World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Knowledge management

Article Id: WHEBN0000072896
Reproduction Date:

Title: Knowledge management  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Knowledge management software, Sociology of knowledge, Thomas H. Davenport, Integration Objects, Milan Zeleny
Collection: Business Terms, Groupware, Hypertext, Information Systems, Itil, Knowledge Management, Management Science
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Knowledge management

Knowledge management (KM) is the process of capturing, developing, sharing, and effectively using organisational

  • Knowledge management at DMOZ
  • Knowledge@work community

External links

  1. ^ Davenport, Thomas H. (1994). "Saving IT's Soul: Human Centered Information Management". Harvard Business Review 72 (2): 119–131. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g "Introduction to Knowledge Management". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Archived from the original on March 19, 2007. Retrieved 11 September 2014. 
  3. ^ a b Nonaka, Ikujiro (1991). "The knowledge creating company". Harvard Business Review 69 (6): 96–104. 
  4. ^ a b Nonaka, Ikujiro; von Krogh, Georg (2009). "Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory". Organization Science 20 (3): 635–652.  
  5. ^ Bellinger, Gene. "Mental Model Musings". Systems Thinking Blog. Retrieved 18 April 2013. 
  6. ^ "Columbia University’s M.S. in Information and Knowledge Strategy". Retrieved 21 November 2013. 
  7. ^ "Kent’s KM Master of Science". Retrieved 21 November 2013. 
  8. ^ a b c d Addicot, Rachael; McGivern, Gerry; Ferlie, Ewan (2006). "Networks, Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management: NHS Cancer Networks". Public Money & Management 26 (2): 87–94.  
  9. ^ a b c d e f Gupta, Jatinder; Sharma, Sushil (2004). Creating Knowledge Based Organizations. Boston: Idea Group Publishing.  
  10. ^ Maier, R. (2007). Knowledge Management Systems: Information And Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management (3rd edition). Berlin: Springer. 
  11. ^ Sanchez, R (1996) Strategic Learning and Knowledge Management, Wiley, Chichester
  12. ^ a b c Sanchez, R. (1996). Strategic Learning and Knowledge Management. Chichester: Wiley. 
  13. ^ a b c Wright, Kirby (2005). "Personal knowledge management: supporting individual knowledge worker performance". Knowledge Management Research and Practice 3 (3): 156–165.  
  14. ^ a b c Booker, Lorne; Bontis, Nick; Serenko, Alexander (2008). "The relevance of knowledge management and intellectual capital research". Knowledge and Process Management 15 (4): 235–246.  
  15. ^ a b Morey, Daryl; Maybury, Mark; Thuraisingham, Bhavani (2002). Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works. MIT Press. p. 451.  
  16. ^ McInerney, Claire (2002). "Knowledge Management and the Dynamic Nature of Knowledge". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (12): 1009–1018.  
  17. ^ a b "Information Architecture and Knowledge Management". Kent State University. Retrieved 18 April 2013. 
  18. ^ a b c d Bray, David. "SSRN-Literature Review – Knowledge Management Research at the Organizational Level". Retrieved 18 April 2013. 
  19. ^ Davenport, Tom. "Enterprise 2.0: The New, New Knowledge Management?". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 18 April 2013. 
  20. ^ Stewart, Thomas A. (1998). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. Crown Business Publishers.  
  21. ^ Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick; Booker, Lorne; Sadeddin, Khaled; Hardie, Timothy (2010). "A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008)". Journal of Knowledge Management 14 (1): 13–23.  
  22. ^ Langton Robbins, N. S. (2006). Organizational Behaviour (Fourth Canadian Edition). Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Prentice Hall. 
  23. ^ a b Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy E. (1999). "Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits". Communications of the AIS 1 (2). 
  24. ^ Rosner, D.; Grote, B.; Hartman, K.; Hofling, B.; Guericke, O. (1998). "From natural language documents to sharable product knowledge: a knowledge engineering approach". In Borghoff, Uwe M.; Pareschi, Remo. Information technology for knowledge management. Springer Verlag. pp. 35–51. 
  25. ^ a b Bray, David. "SSRN-Knowledge Ecosystems: A Theoretical Lens for Organizations Confronting Hyperturbulent Environments". 
  26. ^ Carlson Marcu Okurowsk, Lynn; Marcu, Daniel; Okurowsk, Mary Ellen. "Building a Discourse-Tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory". University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved 19 April 2013. 
  27. ^ "TeacherBridge: Knowledge Management in Communities of Practice". Virginia Tech. Retrieved 18 April 2013. 
  28. ^ Groth, Kristina. "Using social networks for knowledge management". Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved 18 April 2013. 
  29. ^ a b c d e Snowden, Dave (2002). "Complex Acts of Knowing – Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness". Journal of Knowledge Management, Special Issue 6 (2): 100–111.  
  30. ^ Wyssusek, Boris. "Knowledge Management - A Sociopragmatic Approach (2001)". CiteSeerX. Retrieved 18 April 2013. 
  31. ^ Ferguson, J. (2005). "Bridging the gap between research and practice". Knowledge Management for Development Journal 1 (3): 46–54. 
  32. ^ a b Andriessen, Daniel (2004). "Reconciling the rigor-relevance dilemma in intellectual capital research". The Learning Organization 11 (4/5): 393–401.  
  33. ^ a b c Hayes, M.; Walsham, G. (2003). "Knowledge sharing and ICTs: A relational perspective". In Easterby-Smith, M.; Lyles, M.A. The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 54–77.  
  34. ^ "Rhetorical Structure Theory Website". RST. Retrieved 19 April 2013. 
  35. ^ a b Nonaka, Ikujiro; Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 284.  
  36. ^ Nonaka, I.; von Krogh, G. & Voelpel S. (2006). "Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances". Organization Studies 27 (8): 1179–1208.  
  37. ^ Sensky, Tom (2002). "Knowledge Management". Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 8 (5): 387–395.  
  38. ^ a b "SSRN-Exploration, Exploitation, and Knowledge Management Strategies in Multi-Tier Hierarchical Organizations Experiencing Environmental Turbulence by David Bray". Retrieved 15 January 2010. 
  39. ^ Bontis, Nick; Choo, Chun Wei (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.  
  40. ^ Benbasat, Izak; Zmud, Robert (1999). "Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance". MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 3–16.  
  41. ^ a b c d "Knowledge Management for Data Interoperability". Retrieved 18 April 2013. 
  42. ^ Hansen et al., 1999
  43. ^ a b Smith (2004), p. 7
  44. ^ Hall (2006), pp. 119f
  45. ^ Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy E. (2001). "Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues". MIS Quarterly 25 (1): 107–136.  
  46. ^ Wilson, T. D. (2002). "The nonsense of 'knowledge management'". Information Research 8 (1). 
  47. ^ Jennex, M.E. (2008). Knowledge Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. pp. 1–3808.  
  48. ^ Rao, Madanmohan (2005). Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques. Elsevier. pp. 3–42.  
  49. ^ Calvin, D. Andrus (2005). "The Wiki and the Blog: Toward a Complex Adaptive Intelligence Community". Studies in Intelligence 49 (3).  
  50. ^ Capozzi, Marla M. (2007). "Knowledge Management Architectures Beyond Technology". First Monday 12 (6). 
  51. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; Hendler, James; Lassila, Ora (May 17, 2001). "The Semantic Web A new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities". Scientific American. 



See also

One of the most important ongoing developments in KM technology is adoption of tools that enable organizations to work at the semantic level.[50] Many of these tools are being developed as part of the Semantic Web.[51] For example the Stanford Protege Ontology Editor.

One of the most important trends in KM technology was the adoption of Internet standards. Original KM technology products such as Lotus Notes defined their own proprietary formats for email, documents, forms, etc. The explosive growth of the Internet drove most vendors to abandon proprietary formats and adopt Internet formats such as HTML, HTTP, and XML. In addition, open source and freeware tools for the creation of blogs and wikis now enable capabilities that used to require expensive commercial tools to be available for little or no cost.[32][49]

These categories are neither rigidly defined nor exhaustive. Workflow for example is a significant aspect of a content or document management system and most content and document management systems have tools for developing enterprise portals.[9][48]

Telepresence technology enables individuals to have virtual meetings rather than having to be in the same place. Videoconferencing is the most obvious example.

Scheduling and planning tools automate the creation and maintenance of an organization's schedule: scheduling meetings,notifying people of a meeting, etc. An example of a well known scheduling tool is Microsoft Outlook. The planning aspect can integrate with project management tools such as Microsoft Project. Some of the earliest successful uses of KM technology in the business world were the development of these types of tools, for example online versions of corporate "yellow pages" with listing of contact info and relevant knowledge and work history.[23]

eLearning technology enables organizations to create customized training and education software. This can include lesson plans, monitoring progress against learning goals, online classes, etc. eLearning technology enables organizations to significantly reduce the cost of training and educating their members. As with most KM technology in the business world this was most useful for companies that employ knowledge workers; highly trained staff with areas of deep expertise such as the staff of a consulting firm. Such firms spend a significant amount on the continuing education of their employees and even have their own internal full-time schools and internal education staff.

Enterprise Portals are web sites that aggregate information across the entire organization or for groups within the organization such as project teams.

Content/Document Management systems are systems designed to automate the process of creating web content and/or documents within an organization. The various roles required such as editors, graphic designers, writers, and producers can be explicitly modeled along with the various tasks in the process and validation criteria for moving from one step to another. All this information can be used to automate and control the process. Commercial vendors of these tools started to start either as tools to primarily support documents (e.g., Documentum) or as tools designed to support web content (e.g., Interwoven) but as the Internet grew these functions merged and most vendors now perform both functions, management of web content and of documents. As Internet standards became adopted more and more within most organization Intranets and Extranets the distinction between the two essentially went away.

Workflow tools allow the representation of processes associated with the creation, use, and maintenance of organizational knowledge. For example the process to create and utilize forms and documents within an organization. For example, a workflow system can do things such as send notifications to appropriate supervisors when a new document has been produced and is waiting their approval.

Groupware refers to technologies that facilitate collaboration and sharing of organizational information. One of the earliest very successful products in this category was Lotus Notes. Notes provided tools for threaded discussions, sharing of documents, organization wide uniform email, etc.

Knowledge Management (KM) technology can be divided into the following general categories:

KM Technologies

Debate exists whether KM is more than a passing fad, though increasing amount of research in this field may 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).[46] Knowledge sharing remains a challenging issue for knowledge management, while there is no clear agreement barriers may include time issues for knowledge works, the level of trust, lack of effective support technologies and culture (Jennex 2008).[47]

  • 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 organisational learning
  • Leveraging the expertise of people across the organisation
  • 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)

[29] Typical considerations driving a KM effort include:[45] There are a number of claims as to the


  • 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
  • Knowledge fairs
  • Competence management (systematic evaluation and planning of competences of individual organisation 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)
  • Social software (wikis, social bookmarking, blogs, etc.)
  • Inter-project knowledge transfer

Other knowledge management strategies and instruments for companies include:[9][25][29]

Hansen et al. propose a simple framework, distinguishing two opposing KM strategies: codification and personalization.[42] Codification focuses on collecting and storing codified knowledge in previously designed electronic databases to make it accessible to the organisation.[43] Codification can therefore refer to both tacit and explicit knowledge.[44] In contrast, the personalization strategy aims at encouraging individuals to share their knowledge directly.[43] Information technology plays a less important role, as it is only supposed to facilitate communication and knowledge sharing among members of an organisation.

Another strategy to KM involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated with a particular subject on an ad hoc basis (pull strategy).[9][41] In such an instance, expert individual(s) can provide their insights to the particular person or people needing this (Snowden 2002).[29] This is commonly known as the Personalisation approach to KM.

One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge (push strategy).[9][41] In such an instance, individuals strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge repository, such as a database, as well as retrieving knowledge they need that other individuals have provided to the repository.[41] This is commonly known as the Codification approach to KM.[41]

Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related activities.[39] Organisations have tried knowledge capture incentives, including making content submission mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance measurement plans.[40] Considerable controversy exists over whether incentives work or not in this field and no consensus has emerged.[9]


[38] tools can be used for both knowledge creation and computing Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of [38][33] A third proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the

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 body’s nervous and endocrine systems (Sensky 2002).[37]

Early research suggested that a successful KM effort needs to convert internalized tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge to share it, and the same effort must permit individuals to internalize and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort.[8][34] 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.[13] Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., Nonaka, von Krogh & Voelpel 2006);[36] (Nonaka, von Krogh & 2009).[4]

The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi.

Different frameworks for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge exist.[12] One proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge.[29] 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 communicated to others. (Alavi & Leidner 2001).[18] Similarly, Hayes and Walsham (2003) describe content and relational perspectives of knowledge and knowledge management as two fundamentally different epistemological perspectives.[33] The content perspective suggest that knowledge is easily stored because it may be codified, while the relational perspective recognizes the contextual and relational aspects of knowledge which can make knowledge difficult to share outside of the specific location where the knowledge is developed.[33]


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).[14][14][31][32]

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 lenses through which KM can be viewed and explained, to include:

  • Techno-centric with a focus on technology, ideally those that enhance knowledge sharing and creation.[23][24]
  • Organisational with a focus on how an organisation can be designed to facilitate knowledge processes best.[8]
  • Ecological with a focus on the interaction of people, identity, knowledge, and environmental factors as a complex adaptive system akin to a natural ecosystem.[25][26]

A broad range of thoughts on the KM discipline exist; approaches vary by author and school.[18][22] As the discipline matures, academic debates have increased regarding both the theory and practice of KM, to include the following perspectives:

[21]).Serenko et al. 2010 Their contribution to academic research has been dramatically declining from 30% of overall contributions up to 2002, to only 10% by 2009 ([18] First, there is a trend toward higher cooperation among academics; particularly, there has been a drop in single-authored publications. Second, the role of practitioners has changed.[2] Since its establishment, the KM discipline has been gradually moving towards academic maturity.[20] It was initially supported solely by practitioners, when [16] KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the earlier 1990s.


In the enterprise, early collections of case studies recognized the importance of knowledge management dimensions of strategy, benchmarking, and incentives are essential to accelerate the learning process and to drive cultural change.[15] In short, knowledge management programs can yield impressive benefits to individuals and organizations if they are purposeful, concrete, and action-oriented.

In 1999, the term personal knowledge management was introduced; it refers to the management of knowledge at the individual level.[13]

Knowledge management efforts have a long history, to include on-the-job discussions, formal apprenticeship, discussion forums, corporate libraries, professional training and mentoring programs.[2][12] 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.[2]



  • History 1
  • Research 2
    • Dimensions 2.1
    • Strategies 2.2
    • Motivations 2.3
  • KM Technologies 3
  • See also 4
  • References 5
  • External links 6

[12][11] Knowledge management efforts typically focus on organisational

[8] Many large companies, public institutions and non-profit organisations have resources dedicated to internal KM efforts, often as a part of their

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).[3][4] More recently, other fields have started contributing to KM research; these include information and media, computer science, public health, and public policy.[5] Columbia University and Kent State University offer dedicated Master of Science degrees in Knowledge Management.[6][7]


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.