Organizational Memory and Knowledge Repositories

Traditional memory is associated with the individual's ability to acquire, retain,

and retrieve knowledge. Within business this concept is extended beyond the
individual, and organizational memory therefore refers to the collective ability to
store and retrieve knowledge and information.
So how does one define organizational memory? Any definition would need to
span all the different repositories in which a company may store knowledge. This
includes the more formal records, as well as tacit and embedded knowledge located
in people, organizational culture, and processes.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) offer some deeper insight into the workings of
organizational memory. They look at how and organization's history can influence
current decision making. They how shared understandings evolve, becoming part of
an organizational whole which may remain constant even after key individuals have
left the firm. This is done through the formation of collective interpretations
regarding the outcome of decision making. The information defining the decision's
stimulus and response is stored in information, and it affects present decisions when
it is retrieved.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) define a number of stages in the organizational memory
process and outline five retention facilities:
● Acquisition: Organizational memory consists of the accumulated
information regarding past decisions. This information is not centrally
stored, but rather it is split across different retention facilities. Each time a
decision is made, and the consequences are evaluated, some information
is added to the organizational memory.
● Retention: Past experiences can be retained in any of the five different
repositories:
o Individuals
o Culture: The language and frameworks that exist within an organization and
form shared interpretations.
 o Transformations: The procedures and formalized systems that the
organization employs. These systems reflect the firm's past experiences and
are repositories for embedded knowledge.
o Structures: These link the individual to other individuals and to the
environment. Social interaction is conditioned by mutual expectations
between individuals based on their roles within the organization. The
interaction sequences for a pattern over time and begin to extend to an
organizational level. This can take place both through formal and informal
structure and it constitutes a social memory which stores information about
an organization's perception of the environment.
o External activities: The surroundings of the organization where knowledge
and information can be stored. E.g. former employees, government bodies,
competitors, etc.
● Retrieval: This can either be controlled or automatic. The latter refers to the
intuitive and essentially effortless process of accessing organizational
memory, usually as part of an established sequence of action. Controlled
refers to the deliberate attempt to access stored knowledge.
As one can see, the three stages presented here are essential to the learning process
of the firm. Much like an individual, the firm must be able to access and use past
experiences so as to avoid repeating mistakes and to exploit valuable knowledge.
Unlike an individual however, OM is not centrally stored and resides throughout the
firm and even beyond it. The process of retrieving knowledge/information will
inevitably vary depending on the retention facility that one is trying to access. For
example, written documentation may be accessed through IT while cultural memory
is accessed through the understanding and/or application of the norms and
procedures of the working environment.
A further distinction regarding the type of knowledge retained in the organization is
offered by Ramage and Reif (1996). They separate the documented aspects from the
subtler knowledge that belongs to individuals as a result of their role as members
of the organization:
● Artifacts of Cooperation: These are the hard indicators which are visible and
examinable. They include products, records of collaboration, and ideas. The
latter refers to minutes of meetings, reports, FAQs, and other
 items that record common knowledge. These are easily storable and
presumably also more easily accessible.
● Knowledge of the Organization Qua Entity: This type of knowledge cannot
be stored in the same way as the artifacts of cooperation. It includes
knowledge of the political system, of the culture, and of how things are
normally done within the firm. It can include the knowledge of who is an
expert, of where a particular person is, and on who to contact for a specific
problem.
This definition is useful as a way of understanding the knowledge categories and the
potential management challenge that organizational memory, and ultimately
knowledge management (KM) would pose.
Furthermore, as is the case with many KM related disciplines, one finds a distinct
difference in the way organizational memory is perceived between IT practitioners
and business theoreticians. In the words of Wellman (2009): "The IT path
emphasizes the acquisition and storage of organizational knowledge including data
warehousing, document management, and search tools. The organization
development (OD) path emphasizes tacit knowledge, coaching, social interactions,
and encouraging ad hoc knowledge exchange."
IT based models thus tend to focus on more concrete, definable memory and less
on people, culture, and informal structures. Essentially, they focus more on artifacts
of cooperation.
Since this site deals with organizational memory within the context of KM, it is not
necessary to arrive at a specific definition or model. Instead it is important to
understand the scope of organizational memory, its varied and often complex
retention facilities, and the types of knowledge available. In later sections, I will
investigate more closely the specific role that IT can have in supporting, promoting,
and enhancing organizational memory.
Organizational Learning
 Introducing Organizational Learning

What is Organizational Learning?

Learning is the way we create new knowledge and improve ourselves. Although
there is ample debate regarding the mechanisms and scope of learning, in its
simplest form this is no different for organizations. Botha et al. describe the
organizational learning process as follows:

As one can see organizational learning is based on applying knowledge for a

purpose and learning from the process and from the outcome. Brown and Duguid
(1991) describe organizational learning as "the bridge between working and
innovating." This once again links learning to action, but it also implies useful
improvement.
The implications to knowledge management are three-fold:
 ● One must understand how to create the ideal organizational learning
environment
● One must be aware of how and why something has been learned.
● One must try to ensure that the learning that takes place is useful to the
organization
Organizational Learning Pitfalls
Senge (1990) argues that often it is failure that provides the richest learning
experience, which is something that organizations need to understand and use
more effectively. He criticizes the way we reward success and look down upon
failure as something that can be detrimental to the long-term health of the
organization. Levitt and March (1996) further argue that success is ambiguous and
depends on how it is interpreted. This interpretation may not only vary significantly
between different groups within the organization but may changeover time as
success indicators and levels of aspiration change.
Levitt and March (1996) also discuss superstitious learning. This occurs when
positive or negative results are associated with the wrong actions. Success and
failure can both generate superstitious learning. If a firm does well, the routines that
they followed are linked to this success and are subsequently reinforced. The
opposite is true for failure. In such cases, the organization thinks that it has learned
when in fact it has not. Real organizational learning would have resulted from the
examination of the information generated from their actions rather than from
relatively arbitrary success or failure criteria.
Different Approaches to Organizational Learning
Generally speaking, there are two approaches to organizational learning. The first
view looks at the firm as a whole and s learning from a cognitive perspective. In a
way, the firm is treated like a large brain composed of the individual members of
the organization. The second view looks at learning as community based, where the
firm's practitioners create knowledge in their own networks called communities of
practice (Lave & Wenger 1991).
 These views should be seen as complementary rather than contradictory. The
next two sub-sections will organizational learning theory from these two
perspectives.
 Organizational Learning Theory: Company
Perspective

Two of the most noteworthy contributors to the field of organizational learning

theory have been Chris Argrys and Donald Schon. Organizational learning (OL),
according to Argrys & Schon is a product of organizational inquiry. This means that
whenever expected outcome differs from actual outcome, an individual (or group)
will engage in inquiry to understand and, if necessary, solve this inconsistency. In
the process of organizational inquiry, the individual will interact with other
members of the organization and learning will take place. Learning is therefore a
direct product of this interaction.
Argrys and Schon emphasize that this interaction often goes well beyond defined
organizational rules and procedures. Their approach to organizational learning
theory is based on the understanding of two (often conflicting) modes of operation:
 Espoused theory: This refers to the formalized part of the organization. Every firm
will tend to have various instructions regarding the way employees should conduct
themselves in order to carry out their jobs (e.g. problem solving). These instructions
are often specific and narrow in focus, confining the individual to a set path. An
example of espoused theory might be "if the computer does not work, tryrebooting
it and then contact the IT department."
Theory-in-use: This is the actual way things are done. Individuals will rarely follow
espoused theory and will rely on interaction and brainstorming to solve a problem.
Theory in use refers to the loose, flowing, and social way that employees solve
problems and learn. An example of this might be the way someone actually solves
a problem with their computer by troubleshooting solutions, researching onforums,
asking co-workers for opinions, etc.
The fact that there is a mismatch between these two approaches is potentially
problematic if the company enforces its espoused theory. In order to create an
environment conducive to learning, firms are encouraged to accept theory in use,
and make it easy for the individual to interact with his working environment in an
undefined and unstructured way. Essentially, they should provide the right
environment for organizational inquiry to take place, unconstrained by formal
procedures.
Levitt and March (1996) expand further on the dynamics of organizational
learning theory. Their view presents the organization as routine-based, history
dependent, and target oriented. While lessons from history are stored in the
organizational memory, the event itself is often lost. They note that past lessons are
captured by routines "in a way that makes the lessons, but not the history,
accessible to organizations and organizational members." The problem most
organizations face is that it is usually better to have the event rather than the
interpretation. However, this is often too costly (both financially and time-wise) to
be feasible.
OL is transmitted through socialization, education, imitation and so on, and can
change over time as a result of interpretations of history.
Organizational Learning Theory: The Three Types of Learning
Argrys and Schon (1996) identify three levels of learning which may be present in
the organization:

● Single loop learning: Consists of one feedback loop when strategy is

modified in response to an unexpected result (error correction). E.g. when
sales are down, marketing managers inquire into the cause, and tweak the
strategy to try to bring sales back on track.
● Double loop learning: Learning that results in a change in theory-in-use. The
values, strategies, and assumptions that govern action are changed to create
a more efficient environment. In the above example, managers might
rethink the entire marketing or sales process so that there will be no (or
fewer) such fluctuations in the future.
● Deuterolearning: Learning about improving the learning system itself. This
is composed of structural and behavioral components which determine how
learning takes place. Essentially deuterolearning is therefore "learning how
to learn."
This can be closely linked to Senge's concept of the learning organization,
particularly in regard to improving learning processes and understanding/modifying
mental models.
Effective learning must therefore include all three, continuously improving the
organization at all levels. However, while any organization will employ single loop
learning, double loop and particularly deuterolearning are a far greater challenge.
Conclusion
From organizational learning theory we can infer the following issues which may
affect knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
● OL is dependent on allowing organizational inquiry to take place according
to theory-in-use, not espoused theory.
● OL is a complex mechanism, resulting often in the storage of interpretations
of past events, rather than the events themselves.
● OL can take place on three different levels. While single loop learningcomes
natural to any individual/organization, special attention must be paid to the
double-loop and deuterolearning
 Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice

What are Communities of Practice?

Communities of practice is a term originally developed by Lave and Wenger
(1991). It describes a learning theory with a strong relationship to the social
construction of knowledge. The community of practice (sometimes incorrectly
referred to as "communities of practices") consists of members who interact with
each other for their pursuit of a common practice. It is therefore this collective social
practice that links individuals together across official organizational boundaries and
departments and makes up the community.
It is important to note that these are not teams. A community of practice can be
defined as "a group of professionals informally bound to one another through
exposure to a common class of problems, common pursuit of solutions, and thereby
themselves embodying a store of knowledge" (Stewart 2001 in Botha et al 2008).
For further reading and a very detailed overview on the workings and composition
of communities of practice, see this article by Etienne Wenger (one of the founders
of the term).
Learning Within Communities of Practice
Learning is seen as deriving from the social process of becoming a practitioner,
as it gives the individual a social context of being an integrated part of a community.
The social construction of identity shapes each person's view and interpretation of
the world. Learning and the creation of new knowledge can then take place within
the context dependent forum of the community and can be shared through social
practice.
Lave and Wenger (1991) introduce the concept of legitimate peripheral learning
(LPP). LPP links learning to participation within a community of practice. The
objective is not to acquire any specific knowledge, but instead to be grantedaccess
to the community and its culture and language. As a newcomer learns the
formal and informal culture and values of the community, he becomes a legitimate
member. Essentially, he moves form peripheral to full participation.
Brown and Duguid (1991) further investigate organizational learning from a
community perspective. They refer to canonical and non-canonical practice- which
are concepts similar to espoused theory and theory-in-use described in the previous
section. Canonical practice refers to adherence to formal rules and procedures,
while non-canonical refers to the informal routines that dominate day to day
procedures. Brown and Duguid warn against strict canonical focus as it inhibits the
problem-solving capabilities of the organization. They stress that it is unstructured
dialogue, particularly through storytelling, that leads to innovation and problem
solving.
Storytelling functions as a wisdom repository and is instrumental in the creation
of new knowledge. This is closely linked to Levitt and March's concept of history
dependent learning where the interpretations of events (rather than the actual
events) are remembered and passed on. It is also somewhat reminiscent of
Nonaka's externalization process, when tacit knowledge is made explicit often
through the use of metaphor.
Garfield (2018) presents a number of principles concerning communities in
organizations, including:
● They must be independent of organizational structure.
● They are not teams, sites, blogs, etc.; they are people who interact, and
they are based on topics.
● Community membership cannot be forced; it must be voluntary.
● Communities should span organizational, functional and geographic
boundaries.
● Communities require a "critical mass" of members.
● Communities must be nurtured.
The Implications to KM
Botha et al (2008) summarize the key factors regarding communities of practice
as follows:
● Learning is a social phenomenon
 ● Knowledge is integrated into the culture, values, and language of the
community
● Learning and community membership are inseparable
● We learn by doing and therefore knowledge and practice are inseparable.
● Empowerment is key to learning: The best learning environments are
created when there are real consequences to the individual and his
community of practice.
Management must understand the advantages, disadvantages, and limitations
of communities of practice. For example, because they are so loosely defined it may
be very hard to identify them when a problem needs to be solved- to resolve this
some companies today are mapping their communities of practice (Botha 2008).
Another issue could be the problem of transferring and combining knowledge across
the firm. Due to the close ties to "doing" as well as the cultural elements, this may
require innovative solutions- e.g. using temporary cross functional project teams
that can leverage knowledge from different areas, apply it, learn, and the
redistribute the new knowledge back into the individual members' communities.
All this should underline the importance of recognizing and supporting
communities of practice. Knowledge management (KM) initiatives and systems
must therefore be supportive, non-disruptive, and must not enforce canonical
practice.
Organizational Culture
and Leadership
 The Significance of Organizational Culture

In this article I will look at organizational culture and its impact on KM processes.
The other article in this section s leadership and the learning organization, as
outlined by Peter Senge.
What is Organizational Culture?
The social elements of knowledge that have been underlined in previous sections
are at least partially dependent on organizational and community culture.
Organizational culture determines values and beliefs which are an integral part of
what one chooses to see and absorb (Davenport & Prusak 2000). It includes a shared
perception of reality, regarding how things are and how things should be.
Furthermore, community and group culture determine the willingness and
conditions for knowledge sharing with other members of the organization.
Knowledge, and knowledge sharing, are thus inseparable from organizational
culture.
Wellman (2009) essentially describes culture as "the way it is around here." To
illustrate the perseverance of organizational culture he presents an interesting
allegory which I will summarize below:
“Put five apes in a cage. Then dangle a banana from the ceiling of that cage and
place a ladder under it. Whenever an ape attempts to climb the ladder to reach the
banana, spray all of them with cold water. After a few times, the apes will associate
climbing the ladder with being sprayed with cold water. One can nowturn off the
cold water.
Then, replace one of the original apes with a new one. This new ape will
undoubtedly try to get to the banana, but if he tries he will be attacked by the others.
He will have no idea why this is so but will soon learn that he must not climb the
ladder. Next replace yet another ape. When he approaches the ladder all the apes
will attack him. One of these apes has no idea why he may not climb the
ladder, but he participates in the punishment enthusiastically. Soon the new ape
will also learn not to climb the ladder.

In this way, one can continue until all the original apes are replaced. At this
stage, none of them know why they must not climb the ladder, but none will do so,
and all will attack anyone that tries. All of this because "that's the way it has always
been around here."
Strange as it may seem, this kind of cultural learning can be identified time and
again in real world organizations. Wellman points out that at times this can be
beneficial and detrimental. Hard wiring a reaction can push the organization into
action quickly against a perceived threat. The problem is that this "instinctive
response may be inappropriate for the current environment but may be triggered
nonetheless" (Wellman 2009).
All in all, organizational culture can be split into levels (Schein 1992):
● Artifacts: These represent the visible elements such as processes,
structures, goals, climate, dress codes, furniture, etc. An outsider can see
them but may not understand why things are the way things are.
● Espoused values: The values espoused by the leaders. They most often are
grounded in shared assumptions (see below) of how the company should be
run. If there is a significant mismatch between the leadership espoused
values and this perception, the organization may be in trouble.
● Assumptions: These are the actual values of the culture. They refer to the
(often tacit) views of the world itself (e.g. human nature). Again, these
assumptions should need to correlate at least to a certain degree to the
espoused leadership values for the organization to function smoothly.
Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing
The importance of a knowledge sharing culture as an enabler for the transfer
and creation of knowledge is directly addressed by such authors as Bukowitz &
Williams (1999), Davenport and Prusak (2000), and Gamble and Blackwell (2001). In
order to make knowledge management initiatives work in practice, the employees
within the firm must be willing to share their knowledge with others.
Leaders must understand the culture both on an organizational and community
level. While culture often exists on an organizational level, each community may
have its own norms, perspectives, and collective understandings. Their willingness
to share and to seek knowledge will be influenced by these collective views.

One major influence on a culture's knowledge sharing willingness is the issue of

reciprocity (Davenport & Prusak 2000). This refers to the individual's need to
perceive a current or future return on the knowledge he chooses to share. This could
be in the form of direct compensation of some kind; it could be something intangible
like enhancing the individual's reputation; but it can also be the knowledge that the
favor will be returned the next time he requires assistance.
Finally, internal competition is yet another aspect of organizational culture that
may interfere with the knowledge sharing and knowledge creation process.
The Problems with Managing Organizational Culture
The problems with managing culture can be summed up as follows:
● Culture reaffirms itself by rejecting misfits and promoting those that adhere
to the norms of the organization (Gamble & Blackwell 2001).
● Culture often consists of learned responses that are hard wired into the
organization. The actual events that sparked this "lesson" may be long
forgotten (Wellman 2009). This is very similar to the concept of
organizational learning according to Levitt and March (1996) which indicates
that organizations are far more likely to remember interpretations of events
rather than the event itself.
● Culture contains falsehoods. Past lessons are applied often without
understanding them and their reasons for being.
All this makes organization culture extremely difficult to change and manage.
For more on this, see the section titled corporate culture change.
 Leadership and "The Learning Organization"

The term "learning organization", not to be confused with organizational learning,

was popularized by Peter Senge. It describes an organization with anideal
learning environment, perfectly in tune with the organization's goals. Such an
organization is a place "where people continually expand their capacity to create
the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are
nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually
learning to see the whole (reality) together." (Senge 1992).
This subsection will focus largely on the work of Peter Senge, and it will serve as
a basis for understanding:
1. The ideal organizational environment for learning, knowledgemanagement
(KM), innovation, etc., as described through the term "the learning
organization".
2. The leadership qualities necessary for promoting and encouraging this ideal
environment.
The Learning Organization
According to Senge, the learning organization depends upon the mastery of five
dimensions:
Systems thinking: The notion of treating the organization as a complex system
composed of smaller (often complex) systems. This requires an understanding of
the whole, as well as the components, not unlike the way a doctor should
understand the human body. Some of the key elements here are recognizing the
complexity of the organization and having a long-term focus. Senge advocates the
use of system maps that show how systems connect.
Personal mastery: Senge describes this as a process where an individual strives to
enhance his vision and focus his energy, and to be in a constant state oflearning.
 Mental models: "Deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or evenpictures
and images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action"
(Senge 1990). These must be recognized and challenged so as to allow for new ideas
and changes.
Building shared vision: Shared vision is a powerful motivator. A leader's vision
does not necessarily become shared by those below him. The key here is to pass
on a picture of the future. To influence using dialogue, commitment, and
enthusiasm, rather than to try to dictate. Storytelling is one possible tool that can
be used here.
Team learning: The state where team members think together to achieve
common goals. It builds on shared vision, adding the element of collaboration.
The Role of Leadership
Senge emphasized the role of the leader in the creation of this learning
organization. He defined three leadership roles (1990) that would reshape the old-
fashioned approach to be the boss. These are:
Leader as Designer: Senge likens this to be the designer of a ship rather than its
captain. He defined it in three ways:
● Creating a common vision with shared values and purpose.
● Determining the "policies, strategies, and structures that translate guiding
ideas into business decisions."
● Creating effective learning processes which will allow for continuous
improvement of the policies, strategies, and structures.
Leader as Teacher: The leader here is seen as a coach that works with the
mental models present in the organization. He must understand the (usually tacit)
concepts of reality and restructure these views "to see beyond the superficial
conditions and events [and] into the underlying causes of the problems."
Leader as Steward: This is the vaguest of the three and refers largely to the
attitude of the leader. He emphasizes the importance of a leader that feels he is part
of something greater; whose desire is first and foremost not to lead, but to serve
this greater purpose of building better organizations and reshaping the way
businesses operate.
 The first two roles outlined by Senge shed a lot of light into the requirements of
effective KM and organizational learning.
 Knowledge
Management Models
 Building Knowledge Management Frameworks and
Models

At this stage we have had a look at the components and definitions that related
to knowledge management (KM). This section deals with knowledge management
frameworks and models. The old saying that a picture paints a thousand words is
very much applicable in this case. A good model can integrate various elements and
show relationships in a way that is much harder to do in writing.
But first, what are the components of a knowledge management framework? At
the most basic level, KM consists of the following steps:
● Identification of needs
● Identification of knowledge resources
● Acquisition, creation, or elimination of knowledge related
resources/processes/environments
● Retrieval, application and sharing of knowledge
● Storage of knowledge
It is important to note that none of these processes are independent and all of
them are affected by countless factors. This is why knowledge management
frameworks are typically very different and can be presented in a wide variety of
ways.
For instance, some models are sequential (as above), and seek to provide a better
overview at the expense of "realism". Other models display overlapping processes
in an attempt to simulate what actually occurs inside an organization. The problem
with the latter is that they are often hard to grasp and can only convey limited
information so as not to become incomprehensible. In the following section I will
provide examples of both.
Since KM is closely related or dependent on other disciplines (such as strategy,
information management, project management, etc.) and it is enabled by a wide
range of processes and systems, a model can become very complex indeed.
 This is why there is no such thing as an integrated and fully detailed knowledge
management framework, i.e. one that captures all relevant aspects with
appropriate detail. Each model must choose its focus and origin, as well as its
limitations.
There are essentially three questions that a knowledge management framework
may choose to answer:
● What/How
● Why
● When
"What/how" refers to the actual processes of knowledge management.
"Why" refers to an indication of the reasons behind using one method or the
other.
"When" refers to the timing for using one method or another and is very closely
related to "why".
The latter two questions are usually tackled in more strategic oriented models
that take a broader perspective. What/how is usually dealt with in process- oriented
models that focus on an understanding of the tools available to themanager. These
kinds of models are generally more common particularly since the role of knowledge
management can be defined far more narrowly than I have chosen to do on this site.
In the following section I will a few solid KM models dealing with all the aspects I
have discussed above. However, before I conclude, I will present a very useful
framework outlined by Botha et al (2008) titled the "knowledge managementbroad
categories".

You don´t know Knowledge Discovery Explore, research, create

You know Knowledge Repository Knowledge sharing and

(Knowledge Base) transfer
Knowledge you have Knowledge you don’t
have
 Here, one can see the role of knowledge management from a broad perspective
(very similar to the one adopted on this site), i.e. which includes more than just
knowledge sharing/access/etc, but also new knowledge creation. These categories
provide a solid overview of the components of any knowledge management
framework focusing on the what/how question.
 Three Knowledge Management Models

In this section I will explain three knowledge management (KM) models that
take three very different approaches to KM.

The KM Process Framework by Bukowitz and Williams (1999)

This KM model depicts the process that defines the strategy for management to
build, divest, and enhance knowledge assets. It is a model that emphasizes the
"why" and "when" aspects. The strengths of this model rest on its strategic focus,
which essentially puts knowledge management action into context. It is also worth
noting that the notion of "divestment" is included - something which is often
missing from KM models.

KM initiatives are the result of the response to tactical and strategic changes and
needs. The model provides a great overview of the strategy behind KM but it does
not include any deeper insight into what initiatives are suitable in a given instance.

The KM Matrix by Gamble and Blackwell (2001)

This KM model presents a general theoretical framework, as well as specific
guidelines for implementation.
The KM process is split into four stages. First management must locate the sources
of knowledge. Then they must organize this knowledge so as to assess the firm's
strengths and weaknesses and determine its relevance and reusability. This is
followed by socialization, where various techniques are used to help share and
disseminate it to whomever needs it in the organization. Finally, the knowledge is
internalized through use.
As all sequential models, the steps are not to be taken literally, but they do
provide an excellent overview of the role of the KM manager. However, one
limitation of this model is its focus. First of all, the overall strategic role outline by
Bukowitz and Williams is not included. Secondly, KM's role here is limited to
knowledge sharing, omitting the processes of knowledge acquisition/creation and
divestment. This is a perfectly legitimate approach to KM where the focus is on the
sharing and retrieval of existing knowledge, but it does not fulfill the scope of the
knowledge management definition outlined on this site.
The Knowledge Management Process Model by Botha et al (2008)

This model attempts to offer a more realistic overview of the KM process. The
three broad categories overlap and interact with one another. Like Gamble &
Blackwell, the focus is on managerial initiatives. Here too the strategic focus (the
"when" and the "why" as opposed to the "what") is omitted. It is noteworthy that
this model does include the creation of new knowledge as a specific KM initiative.
The model further shows which of the three categories are more people oriented
and which are more technology focused. Whether or not knowledge sharing should
be largely technology focused is certainly debatable and it is something that I will
address in future sections. However, for better or for worse, this is largely how
organizations tend to approach the issue i.e. as a technological rather than
organizational and social challenge.
We have now looked at three models that take very different approaches to KM.
There is one other important aspect relating to KM that has not been directly dealt
with by these models. I am referring now to the measurement of effects that lets
management know whether the implemented initiatives are achieving the desired
results. This is dependent upon data and information management but is
paramount for future KM initiatives.
Based on these models, as well as on the topics discussed on this site so far, I
will present my version of an integrated knowledge management model.
 My Integrated Model

The integrated knowledge management model that I have created combines the
main aspects of the topics discussed on this site into a model that focuses on the
strategic perspective. The integrated knowledge management model attempts to
link both process and strategy, while offering specific initiatives at different stages.
The model also outlines the relationship of information and information
management systems to knowledge management (KM).
 The integrated knowledge management model draws upon elements presented
by Bukowitz & Williams, Gamble & Blackwell, Botha et al, and Nonaka & Takeuchi.
It also includes the concept of organizational memory as defined earlier.
The dark gray elements represent KM initiatives, the yellow boxes represent
corporate strategy, while the teal boxes depict data and information systems and
repositories. The process is initiated from the tactical and strategic considerations,
illustrating the way KM strategy goes hand in hand with corporate strategy. The
non-bolded elements in the gray oval indicate the knowledge related processes that
go on within the organization as it operates, and which management
affects/enhances through its initiatives.
● Detect & Discover: Search for existing knowledge as well as hidden
knowledge within information and data.
● Organize & Assess: Organization and assessment of knowledge assets.
Knowledge is categorized, evaluated, and made easier to access (by
providing maps etc.).
● KM Tactical initiatives:
o Act - Reuse: If the firm can use existing knowledge to meet a tactical
opportunity or threat, the role of KM is to identify this knowledge and
enable it to be used. This means that if it is required by a different
person/group, then KM is responsible for making it available to all
relevant parties.
o Knowledge reuse thus combines the previous points on detection and
organization with a new aspect: knowledge sharing.
o Act - Create/acquire: If the right knowledge resources do not exist, the
firm may create or acquire them, assuming the right processes and
systems are in place to support this. For example, the knowledge may be
acquired from partners if the right relationships are in place. knowledge
creation depends on the right internal environments that allow for
combination and conversion of knowledge assets.
o Failure to act: This is not really a KM initiative in itself, but it does have
some implications. In the event that a firm fails to act there is still a lesson
to be learned. Management must evaluate if this is something
 that needs to be addressed in the future. This decision is fed back into
the loop, affecting future strategic choices.
● KM Strategic Initiatives:
o Invest: Support or implement. Here I refer to the organizational
structures, culture, knowledge retention, competencies, external
network, and systems that direct, affect, and/or enable the KM initiatives
discussed above in the long term. Strategic initiatives may, for example,
involve creating a knowledge sharing culture, restructuring the firm,
establishing a beneficial partnership, or implementing a new IT system. If
the right environment, system, etc. is already in place, management must
make sure to continuously support it. It is important to note that some of
these do not fall solely within KM, and they are all fields of study in their
own right. However, in this case, we are interested solely in the way
these broader strategic initiatives shape the focus and direction of KM in
the long term.
o Divest: When knowledge assets become obsolete they need to be
removed. KM is responsible for maintaining relevant knowledge assets.
The differentiation between tactical and strategic initiatives should not be seen
as categorical, and in reality, projects and initiatives will often have mixed goals. The
integrated knowledge management model itself should be seen as continuously
looping, with new or modified knowledge and information being fed into
organizational memory and information repositories each time.
All processes are thus supported by information systems. They play an important
role in tracking progress and feeding that information back into the system. This
way, each time the integrated knowledge management model is run, it is based on
different information, understanding, knowledge, and circumstances than the last
time. As with all sequential models, none of this should be taken absolutely literally.
Although this is called an "integrated" knowledge management model, it is not
intended to be all-encompassing. Since KM is such a broad discipline, one could
continue to add elements until the model was so complex that it had no meaning.
Conclusion
In this section and the preceding ones, I have looked at various KM models and
presented my version of an integrated knowledge management model.
Although not intended to represent all possible areas, the integrated knowledge
management model does cover the major requirements of a model as defined
earlier. To recap, these are:
● Identification of needs
● Identification of knowledge resources
● Acquisition, creation, or elimination of knowledge related
resources/processes/environments
● Retrieval, application and sharing of knowledge
● Storage of knowledge
It also addresses (at least to some degree) the 3 main approaches to knowledge
management, also outlined in earlier sections, namely: what/how, why, when.
Finally, the model ties in information, strategy, and organizational memory, building
on the work of past authors.
The following section will knowledge management processes and knowledge
management strategy in-depth. The section will be modelled after the categories
presented in this integrated knowledge management model.
 Knowledge
Management Processes
 Introduction Knowledge Management Processes

This section will deal with the actual knowledge management processes. So far, I
have presented an introduction to knowledge management as well as several
frameworks. Now it is time to talk about the different processes and initiatives.
This section, as well as the subsequent one on knowledge management strategy,
will be structured according to the layout of the integrated knowledge management
model presented earlier.
Under the initiative referred to as "act", the integrated model outlines a series
of knowledge management processes. They will be used as headings for the
subsections presented here and can be accessed through the menu on the left.
These are:
● Knowledge Discovery & Detection
● Knowledge Organization & Assessment
● Knowledge Sharing
● Knowledge Reuse
● Knowledge Creation
● Knowledge Acquisition
These form the backbone of knowledge management processes as they outline
all aspects involved in the actual management of knowledge.
At the end of the section on knowledge management strategy, a subsection titled
knowledge management best practices will summarize all the aspects discussed
thus far.
 Knowledge Discovery and Detection

In this subsection, I will the knowledge management (KM) initiatives involved in

knowledge discovery & detection.
This step deals with discovering the knowledge that a firm possesses all over the
organization, as well as the patterns in the information available that hide
previously undetected pockets of knowledge.
Once knowledge is created, it exists within the organization. However, before it
can be reused or shared it must be properly recognized and categorized. This
subsection deals with the former aspect, while the following subsection deals with
the latter.
● Explicit Knowledge: This is largely a process of sorting through documents
and other records, as well as discovering knowledge within existing data and
knowledge repositories. For the latter, IT can be used to uncover hidden
knowledge by looking at patterns and relationships within data andtext. The
main tools/practices in this case include intelligence gathering, data mining
(finding patterns in large bodies of data and information), and text mining
(text analysis to search for knowledge, insights, etc.). Intelligence gathering
is closely linked to expert systems (Bali et al 2009) where the system tries to
capture the knowledge of an expert, though the extent to which they are
competent for this task is questionable (Botha et al 2008).
● Tacit knowledge: Discovering and detecting tacit knowledge is a lot more
complex and often it is up to the management in each firm to gain an
understanding of what their company's experts actually know. Since tacit
knowledge is considered as the most valuable in relation to sustained
competitive advantage, this is a crucial step, a step that often simply
involves observation and awareness. There are several qualitative and
quantitative tools/practices that can help in the process; these include
knowledge surveys, questionnaires, individual interviews, groupinterviews,
focus groups, network analysis, and observation. IT can be used
 to help identify experts and communities. Groupware systems and other
social/professional networks as well as expert finders can point to people
who are considered experts and may also give an indication of the
knowledge these people/groups possess.
● Embedded knowledge: This implies an examination and identification of the
knowledge trapped inside organizational routines, processes, products etc.,
which has not already been made explicit. Management must essentially ask
"why do we do something a certain way?" This type of knowledge discovery
involves observation and analysis, and the use of reverse engineering and
modeling tools.
It is important to note that the sources of knowledge that a firm has access to may
extend well outside the organization. This type of knowledge, which was introduced
in the previous subsection on "Understanding Organizational Knowledge" is called
extra-organizational knowledge. This can exist in both formal and informal settings.
The former refers to management driven initiatives like partnerships, while the
latter refers to the informal networks of individual members. We are interested in
the former, which can be located and managed at least to some degree. Gamble
and Blackwell identify several such sources:
● Alliances
● Suppliers
● Customers
At this stage, we are still only discussing knowledge discovery and detection, so
these relationships will not be explored in detail (see knowledge acquisition and
external knowledge networks for more). Knowledge from alliances and partners can
exist in joint projects, shared knowledge/experts’ operational data and so on.
Suppliers and customers can provide product feedback, trends, developments etc.
Within their respective limitations, similar tools as above can be used to identify the
knowledge and/or knowledge sources.
IT can be used in this context both as a means of feedback, communication, and
cooperation between partners, and also as a way to gather, analyze, and "mine"
data and information.
Facilitating Knowledge Discovery and Detection
Useful to this process is the adoption of practices that make knowledge easier to
detect. For example, teams could be asked to document aspects of their work with
a certain language and presentation standard. Generalists could be used to help
organize this process, as well as to document the expertise of the individual team
members (which can be used later to promote tacit knowledge socialization). A
rundown of how management should prepare knowledge in specific situations is
presented in the final segment of the Knowledge Reuse subsection.
 Knowledge Organization & Assessment

The idea that firms should categorize their knowledge assets is not a new one
(Horvath 2000, Bukowitz & Williams 1999). In order to determine what resources,
they have at their disposal and to pin point strengths and weaknesses, management
needs to organize the knowledge into something manageable. Knowledge
organization involves activities that "classify, map, index, and categorize knowledge
for navigation, storage, and retrieval" (Botha et al. 2008). Markus (2001) assigns the
role of preparing, sanitizing, and organizing this knowledge to a "knowledge
intermediary". This may be a knowledge manager, or it may also be the actual
producer of the knowledge. The point is, that in order for knowledge to be shared
(either for reuse in a business situation or as a tool for knowledge creation), it must
be prepared in such a way that it can be identified, retrieved, and understood by the
knowledge user.
Explicit knowledge organization: IT is generally encouraged as a means of
organizing and retrieving (Gamble and Blackwell 2001, Botha et al 2008, etc.). IT
based systems use taxonomies and ontologies to classify and organize knowledge
and information (Bali et al 2009). These are categorization methods that create a
logical, hierarchical knowledge map, allowing the user to navigate by category.
However, taxonomies are very expensive to create (Botha et al 2008). It is relevant
to note here that although explicit knowledge is not considered as valuable as tacit
knowledge, due to its sheer volume, an effective method of classification and
retrieval is often essential. Other tools include libraries and data marts (Gamble &
Blackwell 2001).
Tacit knowledge organization: Use of focus groups, expertise guides, social
network analysis, and knowledge coordinators (Gamble and Blackwell 2001 and
Liebowitz 2009). The role of the latter is to understand in which context the tacit
knowledge was created. Expertise locators, such as corporate yellow pages, social
network analysis and other knowledge maps can be used to pinpoint the location
and categorize the valuable expertise of tacit knowledge sources (a.k.a. experts).
They can also shed light into how widespread certain tacit knowledge is, enabling
the firm to plan ahead for the retirement of key employees.

Embedded knowledge organization: Job/workplace design, workflow analyses

and performance measures (Gamble & Blackwell 2001) can be used to organize and
assess embedded knowledge. Mapping is also useful here, and knowledge maps
outlining embedded knowledge can be formulated under the guidance of
knowledge brokers (Horvath 2000).
Liebowitz emphasizes the determination of how important certain knowledge is
to the organization. The two key factors to are knowledge severity or criticality and
knowledge availability. The more critical the knowledge and the more unavailable it
is (e.g. if only one or a few experts exist and/or if they are near retirement age), the
more attention this knowledge deserves.
Knowledge organization and assessment can seem like an expensive endeavor,
particularly since the return on investment is indirect. In other words, there is little
visible gain from meticulously classifying and organizing knowledge assets.
However, it is an important step in the knowledge management and reuse process.
As discussed in the subsection on knowledge detection, the organization can put
systems in place that facilitate the detection and organization of knowledge. These
depend on the situation within which the knowledge was created, and the possible
recipients. A closer look at this specific aspect is presented in the recommendations
segment of the knowledge reuse subsection.
 Act: Knowledge Sharing

As stated earlier, knowledge management is fundamentally about making the

right knowledge or the right knowledge sources (including people) available to the
right people at the right time. Knowledge sharing is therefore perhaps the single
most important aspect in this process, since the vast majority of KM initiatives
depend upon it. Knowledge sharing can be described as either push or pull. The
latter is when the knowledge worker actively seeks out knowledge sources (e.g.
library search, seeking out an expert, collaborating with a coworker etc.), while
knowledge push is when knowledge is "pushed onto" the user (e.g. newsletters,
unsolicited publications, etc.).
Knowledge sharing depends on the habit and willingness of the knowledge worker
to seek out and/or be receptive to these knowledge sources. The right culture,
incentives, and so on must therefore be present.
In the rest of this section I will discuss the concepts of knowledge sharing
according to the different types of knowledge. The role of IT will also be explored
and discussed from a general perspective.
Explicit Knowledge and Knowledge Sharing
Successful explicit knowledge sharing is determined by the following criteria
(Bukowitz and Williams 1999):
● Articulation: The ability of the user to define what he needs.
● Awareness: Awareness of the knowledge available. The provider is
encouraged to make use of directories, maps, corporate yellow pages, etc.
● Access: Access to the knowledge.
● Guidance: Knowledge managers are often considered key in the build-up of
a knowledge sharing system (Davenport & Prusak 2000, Gamble & Blackwell
2001). They must help define the areas of expertise of the members of the
firm, guide their contributions, assist users, and be responsible for the
language used in publications and other
 communication material. This is so as to avoid an information/knowledge
overload.
● Completeness: Access to both centrally managed and self-published
knowledge. The former is often more scrutinized but takes longer to publish
and is not as hands-on (and potentially relevant). Self-published information
on the other hand runs the risk of not being as reliable.
IT systems have proved extremely useful in aiding or performing many of these
functions.
Explicit Knowledge Sharing and IT
IT is useful in most stages of the knowledge sharing process, and it is used for
content management as well as data and text mining (looking for hidden
knowledge, relationships, etc. within data and documents).
Content management systems are used to update, distribute, tag, and otherwise
manage content. They may include a wide range of functions, including web content
management and document management systems (which I consider separately).
They may be used to (based on Wikipedia entry):
● Import and create documents and multimedia material.
● Identify key users and their roles.
● Assign roles and responsibilities to different instances of content
categories or types.
● Define workflow tasks. Content managers can be alerted when changes in
content are made.
● Track and manage multiple versions of content.
● Publish content to a repository to support access. Increasingly, the
repository is a part of the system, incorporating search and retrieval.
Document management systems use numerous advanced indexing, searching,
and retrieval mechanisms (e.g. using meta data or content from the actual
document) to facilitate explicit knowledge sharing.
To take advantage of all of these functions, it is a foregone conclusion that the
system was chosen and implemented appropriately. This aspect is discussed in the
section on knowledge management systems.
 All in all, IT is a very useful tool in the management of explicit knowledge and
information. This is not to say that humans no longer play a part. They certainly do,
and knowledge and content managers are instrumental in ensuring that the
knowledge is relevant, up to date, and presented correctly.

Can Explicit Knowledge Sharing Systems Yield Competitive Advantage?

For the actual storage and retrieval, there is very little disagreement on the
value of IT as a means of sharing, sorting, and accessing explicit knowledge. Where
one does find disagreement is on the value placed on this function. KM and
organizational learning theorists have sometimes downplayed the value of explicit
knowledge and focused largely on tacit knowledge (Brown & Duguid, Cook &Brown
1999). However, it has also been argued that in a world where we have an overflow
of explicit knowledge and information, the ability to manage it, and thus to provide
continuous streams of relevant knowledge and information, can be a source of
competitive advantage in itself (Maier 2002, Botha et al 2008). The latter view
appears to be gaining support, although one important point should be considered:
explicit knowledge management systems are quite transparent and therefore fairly
easy to replicate. This means that they cannot be the source of sustained long term
competitive advantage (Jackson et al 2003).
All this being said, in most cases, implementing a solid system that enables explicit
knowledge sharing is crucial for the following reasons:
● Not doing so would almost certainly become a source of competitive
disadvantage (for lack of a better word).
● They may well provide a short-term advantage, which may be extended
through continuous improvements and new technologies.
● With proper care, such systems will also play a limited role in the sharing of
tacit knowledge, as will be discussed in the next section.
Tacit Knowledge Sharing
Sharing tacit knowledge requires socialization. This can take many different
forms. Davenport & Prusak (2000) outline a few relevant factors:
● Informal networks, which involve the day to day interaction between people
within work environments are considered very important
● Unlike the formalized structure of the firm, these networks span functions
and hierarchies. They are therefore difficult to identify and monitor.
● Management should support these networks by providing the means for
communication. Japanese firms have created talk rooms where employees
can engage in unstructured, unmonitored discussions. A specific location is
useful but not mandatory - this process also occurs in cafeterias etc.
Management must simply provide the means for employees to foster
informal networks and "trade" tacit knowledge.
● Management must also understand the value of chaos. This refers to the
value of unstructured work practices that encourage experimentation and
social interaction. Within a more chaotic environment, individuals are given
the freedom to solve problems creatively and, in so doing, must tap into and
evolve their social networks. This is closely linked to the notion of theory in
use vs espoused theory. The value of less structured work environments is
also well known within innovation management.
Codification of tacit knowledge is difficult and sometimes outright impossible.
There will often be a resulting knowledge loss (Bukowitz and Williams 1999,
Davenport & Prusak 2000). Often, it is much more reasonable to simply externalize
the sources of tacit knowledge rather than the knowledge itself (Davenport &
Prusak 2000). This means that often it is better for experts to externalize what they
know rather than how they know it. The main role of KM then becomes making sure
that experts can be found so that tacit knowledge can be passed on through
practice, mentoring, and networking (socialization), and that the firmsupports and
encourages the networking that is necessary for these functions to occur.
To share tacit knowledge requires a culture conducive to this type of sharing.
Furthermore, knowledge managers (generalists that understand the types of
knowledge that exist in the communities) must be used to locate and translate
knowledge elements, thus facilitating their integration into other communities. This
endeavor is very much about people and managing organizational culture change.
Tacit Knowledge Sharing and IT
It is important for tacit sharing of knowledge to be people focused. However,
increasingly, IT systems are becoming useful in this area as well. They can support
interaction between people that are not in the same location and some tools are
designed to capture unstructured thoughts and ideas. The important factor to
remember is that tacit knowledge cannot always be made explicit (and may lose
some of its richness in the process). Therefore, IT systems should not attempt or
pretend that they can carry out this process, but instead act as an important support
to existing practices.

IT can be useful as a forum for externalization of tacit knowledge. For example,

groupware systems that support brainstorming can help in the codification process
(Botha et al 2008). Online discussion databases and forums can also be sources of
externalized knowledge (Botha et al 2008), although the richness of thisknowledge
should be questioned.
While IT is crucial for information management, it is important not to confuse
information with knowledge. Using IT to move tacit knowledge is difficult since
knowledge represents the shared understanding and the sense making that is
deeply rooted in the social practice of the community. The focus for the successful
sharing of tacit knowledge must be on social interaction, problem solving,
mentoring, and teaching, and IT systems must be used to support these processes
intelligently.
IT's contribution to OL therefore depends on its fit to the social context of the
communities. Technology must not be seen as the superior solution and should
not be used to structure organizational practice (at most to supplement it). There
is also the danger that IT may limit the participation of some members of the
community. It may make it more difficult for individuals to become accepted
members of the community by limiting socialization channels. The challenge is to
extend the reach of communication without sacrificing reciprocity in regard to
knowledge sharing or socialization.
During KM's boom at the turn of the century, IT-driven KM initiatives turned out
to be a major pitfall. Today you still see a divide between technologically-centric
views and people-oriented approaches (Bali et al 2009). Increasingly however, IT is
being recognised for its ability to provide support to sound KM initiatives, within
knowledge sharing, creation, etc. In different capacities, IT should be regarded as a
critical tool (though not as the initiative itself).
The role of IT for tacit knowledge sharing can thus be summarized as follows:
● As an expert finder: To locate the source of the tacit knowledge through
systems like corporate yellow pages.
● As providing support in the socialization of tacit knowledge: If IT systems
support varied, formal and informal forms of communication then they can
help tacit knowledge sharing by supporting teams, projects, communities,
etc. Functions like being able to attach notes to documents, or video
conferencing can support work environments over long distances to some
degree. It is important not to replace existing socialization functions with IT;
instead socialization should be enhanced and extended between people
who would otherwise be unable to participate.
● As providing some support in the externalization of tacit knowledge:
Through groupware applications that support the codification process,
discussion forums etc. However, not only is this aspect limited, but
externalization itself is only rarely feasible.
Embedded Knowledge Sharing
As a reminder, embedded knowledge refers to knowledge locked in products,
processes, routines, etc.
Embedded knowledge can be shared when the knowledge from one product or
process is incorporated into another. Management must understand what
knowledge is locked within those sources, and they must transfer the relevant
parts into a different system. To do this, Gamble and Blackwell advocate the use
of:
● Scenario planning: The practice of creating a set of scenarios and
hypothesizing how they might unfold by drawing upon the perspectives of
experts, the firm's knowledge asserts, and so on. For more on this see here
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_scenario_planning.htm
l
● After action reviews: "is a structured review or de-brief process for analyzing
what happened, why it happened, and how it can be done better"
(Wikipedia).
● Management training
Embedded knowledge could theoretically be transferred as is, simply by testing
the effects of procedures or design features transferred from one area to another.
However, often it will have to be made explicit, or partially explicit, at least to the
responsible managers. This way they can hypothesize the effects that embedded
knowledge has in a given situation and use simulation and experimentation to
implement it in a new area.
Beyond the knowledge mapping functions described in the subsection on
organization and assessment, IT's use is usually more indirect. It can be used as
support in the design of simulations, experiments, and product design, and it can
also provide modeling tools used in reverse engineering of products. However,
these tools are not typically considered as being knowledge management systems
and are thus beyond the scope of this website.

One direct role of IT systems is as an embedded knowledge repository where

procedures, guidelines, etc. are stored and retrieved. If implemented properly, with
the IT system complementing rather than disrupting existing processes and culture,
then it can support practices and routines, and eventually become an embedded
knowledge artifact in its own right.
Conclusion
To facilitate knowledge sharing, KM must understand the requirements of the
users, as well as the complexities and potential problems with managing knowledge
and knowledge sources. Very broadly speaking, management must therefore
implement the right processes, frameworks, and systems that enable knowledge
sharing. They must also foster a knowledge sharing culture that ensures that these
investments are fully utilized.

For explicit knowledge, seven issues have been identified that KM must consider,
these are: articulation, awareness, access, guidance, completeness. IThas been
identified as a key component of this type of knowledge sharing, facilitating and
lowering the cost of the storage, access, retrieval, and variety of explicit knowledge.
Tacit knowledge sharing depends on socialization and practice. KM must offer the
means for this to take place by providing the right forums (primarily physical, but
also virtual), supporting networks and communities, and accepting unstructured
work environments. Generalists, known as knowledge managers,should be used to
gain an understanding of the location of knowledge sources and to bridge the gaps
between communities and networks.
 In order to support the transfer of tacit knowledge, KMS must support the
socialization functions, while at the same time not enforcing strict managerial
practices/routines/hierarchies/etc. One of its roles is as an expert finder, and it can
also help in the direct transfer of tacit knowledge through the support of rich and
varied methods of communication, which preferably include informal
communication channels.
Embedded knowledge sharing is a process whereby embedded knowledge is
passed on from one product, routine, or process to another. Several tools have been
described that can help management understand the effects of embedded
knowledge and help in its transfer. These were: scenario planning, after action
reviews, and management training.
 Act: Managing Knowledge Reuse

In previous subsections, I have identified how knowledge is identified, organized,

and shared. These issues were discussed from a broad perspective, relevant to both
knowledge reuse and knowledge creation (as will be discussed later). In this
subsection, I will look at the specific situations involved in knowledge reuse and
discuss the different managerial challenges. At the end I summarize the findings and
present recommendations.
In this subsection I will focus primarily on the explicit and tacit knowledge
distinctions as defined in the subsection on the different types of knowledge.
Three Roles for Knowledge Reuse
First, a quick overview of the knowledge reuse process, and some useful
definitions. Markus (2001) identifies three roles in the reuse of knowledge:
● Knowledge producer: The original creator of the knowledge
● Knowledge intermediary: The one who packages and prepares the
knowledge so that it may be stored, retrieved, and shared. This may involve
any number of functions such as indexing, categorization, standardizing,
publishing, mapping, etc.
● Knowledge consumer: The person who is the recipient and user of the
knowledge in question.
As Markus points out, these three functions may involve different people, or they
may all be done by the same person. e.g. knowledge reuse by a person accessing
the documented (explicit) research of someone in a different part of the
organization requires that the producer created the documents, that either he or
someone else prepared them so that they may be understood and retrieved, and
that the knowledge consumer retrieved and used it. In other words, the roles were
filled by two or three people and the process included explicit knowledge capture
and sharing across the organization. Alternatively, in another scenario someone
may want to use their own documentation later on. This process involves just one
person in all three roles and the only function performed is capturing the knowledge
in a way that will allow retrieval at a later point.
I would add that for tacit knowledge, the role of intermediary could be defined as
the expert himself - since he must present the knowledge (through practice and
socialization) in a useable way to his student, team mates, etc. It may also fall
upon the person who identified this expert and made it possible for others to
reach him, e.g. if a knowledge manager creates an expert profile for publishing on
the intranet; this way, the knowledge manager creates an explicit account of what
the expert knows rather than promoting externalization of the knowledge itself.
To sum up, someone has to produce the knowledge, someone has to make this
knowledge available, and someone has to search for and use this knowledge. This
implies not just the capability, but also the willingness to share, to search, and to
retrieve.
Knowledge Reuse Situations
Fruchter and Demian (2002) identify two very general types of knowledge reuse:
● Internal: Where the knowledge producer uses his own knowledge at some
future point.
● External: Where the knowledge consumer uses someone else's knowledge.
The authors point out that the latter has a much higher failure rate for
reasons that include the loss of contextual knowledge and information, and
knowledge that is not properly captured due to the costs involved. A more
detailed framework is offered by Markus (2001) who identifies four
knowledge reuse situations. These are defined below, drawing also upon the
work of Timbrell and Jewels (2002) who found support for Markus's work
through their study. The recommendation segments also draw upon some
of the issues discussed under knowledge-sharing, as well as some of my own
insights.
● Shared Work Producers: People working in teams producing knowledge
for their own reuse. They are closest in knowledge-distance. They generally
will have a good understanding of what they need and where to find it
(including both documents and experts). Knowledge reuse will however be
 harder within cross functional teams. Markus also warns that the rationale
for the decision making is often forgotten. They need knowledge about
how/what/why it was done, what improvements could be made.
● Shared Work Practitioners: People who perform similar work in different
settings (e.g. same position in different locations). Knowledge is produced
for someone else's use. Defining the knowledge needs is usually easy, as is
locating the right experts within the network (which is used frequently).
Basically, they need to know how to do something or why somethingworks.
● Expertise-Seeking Novices: People who seek out knowledge they do not
normally work with. They are furthest in knowledge-distance. They have
great difficulty "defining the questions, locating and judging, the quality of
the knowledge sources, and applying the expertise." (Timbrell & Jewels
2002).
● Miners Secondary Knowledge: People who try to find knowledge in work
produced in different contexts, so as to apply it in other situations. The
knowledge and context of the consumer may be very different to the
producer. The main challenge here is defining the question. Often requires
complex search algorithms which are hard to create (such as those used
within text and data mining).
Problems and Recommendations for Managing knowledge reuse
In the article above, I presented several situations of knowledge re-use that have
different advantages, disadvantages, and requirements. I also discussed some
general issues that affect the process of reuse.
Drawing upon the work thus far, and bringing in the knowledge sharing issues
discussed in the previous subsection, the managerial issues regarding knowledge
reuse can be summarized as follows:
● Cost: The time and money necessary to organize, package, store, and
retrieve the knowledge. This is particularly true in the cases when tacit
knowledge is externalized into explicit knowledge such as documents. A
great deal of cost is associated with capturing context (something that is
often impossible) and with preparing the document for retrieval. Even with
 IT, the latter includes categorization, summarizing, use of metadata, etc.
Content management is also necessary to check language andpresentation,
and also to keep the repositories relevant and up to date. The cost
associated with the re-use of tacit knowledge involves setting up the right
circumstances for it to take place e.g. teams, mentoring, teaching, projects,
etc., as well as the systems that support communication and expertise
location.
● Specific requirements of specific individuals and groups: Presented in
Markus's four roles above. Management must be aware of the different
requirements and support each situation accordingly. Articles on knowledge
reuse are still dominated by IT theories which focus largely on organizing,
presenting, and retrieving explicit knowledge. Again, I draw the reader's
attention to the importance of socialization and informal networks, which
serve as the backbone of the sharing of rich tacit knowledge (expertise).
Below I present the recommendations for each re- use category, drawing
again on the work of Markus (2001), on the knowledge sharing principles
outlined in the previous subsection, as well as some of my own insights.
● Shared work producers, recommendations: For explicit knowledge, try to
maintain context; pay attention to indexing, categorization, and other
search related functions; document rationale behind the knowledge. For
cross-functional teams assign a generalist to bring the knowledge together
and to ensure consistency. For tacit knowledge support communication and
informal networks (e.g. between former team members). For cross-
functional teams, use the generalist to help define non-codified tacit
expertise with individual team members. Record this expertise together
with the individual team roles.
● Shared work practitioners, recommendations: If explicit, decontextualize
knowledge and provide all relevant information regarding indexing,
searching, and relevance. Use knowledge push to make potential recipients
aware of it. For tacit knowledge, create the right situations for socialization,
e.g. teamwork, projects, informal communication, etc. Use IT as an expertise
locater and communication support but understand its limitations in tacit
knowledge transfer.
● Expertise-seeking novices, recommendations: For explicit knowledge
decontextualize knowledge but support recontextualization in the context
used by the novice. For both knowledge types, try to codify the contents of
the knowledge source e.g. by defining the content of a document or the
knowledge of an expert. Provide awareness training. For tacit knowledge do
as for shared work practitioners.
● Miners Secondary Knowledge: Record context information such as
metadata. Provide relevant training regarding knowledge, data, and
information repositories, as well as analysis and search techniques.
Implement IT systems that match the needs of the consumer e.g. data
mining and analysis tools, text mining tools, etc.
● Willingness: Both to package knowledge on the part of the producer or to
seek it out on the part of the consumer. This brings us back to issues like
culture, which promote knowledge reuse and knowledge sharing. The
cultural aspect will be dealt with in the section on organizational culture
change.
 Act: Knowledge Creation

The ability to create new knowledge is often at the heart of the organization's
competitive advantage. Sometimes this issue is not treated as part of knowledge
management since it borders and overlaps with innovation management (Wellman
2009). Since I chose a broader knowledge management definition, I very much
regard it as a part of the process, and I will refer (albeit superficially) to some
theories that pertain to innovation.
Knowledge creation according to the Nonaka's SECI model is about continuous
transfer, combination, and conversion of the different types of knowledge, asusers
practice, interact, and learn. Cook and Brown (1999) distinguish between
knowledge and knowing and suggest that knowledge creation is a product of the
interplay between them. The shift in condition between the possession of
knowledge and the act of knowing - something that comes about through practice,
action, and interaction- is the driving force in the creation of new knowledge.
Furthermore, in order for this interplay to be most fruitful, it is important to support
unstructured work environments in areas where creativity and innovation are
important.
Knowledge sharing, and knowledge creation thus go hand in hand. Knowledge is
created through practice, collaboration, interaction, and education, as thedifferent
knowledge types are shared and converted. Beyond this, knowledge creation is also
supported by relevant information and data which can improve decisions and serve
as building blocks in the creation of new knowledge.
Managing Knowledge Creation
The role of management in the knowledge creation process is thus as follows:
To enable and encourage knowledge sharing: On the tactical side, as described
in the previous subsection, management must understand where and in what forms
knowledge exists. They must then provide the right forums for knowledge to be
shared. For tacit knowledge this implies a particular emphasis on informal
communication, while for explicit knowledge this implies a focus on a variety of IT
systems. On the strategic side (to be discussed in-depth later), management must
create/design the right environments, processes, and systems that provide the
means and willingness for it to take place.
To create a suitable work environment: This includes the notion of creating an
interplay between knowledge and knowing. It implies offering relevant coursesand
education, but most importantly allowing new knowledge to be created through
interaction, practice, and experimentation. Botha et al (2008) point to the
importance of shared experiences in the knowledge creation process when dealing
with tacit knowledge, and the need for an environment where these can be formed.
March (1988) discusses how our cultural norms often stifle innovation and new
knowledge creation. He advocates environments where we recognize that goals can
be created through action, where intuition is accepted and valued, and where
experience is nothing more than a theory. These concepts bring us back to the
concept of theory in use (referring to work environments that do not follow strict,
"official" rules and procedures), and the acceptance and support of environments
that allow brainstorming, trial and error, and unstructured interaction.
As an example, from innovation theory, one can refer to the practice of
establishing teams to solve problems, unhindered by the bureaucracy that may exist
in the firm. Peters (1988) refers to the value of chaos and the advantage of smaller,
fast-acting teams. One common alternative is the use of cross-functional project
teams. These are usually a group of experts from different parts of the organization,
led by a "generalist" project leader. If these teams are allowed the freedom to
experiment and work in an autonomous, or virtually autonomousenvironment, it
can be a great catalyst for innovation and new knowledge creation. Then, once the
task is complete, the members return to their role in the organization, helping to
spread this knowledge back into their own community of practice. The project team
itself can also facilitate the creation of bridges between communities of practice,
and at times may even serve as a way to extend them. Variations of this concept can
be seen in several places in innovation theory, notably in Nonaka and Takeuchi's
self-organizing project teams in the hypertext organization.
 To provide systems that support the work process: These can be groupware
systems that facilitate communication or brainstorming. However, they must not
interfere with creative processes or communities of practice or enforce rigid
organizational practices (espoused theory).

To provide knowledge workers with timely, relevant information and data. In

today's fast paced environment this is virtually synonymous with the
implementation of IT systems which can store, retrieve, organize, and present
information and data in a helpful way.
IT and Knowledge Creation
The use of IT is very much the same as it is for knowledge sharing, allowing for
some degree of support in the transfer of all knowledge types. One important aspect
is that it must support, and not interfere with, informal collaboration. For example,
groupware systems can be used to enhance communication between communities
or teams, particularly if they support varied (e.g. video, audio, text - according to the
needs of the individual firm), informal communication.
Apart from this, IT also has an important role through information management,
by providing access to data and information, and allowing the manager to perform
in-depth analyses. More than that, IT systems can also be programmed to spot
trends in data and information and present that to the manager. This essentially
enables the manager to make better decisions and aids knowledge creation by
providing some of the building blocks for new knowledge.
IT tools can also be used in the innovation process (e.g. tools used in the actual
product design), but these are outside the scope of knowledge management.
Conclusion
In conclusion, knowledge creation depends upon the mechanisms described in
the subsection on knowledge sharing, combined with the ability to put knowledge
into practice in an environment which supports interaction and experimentation.
The creative process is a delicate one, and it is easily ruined by strict adherence to
rules and regulations, or by bureaucracy. Similarly, IT systems must be
implemented with care (as discussed above), and not attempt to replace processes
vital to knowledge creation.
 Knowledge Acquisition

Knowledge acquisition refers to the knowledge that a firm can try to obtain from
external sources. External knowledge sources are important, and one should
therefore take a holistic view of the value chain (Gamble & Blackwell 2001). Sources
include suppliers, competitors, partners/alliances, customers, and externalexperts.
Communities of practice can extend well outside the firm.
Knowledge acquisition is a topic that could fill books and extend well outside the
knowledge management (KM) focus. For this reason, detailed descriptions of how
to manage external relationships are beyond the scope of this topic. However, since
KM is inextricably linked to corporate strategy, an overview of the options available
to the organization will be helpful to understanding the full potential KM role.
This subsection will discuss the knowledge available from the different sources,
and the managerial issues that must be considered. In the subsection titled
"External Knowledge Network", I will tie this back to the overall strategic level and
look at the process behind external knowledge acquisition.
The main sources are of knowledge acquisition are:
Customers
Customer knowledge comes in different forms. Gerbert et al (2002) identify three
different types:
● Knowledge for customer: The knowledge that the customers can gain in
order to satisfy their knowledge needs. It can include product, market, and
supplier knowledge. It can be sourced from our company or from other
external sources like other customers and competitors (Zanjani 2008).
● Knowledge about customer: The kind of knowledge that enables us to know
the customer better, to understand their motivations, and to address
 them better. Includes requirements, expectations, and purchasing activities.
● Knowledge from customer: The kind of knowledge that deals with products,
suppliers, and markets. It can be used to improve our products and services.
These three categories apply to actual knowledge acquisition as well as to data
and information, which can be processed and used to create knowledge (Zanjani
2008); e.g. data on purchasing habits could be analyzed to create knowledge that
could improve marketing or design decisions.
Knowledge sharing is thus important, although it may take many different forms
depending on the area of business. KM is particularly important for B2B
relationships where the buyers are usually more prominent (i.e. either buy many
products or buy expensive products) and the products are more likely to be
customized to the needs of the customer. This can, and often should result in a
closer relationship with more detailed communication and feedback, where the
customers are involved as partners when discussing modifications and
improvements (Gerbert et al 2002).
Some possible KM initiatives thus include:
● Collecting feedback
● Collecting and processing marketing related information
● Collecting suggestions
● Involvement in development/design
Effective acquisition of customer knowledge is dependent on customer
relationship management. IT can be used in this context both as a means of
collecting feedback and enhancing communication and cooperation between
partners (the principles of knowledge sharing apply here within the confines of the
specific relationship). It is also useful as a way to gather data and information
regarding sales, trends, feedback, and so on, which can then be used to create new
knowledge within the organization.
Suppliers
Chan (2009) presents a classification for supplier knowledge based on the
concepts outlined by Gerbert et al (2002) regarding customer knowledge. These are:
● Knowledge for suppliers: This is the knowledge that suppliers require and
includes "production needs and forecasts, inventory, products, customers,
and markets" (Chan 2009).
● Knowledge about suppliers: This is knowledge that is used to understand
how the supplier can match the requirements of the organization; provide
insight regarding quality, delivery, defects, financial risks etc.
● Knowledge from suppliers: This refers to the knowledge that suppliershave
gathered from their dealings with the organization.
The KM initiatives and the role of IT are similar to the ones presented in the
customer segment, with the organization now taking on the role of customer.
Knowledge acquisition in this case also includes data and information which can be
processed and used as building blocks for new knowledge creation.
Gamble and Blackwell (2001) refer to compatible goals, cultural alignment, and
leadership commitment amongst the key factors for sustained, productive, long-
term relationships.
Competitors
This deserves mention, but it is a fairly straightforward aspect of KM. It simply
involves collecting, organizing and presenting the data, information, and knowledge
that the firm has acquired in such a way that one can search, retrieve, and analyze
it. Some of this falls within the scope of information management, but it is
particularly the process of using these components to create better decisions and
new knowledge that is of interest here.
IT systems are very useful in this case, since the sources are largely explicit and
presumably require frequent updating and manipulation. Data mining and analysis,
document management systems with suitable search functions, and expert systems
are most relevant here.
Partners/alliances
Alliances intended to increase knowledge are a valuable potential resource.
However, these must be properly managed. Key success factors include fostering
trust, learning from your partner, and effectively managing the creation of
knowledge relevant to both parties. Knowledge transfer can be facilitated by
personnel exchanges, common projects and other forms of regular interaction,
technology sharing, etc. (Gamble & Blackwell 2001). Focusing on informal
communication, collaboration, and socialization is of paramount importance for
valuable tacit knowledge acquisition and for extending communities of practice
beyond the firm's borders.
Chan (2009) once again formulates a set of knowledge types based around the
work of Gerbert et al (2002):
● Knowledge for partners: Knowledge which satisfies their needs, including
"knowledge about products, markets, and suppliers" (Chan 2009).
● Knowledge about partners: Knowledge acquisition focused on
understanding the ability of partners to perform their role in the
relationship. Includes distribution channels, products, services, etc.
● Knowledge from partners: The knowledge that partners have accumulated
from dealing with the organization.
IT can be used in this case very similarly to the way it is used inside the
organization for knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (including
data/information analysis) - in other words supporting communication,
collaboration, experimentation, expertise location, analysis tools, etc. The exact
system has to fit the nature of the relationship and the business model.
What is of particular importance in this case is to safeguard the system so that
only that knowledge which the firm is willing to share becomes available. In the 80s,
joint ventures between American and Japanese firms often resulted in alopsided
endeavor favoring the latter, since the Japanese were far more willing to listen, and
the Americans were far more willing to talk. It is important to remember that the
goal here is two-way learning; that a relationship will not last forever; and that a
partner today may be a competitor tomorrow. KM must
therefore be very aware of what knowledge is being shared, and the IT systems
must reflect this policy.
Merges & Acquisitions
This aspect deserves mention, but as a general discipline it is well beyond the
scope of this paper. Dealing with mergers and acquisitions (M&A) is an extremely
complex task that has led to numerous failures. Within the scope of knowledge
acquisition, the area related to KM is how to pass on the most amount of relevant
knowledge from the previous two organizations to the new, combined firm.
Very broadly speaking there are a couple of roles where KM efforts shouldfeature
heavily once the target has been acquired:
To identify the valuable/redundant knowledge sources in the target
organization: This is a very difficult process since it involves understanding of the
target company's tacit and embedded knowledge locked within people,
communities, processes, networks, procedures, etc. One of the major causes of
failure in M&A is that during the restructuring process, key people are let go by
mistake or key communities are disrupted. The old adage that the company should
be seen more like a living organism than a machine holds very true here.

To combine this (relevant) knowledge with the organization's knowledge assets

to achieve synergy: This is the essence of many M&A; the notion that the whole
should be greater than the sum of its parts. Integrating acquired companies is a
difficult task, heavy on people management and the creation of a common culture.
It is hard to say how much of this falls within KM specifically, and there certainly are
no universal rules on this topic. Fundamentally, the same principles on knowledge
sharing, reuse, and creation apply here, with a particular focus on culture, networks,
and incentives, within a different and potentially hostile environment.
Other expertise
This refers to the other sources of external knowledge available to a firm and
includes hiring new personnel or acquiring the services of consultants.
 The role of KM in these cases is to make sure that the right knowledge isacquired.
Essentially the process has two parts, on the one hand the strategic and tactical
requirements of the firm must be taken into account, and on the other these must
be compared to the knowledge assets of the organization.
If external services are acquired from consultants or other temporary service
providers, KM must work together with strategic management to determine if this
knowledge is worth integrating into the firm by assessing the need to reuse it in
the future vs the cost of transferring it into the organization. If it is deemed as
something that should be integrated, then the right learning situations must be
established to transfer the knowledge into the firm. These could be mentoring
relationships, use of project teams that include organizational members, courses
and education, etc.
 Knowledge
Management Strategy
 Introduction to Knowledge Management Strategy

While the knowledge management processes section dealt with the general ways
knowledge can be managed, this section tackles long-term knowledge management
strategy. Strategic investments represent the company’s choices/options so as to
enable and enhance the processes outlined earlier (e.g. knowledge sharing) and to
offer help define which knowledge is relevant (i.e. in line with strategic objectives)
and which is not.
This section is based on the strategic part of the integrated knowledge
management model, which includes:
● Knowledge management strategic initiatives:
● Invest: Support of existing structures, competencies, knowledge retention
mechanisms, culture, external network, and knowledge management
systems
● Invest: Implement changes to structures, competencies, knowledge
retention mechanisms, culture, external network, and knowledge
management systems
● Divest: Remove obsolete knowledge
The articles that follow are based solely on the points under "invest". Based on
that we arrive at the following headings:
● KM and Organizational Structures
● KM and Organizational Culture
● KM and Knowledge Retention
● KM and Core Competencies
● KM and External Knowledge Network
● KM and Knowledge Management Systems
● Summary: Knowledge Management Best Practices
As many of you might realize, many of the strategic initiatives deal with aspects
that extend into different branches of management. I will endeavor to stick to the
scope of this subsection and, for the most part, limit my discussion only to aspects
relevant to knowledge management strategy. Furthermore, at all stages of the
following discussion on knowledge management strategy, I will also refer to
different knowledge types and to IT systems, whenever necessary. However, the
subsection dealing with knowledge management systems will be the first that
focuses specifically on IT. It will discuss the general implementation issues, leading
to the subsequent section that looks at some specific systems and tools.
At the end, I will present a summary of all the conclusions and recommendations
made throughout this section and the one on knowledge management processes,
in a subsection titled Knowledge Management Best Practices. This will serve as a
way to provide a quick overview of knowledgemanagement strategy and could be
read on its own by readers who are notinterested in a more detailed account.
 Invest: Managing Organizational Structures

This discussion deals with the physical and non-physical divisions and barriers that
influence the way knowledge management (KM) operate. By "organizational
structure", I refer to the layout of the company itself and also to the various bodies
that exist within it.
It is important to note that many elements within this topic stretch well outside
our focus, and volumes could be written on it alone. The focus here will be only on
the general elements that are directly related to KM.
Types of Organizational Structures
Organizational structures deal with the way the firm is organized, and the way
people relate to one another. Broadly speaking, there are two types of
organizational structure, namely formal and informal. These two concepts are not
independent, and the formal structure may greatly influence informal networks,
both positively and negatively.
Formal: The official structure of the organization, which is normally displayed on
an organizational chart, and which denotes the hierarchical relationships between
members of the firm. It is beyond the scope of this site to offer a discussion on the
various formal organizational structures. However, there are a few things that are
relevant to KM:
1. The formal organizational structure must not be so rigidly enforced so as to
stifle informal structures such as communities of practice, where knowledge
sharing, and creation may take place. It is the knowledge manager's job to
understand the knowledge dynamics of the organization and to recognize
how the formal and informal structures coexist.
2. The formal organizational structure, particularly in a larger firm with
separate departments, will impact knowledge flows. There is no set
structure that is best, since most have advantages and disadvantages
depending upon the business type, firm size, etc. However, studies seem to
 indicate that flatter, decentralized structures are more effective for KM
(Choi & Lee 2000, Claver-Cortés et al 2007, Chen & Huang 2007). This also
makes sense logically, since knowledge flows would be less hindered in such
a structure.
Implementing changes to formal structures can thus mean restructuring the
organization, but it can also mean enforcing existing structures to a lesser orgreater
degree.
Informal: The unofficial organizational structures are the ones that are created
through informal networks, as a result of working within the organization. They
represent the way people actually interact. Brown and Duguid (1992) advocated
looking at the firm as a community of communities. Increasingly, the value of these
informal structures is being understood, and the knowledge manager must learn to
identify and support these networks. This process is closely related to KM, since
knowledge flows and repositories (particularly tacit) are dependent upon these
structures. KM therefore must play a central role in their management, including
identification of the structures and the knowledge they hold, implementing
changes, bridging gaps between communities, and so on. Unfortunately,
implementing changes to informal social networks is difficult without running the
risk of disrupting them. There are however several ways that managers can
influence social networks:
● Generalists (sometimes referred to as gatekeepers) can be used to identify
communities and their expert know-how, and to help coordinate activities
such as cross-functional projects.
● Project teams and other teamwork can serve as a means to bridge the gap
between communities.
● Common physical meeting areas can allow communities to grow and
flourish.
● Virtual socialization and people finders can support communities of
practice.
● Common vision, goals, ideals, social gatherings etc. and a climate of trust
can serve as a way to lessen the distance between organizational members
and communities.
 Invest: Corporate Culture Change

The concept of organizational/corporate culture has already been discussed in a

previous subsection. I will therefore keep my introduction to the subject to a
minimum, and instead focus almost exclusively on corporate culture change.
Organizational culture represents the way things are done in an organization,
encompassing the values, beliefs, and attitude that generate a common framework
for interpreting events.
Knowledge sharing, and thus all aspects related to knowledge management(KM),
depend upon organizational culture. Trust is a particularly important issue, since
workers need to feel secure that they are not jeopardizing themselves by engaging
in knowledge sharing. In order for proper cooperation to take place, management
must create a culture where knowledge sharing is seen as beneficial for the
individual as well as the organization. Managing corporate culture change is
therefore at the very core of KM and organizational learning processes.
Defining and Mapping Organizational Culture
Johnson (2001) presents a model called the cultural web (see below), outlining
the various components of organizational culture.
 The paradigm: The set of assumptions shared and taken for granted by the
organization.
Rituals and Routines: These represent "the way we do things around here". They
point to what is valued and include behaviors that are taken for granted as being
correct.
Stories and myths: The organization's folklore that passes on the common
perception of past events, thus reinforcing beliefs and passing them on to
newcomers.
Symbols: All the symbolic elements of the firm, including titles and dress codes.
Control Systems: Systems that are designed to promote certain activities by
rewarding correct behavior and monitoring performance.
Org. Structures: The formal structure of the organization, as explained in the
subsection on organizational structures (though in this case it is considered solely in
regards to its influence on culture).
Power structures: The more powerful groups are also most likely to be involved
in shaping the paradigm. A big problem arises when "the main targets for change
are also those who hold the power." (Bali et al 2009).
Johnson (2001) advocates culture mapping according to this framework so as to
assess the culture as a whole and be able to determine its compatibility with
strategy.
Managing Corporate Culture Change
Wellman (2009) presents a series of leadership roles that will help facilitate
corporate culture change towards a knowledge friendly culture:
● Acknowledge the existence and influence of organizational culture: It must
be brought into the open so people can see and understand how it affects
activities
● Have a clear and persistent vision of what the culture should be and of what
changes need to be applied: This vision must be understood by management
at all levels and spread across the organization.
 ● Consciously manage culture: Wellman suggests the using health
assessments and employee surveys to evaluate progress and direction.
Expanding upon this, one might add the use of incentives (whatever is
suitable within that particular organization) and of using managers as
intermediaries between different cultures within the organization.
Management must strive to create a culture where knowledge sharing is
perceived as beneficial to the whole and also to the individual. In other
words, through shared vision, incentives, etc. they must foster an
atmosphere of trust to ensure that individuals have faith in the principle of
reciprocity. They must also bridge cultural differences that exist between
different communities and power structures within the organization.
Gardner presents a somewhat more concrete approach to corporate culture
change. He states that it is dependent on redefining the assumptions that shape the
common understanding, or in other words the paradigm. It thus involvesintroducing
"anomalies" that present a reality that cannot be true under the old assumptions.
As more and more anomalies are presented, people will eventually abandon old
beliefs and frames of understanding and eventually be willing to adopt new ones.
No matter what, corporate culture change is a difficult process that is likely to
meet significant resistance. Its stubbornness is due in part to the fact that it is history
dependent, woven into everyday practice, and used as socializingmechanism for
newcomers (Beitler 2005). However, as Beitler argues, despite all the hurdles,
managing culture simply must be done.
 Invest: Knowledge Retention

Knowledge retention involves capturing knowledge in the organization so that it

can be used later. In a previous section on organizational memory, Walsh and
Ungson (1991) defined five knowledge repositories, namely individuals, culture,
transformations (i.e. procedures & formalized systems), structures (e.g. formal and
informal networks), and external activities. This is where knowledge can exist or be
retained in an organization. In this section, we are interested in the managerial side,
so as to answer the question: How can management promote the retention of
(crucial) knowledge?
Most often, one hears of knowledge retention in the context of losing key
employees and using techniques such as exit interviews to try to capture their
knowledge. In reality, knowledge retention should be integrated into how the
organization operates and start well before a key employee is about to depart.
Although it is considered crucial for long term organizational success, few
organizations have formal knowledge retention strategies (Liebowitz 2011).
 A knowledge retention strategy as a part of knowledge management (KM) will
identify the knowledge resources that are at risk and must be retained, and then
implement specific initiatives so as to keep these resources in the firm. Like most
other KM-related processes and strategies, success depends upon successful
knowledge sharing and having a knowledge sharing & learning organizational
culture.
Apart from the more general knowledge sharing initiatives that a firm may use -
e.g. support of formal & informal knowledge networks (social areas, social media,
meetings, company functions, knowledge fairs, expertise locator, etc.), changing the
organization culture, etc. - examples of tools & techniques which can be used
specifically for knowledge retention include (adapted from Smith 2007, Liebowitz
2009, and Liebowitz 2011):
● Implementing reward structures to encourage sharing of key knowledge.
● Use of project teams and cross-functional project teams.
● After-action reviews.
● Storytelling.
 ● Mentoring programs & job shadowing.
● Interviews & exit interviews.
● Job rotation.
● Company procedures/processes manuals.
● Taking advantage of the knowledge of retirees.
Knowledge Retention Strategy
Doan et al (2011) identify three basic questions that must be asked when
considering knowledge retention:
● What knowledge may be lost?
● What are the organizational consequences of losing that knowledge?
● What actions can be taken to retain that knowledge?
Expanding upon these questions, one can outline several concrete steps
necessary in the formulation of a knowledge retention strategy:
Step 1: Understand your risk factor: Liebowitz (2011) identified the following
risks:
● he average age of your employees is high
● The company has placed insufficient focus on:
o knowledge capture
o mentoring program
o employee training and development
● Information is difficult to find or is often misplaced.
● There is little informal communication in the organization.
● Many knowledgeable employees are leaving the organization.
Step 2: Understand which knowledge is critical and focus on this (Corney 2018)
(read more about this under Knowledge Organization & Assessment)
Step 3: Formulate a strategy using the pillars of knowledge retention (Liebowitz
2009 & 2011): Knowledge retention consists of a wide range of tools, some easy and
some hard to implement. Liebowitz identifies four categories which encompass all
the initiatives within knowledge retention. These are:
● Recognition and reward structure: Management has the choice to useeither
intrinsic motivators (i.e. which make the job itself more satisfying,
 such as praise or recognition) or extrinsic motivators (i.e. which offer
benefits unrelated to the job, such as money) (Gamelgaard 2007). These
must take organizational as well as national cultural factors into account
(Gamelgaard 2007), but overall the most effective and longer lasting appear
to be intrinsic motivators (Gamelgaard 2007 & Liebowitz 2009). However, a
combination of both is usually the way to go.
● Bidirectional knowledge flow: Establishing a two-way system of knowledge
capture, where knowledge is not only passed down from the senior
employee to the junior employee, but also vice versa.
● Personalization and codification: Personalization refers to connecting
people and includes tools such as mentoring, jon rotation, knowledge fairs,
communities, and so on, while codification includes tools like after action
reviews, various knowledge repositories, lessons learned systems, etc.
(Liebowitz 2009).
● The golden gem: Bringing back important retirees in various capacities. This
includes rehire programs, consultancy, part-time work, temporary jobs, etc.
(Corporate Executive Board 2005). Using a phased retirement system (e.g.
leave of absence – part time work – casual rehire) can also help to slowly
lose a key employee and to gradually transfer all his key knowledge to the
organization (Corporate Executive Board 2005).
Success Factors and DOs and DON'Ts of KR
Doan et al (2011), following a comprehensive review of knowledge retention
literature, arrive at the following key success factors:
● Top management support
● Knowledge retention strategy
● Learning culture
● Human resource practices (since knowledge resides in people, knowledge
retention is closely linked to HR practices including recruitment, education,
rewards, and performance management)
● Information and communication technology tools
Similarly, Corney (2018) outlines some basic DOs and DON'Ts of knowledge
retention:
● Do not capture "just in case". This leads to repositories of unused
information.
● Make sure that you are focusing on capturing Critical Knowledge, i.e.
knowledge that the organization would struggle without.
● When departures occur, offer them the chance to "leave a legacy" in an
alumni network.
● Make sure that knowledge retention and capture is the "way we do things
around here" and that it is part of any work process and at all stages of the
employment cycle.
 Invest: Knowledge Management and Core
Competencies

The knowledge management definition presented earlier, involved the reuse and
creation of relevant knowledge. The word relevant links knowledge management
(KM) to the concept of organizational core competencies. Once again, the challenge
here is to discuss this subject without diverging too much into related topics that
are not directly relevant to KM.
Core competencies: Definitions vary greatly. The term was originally coined by
Pralahad and Hamel (1990) who defined it as "the collective learning of the
organization, especially how to coordinate different production skills and integrate
multiple streams of technologies". Since then it has been defined in multiple ways,
but very generally, core competencies refer to the firm's primary expertise, which is
a source of sustained competitive advantage. Arriving at a more precise definition
is not necessary for our purpose here. Suffice it to say, that these are key
capabilities, which, from the resource-based perspective of the firm, are the primary
drivers of innovation and competitive advantage.
Core competencies thus have a large knowledge component, and managingthem
is, in the very least, a product of corporate strategy working with KM and innovation
management. This simplified model has strategy dictating the overall direction, KM
managing the knowledge dynamics, and innovation management turning core
competencies into profitable core products. To understand the role of KM let us look
at a brief overview of how core competencies are managed:
1. Identifying and assessing core competencies: The firm should map out its
key competencies, possibly linking them directly to specific core products.
Then, an evaluation must take place, assessing what one has vs. what one
needs to have (as determined by strategy and the competitive
environment). KM is responsible for identifying where the key knowledge
is located, including the tacit expertise and knowledge embedded in
products, routines, etc., as well as identifying knowledge gaps.
 2. Sustaining core competencies: Organizational core competencies, like all
knowledge assets, have the virtue of improving rather than depreciating
through use. Conversely, lack of use will lead to erosion of any skill set. The
role of KM here is twofold, on the one hand, it must keep stock of the state
of key knowledge assets and, on the other, it must leverage key knowledge
assets across the organization.
3. Building core competencies: Building new core competencies involves an
interplay between knowledge, practice, coordination, and refinement.
Knowledge assets must be built, enhanced, combined, and coordinated in
an environment that supports experimentation and improvement. Building
core competencies can be a complicated endeavor since sustained
competitive advantage is derived from assets that are hard to imitate
(Dierickx and Cool 1989). From a KM perspective, this implies the buildup
of specific tacit knowledge and expertise (i.e. uncodified knowledge that is
generally more valuable, and inherently more difficult to copy and transfer),
often across multiple departments or functions.
4. Unlearning core competencies: Organizations have a habit of trying tokeep
doing what they have always been doing. Unlearning a competency when it
is no longer useful is one of the key aspects of a successful firm, and history
is riddled with examples of companies that have failed to doso. In the
process of unlearning, KM again plays an important role byidentifying and
managing the firm's knowledge assets in the right direction. This may be
done through re-training, restructuring, creating new knowledge flows,
external knowledge acquisition, outright removal, etc.
The specific dynamics of the processes of knowledge creation, knowledge
acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge reuse, which are central to the
management of core competencies, have been discussed earlier. The purpose of
this section is to emphasize that KM is not just a collection of individual initiatives.
The buildup of skills and competencies, involving the coordination of multiple KM
disciplines with other organizational functions, must often be managed according
to long-term strategic goals and coordinated across the organization.
 Invest: Managing the External Knowledge Network

Having explored the dynamics of knowledge acquisition from external sources, I

will now briefly look at the role knowledge management (KM) has in the broader,
long-term process of building an external knowledge network. Once again, I want to
underline that this presentation is only intended as a broad overview of the
potential roles of KM and will not go into any detail on specific topics such as
customer or supplier relationship management.
In the previous subsection, the major potential external knowledge sourceswere
identified as:
● Customers
● Suppliers
● Competitors
● Partners
● Mergers & Acquisitions
Each of these categories offer a different set of potential knowledge, as well as
different challenges in the acquisition process.
Without looking specifically at KM, the general steps for extending the external
knowledge network are as follows:
● Identification of potential partner/target: This would depend largely on the
corporate strategic goals assessed against the perceived benefit of the
potential partners.
● Evaluation of potential partner/target: This process is particularly important
for high investment ventures like mergers and acquisitions or joint ventures.
The process would be driven by the estimated contribution of the target
(this includes knowledge and core competencies but also potentially other
assets), the estimated cost of establishing the relationship, and the
estimated cost of acquiring similar knowledge from other sources (including
building it in-house). The word "estimated" plays a
 key role here, since the information required to make accurate decisions is
often hard to come by.
● Establishing the relationship/acquisition of target: The process of actually
establishing cooperation/acquisition. For customer, supplier, or competitor
relationships this may involve setting up procedures, rules, and intentions
regarding the nature of the relationship and the things that will be reported
or shared. For mergers and acquisitions it could take any number of forms
and may include defining a new structure, integration into acommon locale,
merging corporate cultures/identities, and so on.
● Knowledge transferal/integration: The actual processes that are put in place
to gather and use the knowledge and know-how from the
relationship/acquisition. These may involve reporting procedures, feedback
mechanisms, common IT systems, common projects etc.
The role of KM in building the external knowledge network would thus be to:
● Provide all the relevant information regarding internal knowledge assets:
This includes identifying what the firm has, what it does not have, and the
costs associated with building new knowledge.
● Help in the evaluation process: help evaluate the potential value and
difficulty to integrate of the knowledge that the firm expects to acquire.
● Encourage knowledge sharing & integration: On the one hand it could
involve working with top management so as to devise the best procedures
and systems relating to knowledge transfer. On the other, it could involve
introducing incentives, systems, managing organizational culture change,
etc. that facilitate, support, and encourage knowledge sharing.
● Gather, integrate, and share relevant external knowledge and information:
Managing the knowledge transfer process so as to ensure that the
knowledge is relevant and that it is available whenever and wherever
necessary. Analyzation of data and information so as to provide the building
blocks of new knowledge.
As one can see, KM plays a supporting role in all areas and is instrumental in the
learning process. Its importance will be greater the more knowledge intensive the
industry and nature of the relationship.
 Due to the complexity of these topics and the vastly different managerial
requirements, I will end this discussion with just these general considerations.
 Invest: Knowledge Management Systems

The issue of knowledge management systems has probably always been the most
discussed and debated topic within knowledge management (KM). However, in
modern KM, few people would disagree with the notion that knowledge
management systems are an absolutely critical part of a KM initiative.
On this site, I have considered the impact of IT in all the knowledge management
strategy subsections, with particular emphasis on its role in knowledge sharing.
From this point on, the discussion will be organized as follows:
● This subsection will discuss the theoretical implementation of knowledge
management systems and its impact on the organization.
● The section titled "KM Tools" will look at some of the main categories of
systems available.
What are Knowledge Management Systems?
Knowledge management systems refer to any kind of IT system that stores and
retrieves knowledge, improves collaboration, locates knowledge sources, mines
repositories for hidden knowledge, captures and uses knowledge, or in some other
way enhances the KM process.
If my explanation above makes the definition of these systems seem vague, that
is because there is no consensus as to what constitutes a knowledge management
system, much like there is no consensus regarding KM. Furthermore, since KM is
involved in all areas of the firm, drawing a line is very difficult.
James Robertson (2007) goes as far as to argue that organizations should not even
think in terms of knowledge management systems. He argues that KM, though
enhanced by technology, is not a technology discipline, and thinking in terms of
knowledge management systems leads to expectations of "silver bullet" solutions.
Instead, the focus should be determining the functionality of the IT systems that are
required for the specific activities and initiatives within the firm.
However, with proper implementation, IT systems have become a critical
component of KM today.

For the purpose of this site (intended to be useful for those people that do search
for terms like knowledge management systems), I will break these down into the
following general categories (adapted from the work of Gupta and Sharma 2005, in
Bali et al 2009):
● Groupware systems & KM 2.0
● The intranet and extranet
● Data warehousing, data mining, & OLAP
● Decision Support Systems
● Content management systems
● Document management systems
● Artificial intelligence tools
● Simulation tools
● Semantic networks
These categories will cover the vast majority of the systems that people would
normally associate with a KM system.
Problems and Failure Factors
Too often, the effects of technology on the organization are not given enough
thought prior to the introduction of a new system. There are two sets of knowledge
necessary for the design and implementation of a knowledgemanagement system
(Newell et al., 2000):
1. The technical programming and design know-how
2. Organizational know-how based on the understanding of knowledge flows
The problem is that rarely are both these sets of knowledge known by a single
person. Moreover, technology is rarely designed by the people who use it.
Therefore, firms are faced with the issue of fit between IT systems and
organizational practices, as well as with acceptance within organizational culture
(Gamble & Blackwell 2001).
 Botha et al (2008) stress the importance of understanding what knowledge
management systems cannot do. They point to the fact that introducing knowledge
sharing technologies does not mean that experts will share knowledge
- other initiatives have to be in place.
Akhavan et al (2005) identify several additional failure factors including: lack of
top management support, organizational culture, lack of a separate budget, and
resistance to change.
Building upon all this, and incorporating previously discussed elements, failure
factors of knowledge management systems are as follows:
● Inadequate support: managerial and technical, during both implementation
and use.
● Expecting that the technology is a KM solution in itself.
● Failure to understand exactly what the firm needs (whether technologically
or otherwise).
● Not understanding the specific function and limitation of each individual
system.
● Lack of organizational acceptance, and assuming that if you build it, they
will come – lack of appropriate organizational culture.
● Inadequate quality measures (e.g. lack of content management).
● Lack of organizational/departmental/etc. fit - does it make working in the
organization. easier? Is a system appropriate in one area of the firm but not
another? Does it actually disrupt existing processes?
● Lack of understanding of knowledge dynamics and the inherent difficulty in
transferring tacit knowledge with IT based systems (see segment on tacit
knowledge under knowledge sharing).
● Lack of a separate budget.
Promoting Acceptance and Assimilation
According to Hecht et al. (2011) the process of successful implementation has
three stages: adoption, acceptance, and assimilation. Based on recognized models
and theories, the authors identified three comprehensive sets of factors affecting
these three elements. The resulting model organized the KMS implementation
factors into the following categories:
● Adoption:
● Influenced by design: Innovation characteristics, fit, expected results,
communication characteristics.
● Not influenced by design: Environment, technological infrastructure,
resources, organizational characteristics.
● Acceptance
● Influenced by design: Effort expectancy, performance expectancy.
● Not influenced by design: Social influences, attitude towards technology
use.
● Assimilation:
● Influenced by design: social system characteristics, process characteristics.
● Not influenced by design: Management characteristics, institutional
characteristics.
Step 1: KMS Adoption
Some of the key factors identified by Hecht et al (2011) are: characteristics,
commercial advantage, cultural values, information quality, organizational viability,
and system quality. To promote KMS adoption:
● Start with an internal analysis of the firm.
● Evaluate information/knowledge needs & flows, lines of communication,
communities of practice, etc. These findings should form the basis of
determining the systems needed to complement them.
● Make a thorough cost-benefit analysis, considering factors like size of firm,
number of users, complexity of the system structure, frequency of use,
upkeep & updating costs, security issues, training costs (including ensuring
acceptance) etc. vs improvements in performance, lower response time,
lower costs (relative to the previous systems) etc.
● Evaluate existing work practices and determine how the systems will
improve - and not hinder - the status quo.
● One very interesting rule of thumb presented by Botha et al (2008), is that
"the more tacit the knowledge, the less high-tech the required solution". For
example, expert knowledge is often best supported by multimedia
 communication technology and by expert finders. Beyond that, it is about
human interaction and collaboration.
Step 2: KMS acceptance
Some of the factors outlined by Hecht et al. (2011) include: anxiety, ease of use,
intrinsic motivation, job-fit, results demonstrability, and social factors. Promoting
acceptance can be improved by:
● Involve the users in the design and implementation process when possible
(Liebowitz 1999).
● Involve the user in the evaluation of the system when applicable (Liebowitz
1999).
● Make it as user friendly and as intuitive as possible (Frank 2002).
● Support multiple perspectives of the stored knowledge (Frank 2002).
● Provide adequate technical and managerial support.
● Use product champions to promote the new systems throughout the
organization.
Step 3: KMS Assimilation
Some of the factors identified by Hecht et al. (2011) include: knowledge barrier,
management championship, process cost, process quality, and promotion of
collaboration. Assimilation can be improved by:
● Content management (Gamble & Blackwell, 2001): In order for the system
to remain useful, its content must be kept relevant through updating,
revising, filtering, organization, etc.
● Perceived attractiveness factors (Gamble & Blackwell, 2001): This includes
not only the advantages of using the KMS, but also of management's ability
to convince users of these advantages.
● Proper budgeting: i.e. planning expenses and implementing a KMS that is
cost efficient.
● Focus on collaboration. In particular, consider the adoption of enterprise
2.0 / KM 2.0 systems, which by design promote collaboration while generally
being inexpensive and often quite popular.
● Management involvement: The system must be championed by
management at all levels.
 Naturally, these factors do not apply to all systems. Some are fairly
straightforward and accepted in today's society (e.g. email). However, the strategic
implications of implementing knowledge management systems that significantly
aim to change the way things are done in the organization requires proper
consideration and careful planning. Moreover, with the evolution of systems to
better support different facets of KM, they should be regarded as a critical
component in the implementation of the discipline.
 Summary: Knowledge Management Best Practices

This section offers an overview of the main points discussed thus far in the
knowledge management processes and knowledge management strategy sections.
First, let us take a step back and look at the enablers of knowledge management
(KM). According to Botha et al (2008) these are:
● Culture: One which is supportive of knowledge management, and the
processes it implies - particularly knowledge sharing.
● Infrastructure: Support systems, teams, structures, and collaboration.
● Measures: Developing a process and design for managing change.
● Technology: Can offer great advantages, particularly with the management
of explicit knowledge, as a collaboration tool, and as an expert locator.
However, technology should not be misused – it is just one important
component of a KM strategy.
According to the authors, these aspects are what make KM possible. For instance,
KM initiatives implemented in a company with a competitive culture that shuns
knowledge sharing are doomed to fail from the start. I would not go as far as to call
technology an enabler, but it is an important aspect nonetheless and an unavoidable
part of any modern knowledge management best practices.
With this in mind, I will now recap the main KM processes. The knowledge
management best practices summary below will cover all the categories mentioned
above.
Determining the Organization's Knowledge and Know-how
● Knowledge Discovery and Detection: Refers to the processes of identifying
existing knowledge sources, as well as discovering hidden knowledge in data
and information. This knowledge resides both inside the organization and
externally, in customers, suppliers, partners, etc.
o Explicit knowledge: Document management, intelligence gathering,
data mining, text mining etc. IT is useful/crucial in this respect.
 o Tacit knowledge: Includes tools/practices such as knowledge surveys,
questionnaires, individual interviews, group interviews, focus groups,
network analysis, and observation. IT has a more indirect role here.
o Embedded knowledge Includes observation, analysis, reverse
engineering, and modeling tools to identify knowledge stored within
procedures, products, etc.
● Knowledge Organization & Assessment: The process of mapping,
categorizing, indexing, and evaluating organizational knowledge assets.
o This is heavily supported by IT, which can use complex categorization
and retrieval mechanisms to organize knowledge assets in multipleways.
o Tacit (embodied) knowledge: This is done through the use of focus
groups, expertise guides, and knowledge coordinators (Gamble &
Blackwell 2001).
o Embedded knowledge: Tools include job/workplace design, workflow
analyses and performance measures (Gamble & Blackwell 2001)
Practical Knowledge Management Best Practices
● Knowledge Sharing: Perhaps the most important process in KM, it plays a
determinant role for both knowledge reuse and knowledge creation. The
factors below summarize the key considerations with the exception of
cultural issues, which are discussed further down.
o Explicit knowledge: Depends on articulation of needs, awareness of
knowledge, access to knowledge, guidance in the knowledge sharing
process, and completeness of the knowledge sources (Bukowitz &
Williams 1999). IT systems and content management are extremely
important in this process.
o Tacit (embodied) knowledge: This depends on socialization, particularly
within informal networks. Culture is particularly important in this area.
Tacit knowledge can rarely be effectively codified without losing the
essence that makes it so valuable to begin with, so the focus should be
on supporting work relationships. IT has a secondary supporting role in
 this context, primarily as an expert finder and as offering support in the
socialization process (e.g. through groupware applications).
o Embedded knowledge: Use of scenario planning, after action reviews,
and management training (Gamble & Blackwell 2001). IT has a role in
mapping, modeling, creating simulations, and as an embedded
knowledge repository.
● Knowledge Reuse: Involves three roles, the knowledge producer,
intermediary, and consumer (Markus 2001), which are involved in creating,
preparing, and actually reusing the knowledge. Two keys elements here
are culture and cost - particularly relating to tacit knowledge (where
indexing the source rather than the knowledge itself is often more viable).
Markus identifies four reuse situations:
o Shared work producers
o Shared work practitioners
o Expert seeking novices
o Miners of secondary knowledge
● Knowledge Creation: This process depends upon knowledge sharing (as
defined above), collaboration, and access to relevant information and data.
Cook and Brown (1999) suggest that knowledge creation is an interplay
between knowledge and knowing, or in other words, putting knowledge into
practice. The role of management in this process was identified as:
o Enabling knowledge sharing: As above
o Creating suitable work-related environments: The focus here is on
unstructured work environments where experimentation, trial and error,
and theory in use are promoted. Self-organizing, semi- or fully-
autonomous project teams are identified as one useful tool in this
endeavor.
o Providing access to collaborative IT systems: Groupware applicationscan
be used for this purpose. These must support and not interfere with the
ideal work environment.
o Providing access to relevant data and information: From information
systems, data warehouses, data mining, etc. These can act as building
blocks in the knowledge creation process.
 ● Knowledge Acquisition: The firm can acquire knowledge externally from
customers, suppliers, competitors, partners, and mergers. The role of KM
varies in each process (as does the type of available knowledge), but at its
core its function is to establish the right channels to transfer relevant
knowledge from existing partnerships into the firm, and to integrate this
knowledge as best as possible. To do so, KM can use a wide range of tools
including:
o Common IT systems
o Common projects
o Interaction and socialization
o Involvement of partners in certain organizational processes (e.g. design)
o Cultural alignment (for mergers or joint ventures)
o Setting up the right incentive systems
o Identifying and protecting crucial knowledge assets: when such
knowledge should not be shared with a partner
Strategic Knowledge Management Best Practices:
● KM and Organizational Structures: Two types were defined: formal and
informal.
o Formal structure: These will interfere with KM if very rigidly enforced. The
choice of structure, and the physical division of the firm, will also affect
knowledge flows. Studies seem to show that decentralized structures
seem to be best for KM (Choi & Lee 2000, Claver-Cortés et al 2007, Chen
& Huang 2007).
o Informal structures: The firm should be perceived as a community
consisting of a collection of communities (Brown & Duguid 1992).
Management can affect these through the use of project teams,
teamwork, social functions, etc.
● KM and Organizational Culture Change: This must be recognized and
managed carefully and deliberately. By introducing anomalies that
challenge the accepted premises of organizational culture, management can
influence organizational members to abandon certain aspects in favor of
others (Gardner 1997). Use of incentives and common vision and goals
 are also effective tools. One of the most important goals is to create a
culture where knowledge sharing is perceived as beneficial rather than
detrimental to the individual.
● KM and Knowledge Retention: Knowledge retention is the part of KM that
is concerned with making sure that important knowledge assets remain in
the firm over time, e.g. when key employees leave the firm or retire.
Formulating a knowledge retention strategy depends upon understanding
which knowledge is important, which knowledge is at risk and what it takes
to keep this knowledge in the organization. Depending upon its knowledge
retention strategy a firm may choose to implement one of many initiatives
and tools including reward structures, mentoring, interviews, and utilizing
knowledge from retirees.
● KM and Core Competencies: The management of core competencies
consists of four processes: identifying, sustaining, building, and unlearning.
KM plays a key supporting role throughout this process by:
o Identifying what the firm knows, and what its main expertise is.
o Leveraging knowledge assets across the organization.
o Building the right know-how and expertise to match strategic
requirements.
o Isolating and removing/changing obsolete knowledge.
● KM and the External Network: As mentioned before, external knowledge
sources include customers, suppliers, competitors, partners, mergers, etc. KM
plays a role in the assessment of potential partners, by helping to determine
what the organization knows, what it needs to know, and the best ways of
getting that knowledge. It is also a key element during the cooperation process
to ensure that the right knowledge is transferred and integrated into the
organization.
● KM and Knowledge Management Systems: This very ambiguous category of
systems refers to most systems used in the sharing, discovery, and creation
of knowledge. Failures are generally due to an over reliance on technology, a
lack of understanding of the limitations of these systems, improper fit with
organizational practices, lack of acceptance, etc. Proper implementation
implies paying attention to:
 o Organizational fit: Carry out internal assessment of needs
and work practices, cost-benefit analysis, etc.
o Organizational acceptance: by involving the user in the
design and implementation, through managerial and
technical support, and with product champions, etc.
o Continued use: A function of perceived attractiveness
factors and content management (Gamble and Blackwell
2001).
This concludes the summary of knowledge management best
practices. KM is a process that spreads throughout the
organization. Its scope is difficult to define, and its effects are
hard to measure - e.g. how do you determine the ROI on a
discipline designed to subtly improve most aspects of the
organization? Nonetheless, if properly implemented, it is a
worthwhile investment that will promote efficiency, learning,
innovation, and competitive advantage.