity to keep warm; if their role is symbolic, issues such as efciency or efcacy matter only as long as they are part of the myth. In this sense, the adoption of KM technologies represents a rational myth rather than a rational choice. The next paragraph introduces the case study under analysis. The analysis was carried out over a six month period by means of ethnographic research and a series of interviews. It focused mainly on the personnel involved in KM initiatives within two information technology units of a telecommunication rm: X-TEL.

A knowledge intensive company: X-TEL

X-TEL[1] is a major world wide player in the Telecommunications sector. Today its business has evolved and diversied into a wide range of information and communication technology (ICT) related services incorporating a wide network of heterogeneous companies. With its branches, the group today operates at every level of telecommunication services. Recently X-TEL has been acquired by another company named BETA Corp. The new ownership has proposed a series of reorganizations aimed at improving efciency and synergy among the different services. The general philosophy of the rationalization is to create a more integrated organization, by changing the network-like structure of the former X-TEL Group while dening and implementing a corporate identity. According to this vision,

PAGE 78 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009

 This paper questions why organizations continue to invest in KM technologies and solutions despite the fact that results seem to be quite disappointing.

a series of organizational and technological interventions has been put in place, including those aimed at improving the management of existing knowledge resources. For an observer interested in KM related issues, the extensive and continuous effort that the company has put into the adoption of KM solutions before and after the acquisition of BETA is of particular interest. Without going into detail, the company, during the last few years has launched a number of KM initiatives and projects that adopt different approaches to KM and that were put forward by different units and groups. These initiatives cover the full range of KM related technologies, going from more or less standardized knowledge portals (such as the standardized SAP[2] based knowledge platform US or the more anarchic intranet of sites named KFED), to collaborative technologies for group sharing (based on Microsoft Sharepoint[3]), to standard personal knowledge suites such as the so called EAGLE (a suite of personal KM tools including Microsoft Ofce) or KEEx (a peer to peer KM solution based on Semantic Web technologies). Besides technicalities, it is worth underlining the magnitude, heterogeneity and extensiveness of these efforts that involve a wide range of users and units, and imply the use of many resources. These resources are not just nancial: they are also organizational in the broader sense, as these solutions are extensively debated in informal and formal discussions. These debates often lead to the launch and management of different projects that involve a considerable number of employees and consultants as well as many meetings. From this perspective, X-TEL considers itself explicitly and de facto an exemplary knowledge intensive company (KIC) that views its employees as knowledge workers (KWs), and its competitive environment increasingly in terms of a knowledge society.

Knowledge technologies and the formal knowledge structure

It is worth noticing that these initiatives, although heterogeneous and put forward by different organizational proponents, do not emerge randomly but rather develop along the lines of more or less explicit debates about the organization of the company and, in particular, about the organization of the companys knowledge. One of the possible ways of approaching this debate is to focus on the centralized versus distributed nature of knowledge (Bonifacio et al., 2004; Bonifacio et al., 2002). On the one hand knowledge is seen as a standardized content that can be codied and spread through some shared repository; in this case, the KM structure is centralized and organized around dedicated and specialized KM functions. On the other hand, knowledge is seen as an intrinsically contextual matter that should not be standardized, but rather translated or interoperated according to different specialized languages. In this case the knowledge structure is distributed, as it must be managed locally by autonomous users and units. Interestingly, this debate at the knowledge level mirrors a wider debate at the organizational level, whereby a more centralized and corporate-like structure is opposed to a more distributed and network styled one. As mentioned, X-TEL was formerly based on a constellation of more or less autonomous companies and is now evolving, under the direction of BETA, into a more centralized structure in which procedures, roles and processes are standardized and harmonized according to a corporate, rather than holding, model. Along these lines, the various KM initiatives span from the implementation of more standardized and centralized solutions such as the knowledge portal US or the standard user platform EAGLE, to more distributed approaches such as the portal KFED that

VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 79

federates various intranet sites, or peer to peer solutions such as KEEx. In evolutionary terms, the centralized US has been proposed in conjunction with the arrival of the new ownership. The new system aimed at replacing the previous distributed KFED portal. Nonetheless the migration of KFED into US is still under way, and the two solutions still coexist and are managed by two different units: IT Systems (thereafter ITS) manages KFED while Shared Tech Services (thereafter STS) manages US. In this context, KM technologies incorporate the philosophy of the envisioned knowledge structure (centralized or distributed), as this structure incorporates elements of the broader organizational structure (corporate versus holding). To some extent, KM technologies are part or expression of the formal KM structure which is part of the overall formal structure of the company. Such an interwoven nature of the formal structure and related KM technology in X-TEL will be referred to as the X-TEL KM techno-structure.

Knowledge technologies as myths

Up to this point, the background could be seen as perfectly rational, as one might argue that the formal structure is a means to achieve organizational goals and related technologies are tools to implement the proposed structure. But if this was the case, the authors would have observed that the debated options about the KM techno-structure would correspond to different alternatives according to which concrete knowledge work should be organized. In other terms, this debate would be rational in a classic sense if planned techno-structures correspond to actual behaviours or at least to actions aimed at structuring behaviours consistently. On the other hand, the authors have observed that such a connection or need does not seem to be in place, as the KM debates in the rm evolve in a sphere which is markedly separate from current work practices. This decoupling occurs at different levels. From a vertical perspective, the envisioned changes (such as the passage from KFED to US) do not correspond, as the rational model would prescribe, to an analysis of the gaps in the more dated solutions (such as KFED) neither do they address the current needs of the knowledge workers. Furthermore, the possibility of improving existing solutions instead of investing in a new system that has not objectively proven any kind of superiority (US) was not taken into account. All the envisioned changes are proposed as means to improve the efciency and efcacy of the KM structure; on the other hand, no evidence of such a possibility has been proven. The choice to use SAP as the reference platform for US has been congured, as declared by many interviewees, in terms of a taken for granted, since no other similar tool or platform has been tested or even considered. No test has been done on the capacity of the SAP-based tool to full the users requirements, and the only analysis that has been carried out is a test on the level of acceptance of the graphical interface. Furthermore, it is worth noting that such tests seem not to be even required. At this stage, both KFED and US are not used as they were supposed to be by the employees. As it emerged during the interviews, employees prefer to exchange information and knowledge through informal and direct contacts or through traditional tools such as the e-mail. From a horizontal perspective, solutions continue to coexist although they often overlap in functionality. This situation is quite interesting as integration between existing and new systems was planned as a key dimension of the new company. A major example is the coexistence of US and KFED since 2003, each being managed by different units and intended for evidently analogous functionality, as the former was supposed to substitute the latter. Similarly, the standard user platform EAGLE, which is based on Microsoft Sharepoint, has not yet been integrated with US, thus generating de facto two competing environments where the user is expected to manage and share its personal knowledge. It is to be noted that EAGLE was proposed and implemented by a unit different from the one responsible for US, as this was different from the unit the implemented KFED. Such a horizontal decoupling at the KM technology level expresses the underlying decoupling between the various units at stake which have overlapping competences. This setting is clearly in contrast with a rational, efcient and effective organization.

PAGE 80 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009

 In a sense KM technologies should not be evaluated to the extent they enable a better management of knowledge, but rather on the basis of their capacity to legitimate the organization to work effectively in a wider social milieu that expects respectable and reliable organizations to show their willingness to manage knowledge properly.

At a third level, it is worth noticing a more profound type of decoupling, which involves the single organizational actor. In fact, the authors keep in mind the fact that those who propose, debate, and ght for one solution against the other, are also users themselves as they are KWs of the company. During the interviews it clearly emerged that these same employees, when speaking as users, were totally unsatised by the current solutions and aware of their limitations. They clearly preferred, as did other employees, to use e-mails or direct contacts rather than the ad hoc implemented sharing platforms for team projects activities. On the other hand, those employees involved in KM projects when acting as KM proponents, were able to strongly argue in favour of one or the other platform, even underlining the conceptual reasons why one is superior, and complaining about the immature user that does not want to use the tools which would enable him to become a real KW. In this sense, the same organizational actor seems to be decoupled, as he/she could be simultaneously an unhappy, frustrated user and a strong proponent and advocator of advanced KM solutions. These two acting levels seem to be a form of decoupling as they are not an expression of a sort of lack of faith or a dishonest attitude: the user and advocator seem simply not to communicate one with the other, and the employee seems to be unaware of his/her dual mental modality. As stated by the new institutional theory, decoupling is a way to avoid conict between different units and different actors (and, the authors would argue, within the actor himself, between his/her thinking and his/her behaviour). In fact, a better coupling would imply the emergence of redundancies, overlapping competences and alternative if not conicting approaches to problems. As an example, from a horizontal perspective, those that advocate a distributed versus centralized structure of knowledge commend their own approach while inferring that the other, being wrong, should be abandoned. But this would mean that some structures which use the alternative system, should be reconverted or, in case of redundancy, merged with the others or even closed. Further, from a vertical perspective, the organization should monitor the effective use of the available tools. In case of low use rates, the organization should either blame users as they do not utilize the tools or the tools themselves as they are not effective enough. This would either lead again to a reconguration of those units that deal with KM technologies or to pressure on users to adopt current technologies and distance themselves from traditional tools such as e-mail or informal contacts. Last, from the actors perspective, strong coupling would mean explicitly stating the contradiction that exists between what is declared and what is actually done, generating a sense of personal incoherence and inconsistency. Such decoupling is observably maintained through the practice of benevolent inspection and the logic of trust and good faith. As an example, the development of US is carried out by a unit (STS) on the base of a service level agreement which is monitored by the unit responsible for KFED (ITS). As said, US is architecturally and functionally different from KFED the latter being a typically distributed solution made up of a federation of different autonomous intranet sites, and the former a typically centralized structure made of shared category systems and repositories. Such a contradiction between structures that develop opposite solutions to similar problems while one structure is supposed to monitor the other

VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 81

occurs because of the avoidance of formal evaluations. Thus the two units keep up a series of informal contacts in which each conrms its trust in the legitimate existence of the other as far as the sphere of inuence of each is conrmed.

Knowledge technology myths as external pressures

At this stage, the authors have seen that the KM technologies adopted within the company are an expression of the knowledge structure which is in turn an expression of the formal structure. Furthermore, the KM techno-structure is decoupled by actual behaviours. The KM structure and its related technology live in a sort of symbolic space, as they embed what the organization and its employees are thought to be (respectively a KIC populated by KWs) rather than what they are. The last point that the authors want to underline is that both the organization and its employees do not live in an impermeable space, but rather are part of networks of other organizations and professionals that exert their symbolic inuence and pressure to ensure that certain legitimate techno-structures are adopted. In the proposed case, it is worth noticing that the BETA group is a branded user of the SAP platform, as SAP has BETA among its most famous testimonials. BETA has developed a considerable amount of competences in developing SAP based solutions, competences that have substantially contributed to the set up of a joint unit between BETA and X-TEL, the already mentioned STS. STS is in fact the new unit responsible for implementing information technology solutions for the entire group, and 70 percent of its members are SAP and BETA professionals. In this context, it is worth remembering that although the ITS group was the former proponent of KFED, STS implemented the knowledge solution US based on a centralized logic which is substantially different from that behind KFED. In particular, the authors underline that the centralized nature of US is, not by chance, a typical feature of the underlying platform SAP. And, as many interviewed managers have noted, SAP was a taken for granted which was introduced within the rm by the new ownership that wanted to instil a new philosophy in the overall IT policy of X-TEL. This philosophy favours a standardization procedure able to imbue X-Tel with the values of BETA, in order to encourage the formation of one group out of a constellation of autonomous organizations. In this sense, the choice of technological standardization, which is interwoven with that of a formal structure based on a centralized model, is the result of an external pressure aimed at instilling X-Tel with the corporate values of BETA. That is, KM technology has played a symbolic role of conveying and instilling outside values and assumptions about what the organization and its workers should be. As proposed by the new institutional theory, these isomorphic processes are of different kinds. From a rst perspective, these are mimetic, in the sense that X-TEL emulates what BETA does as a way to become legitimate and, thus, ensures the ow of resources that are needed to survive. From a second perspective, these processes are also coercive, as BETA has somehow forced the use of SAP through the creation of the STS unit, populated by SAP specialists, and ordered this latter unit to design the new KM portal system US. Finally, these processes are normative, as many professionals in X-TEL belong to the same networks of professionals to which BETA professionals belong to. Within these networks, such as that of IT managers, choices such as SAP are proposed as legitimate technologies, and having SAP related experiences becomes a fundamental aspect of a respectable IT curriculum. Of course various inuences occur within other professional and organization networks, thus showing X-TEL as a crossroads of institutional pressures by groups that advocate what is legitimate and valuable for a modern knowledge intensive organization. As an example, in particular for those that advocate a distributed approach to KM, the need of legitimacy passes also through the co-optation of academics and the adoption of innovative theories as a means to show how X-TEL is a pioneering organization in the realm of KM, able to experiment new frontier solutions. According to this logic, the adoption of an innovative peer-to-peer solution based on semantic web technologies (KEEx) was made without any

PAGE 82 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009

reference to the current needs of the internal knowledge worker. Rather, it was the result of a series of institutional pressures that span from the need of internal professionals to ll their CVs with innovative experiences, to that of showing to the new ownership that a unit is worth keeping as it holds distinctive competences.

Discussion and conclusions

This paper started questioning why organizations continue to invest in KM technologies and solutions despite the fact that results seem to be quite disappointing. As a possible answer, the authors propose that this behaviour is not as irrational as it would appear when changing the perspective from an instrumental to a symbolic one when assessing the use of new KM technologies. In this sense KM technologies should not be evaluated to the extent they enable a better management of knowledge, but rather on the basis of their capacity to legitimate the organization to work effectively in a wider social milieu that expects respectable and reliable organizations to show their willingness to manage knowledge properly. The fact that this management concretely happens is not the major point at stake; what is at stake is the reassurance of a compliance to the social norm, which witnesses the organizations willingness to follow and not diverge from the path which society believes is worthy, valuable and acceptable. The proposed study needs further analysis. In particular, the authors underline how the analysis of institutional dynamics requires access to information that is by denition hidden and protected, as it shows the discrepancy between what is said and actually done. It is not always easy for a researcher to have access to those decision-making rooms or corridors of power where institutional pressures are exerted. Often this information has been gathered inductively, looking at indirect symptoms such as the substantial presence of SAP professionals within STS. By looking at this presence, the authors argued that an institutional pressure towards the utilization of SAP as a KM platform was a plausible explanation of this choice. But of course one may argue that, on the contrary, the rational decision to use SAP led to such a professionalization. Thus, a more conclusive data collection is required.

Notes
1. For reasons of privacy, the name of the company, its units and the name of its KM solutions has been substituted with fantasy names. The names of the underlying technologies (such as SAP or Microsoft Ofce), since they are widely used, correspond to those adopted. 2. SAP is an enterprise resource planning solution that has also produced a KM suite based on SAP technology named SAP Portal. 3. Microsoft SharePoint is an electronic repository and collaboration solution.

References
Andriessen, J.H.E., Hetting, M. and Wulf, V. (2003), Introduction to special issue on evolving use of groupware, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 367-80. Beck, N. and Walgenbach, P. (2005), Technical efciency or adaptation to institutionalized expectations? The adoption of ISO 9000 standards in the German mechanical engineering industry, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 841-66. Blau, P.M. and Scott, W.R. (1962), Formal Organization, Chandler, San Francisco, CA. Bonifacio, M., Bouquet, P. and Traverso, P. (2002), Enabling distributed knowledge management. Managerial and technological implications, Novatica and Informatik/Informatique, Vol. III No. 1. Bonifacio, M., Camussone, P. and Zini, C. (2004), Managing the KM trade-off: knowledge: centralization versus distribution, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 162-75. Currie, G. and Suhomlinova, O. (2006), The impact of institutional forces upon knowledge sharing in the UK NHS: the triumph of professional power and the inconsistency of policy, Public Administration, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 1-30.

VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 83

Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B. (1990), Merchants of meaning: management consulting in the Swedish public sector, in Turner, B.A. (Ed.), Organizational Symbolism, De Gruyter, New York, NY, pp. 139-50. Davis, L.E. and Taylor, C. (1976), Technology organization and job structure, in Dubin, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 379-419. Desouza, K. (2003), Knowledge management barriers: why the technology imperative seldom works, Business Horizons, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 25-9. Di Maggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational elds, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-60. Dowling, J. and Pfeffer, J. (1975), Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behavior, Pacic Sociological Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 122-36. Drucker, P. (1993), Post-Capitalist Society, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Emery, F.L. and Trist, E.L. (1965), The causal texture of organizational environments, Human Relations, Vol. 18, pp. 21-32. Hounshell, D.A. (1984), From the American System To Mass Production1900-1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Jepperson, R. (1991), Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 143-63. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), Institutional organizations: formal structures as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-63. Meyer, J.W. and Scott, W.R. (1983), Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Newell, S., Swan, J. and Scarbrough, H. (2001), From global knowledge management to internal electronic fences: contradictory outcomes of intranet development, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 97-112. Noble, D.E. (1984), Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL. Rigby, D. (2001), Management tools and techniques: a survey, California Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 139-60. Rigby, D. and Bilodeau, B. (2005), The Bain 2005 management tools survey, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 4-12. Rigby, D. and Bilodeau, B. (2007), Bains global 2007 management tools and trends survey, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 9-16. Ruggles, R. (1998), The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 80-9. Scott, W.R. (1991), Unpacking institutional arguments, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 164-82. Scott, W.R. (2001), Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed., Sage, London. Scott, W.R. and Meyer, J.W. (1991), The organization of societal sectors: propositions and early evidence, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 108-40. Selznick, P. (1947), Foundations of the theory of organization, American Sociology Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 25-35.

PAGE 84 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009

Selznick, P. (1996), Institutionalism Old and New, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 270-7. Staw, B.M. (1997), The escalation of commitment: an update and appraisal, in Shapira, Z. (Ed.), Organizational Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 191-215. Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Walsham, G. (2001), Knowledge management: the benets and limitations of computer systems, European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 599-608. Weber, M. (1978), Economy and Society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p. 2. Zucker, L. (1987), Institutional Theories of Organization, American Sociological Review, Vol. 13, pp. 443-64.

About the authors

Carlo Rizzi is a PhD student in Sociology and Social Research at the University of Trento, Faculty of Sociology, and he is a Research Assistant of the Department of Information and Organizations Studies at the Faculty of Economics. He currently deals with Health and Knowledge Management, his PhD research topics is Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical guidelines adoption. He collaborates with Net-Economy Group on themes concerning the Semantic Web Technologies. His research interests are knowledge management, organizational learning, innovation and technology transfer. Diego Ponte, PhD, is a Research Assistant at the Faculty of Economics, University of Trento (Italy). In his dissertation he analyzed the socio-economic aspects that inuence and shape organizational renewal. His current research interests include Knowledge Management and Innovation, organizational learning and dynamic capabilities. Matteo Bonifacio is a Researcher in Organization Sciences at the University of Trento, Faculty of Economics. He is a Policy Adviser on Research and Innovation at the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) European Commissions. His research interests are: Knowledge Management, Learning Organizations and Innovation.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 85