2001 Alavi and Leidner Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues
2001 Alavi and Leidner Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues
2001 Alavi and Leidner Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues
D. LEIDNER**
99/34/MKT
**
A working paper in the INSEAD Working Paper Series is intended as a means whereby a faculty
researcher's thoughts and findings may be communicated to interested readers. The paper should be
considered preliminary in nature and may require revision.
Printed at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.
1. INTRODUCTION
A knowledge-based perspective of the firm has recently emerged in the strategic
management literature (Wilson, 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Spender, 1996; Cole
1998). This perspective builds upon and extends the resource-based theory of the firm
initially promoted by Penrose (1959) and expanded by others (Barney 1991; Conner,
1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). According to Penrose, it is not so much the tangible resources
(e.g., capital and facilities) per se that creates the firms competitive advantage, but the
services rendered by those resources. Moreover, the resource-based view maintains that
differences in external factors, such as industry conditions, do not explain long-term
differences in profitability (Peteraf, 1993). In order to contribute to sustainable
competitive advantage, resources must be valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable
(Barney, 1991). Inimitability stems from several potential characteristics of a resource,
including social complexity (such as an organizations culture), causal ambiguity, and
historical conditions (Barney, 1991). Miller and Shamsie (1996) consider resources as
being property-based or knowledge-based.
property-based assets can provide competitive advantage until the market changes such
that the asset is no longer valued. Knowledge-based assets, on the other hand, are
protected from imitation not legally, but because they are often subtle or difficult to
understand or copy by outside observers.
difficult to imitate and socially complex, the knowledge-based extension of the resourcebased view of the firm posits that these knowledge assets may produce long-term
sustainable competitive advantage. However, it is less the knowledge existing at any
given time per se, than the firms ability to effectively apply (i.e., manipulate, store, and
distribute) the existing knowledge and create new knowledge, that forms the basis for
achieving competitive advantage from knowledge-based assets. It is here that information
technologies have an important role to play in effectuating the knowledge-based view of
the firm.
browsers, data warehouses, data mining techniques, and software agents) can be used to
systematize, enhance, and expedite large-scale intra- and inter-firm knowledge
management.
The concept of coding, storing, and transmitting knowledge in organizations is
not new--training and employee development programs, organizational policies, routines,
procedures, reports, and manuals have served this function for years (Alavi and Leidner,
1999). For example, the McDonalds restaurants operating manual captures almost every
aspect of the restaurant management, including cooking, nutrition, hygiene, marketing,
food production, and accounting. By capturing, codifying, and disseminating this
knowledge, the company reduces the level of required restaurant management know-how
for its managers while improving the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations
(Peters, 1994).
The recent interest in knowledge management and knowledge management
systems, in our view, has been fueled by the transition into the information age and the
theories of knowledge as the primary source of economic rent. Parallel to research and
theoretical developments, organizational and managerial practice has lately become more
knowledge-focused. For example, benchmarking, knowledge audits, best practice
transfer, and employee development point to the realization of the importance of
organizational knowledge and intangible assets in general (Grant, 1996; Spender, 1996).
The emergent patterns of literature and research as well as practice in the field imply the
central role of knowledge as the essence of the firm. Already, one in ten firms surveyed
in a recent study claimed that knowledge management was transforming the way their
organization did business and 43% claimed to have a knowledge management initiative
in place (KPMG 1998a).
research questions that emerge from the review of the literature as well as the processview of knowledge management. The research questions are intended to provide a basis
for future research. Section 5 provides a discussion and summary of the paper.
It is;
This will enable us to uncover some unstated assumptions about knowledge that underlie
the knowledge-based theory of the firm and the knowledge management processes. We
will begin by considering definitions of knowledge.
Some authors, most notably in IT literature, address the question of defining
knowledge by distinguishing among knowledge, information, and data. The assumption
seems to be that if knowledge is not something that is different from data or information,
then there is nothing new or interesting about knowledge management (Fahey and
Prusak, 1998). For example, Vance (1997) defines information as data interpreted into a
meaningful framework whereas knowledge is information that has been authenticated and
thought to be true. Maglitta (1996) suggests that data is raw numbers and facts,
information is processed data, and knowledge is "information made actionable."
Machlup (1983) makes a distinction between information and knowledge by referring to
information as a flow of messages and meaning, which may increase, or revise the
knowledge of the recipient. Dreske (1981) defines information as the raw material for
production of knowledge (a newly formed, or sustained belief). The Cranfield University
study of knowledge management in Europe posits that the key difference between
information and knowledge is that the receiver must trust the source of knowledge,
although the same can really be said of information. Some EIS (executive information
systems), for example, labeled the source of the information so that managers would be
able to trust, or not trust, the information based upon their opinion of the source. These
definitions are useful in that they all make inroads into understanding differences among
data, information and knowledge and may thereby hold relevance for requirements
analysis in knowledge management systems. However, these definitions fall short of
providing a means to readily determine when information has become knowledge.
information, he is able to recall at what time and from what platform his train departs,
then he has acquired some knowledge. Granted, this knowledge has an ephemeral utility
-- the moment he departs, it is no longer useful.
As Fahey and Prusak (1998) suggest, knowledge does not exist independently of a
knower: it is shaped by ones needs as well as ones initial stock of knowledge.
Knowledge is the result of cognitive processing triggered by the inflow of new stimuli.
Consistent with this view, we posit that knowledge is not a radically different concept
from information. Information is converted to knowledge once it is processed in the mind
of individuals and knowledge becomes information once it is articulated and presented in
the form of text, graphics, words, or other symbolic forms. This is also consistent with
Churchmans (1971) conceptualization of knowledge and his statement that "knowledge
resides in the users and not in the collection [of information]." An important implication
of this definition of knowledge is that systems designed to support knowledge in
organizations may not appear radically different from standard information systems, but
will be geared toward enabling users to assimilate information into knowledge.
Rather than defining knowledge in relation to information and data, others define
knowledge as either (1) a state of mind, (2) an object, (3) a process, (4) a condition of
having access to information, or (5) a capability.
provide capabilities for searching and retrieving information so that individuals can
expand their personal knowledge and apply this to the organizations needs.
Several authors adopt the view of knowledge as an object or as a process (Zack,
1998a, McQueen, 1998; Carlsson et al, 1998). Zack (1998a) suggests that knowledge can
be viewed as either a thing to be stored and manipulated (i.e., an object) or as a process of
simultaneously knowing and acting--applying expertise. The fourth view of knowledge
is that of a condition of access to information (McQueen, 1999). According to this view,
organizational knowledge must be developed and organized to facilitate access to and
retrieval of content. As such, this view may be thought of as an extension of the view of
knowledge as an object, with a special emphasis on the accessibility of the knowledge
objects. Carlsson et al, (1998) add another view, that of knowledge as a capability.
Accordingly, knowledge can be viewed as a capability with the potential for influencing
future action. According to Carlsson et al (1998), the different views of knowledge lead
to different perceptions of knowledge management. The view of knowledge as an object
or information access suggests a perspective of knowledge management that focuses on
building and managing knowledge stocks. Viewing knowledge as a process implies a
focus on the knowledge flow and processes of creation, sharing, and distribution of
knowledge. The view of knowledge as a capability suggests a knowledge management
perspective centered on building core competencies, and understanding the strategic
advantage of know-how, and creation of intellectual capital.
According to Schultz (1998), the view of knowledge adopted corresponds to a
researchers methodological stance with functionalists adopting a view of knowledge as
an object, interpretivists viewing knowledge as a process, and criticalists viewing
knowledge as a cognitive state and capability. The major implication of these various
KM focuses on exposing
individuals to potentially useful
information and facilitating
assimilation of information
State of Mind
KM focuses on exposing
individuals to potentially useful
information and facilitating
assimilation of information
Object
Process
Access to Information
Capability
Considering the many views of knowledge and lack of consensus of how best to
define knowledge, we have adopted a definition that in our judgment leads to a workable
notion of knowledge management and knowledge management systems in organizational
settings. The adopted definition, based on the work of Nonaka (1994) and Huber (1991),
is: knowledge is a justified belief that increases an entitys capacity for taking effective
action. The term entity in this definition may refer to an individual, or a collectivity (e.g.,
an organization). The term action may refer to physical skills (e.g., playing tennis, or
carpentry), cognitive/intellectual capability (e.g., problem solving), or both (e.g., surgery
which involves both manual skills as well cognitive competency in terms of knowledge
of human anatomy and medicine).
Two major points emerge from this discussion:
experts in their particular specialties, yet modern medicine is to a large extent a highly
explicit science. Junnarkar and Brown (1998) suggest that tacit knowledge is that which
is implied but not actually documented assuming that it is tacit not because one is unable
to articulate it, but because it has not yet been documented. This perspective is more
useful in that some tacit knowledge may be more valuable when made explicit than other.
Thus, a goal of knowledge management would not be to explicate tacit knowledge per se
but to first assess the existing tacit knowledge and determine that which has the most
value before trying to make it explicit.
Few venture to suggest that explicit knowledge is more valuable than tacit
knowledge. Organizational theory researchers in particular may prefer to ignore this
possibility in that it does suggest a technology enabled knowledge management process
(technology being used to aid in explicating, storing and disseminating knowledge).
Bohn (1994), however, does take the less popular path of arguing that knowledge is
valuable to the extent that it is explicit. He suggests that knowledge exists on a scale of
complete ignorance, to awareness (tacit), to measures, to control of the mean (written and
embodied in processes), to process capability, to process characterization, to know-why
(scientific formulas and algorithms), to complete knowledge.
In addition to the tacit-explicit distinction of knowledge, on a separate dimension
(referred to as the ontological dimension) Nonaka (1994) has identified two other types
of knowledge: individual and social knowledge. Individual knowledge is created by and
exists in the individual, and social knowledge is created by and is inherent in the
collective actions and interactions of individuals acting as a group.
A similar
interested in identifying types of knowledge that are most useful to organizations rather
than distinguishing among the types of knowledge using abstruse labels.
Swan et al
(1998) defines knowledge as experience, facts, rules, assertions and concepts about
their subject areas that are crucial to the business (customers, markets, processes,
regulations). KPMG 1998a defines knowledge quite simply as knowledge about
customers, products, processes, and competitors, which may be locked away in peoples
minds or filed in electronic form.
capital which includes best practices, know-how and heuristic rules, patterns, software
code, business processes, and models; architectures, technology, and business
frameworks; project experiences (proposals, work plans, and reports); tools used to
implement a process such as checklists, surveys. Im and Hars (1998) define knowledge as
consisting of components, frameworks, and patterns. Components consist of objects,
such as document templates and engineering drawings that are outputs of problemsolving activities and can be used in narrow problem areas. Frameworks, such as market
reports and manuals, cover a wide range of problems and are also outputs of problem
solving activities. Patterns consist of general internal principles such as best and worst
practices, and lessons applicable to broad areas.
Taxonomies of knowledge and the corresponding examples are displayed in
Table 2. The utility of classifying knowledge lies in the importance of assessing an
organizations knowledge position vis a vis competitors and cataloging its existing
intellectual resources (Zack 1998b).
knowledge once a knowledge strategy has been formulated (Zack 1998b) and in
evaluating the role of information technology in facilitating knowledge management. In
the information systems (IS) field, it has been common to primarily design systems
focused on the codified knowledge (that is, explicit organizational knowledge).
Management reporting systems, decision support systems, and executive support systems
have all focused on collection and dissemination of this knowledge type. Knowledge
management systems may provide an opportunity for extending the scope of IT-based
knowledge provision to include different knowledge types shown in Table 2.
Definitions
Examples
Tacit
Cognitive Tacit:
Technical Tacit:
Mental Models
Know-how applicable to specific work
Explicit
Individual
Social
Conscious
Automatic
Riding a bike
Objectified
An operating manual
Collective
Organization culture
Declarative
Know-about
Procedural
Know-how
Causal
Know-why
Conditional
Know-when
Relational
Know-with
Pragmatic
The knowledge taxonomies described in this section illustrate the multi-faceted nature of
organizational knowledge and highlight the variety of knowledge that coexists in
organizational settings. It is important to also note that these knowledge taxonomies do
not represent pure and mutually exclusive categories in that they are mutually constituted
and highly interdependent. For example, Polanyi (1975) has stated that explicit
knowledge is always grounded on a tacit component and vice versa. Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995) discuss the conversion modes between tacit and explicit knowledge
(described in more detail in Section 3.1) and the "spiral" of knowledge creation in which
individual knowledge is amplified by flowing through individual, group, and
organizational levels. According to Spencer (1996, pp. 50), "the boundary between the
explicit and tacit type of knowledge is both porous and flexible, so there is traffic
between the domains."
An understanding of the concept of knowledge and knowledge taxonomies is
important because theoretical developments in the knowledge management area are
influenced by the distinction among the different types of knowledge. Furthermore, the
knowledge taxonomies discussed here can inform the design of knowledge management
systems by calling attention to the need for support of different types of knowledge and
the traffic and flows among these different types.
Knowledge
example of a firm using a knowledge management process to make the same technical
product knowledge available to all of its global sales force. The idea was to make the
same knowledge in terms of content and media representation available to sales people in
Europe as that accessed by sales people in the remotest regions of Asia. This provided all
sales people a more equalized level of competence to carry out their tasks/functions.
Despite a number of firms reporting benefits from knowledge management, others
suggest that the primary benefit to be obtained from knowledge management is longterm. The Cranfield university study (1998) reports that the primary function targeted by
knowledge management--research and development-- and the overall reason for
knowledge management--obtaining competitive advantage--was not the kind of benefit
obtained rapidly.
management: creation, application within the organization (for example in problemsolving), exploitation outside the organization (for example, selling intellectual property),
sharing and dissemination, encapsulation (capturing and recording experience and know-
how), sourcing (locating a person or record embodying the required knowledge), and
learning. Teece (1998a) considers eight basic processes: generating new knowledge,
accessing valuable knowledge from outside sources, using accessible knowledge in
decision making, embedding knowledge in processes, products, and/or services,
representing knowledge in documents, databases and software, facilitating knowledge
growth through culture and incentives, transferring existing knowledge into other parts of
the organization, and measuring the value of knowledge assets and/or impact of
knowledge management.
too complex to be captured electronically, that the incentives for and barriers to sharing
knowledge are not really technical (O'Dell and Grayson, 1998), and that knowledge
repositories ignore the critical social and interactive nature of knowledge creation
(Malhotra, 1998).
through dialogue in a human community.(Malhotra, 1998) Yet these views are myopic
in their vision of the various ways IT can be applied to aid knowledge management. IT
can support KM in sundry ways. Examples include: finding an expert or a recorded
source of knowledge using online directories and searching databases; sharing knowledge
and working together in virtual teams; access to information on past projects; and
learning about customer needs and behavior by analyzing transaction data (KPMG,
1998b), among others. Indeed, there is no single role of IT in knowledge management
just as there is no single technology comprising KMS.
There are three common applications of IT to organizational knowledge
management initiatives: (1) the coding and sharing of best practices, (2) the creation of
corporate knowledge directories, and (3) the creation of knowledge networks.
One of the most common applications is internal benchmarking with the aim of
transferring internal best practices (O'Dell and Grayson, 1998; KPMG, 1998b).
For
example, an insurance company was faced with the commodization of its market and
declining profits. The company found that by applying the best decision making expertise
via a new underwriting process supported by a knowledge management system enabled it
to move into profitable niche markets and hence, to increase income (KPMG, 1998b).
Another common application of knowledge management is the creation of
corporate directories, also referred to as the mapping of internal expertise. Because much
knowledge in an organization remains uncodified, mapping the internal expertise is a
virtually and face-to-face to exchange and build their collective knowledge in each of the
specialty areas. In this case, the knowledge management effort was less focused on
mapping expertise or benchmarking as it was on bringing the experts together so that
important knowledge was shared and amplified.
communication and discussion may form knowledge networks. Buckman uses an online
interactive forum where user comments are threaded in conversational sequence and
indexed by topic, author, and date. This has reportedly enabled Buckman to respond to
the changing basis of competition that has evolved from merely selling products to
solving customers chemical treatment problems (Zack, 1998a). In another case, Ford
found that just by sharing knowledge, the development time for cars was reduced from 36
to 24 months, and through knowledge sharing with dealers, the delivery delay reduced
from 50 to 15 days (Gazeau, 1998).
For those using technologies with KM in mind, the objectives are varied. For
example, one firm described in Yap and Bjorn-Andersen (1998) captured essential
product and marketing knowledge, linked and stored the knowledge in one multi-purpose
knowledge repository, and then made it equally accessible to all sales channels
worldwide. The firm achieved its goal of providing an omnipresent body of technical
knowledge that fully supported its global marketing efforts. AXA Courtage used
technologies to support a career management system.
ascertain the needed competencies of the individual and suggest appropriate training.
The intent is to then link the application with partner training organizations via an
extranet (Gazeau, 1998). The system enhanced organizational knowledge acquisition by
facilitating development of personnel competencies by first identifying the required
knowledge and then providing access to the appropriate training sources. Workflow
management systems are another application of technologies to support KM (Zhao,
1998). Such systems contain several different types of knowledge, including descriptions
of tasks, roles, rules and routines; descriptions of business procedures and regulations;
and descriptions of relevant government regulations, industrial associations, competitors,
and customers (Zhao, 1998). Other uses, such as that of Legrand, apply technologies to
shorten product development cycles.
interpretation of its output are affected by social processes (Pentland, 1995). For
example, Manning (1988) analyzed the implementation and use of similar advanced
information and communication technologies in two different police departments. His
work indicated that due to the differences in social influences and the interactions in the
two departments, the interpretation and significance of the messages (i.e., the resulting
knowledge from the information flows) varied as they crossed different organizational
units. The constitutive processes of organizational knowledge management are each
described below.
through social interactions and shared experience among organizational members (e.g.,
apprenticeship, or internship). The combination mode refers to the creation of new
explicit knowledge by merging, categorizing, reclassifying and synthesizing existing
explicit knowledge (e.g., literature survey reports). The other two modes involve
interactions and conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge. Externalization refers
to converting tacit knowledge to new explicit knowledge (e.g., articulation of best
practices or lessons learned). Internalization refers to creation of new tacit knowledge
from explicit knowledge (e.g., learning and understanding that results from reading or
discussion).
In considering these four modes, it appears that the modes are as much about
transferring existing knowledge from one source (individual, group, document) and state
(tacit, explicit) to another as they are about creating new knowledge. The socialization
mode is transferring existing tacit knowledge from one member to another.
New
knowledge per se may not be created, but only knowledge that is new to the recipient.
Socialization can result in new knowledge being created when an individual obtains a
new insight triggered by interaction with another. One study found that team members
reported that their best ideas occurred while working with others, rather than alone (El
Sawy et al, 1998); hence, individuals learned best, according to themselves, while
working in groups. And Leonard and Sensiper (1998) argue that even though the moment
of insight itself is individual in nature, many creative individuals are nevertheless aware
of the social nature of knowledge creation. Research is needed to examine the relative
benefits and forms of socialization for knowledge transfer versus new knowledge
creation.
drawing insight from explicit sources (i.e., internalization) and then coding the new
knowledge into an explicit form (externalization). Combination is thus a redundant label
unless it can be performed without human intervention. Externalization is about coding
tacit knowledge, rather than creating new knowledge. Again, a weakness in viewing
knowledge on a tacit-explicit continuum is that new explicit knowledge may have been
created, but from existing tacit knowledge, so although transferability of knowledge is
facilitated, no truly new organizational knowledge has been created.
Finally, even
rigidities. Core capabilities refer to organizational know how and competencies that lead
to a competitive advantage for a firm. They are developed over time and cannot be easily
imitated (Leonard-Barton, 1995, pp. 4). As such, core capabilities represent the positive
aspects of organizational memory. Core capabilities, however, can turn into
organizational liabilities (core rigidities) in the face of major change in an organizational
competitive environment requiring rapid adaptation by the firm. Thus, core rigidities
constitute the negative aspects of organizational memory.
Despite the concerns about the potential constraining role of organizational
memory, there is a positive perspective on the influence of IT-enabled organizational
memory on behavior and performance of individuals and organizations. Considering the
enormous and cost-effective capacity and variety of computer technologies for
information storage and retrieval, we believe that IT can play a major role in developing
and accessing organizational memory.
Advanced computer storage technology and sophisticated retrieval techniques
such as data warehousing and data mining, multimedia databases and database
management systems, and powerful search engines have proven to be effective tools in
enhancing organizational memory. These tools increase the speed at which organizational
memory can be accessed. Weiser and Morrison (1998) give the example of AI-STARS, a
project memory system at DEC that combines such information as bulletin board
postings, product release statements, service manuals, and email messages to enable rapid
access to product information for assisting customer problems. Also, with corporate
intranets, changes in codified knowledge, such as changes in customers, products,
services, employees, or corporate policies, can be reflected in organizational memory
more rapidly.
personnel, companies can put product and sales information for their sales personnel on
corporate intranets. When changes occur, they can be immediately noted in the system
instead of having brochures reprinted. This in turn avoids the lag time resulting from the
time a change occurs to when the sales personnel become aware of the change (Leidner,
1998a).
Groupware also enables organizations to create intra-organizational memory in
the form of both structured and unstructured information and to share this memory across
time and space (Vandenbosch and Ginzberg, 1996). For example, McKinnseys Practice
Development Network places core project documentation online for the purposes of
promoting memory and learning organization-wide (Stein and Zwass, 1995). IT can play
an important role in the enhancement and expansion of both semantic and episodic
organizational memory. Document management technology allows knowledge of an
organizations past, often dispersed among a variety of retention facilities, to be
effectively stored and made accessible (Stein and Zwass, 1995). Drawing on these
technologies, most consulting firms have created semantic memories by developing vast
repositories of knowledge about customers, projects, competition and the industries they
serve (Alavi, 1997). In addition to enabling greater context of the knowledge to be
stored, information technology can improve the quality of organizational memory by
classifying knowledge using intuitive taxonomies (Offsey, 1998). Thus, IT can increase
the breadth, depth, speed, and quality of knowledge storage and retrieval.
to locations where it is needed and can be used. However, this is not a simple process in
that, according to Huber (1991), organizations do not know what they know and have
weak systems for locating and retrieving knowledge that resides in them and in general,
the knowledge distribution process is under-studied. Communication processes and
information flows fundamentally drive knowledge distribution in organizations As such,
we postulate that the knowledge distribution processes are subject to the same influences
as the organizational communication process. In their review of communication theories,
Krone, Jablin, and Putname (1987) observed that regardless of the specific theoretical
perspective, all communication systems consist of the following components: a sender
(source), a message, a receiver, a channel, and a coding/decoding scheme. Building on
and extending on these elements, Gupta and Govindarajan (1996) have conceptualized
knowledge distribution (knowledge flows in their terminology) in terms of five elements:
(1) perceived value of the source units knowledge, (2) motivational disposition of the
source (i.e., their willingness to share knowledge), (3) existence and richness of
transmission channels, (4) motivational disposition of the receiving unit (i.e., their
willingness to acquire knowledge from the source), and (5) the absorptive capacity of the
receiving unit (defined by Cohen and Levinthal (1990) as its ability not only to acquire
and assimilate, but also to use knowledge). The least controllable element is the fifth:
knowledge must go through a recreation process in the mind of the receiver (El Sawy et
al., 1998). This recreation depends on the recipients cognitive capacity to process the
incoming stimuli (Vance and Eynon, 1998).
In an empirical study of knowledge flows among headquarters and subsidiaries in
multinational firms, Gupta and Govindarajan (1996) established complete or partial
support for the influence of four of the five elements: value of knowledge stock,
Learning
problems can involve recipients filtering the knowledge they exchange, interpreting the
knowledge from their own frame of reference, learning from only a select group of
knowledge holders (Huysam, 1998). These forms of problematic knowledge transfer are
tied to limited access to knowledge (Huysam, 1998). Formal transfer mechanisms, such
as training sessions, may ensure greater distribution of knowledge but may inhibit
creativity. Personal channels, such as apprenticeships or personnel transfers, may be
more effective for distributing highly context specific knowledge whereas impersonal
channels such as knowledge repositories may be most effective for knowledge that can be
readily generalized to other contexts.
narrow and distant interface was found to be an obstacle to learning and knowledge
sharing (Inkpen and Dikur, 1998).
IT can support all four forms of knowledge transfer, but has mostly been applied
to informal impersonal means (through such venues as Lotus-Notes discussion databases)
and formal impersonal (such as knowledge maps or corporate directories). The latter
have been found to be particularly useful transfer mechanisms for many organizations.
Consulting firms use such knowledge maps to connect individuals with other individuals
having relevant project knowledge and manufacturing firms use such knowledge maps to
connect product designers. An added innovative use of technology for transfer is using
intelligent agent software to use interest profiles of organizational members to determine
which members might be interested recipients of point-to-point electronic messages
exchanged among other members (O'Dell and Grayson, 1998).
Employing video
technologies can also enhance transfer. For example, offshore drilling knowledge is made
available globally at British Petroleum by desktop video conferencing. A typical screen
will include not just images of the participants but windows of technical data, video clips
of the physical issue under consideration, specification, contractual data, and plans
(Cranfield University, 1998).
IT can increase knowledge distribution by extending individuals reach beyond
the formal communication lines. One of the challenges in organizational knowledge
distribution is that individuals with a need to know may not be aware of the knowledge
sources in the organization. The search for knowledge sources is usually limited to
immediate coworkers in regular and routine contact with the individual. However,
individuals are unlikely to encounter new knowledge through their close-knit work
networks because individuals in the same clique tend to possess similar information
(Robertson, Swan, and Newell, 1996). Moreover, studies show that individuals are
decidedly unaware of what their cohorts are doing (Kogut and Zander, 1996). Thus,
expanding the individuals network to more extended, though perhaps weaker
connections is central to the knowledge diffusion process because such networks expose
individuals to more new ideas (Robertson et al, 1996). Computer networks and electronic
bulletin boards and discussion groups create a forum and an electronic community of
practice that facilitates contact between the person seeking knowledge and those who
may have access to the knowledge. For example, this may be accomplished by posting a
question in form of does anybody know, or a request for help to the discussion
group. These tools may expand the available knowledge both horizontally and vertically
in organizations. They also speed access to knowledge.
inputs to outputs in the form of organizational products and services. He further identifies
three primary mechanisms for the integration of knowledge to create organizational
capability: directives, organizational routines, and self-contained task teams. Directives
refer to the specific set of rules, standards, procedures, and instructions developed
through the conversion of specialists tacit knowledge to explicit and integrated
knowledge for efficient communication to non-specialists (Demsetz, 1991). Examples
include directives for hazardous waste disposal, or airplane safety checks and
maintenance. Organizational routines refer to development of task performance and
coordination patterns, interaction protocols, and process specifications that allow
individuals to apply and integrate their specialized knowledge without the need to
articulate and communicate what they know to others. Routines may be relatively simple
(e.g., organizing activities based on time-patterned sequences such as an assembly line),
or highly complex ( e.g., a cockpit crew flying a large passenger airplane). Another
example is the use of routines in surgery teams (Grant, 1996) in which each team member
performs a highly specialized task in context and sequence of pre-specified operating
room procedures with minimal requirements for communicating with other specialists
and no need for explicating his/her specialized knowledge. The third knowledge
integration mechanism is the creation of self-contained task teams. In situations in which
task uncertainty and complexity prevent the specification of directives and organizational
routines, teams of individuals with prerequisite knowledge and specialty are formed for
problem solving. Group problem solving requires intense communication, coordination,
and collaborative processes, which are actualized in the form of frequent interactions and
knowledge exchanges among the team members.
(Bloodgood and
A second
problem may be deciding what rules and routines to apply to a problem, given that over
time, the organization has learned and codified a large number of rules and routines, so
that choosing which rules to activate for a specific choice making scenario is itself
problematic. Shared meanings and understandings about the nature and needs of a
particular situation must be used to guide rule activation (Nolan Norton, 1998).
curve by assessing the knowledge of other units having gone through similar experiences.
For example, a system at the US Army transfers new learning from one site to the next so
that later sites traverse a learning curve faster with fewer problems and mistakes
(Henderson and Sussman, 1997).
observations structured and then posted on bulletin boards and sent via distribution lists.
Formerly, data collection entailed massive amounts of raw data being collected that
overloaded the capacity to effectively use the information. The new method involves a
quality control element, with analysts indexing the observations and eliminating
duplications.
analysis, including organizational, the unit or team level of analysis, and the individual
level of analysis.
question of if and if so how, knowledge does create competitive advantage to the firm. In
one study, increasing market share and share price were two widely cited reasons for
pursuing knowledge management (KPMG, 1998a). Hence, there is either a common
belief that such initiatives will provide competitive advantage or a common practice of
adopting competitive advantage jargon in an attempt to make knowledge management
initiatives more visible and acceptable to senior management. If competitive advantage
is to be obtained, is it from the rapid creation of new knowledge, the ability to explicate
and share existing knowledge, or the astute protection of difficult to replicate knowledge?
The latter question has important implications for the focus of knowledge management
initiatives. The competitive advantage question is related to the larger question of the
impact of knowledge, and attempts to manage knowledge, on the firm. Few firms, 35%
according to one study, attempt to evaluate the success of their KM initiatives while 40%
reported that a lack of understanding of the benefits of KM hindered the projects
(Cranfield University, 1998).
individuals typically obtain from their tight (close) network of contacts, what knowledge
do they seek from a weak (distance) network of contacts, or how do they determine what
knowledge they need and where to search for the knowledge? By documenting variances
in knowledge needed and available knowledge, and by determining the search behaviors
of individuals in need of knowledge, the research could be useful in determining
knowledge requirements and implementation success for knowledge management
systems.
An
important question is thus: how can KMS be built to foster active attempts to understand
and modify as appropriate the existing knowledge?
identified culture as a major hindrance to knowledge creation and sharing. Von Krough
(1998) focused on the values guiding relationships in an organization. He suggests that
cultures with a quality of care result in greater knowledge creation because such a
quality in human relations speeds up the communication process and enables
organizational members to share their personal knowledge and discuss their ideas freely.
Research is needed that examines the relationships between various organizational
cultures and knowledge creation. Do certain organizational cultures foster knowledge
creation? If so, must cultural change occur before knowledge management initiatives can
be successfully undertaken or can knowledge management initiatives facilitate cultural
change?
Organizational design is also considered an important catalyst for knowledge
creation. The research to date has focused on communities of practice and shared
knowledge creation spaces. There are two views of the effect of communities of practice
on knowledge creation. One view asserts that close ties in a community limit knowledge
creation because individuals are unlikely to encounter new ideas in close-knit networks
because they tend to possess similar information (Robertson, Swan, and Newell). This
view upholds the need for weak ties to expose individuals to new ideas that can trigger
Moreover, such
organizational design can be the creation of a time and place where staff meet to discuss
their ideas and experiences (KPMG, 1998b). For such a meeting to facilitate knowledge
creation, it must be promoted by senior management as an investment (KPMG, 1998b).
Alternatively, a formal shared knowledge creation space can be established.
This
involves creating a shared space or shared bonds of interest that allows the collective
massaging of ideas and information in situations of ambiguity and change (El Sawy et al,
1998). Research is needed to determine how tight collaboration should be within the
shared space to improve and accelerate knowledge creation and whether shared
knowledge creation spaces can be designed in such a manner to tighten collaboration (El
Sawy et al, 1998). Research could also consider how knowledge coming from outside
the shared space is evaluated: does a lack of context prevent the effective adoption of
outside knowledge? Or, are members able to adopt and modify outside knowledge to
meet their needs? Answers to these questions have implications for the appropriate scale
features of knowledge management systems.
Questions on Storage:
Knowledge storage involves obtaining the knowledge from organizational members and
or external sources, coding the knowledge, and storing the knowledge.
Incentives are important to overcome some of the major barriers to KM success.
These barriers include the lack of employee time to contribute their knowledge (KPMG,
1998a; Cranfield University, 1998) and a corporate culture that has historically not
rewarded sharing of insights (Brown and Duguid, 1998; KPMG, 1998a; Cranfield
University, 1998). Many organizations are so lean that people do not have time to make
knowledge available, share it with others, teach and mentor others, use their expertise to
innovate and find ways of working smarter (Glazer, 1998). Instead, they are task-focused,
shifting existing workloads to fight deadlines. Huang (1997) reports too that over half the
respondents in a study felt that changing individuals behaviors represents a major
challenge to KM and incentives were necessary to encourage new behaviors. In another
study, 39% of the respondents reported that their organizations did not reward knowledge
sharing, which was seen as the third biggest barrier to KM after lack of time and wasting
effort.
Moreover, in many organizations, members feel that their futures with the
company are dependent upon the expertise they generate and not on the extent to which
they actually help others. In such situations, it is then expected that individuals will
attempt to build up and defend their own hegemonies of knowledge (von Krough, 1998).
People may be unaware of what they have learned; moreover, even if they realize what
they have learned from a project, they be unaware of what aspects of their learning would
be relevant for others.
captured if individuals are prompted for it, such as at a weekly meeting or during a postproject review (Cranfield University, 1998). Without a systematic routine for capturing
knowledge, a firm might not benefit from its best knowledge being captured. Research is
needed to address the issue of what types of incentives are effective in promoting
organizational members with valuable knowledge to share their knowledge.
An important consideration with coding knowledge is how much context to
include.
questionable whether storing the knowledge without sufficient contextual detail will
result in effective uses. This could lead to the essence of the knowledge being lost (Zack,
1998c). For that knowledge which is highly context-specific, the appropriate storage
mode is the individual (i.e. peoples minds) (KPMG, 1998a).
Transferring such
knowledge may be best done with personal communication (Zack, 1998a; Zack 1998c,
KPMG, 1998a) so that the nuances are captured. Hence, the coding of context specific
knowledge might best be pointers to the individual in whose mind the knowledge resides;
this is the idea behind corporate directories. In addition to the question of how much
context to capture is the question of how much knowledge to code and store. The more
readily available the knowledge, the more likely its reuse. On the other hand, the more
readily available, the greater the likelihood of knowledge misuse, i.e., knowledge being
misapplied to a different context simply because the search costs would be too high to
find a new, better solution. This would militate against creativity, innovation, and
flexibility (Zack, 1998b); moreover, todays knowledge is tomorrows ignorance in the
sense that knowledge emerges and evolves over time and any system designed to store
the knowledge must ensure that the knowledge is dynamic rather than static. Thus,
research is needed to address several important issues regarding knowledge storage and
retrieval (explication, codification, and organization).
Questions on distribution:
The notion of knowledge transfer raises several important issues: first is the question of
to what degree knowledge needs to be shared internally (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998).
This may depend upon the extent of interdependency among subgroups or individuals
(Leonard and Sensiper, 1998). A second major issue involves location of knowledge.
There are two facets to the location, or retrieval, problem. The document retrieval
question is given a large collection of documents, how do we find the documents that we
need? The information or knowledge retrieval question is given a large collection of
documents, how do we find the knowledge that we need? Research is being done on
developing technical solutions to these two questions. One system called Homer, sorts
through collections of documents to find specific information relevant to a query as well
as to identify patterns of information in a large collection of documents. One could
envision using Homer on a corporate collection of memos and meeting notes indexed
with employee and project names to identify who worked on a particular project when.
Homer can also provide informal yet important information such as when an employee
unofficially helps out on a crucial problem for a project. (Dworman, 1998). A problem,
similar to the information overload problem, exists when individuals are aware that the
relevant knowledge exists in organizational memory, but are discouraged from search for
the knowledge by the sheer volume of available knowledge. For example, most
developers at Hewlett-Packard, are aware that the SPaM system holds all of their past
projects history, but rarely seek answers in SPaM because finding the answer would take
days (Powell, 1998). In the traditional (sequential information processing) organization,
the issue of information distribution follows a need to know approach, a style of
functioning which suffers from two serious problems. First, it assumes that the uses to
which information will be put are already known in advance (exactly the opposite of what
is required for learning). Second, it exacerbates the already serious tendency wherein
knowers do not know what they know (Davenport and Klahr, 1998), and/or who needs
the knowledge they posses. Thus, research on the development of effective organizational
and technical strategies for organizing, retrieving, and transferring knowledge are needed
to facilitate knowledge distribution. The third important issue on knowledge distribution
concerns knowledge flows between the provider (source) and the knowledge seeker.
According to Holthouse (1998) from the provider's perspective, flow is a selective pull
process; and from a seeker's perspective, flow is a selective push process. Balancing the
pull and push processes then is an important aspect of knowledge distribution in
organizations. This may be best accomplished through study of knowledge usage and
commination patterns of seekers and providers typically expressed through work practice
habits at the individual and community levels (Holthouse, 1998). Research that focuses
on social, cultural and technical attributes of organizational settings that encourage and
facilitate knowledge flows by balancing the push and pull processes is important.
increase in the breadth and depth of knowledge result in greater use of a knowledge
management system and greater use of finding relevant knowledge, or contrarily, does
such an expanded availability discourage usage as the potential search time for needed
knowledge might simultaneously increase? Does an increase in the breadth, depth,
quality, and timeliness of organizational knowledge result in improved decision making,
reduced product cycles, greater productivity, or better customer service? In general, what
are the consequences of increasing the breadth, depth, quality, and timeliness of
organizational knowledge?
There is debate as to whether information technology inhibits or facilitates
knowledge creation and use. On the one hand, some argue that capturing knowledge in a
KMS inhibits learning (Cole, 1998) and results in the same knowledge being applied to
different situations even when it might not be appropriate. Proponents of this view
maintain that IT plays a limited role in knowledge creation because they are only helpful
if an individual knows what he is looking for (the search is necessary but the solution is
obvious). (Powell, 1998).
Moreover, some argue that the mechanistic and rigid nature of IT-based KM is incapable
of keeping pace with dynamic needs of knowledge creation (Malhotra, 1998). However,
this argument is not so much about information technology as about the role of explicit
knowledge. Explicit knowledge, whether coded in a KMS or in a document, can be
reused mindlessly. The issue is how to ensure that individuals modify explicit knowledge
to meet their situation and thereby create new knowledge. Individuals must be
responsible for unlearning as well as for modifying explicit knowledge to suit their
specific situation. The choice to adopt existing knowledge and then to adapt it to the
given situation is an important avenue of research.
knowledge from a KMS, do they then transfer their experiences into using the modified
knowledge for others to use, or is existing knowledge continually reused in various ways
with no record of the modifications? Do individuals prefer knowledge obtained with a
low search cost that does not precisely fit their needs to knowledge that is more precise
but would take longer to obtain? What level of trust do individuals have in knowledge
that resides in a system but the originator of whom they do not personally know? Does
trust, or the lack thereof, inhibits individuals use of knowledge stored in a KMS?
As with most IS, the success of KMS partially depends upon the extent of use,
which itself may be tied to system quality, information quality, and usefulness (Delone
and McLean, 1992). System quality is influenced by attributes such as ease of use,
characteristics of human-computer interface, and flexibility and effectiveness of search
mechanisms. Research focusing on KMS use process, and development of intuitive
search, retrieval, and display is needed to enhance KMS quality.
At the level of
knowledge quality, issues pertain to what kinds of knowledge can be usefully codified
and at what level of detail, how to protect coded knowledge from imitation, (Wistro,
1998), and how to ensure that the knowledge is maintained (KPMG, 1998a). In terms of
KMS usefulness, studies can examine the extent to which knowledge available is reused.
A ratio of knowledge accessed to knowledge available and knowledge used to knowledge
accessed could give an indication of system usefulness. Equally important to consider
would be the degree of searches yielding no useful knowledge.
As discussed in
section 2.4, many KM initiatives involve the use of information technologies dedicated to
facilitating knowledge creation, storage, and transfer. To many, the term knowledge
management implies supporting systems, which we termed Knowledge Management
Systems. As such, many of the themes emerging as needed research in the area of
managing KM initiatives are reminiscent of research themes in the management of IS. IS
research can form a theoretical basis for some of these questions.
(1) making
knowledge visible--a taxonomy of expertise, corporate yellow pages, for example; (2)
building knowledge intensity--competence centers, communities of practice; (3) building
a knowledge infrastructure; and (4) developing a knowledge culture-- knowledge sharing
values and norms. Zack (1998b) suggests that the knowledge management strategy must
be developed that supports business strategy. O'Dell and Grayson (1998) suggest that
organizations create and publish an integrated mission, value, and vision statement that
endorses and sustains learning and transfer.
linked to business strategy (Tan et al, 1998). Knowledge management research indicates
that only 33% of those companies with a KM initiative had created a strategy (KPMG,
1998a; Nolan Norton Institute, 1998). Moreover, two key indicators of a strategy -senior management responsibility for KM and the establishment of a budget--were
largely absent.
Organizational KM roles
Some firms have established a high-level corporate role dedicated to KM to help link the
KM initiative with organizational strategy, much as the high level CIO (chief information
officer) position was adopted in organizations to better link IT with business strategy.
There is not yet evidence of the necessity of such roles to KM success, nor to the exact
nature such roles should take. However, Dejnaronk (1998) suggests that CKOs (chief
knowledge officer) roles include understanding how people learn and share their
knowledge, establishing processes, incentives, and rewards to encourage contributions to
the
organizational
knowledge
organizational learning.
base,
to
with KM initiatives in place had CKOs that the authors associate with a serious KM
initiative. Some organizations have separate knowledge centers under the leadership of
the CKO, staffed with individuals responsible for coding, classifying, and maintaining
knowledge (Alavi, 1997). Among the most important of these roles may be that of
subject matter expert, functioning as an editor to assure the quality of content, and as a
repository manager, assuring quality of context by thoughtful abstracting and indexing
(Gazeau, 1998).
management initiatives led by a a CKO more effectively than initiatives led by a CIO?
How can a CKO gain the trust and respect of the various units whose contribution is vital
to the success of the KM initiatives? How can the CKO foster a culture that is conducive
to knowledge sharing?
Bibliography
Alavi, M., KPMG Peat Marwick U.S.: One Giant Brain Harvard Business School,
Case 9-397-108, 1997.
Alavi, M. Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation, MIS
Quarterly, June 1994, pp. 159-172.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. Knowledge Management Systems: Emerging Views and
Practices from the Field, Communications of the AIS, February, 1999.
Alavi, M. Wheeler, B. and Valacich, J. Using IT to Reengineer Business Education: An
Exploratory Investigation of Collaborative Telelearning, MIS Quarterly, September
1995, pp. 293-312.
Alavi, M. Yoo, Y. and Vogel, D.R. Using Information Technology to Add value to
Management Education, Academy of management Journal, Vol. 40, no. 6, 1997, pp.
1310- 1333.
Andreu, R. and Ciborra, C. Organizational Learning and Core Capabilities
Development: The Role of Information Technology, Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, June 1996, pp. 117-127,
Argote, L., Beckman, S., and Epple, D. The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in
Industrial Settings. Management Science, Volume 36, pp. 140-154.
Argyris, C., and Schon, D.A. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective.
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978.
Arrow, K., "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Review of Economic
Studies, Vol. 29, 1962, pp. 155-173.
Baird, L., Henderson, J. and Watts, S. Learning Networks: An Analysis of the Center
for Army Lessons Learned, Human Resource Management Journal , forthcoming.
Barney, J.B. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, 1991, pp. 99-120.
Bartlett, C., McKinsey & Company: Managing Knowledge and Learning, Harvard
Business School, Case 9-396-357, 1996.
Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality, Doubleday, Garden
City, New York, 1967.
Boland, R.J., Tenkasi, R.J., and Te'eni, D., "Designing Information Technology for
Distributed Cognition," Organization Science, Vol. 5, no. 3., 1994, pp. 463-474.
Brown, J., and Duguid, P., "Organizing Knowledge," California Management Review,
Holtshouse, D., "Knowledge Research Issues," California Management Review, Vol. 40,
no. 3, 1998, pp. 277-280.
Holzner, B. and Marx, J. The Knowledge Application: The Knowledge System in Society,
Allyn-Bacon, Boston, 1979.
Huber, G. Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures,
Organization Science, Vol. 2, no. 1, 1991, pp. 88-115.
Huysman, M., Creemers, M. and Derksen, D., "Learning from the Environment:
Exploring the Relation Between Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management and
Information/Communication Technology," Proceedings of the Americas Conference of
AIS, August 1998, pp. 598-600.
Im, I. and Hars, A, "Knowledge Reuse--Insights from Software Reuse," Proceedings of
the Americas Conference of AIS, August 1998, pp. 601-603.
Inkpen and Dikur, "Knowledge Management Processes and International Joint Ventures,"
Organization Science, Vol 9, no. 4, 1998.
Jarvenappa, S. and Leidner, D. Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams,
Organization Science, 1998.
Kantrow, A.M. The Constraints of Corporate Tradition, Harper and Row, New York,
1987.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning,
Organization Science, Vol 7, no. 5, 1996, pp. 502-518.
KPMG1: KPMG Management Consulting, "Issue: Knowledge Management," 1998.
KPMG2: KPMG Management Consulting, "Case Study: Building a Platform for
Corporate Knowledge," 1998.
KPMG3: KPMG Management Consulting, "The Power of Knowledge: A Business Guide
to Knowledge Management," 1998.
KPMG4: KPMG Management Consulting, "Knowledge Management: Research Report,"
1998.
Krone, K.J., Jablin, F.M., and Putnam, L.L. Communication Theory and Organized
Communication: Multiple Perspectives, In Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H.,
and Porter, L.W. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication, Sage
Publications. 1987.
Nelson, R.R., and Winter, S.G., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.
Nolan Norton Institute, "Putting the Knowing Organization to Value," White Paper,
August 1998.
Nonaka, I., and Konno, N., "The Concept of "Ba": Building a Foundation for Knowledge
Creation," California Management Review, Vol. 40, no. 3, 1998, 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York,
1995.
Nonaka, I., A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, Organization
Science, Vol. 5, no. 1, Feb. 1994, pp. 14-37.
Nystrom, P.C., and Starbuck, W.H. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design, Volume
1, Oxford University Press, New York, 1981.
O'Dell, C. and Grayson, C.J., "If Only We Knew What We Know: Identificatio and
Transfer of Internal Best Practices," California Management Review, Vol. 40, no. 3,
1998, pp. 154-174.
Offsey, S., Knowledge Management: Linking People to Knowledge for Bottom Line
Results, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1, no. 2, 1997, pp. 113-122.
O'Reilly, III, C. A., "Variations in Decision Makers' Use of Information Sources: The
Impact of Quality and Accessibility of Information," Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 25, no. 4, December 1982, 756-771.
Pentland, B. T. Information Systems and Organizational Learning: The Social
Epistemology of Organizational Knowledge Systems, Accounting, Management and
Information Technologies, Vol. 5, no. 1, 1995, pp. 1-21.
Penrose, E. T., The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Wiley, New York, 1959.
Peteraf N,A. "The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View
Strategic Management Journal Vol. 14, 1993, pp.179-191.
Peters, T., "Knowledge Management Structures I: Taking Knowledge Management
Seriously," Liberation Management, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1992, pp. 382-439.
Pickering, J. M. and King, J. L. Hardwiring Weak Ties: Interorganizational Computermediated Communication, Occupational Communities, and Organizational Change,
Organization Science, Vol. 6, no. 4, 1995, pp. 479-486.
Polanyi, M., "Personal Knowledge," in Polanyi, M. and Prosch, H. (eds.), Meaning,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1975, pp. 22-45.
Polanyi, M., Personal Knowledge, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1958.
Polanyi, M., Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy, Harper
Torchbooks, New York, 1962.
Polanyi, M., The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Keoan Paul, London, 1967.
Powell, W., "Learning from Collaboration: Knowledge and Networks in the
Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries," California Management Review, Vol. 40,
no. 3, 1998, pp. 228-240.
Robertson, M., Swan, J., and Newell, S. The Role of Networks in the Diffusion of
Technological Innovation, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33, 1996, pp. 335361.
Ruggles, R. "The State of the Notion: Knowledge Management in Practice," California
Management Review, Vol. 40, no. 3, 1998, pp. 80-89.
Ryan, S. "The Influence of Organizational Learning Culture on IT Decision Practices and
Acquisition Decisions," Proceedings of the Americas Conference of AIS, August 1998,
pp. 615-617.
Sanderlands, L.E. and Stablein, R.E. The Concept of Organization Mind., in
Bachrach, S. and DiTomaso, N. (eds.) Research in the Sociology of Organization,
Volume 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 135-162.
Schubert, P., Lincke, D., and Schmid, B., "A Global Knowledge Medium as a Virtual
Community: The NetAcademy Concept," Proceedings of the Americas Conference of
AIS, August 1998, pp. 618-620.
Schultz, U. "Investigating the Contradictions in Knowledge Management,"
Schutz, A., Collected Papers, Volume 1, Nighoff, the Hague, 1962.
Sensiper, S., AMS Knowledge Centers, Harvard Business School Case N9-697 068,
1997.
Snyder, C., Wilson, L. and McManus, D., "Knowledge Management: A Proposed
Process Model," Proceedings of the Americas Conference of AIS, August 1998.
Spender, J.C. "Organizations Are Activity Systems, not Merely Systems of Thought," in
P. Shrivastava and Stubbart, C. (eds.), Advances in Strategic Management, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, 1995, pp. 151-172.
Schneider. S.C.,and Angleman, R. Cognition in the Organizational Analysis: Who is
minding the Store? Organization Studies, Vol. 14, 1993, pp. 347-374.
von Krogh, G., "Care in Knowledge Creation," California Management Review, Vol. 40,
no. 3, 1998, pp. 133-153.
Walsh, J.P. and Dewar, R.D. Formalization and the Organizational Life Cycle, Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 24, YEAR? pp. 216-231.
Walsh, J. P., Henderson, C.M., and Deighton, V. Negotiated Belief Structures and
Decision Performance: An Empirical Investigation, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 42, pp. 194-216.
Walsh, J.P., Ungson, G.R., "Organizational Memory," Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 16, no. 1, 1991, pp. 57-91.
Wasko, M., "A Framework of Successful Knowledge Management Implementation,"
Proceedings of the Americas Conference of AIS, August 1998, pp. 635-637.
Watts, S. A., Thomas, J. B. and Henderson. J. C. Understanding Strategic Learning:
Linking Organizational Learning, Sensemaking, and Knowledge Management, 1997
Academy of Management Meeting, Boston MA.
Weiser, M. and Morrison, J. Project Memory: Information Management for Project
Teams, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 14, no. 4, 1998, pp. 149166.
Wernerfelt, B. A Resource-Based View of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 5, 1984, pp. 171-180.
Wetherell, M. and Maybin, J. The Distributed Self: A Social Constructionist
Perspective, in R. Stevens (ed.), Understanding the Self, Sage, London, pp. 219-279.
Wilkins, A.L., and Brestow, N.J., For Successful Organization Culture, Honor Your
Past, Academy of Management Executive, Vol 1, pp. 221-229.
Yap, A. and Bjorn-Andersen, N., "Energizing the Nexus of Corporate Knowledge: A
Portal Toward the Virtual Organization," Proceedings of the 19th International
Conference on Information Systems, December 1998, pp. 273-286,
Zack, M., "An Architecture for Managing Explicated Knowledge," Sloan Management
Review, September 1998.
Zack, M., "Developing a Knowledge Strategy," Working Paper, Northeastern University,
September, 1998.
Zack, M., Interactivity and Communication Mode Choice in Ongoing Management
Groups, Information Systems Research, Vol. 4, no. 3, 1993, pp. 207-239,
Zack, M., "What Knowledge-Problems Can Information Technology Help to Solve,"
Proceedings of the Americas Conference of AIS, August 1998, pp. 644-646.