Description and analysis of existing knowledge management frameworks

Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1999Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1999

Description and Analysis of Existing Knowledge Management Frameworks

C. W. HolsappleUniversity of Kentucky

[email protected]

K. D. JoshiWashington State University

[email protected]

ssgen

ndeet

ofo

MritM

ouTngbrcoren

ingKMe aeshaanchern.

ing

ified

dsa,

iest.one Ais

Mic

srkers,g,dforric

herk.ohefule

r.d,do aareen, a

iedaknd

ABSTRACT

There is a growing recognition in the businecommunity about the importance of managing knowledSome organizations have taken initiatives to understaand manage this critical resource. Major organizationshave appointed chief knowledge officers (CKOs) achief learning officers to formally initiate and cultivatKM activities in their organizations. In spite of thesinitiatives, the bulk of organizations still have noapproached knowledge management (KM) activityformally or deliberately. The cause for this lack effective management of knowledge could be that morganizations are still struggling to comprehend the Kconcept. The reason for this confusion and lack of clacan be attributed to a gap between the emerging Kphenomena and the current lack of understanding abthis phenomena by researchers and practitioners. bridge the gap, the fundamental issue of identifyisalient characteristics of KM phenomena needs to addressed. This is a prerequisite for systematic reseainto the nature and possibilities of KM, as well as feasing the emergence of KM into practice. Researchhave proposed a variety of KM frameworks, models, aperspectives to help understand this emergphenomenon. Each of them addresses certain elements. However, none of them appears to subsumof the others. The major contribution of this paper is thit presents a summary and comparative analysis of thframeworks. This analysis leads to the conclusion tthere is a need for developing a more comprehensive unified framework for describing the nature of KM. Sua descriptive framework could benefit both researchand practitioners by furnishing an organized foundatiofor future progress in understanding and conducting KM

1. Introduction

There have been several efforts at developframeworks to understand knowledge management (KM)phenomena. These frameworks can be broadly class

0-7695-0001-3/99 $1

.d

st

y

to

eh

rsd

alltetd

s

into two categories: descriptive frameworks anprescriptive frameworks. The descriptive frameworkattempt to characterize the nature of KM phenomenwhereas prescriptive frameworks prescribe methodologto follow in conducting knowledge managemenDescriptive frameworks can be further classified intbroad and specific categories. A broad framework is othat attempts to describe the whole of KM phenomena. specific framework focuses on a particular aspect of thphenomena.

This paper describes and compares ten Kframeworks. Through an extensive search of electronand print KM research, they were identified arepresentative of the current state of KM framewodevelopment. Our comparative analysis of thframeworks reveals that none subsumes the otheimplying that there is room for a more encompassinunifying generic framework. The focus is on broadescriptive frameworks, as these form a starting point future research that synthesizes them into a genedescriptive framework of knowledge management. Theyalso comprise a set of standards for evaluating tcompleteness and unity of such a generic framewoMore specialized descriptive frameworks are alsincluded as a basis for synthesis and contrast. Tdescriptive frameworks presented here also offer a usestarting point for thinking about elements that could baddressed in prescriptive frameworks.

The paper is organized in the following manneFirst, five broad descriptive frameworks are describefollowed by an examination of five more specializeframeworks. Examples of ideas and concepts, related tdescriptive understanding of knowledge management also given. Then a comparative analysis of the tframeworks is presented. For illustration and contrastsample prescriptive framework is reviewed. We concludethat there is a need for a more comprehensive, unifframework describing KM phenomena. Such framework could involve a synthesis of the frameworpresented here, plus insights from KM practitioners ascholars.

0.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 1

fosiroiv

o igetsnessnn

isgn

kel 2aiv),nn

dhn

yremsis

ye

entistivemsd,doe

aratereapt,nalhisheur

heandthe

gisorng. ofonact”e

kehis ine-theithwonowsk


2. Broad Frameworks

Based on a literature search, five broad frameworks knowledge management were identified. Theframeworks differ not only in their focus, but also in thebreath and depth in characterizing the nature knowledge management phenomena. These fframeworks are presented in chronological order.

2.1. Framework of Knowledge ManagementPillars

Wiig’s [15] KM framework involves what he calls thethree KM pillars. These pillars represent the majfunctions needed to manage knowledge. As shownFigure 1, the pillars are based on a broad understandinknowledge creation, manifestation, use, and transfPillar I is concerned with exploring knowledge and iadequacy. The framework identifies several componeof this function -- survey and categorize knowledganalyze knowledge and knowledge-related activitieelicit, codify, and organize knowledge. Pillar II involveappraising and evaluating the value of knowledge aknowledge-related activities. The third pillar focuses ogoverning knowledge management activity. Thfunction has three components -- synthesize knowledrelated activities; handle, use, and control knowledge; aleverage, distribute, and automate knowledge.

2.2. Framework of Core Capabilities andKnowledge Building

Leonard-Barton [7] has introduced a KM frameworcomprised of four core capabilities and four knowledgbuilding activities. She contends that these are cruciaa knowledge based organization (KBO). As Figure shows, there are four knowledge-building activities thsurround the core capabilities: shared and creatproblem solving (to produce current productsimplementing and integrating new methodologies atools (to enhance internal operations), experimenting aprototyping (to build capabilities for the future), animporting and absorbing technologies from outside of tfirm’s knowledge. These are knowledge creating adiffusing activities.

The knowledge-building activities are influenced bwhat Leonard-Barton calls core capabilities. “Cocapabilities constitute a competitive advantage for a firthey have been built up over time and cannot be eaimitated” [7]. The four core capabilities identified in thiframework are physical systems (competenciesaccumulated in material systems that are built over timesuch as databases, machinery, software), emploknowledge and skills, managerial systems (organiz

0-7695-0001-3/99 $1

re

fe

rn ofr.

ts;;

d

e-d

-to

te

dd

ed

;ly

eed

routines directing resource accumulation and deploymcreating the channels through which knowledge accessed and flows (e.g., education, reward, and incensystems)), and the organization’s values and nor(determining the kinds of knowledge sought and nurtureand the kinds of knowledge-building activities tolerateand encouraged within an organization). The first twinvolve dynamic knowledge reservoirs, plus thwherewithal to manipulate them. The last two areknowledge-control or channeling mechanisms.

2.3. Model of Organizational KnowledgeManagement

Arthur Andersen and APQC [2] have advanced model comprised of seven KM processes that can opeon an organization’s knowledge. As illustrated in Figu3, these processes are create, identify, collect, adorganize, apply, and share. The nature of organizatioknowledge that they process is not characterized in tmodel. Nor does it characterize the nature of tprocesses themselves. The model identifies foorganizational enablers that facilitate the workings of tKM processes: leadership, measurement, culture, technology. The model does not detail the nature of enablers.

2.4. Framework of the Knowing Organization

Choo [5] presents a model of the “knowinorganization” as illustrated in Figure 4. According to thmodel, an organization uses information strategically fsensemaking, knowledge creation, and decision makiThese three processes are “linked as a continuumnested information activities that define an organizatiwhich possesses the information and knowledge to intelligently” [5]. The model uses the terms “knowledgeand “information” without commenting on the existencor nature of any distinction between them.

During sensemaking, an organization tries to masense of (understand) its changing environment. Tprocess is concerned with understanding how peoplethe organization interpret information in order to copwith environmental uncertainty. During knowledgecreation, an organization creates new knowledge in course of innovation. This process is concerned wunderstanding how information is transformed into neknowledge in an organization. The model views decisimaking as a process concerned with understanding han organization processes information to resolve tauncertainty.

2.5. Framework of Knowledge ManagementStages

0.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 2

n

atligng

de

ggga

a

enhr

at

ivioa

c

ts

en

reg

seraren

seto

asl,eal

nndeg

t

dts.s-g

r

, aft

ase].ofe

y,is

t

h,


The framework advanced by van der Spek aSpijkervet [14] identifies a cycle of four knowledgemanagement stages: conceptualize, reflect, act, retrospect. As illustrated in Figure 5, these stages conthe basic operations on knowledge. The conceptuastage focuses on gaining insights into knowledresources. This is achieved through researchiclassifying, and modeling existing knowledge. Durinthe reflection stage, the conceptualized knowledge evaluated using a variety of criteria, requireimprovements are established, and an improvemprocess is planned. During the act stage, actionsimprove the knowledge are taken. This involvedeveloping new knowledge, plus distributing, combininand holding this developed knowledge. The last staretrospect, recognizes the effects of the act staevaluates the results achieved in that stage, and compold and new situations.

The configuration of KM stages is oriented toward problem-solving cycle. Therefore, this configuration cabe viewed as one way of coordinating knowledgmanipulation activities within a problem-solving episodThe stages in the cycle are impacted by internal aexternal developments. Internal factors that impact torganization of the management of knowledge aculture, motivation of employees, organizationmanagement, and information technology. Externfactors are recognized as influences, but examples of factor are not identified in the framework.

3. Specific Frameworks

Besides the broad descriptive frameworks, thliterature also contains some specialized descriptframeworks. Five examples are selected as representatof the variety of specific frameworks related to KM. Twof these focus on the notion of knowledge as organizational asset. Two others address the issueknowledge transfer within an organization. Anotheframework depicts the conduct of KM in a specifiorganization.

3.1. Framework of Intangible Assets

Sveiby [11] frames the notion of organizationaknowledge as intangible assets. As depicted in Figurethe framework is comprised of three componenexternal structures, internal structures, and employcompetence. External structures include customer asupplier relationships, brand names, trademarks, andcompany’s reputation or image. Internal structurinclude patents, concepts, models, computer aadministrative systems, and organizational cultuEmployee competence consists of skills and knowled

0-7695-0001-3/99 $1

d

ndrolzeeg,

is

ntto

s,e,e,res

ne.dee,l

his

ee

ve

nof

r

l6,:

eendthesd.e

bases of individuals within an organization. Employeeuse their skills and knowledge base to act in a widvariety of situations in order to create tangible ointangible assets. When the employees’ competencies directed toward entities outside of the organization, thethey are considered to yield external structures; if thoefforts are directed inward, then they are considered create internal structures.

3.2. Model of Intellectual Capital

Petrash1 [9] has advanced a model involving threetypes of organizational resources that are referred to intellectual capital: human capital, organizational capitaand customer capital. Human capital is the knowledgthat each individual has and generates. Organizationcapital is the knowledge that has beecaptured/institutionalized as the structure, process, aculture of an organization. Customer capital “is thperception of value obtained by a customer from doinbusiness with a supplier of goods and/or services” [9].

As illustrated in Figure 7, this model recognizes tharelationships among the three major types of intellectualcapital lead to financial outcomes (i.e., value). The dottelines represent the management of intellectual asseMaximizing the interrelationships among the three kindintellectual capital increases the organization’s “valuecreating” space. In Figure 7, this is illustrated by creatinmaximum overlap among the three rings of capital [4].

3.3. Framework of Knowledge Conversions

Nonaka [8] has advanced a model that identifies foukinds of “knowledge conversion” that drive knowledgecreation: socialization, externalization, internalizationand combination. These conversions are based ondichotomy between the tacit versus explicit modes oknowledge. Tacit knowledge refers to knowledge thacannot be easily verbalized and articulated, whereexplicit knowledge refers to knowledge that can breadily verbalized in a formal, systematic language [10The conversion are also based on a recognition distinctions between individual knowledge and collectivknowledge.

Socialization is a process of creating knowledge bconverting tacit knowledge from one entity (individualgroup, or organization) to another entity. Combination a process of creating new explicit knowledge fromexisting explicit knowledge. The conversion of taciknowledge into explicit knowledge is called

1 This framework has been collectively developed by Leif Edvinsson,Skandia; Hubert Saint Onge, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce;Patrick Sullivan, Intellectual Capital Management; and Gordon PetrasDow Chemicals.

0.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 3

e.n

s’ .

lyi

itegsn

th

ncshedefsoofna

a ahain thedoeth

ptsiser

Inlly

aa

ith thesethead a

hee

al

ofndthe

ng

dinelses,

s isnsg,

n.g)ndg,thsee

ys,s).encts

are

aslp


externalization. The conversion of explicit knowledginto tacit knowledge is called internalizationOrganizational knowledge is created by the interactioamong these four conversion processes, and throutransferal of tacit/explicit knowledge from individual togroup to organizational levels.

Knowledge creation starts with socialization. Thiinteraction facilitates the sharing of membersexperiences and perspectives. Then, externalizationtriggered by successive rounds of meaningful “dialogueThrough this dialogue, entities articulate their formertacit knowledge to each other. The knowledge that created through externalization can be combined wexisting knowledge to further refine and extend thknowledge base. This process iterates, with knowledincreasingly taking concrete form. Through thiexperimentation of learning by doing, internalizatiotakes place. This process of knowledge conversionillustrated in Figure 8.

3.4. Model of Knowledge Transfer

Szulanski [12] has advanced a model for analyzininternal stickiness of knowledge transfer, with a focus otransfer of best practices. Internal stickiness refers to difficulty of transferring knowledge within anorganization. “Intrafirm transfer of best practice is seeas an unfolding process consisting of stages in whicharacteristic factors not only appear in greater or lesdegree but also in a creation order occurrence” [12]. Tframework identifies four stages involved in knowledgtransfer: initiation, implementation, ramp-up, anintegration. It also identifies four factors that impact thdifficulty of knowledge transfer: characteristics oknowledge transfer (causal ambiguity and unprovenescharacteristics of the source of knowledge (lack motivation and perceived unreliability), characteristics the recipient of knowledge (lack of motivation, lack oabsorptive capacity, and lack of retentive capacity), acharacteristics of the context (barren organizationcontext and arduous relationship).

The initiation stage is comprised of all events that leto the decision to transfer. First, a need for knowledgerecognized which triggers a search for satisfying thneed. Once the need and the potential solution to tneed are identified then the feasibility of transferring thknowledge is explored. The implementation stage begonce a decision to transfer needed knowledge is taken.this stage, the knowledge resources flow between source and the recipient, social ties between the recipiand the sources are established, transfer is customizesuit the needs of the recipient, and care is taken to avproblems encountered in the previous transfers. Thactivities cease once the recipient starts to use received knowledge. In the ramp-up stage a recipie

0-7695-0001-3/99 $1

sgh

is”

sh

e

is

gne

here

),ff

dl

distatts

Inent toidsee

nt

starts using received knowledge. The recipient attemto identify and resolve unexpected problems that arwhile using the new knowledge and meeting (oexceeding) the post-transfer performance expectations.the integration stage, transferred knowledge graduabecomes routinized and institutionalized

Data collection to study this model was carried out intwo-step questionnaire survey. In the first round, feasibility test was conducted to select companies wstrong incentives to transfer best practices. Based onfeasibility test, a list of transfers and parties in thotransfers (i.e., respondents) were identified for each of participating companies. For each transfer questionnaire was sent to the source, the recipient, anthird party to obtain a balanced perspective. Texplanatory power of the framework and the relativimportance of each barrier was assessed using canoniccorrelation. The results reveal the that the three mostimportant barriers to best practice transfer are lack absorptive capacity of the recipient, causal ambiguity, aan arduous relationship between the source and recipient.

3.5. Model of Knowledge Management Process

This model describes the KM process in a consultifirm, KPMG Peat Marwick [1]. It defines KM as thecreation, leveraging, and sharing of know-how anintellectual assets by all individuals across the firm order to better serve clients. The KM process moddeveloped by KPMG consists of a sequence of six phaas shown in Figure 9: acquisition, indexing, filteringlinking, distribution, and application. Acquisition referto knowledge creation and content development. Thisaccomplished by distilling experiences and lessolearned from client engagement projects, by collectinsynthesizing, and interpreting a variety of informatioThe next three phases (indexing, filtering, and linkinare referred to as library management activities ainclude the screening, classification, cataloginintegrating, and interconnecting of content from bointernal and external sources. The distribution phaincludes packaging and delivery of knowledge in thform of Web pages (e.g., designing knowledge displatemplates, and graphics; creation of multimedia formatApplication refers to using the knowledge that has becollected, captured, and delivered to produce produand services.

4. Other Related Work

Aside from frameworks, the KM literature contains variety of ideas and concepts that help clarify the natuof KM phenomena. Although, these are not referred toframeworks by their authors, such writings may he

0.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 4

vo

tge

e.”ngeeg

’s

oInae,g a

enneor1ag

the

e

xth

nk g ad

yh

.t

on.hees in

nt of inn

nd

g

sl

uct

esakate

n

ann

thennkign.

ur

ds1.s,

ssand a


shape the development of more comprehensiframeworks in the future. Here we give a couple examples of this related work.

Demarest [6] identifies four KM processes thaoperate in an organization for the purposes of knowledproduction. These four KM processes (he also calls thknowledge economies) are construction, disseminatioembodiment, and use. Construction refers to “the procof discovering and structuring a kind of knowledge“Dissemination refers to the human processes atechnical infrastructure that make embodied knowledavailable to the people within the firm.” Use refers to thproduction of commercial values of the customer. Halso suggests that KM is the systematic underpinninobservation, instrumentation, and optimization of a firmKM knowledge economies.

Taylor [13] describes a knowledge cycle comprised knowledge development and knowledge use. knowledge development, knowledge is created individual, group, and/or community levels through thactivities of conceptualization, review, internalizationand sharing. Knowledge use refers to storindistributing, applying, and reviewing the knowledge asbasis for continuing development of knowledge.

5. Comparative Analyses of the DescriptiveFrameworks

We compare the descriptive frameworks on fivdimensions. Two are context dimensions: focus aframework roots/origins. The other three are contedimensions: knowledge resources, knowledgmanipulation activities, and influences on the conduct knowledge management. A basic premise of this reseais that understanding KM phenomena depends on characterizing organizational knowledge resources thneed to be managed, 2) identifying and explaininactivities that operate on knowledge resources during conduct of KM, and 3) recognizing factors that affect thconduct of knowledge management. These three aspcorrespond to the three content dimensions used compare the descriptive frameworks. The contedimensions (focus and roots/origins) used to compare frameworks help in understanding the objective anmethodology of framework development.

The focus dimension identifies the primaryintent of a framework. The roots and origins dimensioindicates the methodology used for framewordevelopment. The other three dimensions give a waycompare the contents of the frameworks. The knowledresources dimension deals with the characterization oforganization’s resources (e.g., “where” it is embeddestored, manifested, and/or represented in an organizatioThe dimension of knowledge manipulation activitidentifies operations on these knowledge resources t

0-7695-0001-3/99 $1

ef

emn,ss

de

,

f

t

,

dt

fch)t

e

ctstote

d

toen,

n).

at

can be executed in the organization’s conduct of KMThe knowledge manipulation activities generally do nooperate on the knowledge resources in a random fashiRather, their pattern is influenced by various factors. Tknowledge management influences dimension identifithese factors. Table 1 summarizes the ten frameworksterms of the five dimensions.

5.1. Focus

Each framework’s focus reveals which of the contedimensions is (or are) emphasized and the orientationthat emphasis. Each framework’s focus is summarizedTable 1. The Leonard-Barton [7] framework focuses oidentifying knowledge manipulation activities orientedtoward managing technological capabilities in aorganization. The intent of the Arthur Andersen anAPQC [2] framework is to provide a basis forbenchmarking the conduct of KM within and amonorganizations. As such, it identifies knowledgemanipulation activities and their enablers (i.e., influenceon the conduct of KM). Wiig [15] focuses on manageriaissues (i.e., managerial influences) that affect the condof KM in an organization. In so doing, this frameworkidentifies knowledge manipulation activities that arsubjected to these influences. Choo [5] identifieknowledge manipulation activities that operate in “knowing organization.” The framework of van der Speand Spijkervet [14] focuses on a cycle of stages thgoverns the conduct of KM (i.e., the pattern of knowledgmanipulation activities) in an organization.

The model described by Petrash [9] focuses oidentifying types of intellectual capital. As such it isoriented toward characterizing knowledge resources of organization. The Sveiby [11] framework also focuses ounderstanding knowledge resources, but is oriented in direction of intangible assets. Nonaka [8] focuses oknowledge creation that happens through humainteraction and knowledge conversions. The Szulans[12] framework focuses on impediments to transferrinbest practices (i.e., knowledge) within an organizatioThe KPMG Peat Marwick framework [1] focuses on asequence of knowledge manipulation activities that occin a specific organization.

5.2. Framework Roots/Origins

The frameworks originate from both academic anpractitioner sources. They have their roots in varioudevelopment methodologies as summarized in Table Some have grown out of academic study of organizationranging from field research into KM phenomena acromultiple organizations to a case study examination of individual organization. Other framework have evolveout of first-hand experiences of practitioners, some in

0.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 5

so

end

icstg

hie

taaaree.g

e ee

e

bereCiadeatie

e4heesate.re],ofgege4]

ofsf

allks itCMther asndrs

ksndnsorkst theis.

rkforgesate,in

ies,insthe


consulting capacity and others in a management capacYet other frameworks are the result of synthesizinconcepts from previously published works. In one cathis synthesis was followed by an empirical evaluation the resultant framework.

5.3. Knowledge Resources

Three of the frameworks explicitly address thknowledge resources dimension by identifying differekinds of knowledge resources. These are summarizeTable 2. Leonard-Barton [7] identifies two types oknowledge resources: employee knowledge and physsystems (e.g., machinery, databases). Interestingly, differentiates between an employee’s knowledge and skills an employee has (e.g., for manipulatinknowledge). The Petrash [9] framework identifiesadditional knowledge resources. It recognizes temployees and physical knowledge resources identifby Leonard-Barton, but adds four additional knowledgresources: customers (referred to as customer capiorganizational processes, organizational structures, organizational culture. The latter three referred to organizational capital. Sveiby’s framework is similaHowever, it incorporates customer capital within thnotion of external knowledge resources, which includknowledge resources other than customers (esuppliers). The other frameworks assume that knowledresources exist, in that knowledge manipulation activitimust operate on something. However, they have littlesay about resource differentiation. For instancNonaka’s framework does incorporate knowledge mod(i.e., tacit vs. explicit) with respect to human knowledgresources, but it does not identify different classes knowledge resources. That is, it looks at one attribu(modality) of a resource rather than an array of resourc

5.4. Knowledge Manipulation Activities

Most of the frameworks explicitly identify knowledgemanipulation activities. These are summarized in Ta3. Some frameworks treat these activities at a relativelemental level, while others deal with relatively highelevel knowledge manipulation activities. For instancthe activities identified by Arthur Andersen and APQ[2], Wiig [15], van der Spek and Spijkervet [14], Alav[1], and Szulanski [12] appear to be more elemental ththose identified by Leonard-Barton [7], Choo [5], anNonaka [8]. The higher-level activities seem to bcomprised of some configuration of more elementactivities. For example, decision making is an activithat may involve a subset of the more elemental activitidentified by Arthur Andersen and APQC [2].

tlynd

0-7695-0001-3/99 $1

ity.ge,f

t infalhe

he

ed

el),

nds

.

s.,

gesto,s

eoftes.

lely-,

n

lys

5.5 Influences on the Conduct of KnowledgeManagement

Several of the frameworks explicitly recognize thinfluence dimension of KM. For each, Table summarizes what it identifies as influences on tconduct of knowledge management. Such influencgovern what manipulation activities are applied to whknowledge resources within a given slice of timInfluences identified by the frameworks include: cultu[7, 2, 12, 14], leadership [2], technology [2, 14organizational adjustments [12; 14], evaluation knowledge management activities and/or knowledresources [15; 2; 14], governing/administratinknowledge manipulation activities and/or knowledgresources [15, 7, 12, 14], employee motivation [12, 1and external factors [14].

Szulanski’s framework is designed for the purpose exploring knowledge transfer, and thus identifieinfluences that are very specific to the activity otransferring best practices within an organization. Of the frameworks, only Leonard-Barton’s frameworelaborates and illustrates the nature of the influenceidentifies. Moreover, the Anderson and APQframework considers the identified influences only as Kenablers and not as possible impediments; on the ohand, Szulanski’s framework focuses on the influencesimpediments. Leonard-Barton and van der Spek aSpijkervet consider the influences as potential facilitatoor barriers to the conduct of KM.

5.6. Section Summary

The broad and specialized descriptive frameworwere compared on five dimensions – focus, roots aorigin, knowledge resources, knowledge manipulatioactivities and KM influences. The first two dimensionare the context dimensions that describe the framewobjective and the framework building process. The lathree are the content dimensions that together describeconduct of KM in an organization. A summary analysof the framework comparison appears in the conclusion

6. Prescriptive Framework

Beckman [3] has introduced a prescriptive framewoin which an eight-stage sequence is advocated conducting knowledge management. These eight staare identify, capture, select, store, share, apply, creand sell. In the identify stage, an organization (or certaknowledge workers) should determine core competencrecognize strategic capabilities and knowledge domacorresponding to the core competencies, assess expertise level for each knowledge domain, and lasfocus on bridging the gap between the existing a

0.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 6

thgnd

ues

hed

ifd

saaiooiclnn

shsseonser

n a

,hebleen.of

d,ingnt.e

anreoreondyd

s.

nhhe

as aate

entuld

KM

orveefitteddale


needed knowledge. Next, in the capture stage, organization should attempt to obtain needed knowledfrom both internal and external knowledge sources aattempt to formalize and document the obtaineknowledge. In the select stage, the organization shoassess the value of the collected and formalizknowledge and filter it to obtain knowledge that seemmost appropriate. Next, in the store stage, torganization should classify the filtered knowledge anadds it to the organizational memory.

In the share stage, the organization should classretrieve knowledge from organizational memory anmakes it available for the knowledge users. In the applystage, the organization’s knowledge worker should uthe retrieved knowledge in performing tasks such solving problems, making decisions, researching ideand learning. Next, in the create stage, the organizatshould detect new knowledge through a variety processes such as observing customers, best practexperimentation, and data mining. Finally, in the sestage, organization should produce new products aservices, and output them into the environment by usiorganizational knowledge.

Prescriptive KM frameworks such as the one juoutlined make use of concepts that appear in tdescriptive KM frameworks. Although, prescriptionabout how to do knowledge management can be propowithout consideration of or linkage to a descriptivframework, it would seem that the creation and study future prescriptive KM frameworks could benefit from aappreciation of descriptive frameworks such as thosummarized in Table 1. Descriptive frameworks providthe building blocks for constructing prescriptions and foavoiding oversights in doing so.

7. Conclusion

This comparative examination of descriptive KMframeworks reveals that such frameworks are beiapproached from a variety of perspectives and with

0-7695-0001-3/99 $1

eed

ldd

y

ess,n

fes,ldg

te

ed

f

e

g

variety of methodologies. Each, in its own waycontributes to an understanding of KM phenomena. Tcomparison of these frameworks yields several notaobservations. First, the dimension of knowledgresources has received comparatively little attentioSecond, there is not a common or standard way characterizing knowledge manipulation activities. Thirthere is not a common or standard way of characterizinfluences on the conduct of knowledge managemeFourth, no individual KM framework subsumes thothers.

We conclude that there is a need to characterizeorganization’s knowledge resources in a mocomprehensive and unified manner than has heretofbeen the case. In order to promote a communderstanding of KM, it is essential to organize anconsolidate knowledge manipulation activities in a wathat not only describes each activity clearly ancompletely, but also identifies their interrelationshipSimilarly, it is important to recognize the influencingfactors in a comprehensive and unified way.

Ideally, all of this can be accomplished in the creatioof a new KM framework that achieves unification botwithin and across each of the content dimensions. Tframeworks described and compared here can serve starting point for creating a generic framework thunifies KM concepts. Such a framework should bsufficiently comprehensive to address all the main contfeatures of those presented in Table 2, 3 and 4. It shoalso accommodate other concepts appearing in the literature, but outside the scope of extant KMframeworks. It should provide a through basis fstudying, evaluating, and devising various prescriptiKM frameworks. Creating a generic descriptivframework of knowledge management would benefrom a synthesis of the descriptive framework presenhere, plus and direct inputs from KM practitioners anscholars. We are presently engaged in a large scresearch project in this direction.

0.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 7


Figure 1. Pillars of Knowledge Management[Adapted from Wiig, 1993]

Figure 2. Core Capabilities and Knowledge Building Activities[Adapted from Leonard-Barton, 1995]

Knowledge Management Foundation

Broad Understanding of Knowledge

-Creation - Manifestations - Use - Transfer

1

2

3

K n o w l e d g e M a n a g e m e n t

4

1. Physical Systems

2. Managerial systems

3. Employee Skills and Knowledge

4. Values and Norms

Problem Solving

Implementingand Integrating

ImportingKnowledge

Experimenting

I

Survey & CategorizeKnowledge

Analyze Knowledge&

Related Activities

Elicit, Codify, &Organize Knowledge

II

Appraise & EvaluateValue of Knowledge

&

Knowledge RelatedActions

III

SynthesizeKnowledge Related

Activities

Handle, Use, &Control Knowledge

Leverage, Distribute,& AutomateKnowledge

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 8


Figure 3. Organizational Knowledge Management (KM) Model[Adapted from Arthur Andersen & APQC, 1996]

Figure 4. Model of the Knowing Organization[Adapted from Choo, 1996]

OrganizationalAction

Decision Making

Knowledge Creation

Sensemaking

Information Processing

Information Transformation

SHARE CREATE

IDENTIFYORGANIZE

ADAPT

APPLY

COLLECT

OrganizationalKnowledge

LEADERSHIP

CULTURE

TECHNOLOGY

MEASUREMENT

Information Interpretation

KM Process

KM Enablers

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 9


Figure 5. A Framework of Knowledge Management [Adapted from van der Spek & Spijkervet, 1997]

Figure 6. Intangible Asset Framework[Adapted from Sveiby, 1997]

Conceptualize

-- Draw up inventory -- Analyze strong & weak points

Act

--Developing knowledge --Distributing knowledge -- Combining knowledge -- Holding knowledge

Reflect

-- Establish requiredimprovement -- Plan theimprovement process

Retrospect

-- Evaluate resultsachieved -- Compare old &new situation

External & internaldevelopments




INTANGIBLE ASSETS

EXTERNAL STRUCTURE

(brands, customer and supplierrelationships)

INTERNAL STRUCTURES

(The organization: management,legal structure, manual systems,

attitudes, R&D, software

EMPLOYEE COMPETENCE

(Education, experience)

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 10


Figure 7. Intellectual Capital Model[Adapted from Petrash, 1996]

Figure 8. Spiral of Organizational Knowledge Creation[Adapted from Nonaka, 1994]

Figure 9. KPMG Knowledge Management Process[Adapted from Alavi, 1997]

Acquisition Indexing Filtering Linking Distribution Application

VALUE

CUSTOMER CAPITAL

HUMANCAPITAL ORGANIZATIONA

L CAPITAL

DEPICTS KNOWLEDGE FLOWS

Explicit

TacitSocialization

Combination

Externalization

Internalization

Individual Group Organization Inter-organization

Knowledge Level

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 11


Tab

le 1

. C

ompa

rativ

e S

umm

ary

of th

e D

escr

iptiv

e F

ram

ewor

ks

BR

OA

D F

RA

ME

WO

RK

SS

PE

CIA

LIZ

ED

FR

AM

EW

OR

KS

Aut

hors

Dim

en

sio

ns

Wiig

,1

993

Leon

ard-

Ba

rto

n, 1

995

Art

hur

And

erse

n &

AP

QC

, 1

996

Ch

oo,

19

96va

n de

r S

pek

Spi

jker

vet,

19

97

Sve

iby,

19

97

Pe

tra

sh,

19

96N

on

aka

, 1

996

Szu

lan

ski,

19

96A

lavi

,1

99

7

Fo

cus

Iden

tify

man

age

me

nt

influ

ence

s o

n th

eco

ndu

ctof

KM

.

Man

age

inte

ract

ion

betw

een

orga

niza

tion’

ste

chno

logi

cal

capa

bilit

ies

and

know

ledg

ede

velo

pmen

tac

tiviti

es.

Pro

vide

a b

asis

for

benc

hmar

king

the

co

ndu

ct o

fK

M w

ithin

and

betw

een

orga

niza

tions

.

Des

crib

eth

ew

orki

ng o

f“k

now

ing”

orga

niza

tion

.

Cha

ract

eriz

e a

conc

eptu

aliz

e-re

flect

-act

-re

tros

pect

cycl

e fo

rgo

vern

ing

the

con

duct

of

KM

.

Cha

ract

eriz

ean

d m

easu

rein

tang

ible

asse

ts(e

spec

ially

know

ledg

e)

Cha

ract

eriz

ea

nd

mea

sure

inte

llect

ual

capi

tal.

Cha

ract

eriz

ekn

owle

dge

crea

tion

thro

ug

hin

tera

ctio

n of

taci

t &ex

plic

itkn

owle

dge

and

amon

gin

div

idu

al,

gro

up

, an

dor

gani

zatio

nal

entit

ies

Iden

tify

barr

iers

totr

ansf

errin

gbe

stpr

actic

esw

ithin

an

orga

niza

tion

Usi

ng

tech

nol

og

y to

acco

mp

lish

KM

at KP

MG

Pe

at

Ma

rwic

k.

Ro

ots

/Ori

gin

No

tin

dic

ate

dF

ield

res

earc

hC

onsu

lting

expe

rienc

esS

ynth

esis

of p

ast

rese

arch

No

t in

dic

ate

dC

on

sulti

ng

expe

rienc

esP

ract

ical

orga

niza

tiona

l

expe

rienc

es

Not

indi

cate

dS

ynth

esis

of

past

res

earc

h&

an

em

piric

alst

udy

Cas

est

udy

Kno

wle

dge

Res

ourc

esS

ee T

able

2S

ee T

able

2S

ee T

able

2

Kno

wle

dge

Ma

nip

ula

tion

Act

iviti

esS

eeT

able

3S

ee T

able

3S

ee T

able

3S

ee T

able

3S

ee T

able

3S

ee T

able

3S

eeT

ab

le 3

Influ

ence

so

n C

ond

uct

of K

M

See

Tab

le 4

See

Tab

le 4

See

Tab

le 4

See

Tab

le 4

See

Tab

le 4

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 12


Table 2. Summary of Knowledge Resources Identified in the Frameworks

Author Knowledge Resources

Leonard-Barton, 19951. Employee knowledge2. Knowledge embedded in physical systems

Sveiby, 19971. External structures2. Internal structures3. Employee competencies

Petrash, 19961. Human capital2. Organizational capital3. Customer capital

Table 3. Summary of Knowledge Manipulation Activities Identified in the FrameworksAuthor Knowledge Manipulation Activities

Leonard-Barton, 1995

1. Shared and creative problem solving2. Importing and absorbing technological knowledge from the outside of the firm3. Experimenting and prototyping4. Implementing and integrating new methodologies and tools.

ArthurAndersenand APQC,1996

1. Share 2. Create 3. Identify 4. Collect5. Adapt 6. Organize 7. Apply

Wiig, 1993 1. Creation 2. Manifestation 3. Use 4. TransferChoo, 1996 1. Sensemaking (includes “information interpretation”)

2. Knowledge creation (includes “information transformation)3. Decision making (includes “information processing)

van der SpekandSpijkervet,1997

In the Act Process1. Develop 2. Distribute 3. Combine 4. Hold

Nonaka,1996

1. Socialization (conversion of tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge)2. Internalization (conversion of explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge)3. Combination (conversion of explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge)4. Externalization (conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge)

Alavi, 1997 1. Acquisition (knowledge creation and content development)2. Indexing 3. Filtering 4. Linking (activities 2, 3, and 4 involve screening, classification, cataloging, integrating, and

interconnecting internal and external sources)5. Distributing (packaging and delivery of knowledge in form of Web pages)6. Application (using knowledge)

Szulanski,1996

1. Initiation (recognize knowledge need and satisfy that need)2. Implementation (knowledge transfer takes place)3. Ramp-up (use the transferred knowledge)4. Integration (internalize the knowledge)

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 13

ate

e

d

e

s

s,

)d

d

us

nal

oft

on.


Table 4. Summary of Knowledge Management Influences Identified in the FrameworksAuthor Influences on the Conduct of Knowledge Management

Leonard-Barton, 1995

1. Managerial systems (e.g., education, reward, and incentive systems)2. Values and norms (e.g., system of cast and status, rituals of behaviors, passion

beliefs)ArthurAndersenand APQC,1996

1. Culture2. Leadership3. Measurement4. Technology

Wiig, 1993 1. Exploring knowledge and its adequacy (survey & categorize knowledge, analyzknowledge & related activities, elicit, codify & organize knowledge)

2. Assessing value of knowledge (appraise & evaluate knowledge and relateactivities)

3. Managing knowledge activity (synthesize knowledge related activities; handle, usand control knowledge, leverage, distribute, automate knowledge)

van derSpek andSpijkervet,1997

1. Conceptualize (gain insights about the conduct of KM)2. Reflect (access qualities and plan improvements)3. Retrospect (evaluating the performance of the knowledge manipulation activitie

and the result from those activities) Items 1, 2, and 3 guide the structuring of knowledge manipulation activities.4. Internal developments (culture, employee motivation, organizational adjustment

management, technology)5. External developments

Szulanski,1996

1. Characteristics of knowledge transfer (includes causal ambiguity and unproveness2. Characteristics of knowledge source (includes lack of motivation, perceive

unreliability)3. Characteristics of knowledge recipient (includes lack of motivation, absorptive an

retentive capacity)4. Characteristics of the context (includes barren organizational context and arduo

relationship)

8. Reference

[1] Alavi, M. KPMG Peat Marwick U.S. : One Giant Brain. Harvard Business School(Case), 9-397-108, Rev. July 11, 1997.

[2] Arthur Andersen and The American Productivity and Quality Center. The Knowledge Management Assessment Tool: ExterBenchmarking Version, Winter, 1996.

[3] Beckman, T. A Methodology for Knowledge Management. Proceeding of the IASTED International Conference on AI and SComputing, 1997.

[4] Bukowitz, W. & Petrash, G. Visualizing, Measuring, and Managing Knowledge. Research Technology Management, July-August, 1997.

[5] Choo, C. An Integrated Information Model of the Organization: The Knowing Organizatihttp://www.fis.utoronto.ca/people/faculty/choo/FIS/KO/KO.html1#contents, (Dec. 7, 1996).

[6] Demarest, M. Understanding Knowledge Management. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 374-384, 1997.

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 14


[7] Leonard-Barton, D. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.

[8] Nonaka, I. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37, Feb. 1994.

[9] Petrash, G. Dow’s Journey to a Knowledge Value Management Culture. European Management Journal 14(4), 365-373, 1996.

[10] Polanyi, M. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962.

[11] Sveiby, K. The New Organizational Wealth. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1997.

[12] Szulanski, G. Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm. Strategic ManagementJournal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 27-43, 1996.

[13] Taylor, R. Unisys Decision Support Systems Programme, City Gate London, Feb. 1996.

[14] van der Spek R. and Spijkervet A. Knowledge Management: Dealing Intelligently with Knowledge. Knowledge Management AndIts Intergrative Elements, eds (Liebowitz, J. & Wilcox, L.). New York: CRC Press, 1997.

[15] Wiig, K. Knowledge Management Foundations. Arlington: Schema Press, 1993.

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 15

Description and analysis of existing knowledge management frameworks

Documents

Transcript of Description and analysis of existing knowledge management frameworks