Knowledge management

Last updated

Knowledge management (KM) is the collection of methods relating to creating, sharing, using and managing the knowledge and information of an organization. [1] It refers to a multidisciplinary approach to achieve organizational objectives by making the best use of knowledge. [2]

Contents

An established discipline since 1991, [3] KM includes courses taught in the fields of business administration, information systems, management, library, and information science. [3] [4] Other fields may contribute to KM research, including information and media, computer science, public health and public policy. [5] Several universities offer dedicated master's degrees in knowledge management.

Many large companies, public institutions, and non-profit organisations have resources dedicated to internal KM efforts, often as a part of their business strategy, IT, or human resource management departments. [6] Several consulting companies provide advice regarding KM to these organizations. [6]

Knowledge management efforts typically focus on organisational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, integration, and continuous improvement of the organisation. [7] These efforts overlap with organizational learning and may be distinguished from that by a greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and on encouraging the sharing of knowledge. [2] [8] KM is an enabler of organizational learning. [9] [10]

The most complex scenario for knowledge management may be found in the context of supply chain as it involves multiple companies without an ownership relationship or hierarchy between them, being called by some authors as transorganizational or interorganizational knowledge. That complexity is additionally increased by industry 4.0 (or 4th industrial revolution) and digital transformation, as new challenges emerge from both the volume and speed of information flows and knowledge generation. [11]

History

Knowledge management efforts have a long history, including on-the-job discussions, formal apprenticeship, discussion forums, corporate libraries, professional training, and mentoring programs. [2] [10] With increased use of computers in the second half of the 20th century, specific adaptations of technologies such as knowledge bases, expert systems, information repositories, group decision support systems, intranets, and computer-supported cooperative work have been introduced to further enhance such efforts. [2]

In 1999, the term personal knowledge management was introduced; it refers to the management of knowledge at the individual level. [12]

In the enterprise, early collections of case studies recognised the importance of knowledge management dimensions of strategy, process and measurement. [13] [14] Key lessons learned include people and the cultural norms which influence their behaviors are the most critical resources for successful knowledge creation, dissemination and application; cognitive, social and organisational learning processes are essential to the success of a knowledge management strategy; and measurement, benchmarking and incentives are essential to accelerate the learning process and to drive cultural change. [14] In short, knowledge management programs can yield impressive benefits to individuals and organisations if they are purposeful, concrete and action-orientated.

The ISO 9001:2015 quality management standard released in September 2015 introduced a specification for 'organizational knowledge' as a complementary aspect of quality management within an organisation. [15]

Research

KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the early 1990s. [16] It was initially supported by individual practitioners, when Skandia hired Leif Edvinsson of Sweden as the world's first chief knowledge officer (CKO). [17] Hubert Saint-Onge (formerly of CIBC, Canada), started investigating KM long before that. [2] The objective of CKOs is to manage and maximise the intangible assets of their organizations. [2] Gradually, CKOs became interested in practical and theoretical aspects of KM, and the new research field was formed. [18] The KM idea has been taken up by academics, such as Ikujiro Nonaka (Hitotsubashi University), Hirotaka Takeuchi (Hitotsubashi University), Thomas H. Davenport (Babson College) and Baruch Lev (New York University). [3] [19]

In 2001, Thomas A. Stewart, former editor at Fortune magazine and subsequently the editor of Harvard Business Review , published a cover story highlighting the importance of intellectual capital in organizations. [20] The KM discipline has been gradually moving towards academic maturity. [2] First, is a trend toward higher cooperation among academics; single-author publications are less common. Second, the role of practitioners has changed. [18] Their contribution to academic research declined from 30% of overall contributions up to 2002, to only 10% by 2009. [21] Third, the number of academic knowledge management journals has been steadily growing, currently reaching 27 outlets. [22] [23]

Multiple KM disciplines exist; approaches vary by author and school. [18] [24] As the discipline matured, academic debates increased regarding theory and practice, including:

Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM roughly include people/culture, processes/structure and technology. The details depend on the perspective. [29] KM perspectives include:

The practical relevance of academic research in KM has been questioned [36] with action research suggested as having more relevance [37] and the need to translate the findings presented in academic journals to a practice. [13]

Dimensions

Different frameworks for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge exist. [10] One proposed framework for categorising the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. [33] Tacit knowledge represents internalised knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as to accomplish particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others. [18] [38]

The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi Knowledge spiral.svg
The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi

Ikujiro Nonaka proposed a model (SECI, for Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, Internalisation) which considers a spiraling interaction between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. [39] In this model, knowledge follows a cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is 're-internalised' into implicit knowledge. [39]

Hayes and Walsham (2003) describe knowledge and knowledge management as two different perspectives. [40] The content perspective suggests that knowledge is easily stored; because it may be codified, while the relational perspective recognises the contextual and relational aspects of knowledge which can make knowledge difficult to share outside the specific context in which it is developed. [40]

Early research suggested that KM needs to convert internalised tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge to share it, and the same effort must permit individuals to internalise and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort. [6] [41]

Subsequent research suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory. [12] Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., symbols outside our heads). [12] [42] More recently, together with Georg von Krogh and Sven Voelpel, Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge conversion forward. [4] [43]

A second proposed framework for categorising knowledge dimensions distinguishes embedded knowledge of a system outside a human individual (e.g., an information system may have knowledge embedded into its design) from embodied knowledge representing a learned capability of a human body's nervous and endocrine systems. [44]

A third proposed framework distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the transfer or exploitation of "established knowledge" within a group, organisation, or community. [40] [45] Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of social computing tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer. [45]

Strategies

Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related activities. [32] Organisations have tried knowledge capture incentives, including making content submission mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance measurement plans. [46] Considerable controversy exists over whether such incentives work and no consensus has emerged. [7]

One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge (push strategy). [7] [47] In such an instance, individuals strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge repository, such as a database, as well as retrieving knowledge they need that other individuals have provided (codification). [47] Another strategy involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated with a particular subject on an ad hoc basis (pull strategy). [7] [47] In such an instance, expert individual(s) provide insights to requestor (personalisation). [33] When talking about strategic knowledge management, the form of the knowledge and activities to share it defines the concept between codification and personalization. [48] The form of the knowledge means that it's either tacit or explicit. Data and information can be considered as explicit and know-how can be considered as tacit. [49]

Hansen et al. defined the two strategies (codification and personalisation). [50] Codification means a system-oriented method in KM strategy for managing explicit knowledge with organizational objectives. [51] Codification strategy is document-centered strategy, where knowledge is mainly codified as "people-to-document" method. Codification relies on information infrastructure, where explicit knowledge is carefully codified and stored. [50] Codification focuses on collecting and storing codified knowledge in electronic databases to make it accessible. [52] Codification can therefore refer to both tacit and explicit knowledge. [53] In contrast, personalisation encourages individuals to share their knowledge directly. [52] Personification means human-oriented KM strategy where the target is to improve knowledge flows through networking and integrations related to tacit knowledge with knowledge sharing and creation. [51] Information technology plays a less important role, as it only facilitates communication and knowledge sharing.

Generic knowledge strategies include knowledge acquisition strategy, knowledge exploitation strategy, knowledge exploration strategy, and knowledge sharing strategy. These strategies aim at helping organisations to increase their knowledge and competitive advantage. [54]

Other knowledge management strategies and instruments for companies include: [7] [27] [33]

Motivations

Multiple motivations lead organisations to undertake KM. [38] Typical considerations include: [33] [58]

KM technologies

Knowledge management (KM) technology can be categorised:

These categories overlap. Workflow, for example, is a significant aspect of content or document management systems, most of which have tools for developing enterprise portals. [7] [60]

Proprietary KM technology products such as HCL Notes (Previously Lotus Notes) defined proprietary formats for email, documents, forms, etc. The Internet drove most vendors to adopt Internet formats. Open-source and freeware tools for the creation of blogs and wikis now enable capabilities that used to require expensive commercial tools. [37] [61]

KM is driving the adoption of tools that enable organisations to work at the semantic level, [62] as part of the Semantic Web. [63] Some commentators have argued that after many years the Semantic Web has failed to see widespread adoption, [64] [65] [66] while other commentators have argued that it has been a success. [67]

Knowledge barriers

Just like knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing, the term "knowledge barriers" is not a uniformly defined term and differs in its meaning depending on the author. [68] Knowledge barriers can be associated with high costs for both companies and individuals. [69] [70] [71] Knowledge barriers appear to have been used from at least three different perspectives in the literature: [68] 1) Missing knowledge about something as a result of barriers for the share or transfer of knowledge. 2) Insufficient knowledge based on the amount of education in a certain field or issue. 3) A unique individual or group of humans' perceptual system lacks adequate contact points or does not fit incoming information to use and transform it to knowledge.

Knowledge retention

Knowledge retention is part of knowledge management. It helps convert tacit form of knowledge into an explicit form. It is a complex process which aims to reduce the knowledge loss in the organization. [72] Knowledge retention is needed when expert knowledge workers leave the organization after a long career. [73] Retaining knowledge prevents losing intellectual capital. [74]

According to DeLong(2004) [75] knowledge retention strategies are divided into four main categories:

Knowledge retention projects are usually introduced in three stages: decision making, planning and implementation. There are differences among researchers on the terms of the stages. For example, Dalkir talks about knowledge capture, sharing and acquisition and Doan et al. introduces initiation, implementation and evaluation. [76] [77] Furthermore, Levy introduces three steps (scope, transfer, integration) but also recognizes a "zero stage" for initiation of the project. [73]

Knowledge audit

A knowledge audit is a comprehensive assessment of an organization's knowledge assets, including its explicit and tacit knowledge, intellectual capital, expertise, and skills. The goal of a knowledge audit is to identify the organization's knowledge strengths and gaps, and to develop strategies for leveraging knowledge to improve performance and competitiveness. Knowledge audit helps ensure that an organization's knowledge management activities are heading in the right direction. It also reduces the making of incorrect decisions. Term knowledge audit is often used interchangeably with information audit, although information audit is slightly narrower in scope. [78] [79]

The requirement and significance of a knowledge audit can vary widely among different industries and companies. For instance, within the software development industry, knowledge audits can play a pivotal role due to the inherently knowledge-intensive nature of the work. This contrasts with sectors like manufacturing, where physical assets often take more important role. The difference arises from the fact that in software development companies, the skills, expertise, and intellectual capital, often overshadow the value of physical assets. [80]

Knowledge audits provide opportunities for organizations to improve their management of knowledge assets, with the goal of enhancing organizational effectiveness and efficiency. By conducting a knowledge audit, organizations can raise awareness of knowledge assets as primary factors of production and as critical capital assets in today's knowledge economy. The process of a knowledge audit allows organizations to gain a deeper understanding of their knowledge assets. This includes identifying and defining these assets, understanding their behavior and properties, and describing how, when, why, and where they are used in business processes. [80]

Knowledge protection

Knowledge protection refers to behaviors and actions taken to protect the knowledge from unwanted opportunistic behavior for example appropriation or imitation of the knowledge. [81]

Knowledge protection is used to prevent the knowledge to be unintentionally available or useful for competitors. Knowledge protection can be for example a patent, copyright, trademark, lead time or secrecy held by a company or an individual. [82]

Knowledge protection methods

There is various methods for knowledge protection and those methods are often divided into two categories by their formality: formal protection and informal protection. [83] [84] [85] [86] Occasionally a third category is introduced, semi-formal protection, which includes contracts and trade-secrets. [85] [86] [87]   These semi-formal methods are also usually placed under formal methods.

Organizations often use a combination of formal and informal knowledge protection methods to achieve comprehensive protection of their knowledge assets. [86] The formal and informal knowledge protection mechanisms are different in nature, and they have their benefits and drawbacks. In many organizations, the challenge is to find a good mix of measures that works for the organization. [84]

Formal methods

Formal knowledge protection practices can take various forms, such as legal instruments or formal procedures and structures, to control which knowledge is shared and which is protected. [83] Formal knowledge protection methods include for example: patents, trademarks, copyrights and licensing. [83] [85] [88]

Technical solutions to protect the knowledge fall also under the category of formal knowledge protection. Formal knowledge protection from technical viewpoint includes technical access constraints and protection of communication channels, systems, and storage. [84]

While knowledge may eventually become public in some form or another, formal protection mechanisms are necessary to prevent competitors from directly utilizing it for their own gain. [84] Formal protection methods are particularly effective in protecting established knowledge that can be codified and embodied in final products or services. [88]

Informal methods

Informal knowledge protection methods refer to the use of informal mechanisms such as human resource management practices or secrecy to protect knowledge assets. There is notable amount of knowledge that cannot be protected by formal methods, and for which more informal protection might be the most efficient option. [89]

Informal knowledge protection methods can take various forms, such as: secrecy, social norms and values, complexity, lead-time and Human resource management. [83] [88] [90] [89]

Informal knowledge protection methods protect knowledge assets for example by making it difficult for outsiders to access and understand the knowledge within the boundaries of the organization. [90] Informal protection methods are more effective for protecting knowledge that is complex or difficult to express, articulate, or codify. [90] [89]

Balancing knowledge protection and knowledge sharing

The balance between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection is a critical dilemma faced by organizations today. [91] [84] While sharing knowledge can lead to innovation, collaboration, and competitive advantage, protecting knowledge can prevent it from being misused, misappropriated, or lost. [91] [84] [92] Thus, the need for organizational learning must be balanced with the need to protect organisations' intellectual property, especially whilst cooperating with external partners. [91] [93] The role of information security is crucial in helping organisations protect their assets whilst still enabling the benefits of information sharing. [84] [92] By implementing effective knowledge management strategies, organizations can protect valuable intellectual property while also encouraging the sharing of relevant knowledge across teams and departments. [91] This active balancing act requires careful consideration of factors such as the level of openness, the identification of core knowledge areas, and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms for knowledge transfer and collaboration. [91] Finding the right balance between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection is a complex issue that requires a nuanced understanding of the trade-off's involved and the context in which knowledge is shared or protected. [91] [93]

Knowledge protection risks

Protecting knowledge cannot be considered without its risks. Here are listed four of the major risks associated with knowledge protection:

In conclusion, protecting knowledge is crucial to promote innovation and creativity, but it is not without its risks. Overprotection, misappropriation, infringement claims, and inadequate protection are all risks associated with knowledge protection. Individuals and organizations should take steps to protect their intellectual property while also considering the potential risks and benefits of such protection.

See also

Related Research Articles

Intellectual capital is the result of mental processes that form a set of intangible objects that can be used in economic activity and bring income to its owner (organization), covering the competencies of its people, the value relating to its relationships, and everything that is left when the employees go home, of which intellectual property (IP) is but one component. It is the sum of everything everybody in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge. The term is used in academia in an attempt to account for the value of intangible assets not listed explicitly on a company's balance sheets. On a national level, intellectual capital refers to national intangible capital (NIC).

Organizational learning is the process of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization. An organization improves over time as it gains experience. From this experience, it is able to create knowledge. This knowledge is broad, covering any topic that could better an organization. Examples may include ways to increase production efficiency or to develop beneficial investor relations. Knowledge is created at four different units: individual, group, organizational, and inter organizational.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Knowledge transfer</span> Sharing knowledge for problem solving

Knowledge transfer refers to transferring an awareness of facts or practical skills from one entity to another. The particular profile of transfer processes activated for a given situation depends on (a) the type of knowledge to be transferred and how it is represented and (b) the processing demands of the transfer task. From this perspective, knowledge transfer in humans encompasses expertise from different disciplines: psychology, cognitive anthropology, anthropology of knowledge, communication studies and media ecology.

Tacit knowledge or implicit knowledge—as opposed to formalized, codified or explicit knowledge—is knowledge that is difficult to express or extract; therefore it is more difficult to transfer to others by means of writing it down or verbalizing it. This can include motor skills, personal wisdom, experience, insight, and intuition.

In business, a competitive advantage is an attribute that allows an organization to outperform its competitors.

Knowledge workers are workers whose main capital is knowledge. Examples include ICT professionals, physicians, pharmacists, architects, engineers, scientists, design thinkers, public accountants, lawyers, editors, and academics, whose job is to "think for a living".

Personal knowledge management (PKM) is a process of collecting information that a person uses to gather, classify, store, search, retrieve and share knowledge in their daily activities and the way in which these processes support work activities. It is a response to the idea that knowledge workers need to be responsible for their own growth and learning. It is a bottom-up approach to knowledge management (KM).

Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be readily articulated, conceptualized, codified, formalized, stored and accessed. It can be expressed in formal and systematical language and shared in the form of data, scientific formulae, specifications, manuals and such like. It is easily codifiable and thus transmittable without loss of integrity once the syntactical rules required for deciphering it are known. Most forms of explicit knowledge can be stored in certain media. Explicit knowledge is often seen as complementary to tacit knowledge.

Organizational storytelling is a concept in management and organization studies. It recognises the special place of narration in human communication, making narration "the foundation of discursive thought and the possibility of acting in common." This follows the narrative paradigm, a view of human communication based on the conception of persons as homo narrans.

Personal knowledge networks are methods for organizations to identify, capture, evaluate, retrieve, and share information. This method was primarily conceived by researchers to facilitate the sharing of personal, informal knowledge between organizations. Instead of focusing on the organizational context, some researchers investigate the intra-firm aspects at the personal level of organizational knowledge networks, where knowledge management (KM) processes both begin and end. Various technologies and behaviors support personal knowledge networking, including wikis, Really Simple Syndication (RSS), and relationship networks. Researchers propose that knowledge management can occur with little explicit governance. This trend is referred to as "grassroots KM" as opposed to traditional, top-down enterprise KM.

Intellectual capital is the sum of all knowledge; implying that knowledge that exists at different levels both within or outside the organisation has to be taken into account for intellectual capital. The intangible nature of many knowledge products and processes, in combination with the increasing importance of their value in corporate balance sheets leads to a growing interest in management of intellectual capital. Creating, shaping and updating the stock of intellectual capital requires the formulation of a strategic vision, which blends together all three dimensions of intellectual capital within the organisational context through exploration and exploitation, measurement and disclosure. Therefore, the organisational value of intellectual capital is developed via an ongoing and emergent process focused on the capability to leverage, develop and change the dimensions. The management of intellectual capital is conceptualised as occurring via a multiple stage process, governed by an evolutionary logic. The intellectual capital management is defined as a cycle of four inter-related sets of practices: Strategic Alignment, Exploration and Exploitation, Measurement and Reporting of intellectual capitals.

Encapsulated knowledge is the value endowing meta-resource originating from thought, reflection, or experience that is embedded in an artefact’s design and functionality.

A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who "share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly". The concept was first proposed by cognitive anthropologist Jean Lave and educational theorist Etienne Wenger in their 1991 book Situated Learning. Wenger significantly expanded on this concept in his 1998 book Communities of Practice.

Knowledge sharing is an activity through which knowledge is exchanged among people, friends, peers, families, communities, or within or between organizations. It bridges the individual and organizational knowledge, improving the absorptive and innovation capacity and thus leading to sustained competitive advantage of companies as well as individuals. Knowledge sharing is part of the knowledge management process.

A knowledge organization is a management idea, describing an organization in which people use systems and processes to generate, transform, manage, use, and transfer knowledge-based products and services to achieve organizational goals.

The web content lifecycle is the multi-disciplinary and often complex process that web content undergoes as it is managed through various publishing stages.

Communities that support innovation have been referred to as communities of innovation (CoI), communities for innovation, innovation communities, open innovation communities, and communities of creation.

The SECI model of knowledge dimensions is a model of knowledge creation that explains how tacit and explicit knowledge are converted into organizational knowledge. The aim is to change the explicit knowledge of the model back into the tacit knowledge of the employees. In this case, employees' tacit knowledge can be kept in the organization. When employees express their thoughts and ideas openly and share their best working practices, it can lead to new innovations and help to make operations more efficient.

In social science research and organizational psychology, boundary spanning is a term to describe individuals within an innovation system who have, or adopt, the role of linking the organization's internal networks with external sources of information. While the term was coined by Tushman, the concept was being developed by social scientists from the late 1950s onwards. Most of the early work was conducted in large American corporations with well-established R&D laboratories. The term has since been used in relation to more general innovation networks.

Process capital is the value to an enterprise which is derived from the techniques, procedures, and programs that implement and enhance the delivery of goods and services. Process capital is one of the three components of structural capital, itself a component of intellectual capital. Process capital can be seen as the value of processes to any entity, whether for profit or not-for profit, but is most commonly used in reference to for-profit entities.

References

  1. ↑ Girard, John P.; Girard, JoAnn L. (2015). "Defining knowledge management: Toward an applied compendium" (PDF). Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management. 3 (1): 14. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-10-24. Retrieved 2016-09-24.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Introduction to Knowledge Management". www.unc.edu. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Archived from the original on March 19, 2007. Retrieved 11 September 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  3. 1 2 3 Nonaka, Ikujiro (1991). "The knowledge creating company" (PDF). Harvard Business Review. 69 (6): 96–104. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2019-08-30.
  4. 1 2 Nonaka, Ikujiro; von Krogh, Georg (2009). "Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory". Organization Science. 20 (3): 635–652. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0412. S2CID   9157692.
  5. ↑ Bellinger, Gene. "Mental Model Musings". Systems Thinking Blog. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Addicot, Rachael; McGivern, Gerry; Ferlie, Ewan (2006). "Networks, Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management: NHS Cancer Networks". Public Money & Management. 26 (2): 87–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9302.2006.00506.x. S2CID   154227002.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gupta, Jatinder; Sharma, Sushil (2004). Creating Knowledge Based Organizations. Boston: Idea Group Publishing. ISBN   978-1-59140-163-6.
  8. ↑ Maier, R. (2007). Knowledge Management Systems: Information And Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer. ISBN   9783540714088.
  9. ↑ Sanchez, R (1996) Strategic Learning and Knowledge Management, Wiley, Chichester
  10. 1 2 3 Sanchez, R. (1996). Strategic Learning and Knowledge Management. Chichester: Wiley.
  11. ↑ Sartori, Jeanfrank (2021). "Organizational Knowledge Management in the Context of Supply Chain 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual Model Proposal". Knowledge and Process Management: 32. Archived from the original on 2021-06-27. Retrieved 2021-06-27– via Wiley.
  12. 1 2 3 Wright, Kirby (2005). "Personal knowledge management: supporting individual knowledge worker performance". Knowledge Management Research and Practice. 3 (3): 156–165. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500061. S2CID   58474736.
  13. 1 2 Booker, Lorne; Bontis, Nick; Serenko, Alexander (2008). "The relevance of knowledge management and intellectual capital research" (PDF). Knowledge and Process Management. 15 (4): 235–246. doi:10.1002/kpm.314. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-08-08. Retrieved 2018-06-17.
  14. 1 2 Morey, Daryl; Maybury, Mark; Thuraisingham, Bhavani (2002). Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works. MIT Press. p. 451. ISBN   978-0-262-13384-5.
  15. ↑ Wilson, J. P. and Campbell, L., ISO 9001:2015: the evolution and convergence of quality management and knowledge management for competitive advantage, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, volume 31, 2020 - Issue 7-8, accessed on 16 October 2024
  16. 1 2 McInerney, Claire (2002). "Knowledge Management and the Dynamic Nature of Knowledge". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53 (12): 1009–1018. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.114.9717 . doi:10.1002/asi.10109. S2CID   1859117.
  17. 1 2 "Information Architecture and Knowledge Management". Kent State University. Archived from the original on June 29, 2008. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Bray, David (May 2007). "SSRN-Literature Review – Knowledge Management Research at the Organizational Level". SSRN   991169.
  19. ↑ Davenport, Tom (2008-02-19). "Enterprise 2.0: The New, New Knowledge Management?". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on 2013-06-19. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  20. ↑ Stewart, Thomas A. (1998). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. Crown Business Publishers. ISBN   978-0385483810.
  21. ↑ Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick; Booker, Lorne; Sadeddin, Khaled; Hardie, Timothy (2010). "A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008)" (PDF). Journal of Knowledge Management. 14 (1): 13–23. doi:10.1108/13673271011015534. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-12-15. Retrieved 2018-06-17.
  22. ↑ Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick (2017). "Global Ranking of Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Academic Journals: 2017 Update" (PDF). Journal of Knowledge Management. 21 (3): 675–692. doi:10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0490. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-06.
  23. ↑ Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick (2021). "Global Ranking of Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Academic Journals: A 2021 Update" (PDF). Journal of Knowledge Management. 26 (1): 126–145. doi:10.1108/JKM-11-2020-0814. S2CID   241212544. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-07-12. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  24. ↑ Langton Robbins, N. S. (2006). Organizational Behaviour (Fourth Canadian ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  25. 1 2 Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy E. (1999). "Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits". Communications of the AIS. 1 (2).
  26. ↑ Rosner, D.; Grote, B.; Hartman, K.; Hofling, B.; Guericke, O. (1998). "From natural language documents to sharable product knowledge: a knowledge engineering approach". In Borghoff, Uwe M.; Pareschi, Remo (eds.). Information technology for knowledge management . Springer Verlag. pp.  35–51.
  27. 1 2 Bray, David (2007-05-07). "SSRN-Knowledge Ecosystems: A Theoretical Lens for Organizations Confronting Hyperturbulent Environments". SSRN   984600.
  28. ↑ Carlson Marcu Okurowsk, Lynn; Marcu, Daniel; Okurowsk, Mary Ellen. "Building a Discourse-Tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory" (PDF). University of Pennsylvania. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 March 2012. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
  29. ↑ Spender, J.-C.; Scherer, A. G. (2007). "The Philosophical Foundations of Knowledge Management: Editors' Introduction". Organization. 14 (1): 5–28. doi:10.1177/1350508407071858. S2CID   143132295. SSRN   958768.
  30. ↑ "TeacherBridge: Knowledge Management in Communities of Practice" (PDF). Virginia Tech. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  31. ↑ Groth, Kristina. "Using social networks for knowledge management" (PDF). Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  32. 1 2 Bontis, Nick; Choo, Chun Wei (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-513866-5.
  33. 1 2 3 4 5 Snowden, Dave (2002). "Complex Acts of Knowing – Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness". Journal of Knowledge Management. 6 (2): 100–111. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.126.4537 . doi:10.1108/13673270210424639.
  34. ↑ Nanjappa, Aloka; Grant, Michael M. (2003). "Constructing on constructivism: The role of technology" (PDF). Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education. 2 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-12-17.
  35. ↑ Wyssusek, Boris. "Knowledge Management – A Sociopragmatic Approach (2001)". CiteSeerX. Archived from the original on 16 June 2013. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  36. ↑ Ferguson, J. (2005). "Bridging the gap between research and practice". Knowledge Management for Development Journal. 1 (3): 46–54. doi:10.1080/03057640500319065. S2CID   145246146.
  37. 1 2 Andriessen, Daniel (2004). "Reconciling the rigor-relevance dilemma in intellectual capital research". The Learning Organization. 11 (4/5): 393–401. doi:10.1108/09696470410538288.
  38. 1 2 Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy E. (2001). "Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues". MIS Quarterly. 25 (1): 107–136. doi:10.2307/3250961. JSTOR   3250961. S2CID   1780588.
  39. 1 2 Nonaka, Ikujiro; Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation . New York: Oxford University Press. pp.  284. ISBN   978-0-19-509269-1.
  40. 1 2 3 Hayes, M.; Walsham, G. (2003). "Knowledge sharing and ICTs: A relational perspective". In Easterby-Smith, M.; Lyles, M.A. (eds.). The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 54–77. ISBN   978-0-631-22672-7.
  41. ↑ "Rhetorical Structure Theory Website". RST. Archived from the original on 17 May 2013. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
  42. ↑ Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick (2004). "Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: citation impact and research productivity rankings" (PDF). Knowledge and Process Management. 11 (3): 185–198. doi:10.1002/kpm.203. hdl: 11375/17698 . Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-26.
  43. ↑ Nonaka, I.; von Krogh, G. & Voelpel S. (2006). "Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances" (PDF). Organization Studies. 27 (8): 1179–1208. doi:10.1177/0170840606066312. S2CID   145111375. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-06-17. Retrieved 2018-06-17.
  44. ↑ Sensky, Tom (2002). "Knowledge Management". Advances in Psychiatric Treatment. 8 (5): 387–395. doi: 10.1192/apt.8.5.387 .
  45. 1 2 Bray, David A. (December 1, 2005). Exploration, Exploitation, and Knowledge Management Strategies in Multi-Tier Hierarchical Organizations Experiencing Environmental Turbulence. North American Assoc. for Computational Social and Organizational Science (NAACSOS) Conference. SSRN   961043.
  46. ↑ Benbasat, Izak; Zmud, Robert (1999). "Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance". MIS Quarterly. 23 (1): 3–16. doi:10.2307/249403. JSTOR   249403. S2CID   3472783.
  47. 1 2 3 "Knowledge Management for Data Interoperability" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 April 2007. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  48. ↑ Venkitachalam & Willmott (2017)
  49. ↑ Laihonen, Harri; Hannula, Mika; Helander, Nina; Ilvonen, Ilona; Jussila, Jari; Kukko, Marianne; Kärkkäinen, Hannu; Lönnqvist, Antti; Myllärniemi, Jussi; Pekkola, Samuli; Virtanen, Pasi; Vuori, Vilma; Yliniemi, Terhi (2013). Tietojohtaminen (in Finnish). Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto, Tietojohtamisen tutkimuskeskus Novi. ISBN   978-952-15-3057-9.
  50. 1 2 Hansen et al., 1999
  51. 1 2 "What's Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge? Morten T. Hansen, Nitin Nohria, and Thomas Tierney", The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000–2001, Routledge, pp. 66–80, 2013-05-13, doi:10.4324/9780080941042-9, ISBN   978-0-08-094104-2 , retrieved 2022-04-26
  52. 1 2 Smith (2004), p. 7
  53. ↑ Hall (2006), pp. 119f
  54. ↑ Bolisani, Ettore; Bratianu, Constantin (2018), "Generic Knowledge Strategies", Emergent Knowledge Strategies, Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, vol. 4, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 147–174, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60657-6_7, ISBN   978-3-319-60656-9 , retrieved 2023-05-10
  55. ↑ Liebowitz, J. (2008). Knowledge retention: strategies and solutions. CRC Press
  56. ↑ DeLong, D. W., & Storey, J. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an aging workforce. Oxford University Press
  57. ↑ Levy, Moria (2011). "Knowledge retention: minimizing organizational business loss". Journal of Knowledge Management. 15 (4): 582–600. doi:10.1108/13673271111151974. ISSN   1367-3270.
  58. ↑ "Managing knowledge in manufacturing". Archived from the original on 2022-08-19. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
  59. ↑ Davies, John; Grobelnik, Marko; Mladenić, Dunja, eds. (2009). Semantic Knowledge Management: Integrating Ontology Management, Knowledge Discovery, and Human Language Technologies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88845-1. ISBN   9783540888444. OCLC   312625476.
  60. ↑ Rao, Madanmohan (2005). Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques . Elsevier. pp.  3–42. ISBN   978-0-7506-7818-6.
  61. ↑ Calvin, D. Andrus (2005). "The Wiki and the Blog: Toward a Complex Adaptive Intelligence Community". Studies in Intelligence. 49 (3). SSRN   755904.
  62. ↑ Capozzi, Marla M. (2007). "Knowledge Management Architectures Beyond Technology". First Monday. 12 (6). doi: 10.5210/fm.v12i6.1871 .
  63. ↑ Berners-Lee, Tim; Hendler, James; Lassila, Ora (May 17, 2001). "The Semantic Web A new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities". Scientific American. 284 (5): 34–43. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34. Archived from the original on April 24, 2013.
  64. ↑ Bakke, Sturla; ygstad, Bendik (May 2009). "Two emerging technologies: a comparative analysis of Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web". CONF-IRM 2009 Proceedings (28). Archived from the original on 2017-09-06. Retrieved 2017-09-05. Our research question is: how do we explain the surprising success of Web 2.0 and the equally surprising non-fulfillment of the Semantic Web. Building on a case study approach we conducted a in depth comparative analysis of the two emerging technologies. We propose two conclusions. First, traditional top-down management of an emerging global technology has proved not to be effective in the case of the Semantic Web and Web 2.0, and second, the success for such global technologies is mainly associated with bootstrapping an already installed base.
  65. ↑ Grimes, Seth (7 January 2014). "Semantic Web business: going nowhere slowly". InformationWeek . Retrieved 5 September 2017. SemWeb is a narrowly purposed replica of a subset of the World Wide Web. It's useful for information enrichment in certain domains, via a circumscribed set of tools. However, the SemWeb offers a vanishingly small benefit to the vast majority of businesses. The vision persists but is unachievable; the business reality of SemWeb is going pretty much nowhere.
  66. ↑ Cagle, Kurt (3 July 2016). "Why the Semantic Web has failed". LinkedIn. Archived from the original on 19 January 2022. Retrieved 5 September 2017. This may sound like heresy, but my personal belief is that the semantic web has failed. Not in "just give it a few more years and it'll catch on" or "it's just a matter of tooling and editors". No, I'd argue that, as admirable as the whole goal of the semantic web is, it's just not working in reality.
  67. ↑ Zaino, Jennifer (23 September 2014). "The Semantic Web's rocking, and there ain't no stopping it now". dataversity.net. Archived from the original on 5 September 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2017. Make no mistake about it: The semantic web has been a success and that's not about to stop now. That was essentially the message delivered by W3C Data Activity Lead Phil Archer, during his keynote address celebrating the semantic web's ten years of achievement at last month's Semantic Technology & Business Conference in San Jose.
  68. 1 2 Paulin, Dan Theodor; Suneson, K (January 2011). "Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Barriers-Three Blurry Terms in KM" . Retrieved May 8, 2022.
  69. ↑ Dalkir, Kimiz (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. pp. 221, 276–289. doi:10.4324/9780080547367. ISBN   9781136389757 . Retrieved May 1, 2022.
  70. ↑ Riege, Andreas (June 1, 2005). "Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider". Journal of Knowledge Management. 9 (3): 18–35. doi:10.1108/13673270510602746 . Retrieved May 2, 2022.
  71. ↑ Riege, Andreas (February 2007). "Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs". Journal of Knowledge Management. 11 (1): 48–67. doi:10.1108/13673270710728231 . Retrieved May 2, 2022.
  72. ↑ Bolisani, Ettore; Bratianu, Constantin (2018). Generic Knowledge Strategies.
  73. 1 2 Levy, Moria (2011-01-01). "Knowledge retention: minimizing organizational business loss". Journal of Knowledge Management. 15 (4): 582–600. doi:10.1108/13673271111151974. ISSN   1367-3270.
  74. ↑ Urbancova, Hana (2012-06-30). "The Process of Knowledge Continuity Ensuring". Journal of Competitiveness. 4 (2): 38–48. doi: 10.7441/joc.2012.02.03 . Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2020-11-15.
  75. ↑ Delong, DW (2004). Lost Knowledge: Confronting the threat of aging workforce.
  76. ↑ Dalkir, Kimiz (2013-09-05). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice (1 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780080547367. ISBN   978-0-08-054736-7. Archived from the original on 2020-10-31. Retrieved 2020-11-15.
  77. ↑ "A Reference Model for Knowledge Retention within Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises". Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing. Paris, France: SciTePress – Science and Technology Publications. 2011. pp. 306–311. doi:10.5220/0003632003060311. ISBN   978-989-8425-81-2. Archived from the original on 2018-06-02. Retrieved 2020-11-15.
  78. ↑ Skyrme, David (2001). Capitalizing on Knowledge. Routledge. ISBN   9780750650113.
  79. ↑ Malekolkalami, Mila; Sharif, Atefeh (2022). "A Systematic Review of Knowledge Audit Models during 2016 to 2020". International Journal of Information Science and Management. 20 (3): 227–244.
  80. 1 2 Hand, P. (2019). Knowledge assets and knowledge audits. Bingley, England: Emerald Publishing.
  81. ↑ Norman, Patricia (2002). Protecting Knowledge in Strategic Alliances: Resource and Relational Characteristics. doi:10.1016/S1047-8310(02)00050-0.
  82. ↑ Sofka, Wolfgang; Edlira, Shehu; de Faria, Pedro (2014). "Multinational Subsidiary Knowledge Protection - Do Mandates and Clusters Matter?". Research Policy. 43 (8): 1320–1333. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.05.006.
  83. 1 2 3 4 Gast, Johanna; Gundolf, Katherine; Harms, Rainer; Matos Collado, Elvin (2019). "Knowledge management and coopetition: How do cooperating competitors balance the needs to share and protect their knowledge?" (PDF). Industrial Marketing Management. 77: 65–74. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.12.007. S2CID   169838694.
  84. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ilvonen, Ilona; Thalmann, Stefan; Manhart, Markus; Sillaber, Christian (2018-04-03). "Reconciling digital transformation and knowledge protection: a research agenda". Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 16 (2): 235–244. doi:10.1080/14778238.2018.1445427. ISSN   1477-8238. S2CID   196033786. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
  85. 1 2 3 "Methods of Knowledge Protection". Workbook for Opening Innovation. Series on Technology Management. Vol. 21. Imperial College Press. 2012. pp. 89–91. doi:10.1142/9781848169616_0008. ISBN   978-1-84816-960-9. Archived from the original on 10 May 2023. Retrieved 9 May 2023.{{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  86. 1 2 3 Bolisani, Ettore; Paiola, Marco; Scarso, Enrico (1 January 2013). "Knowledge protection in knowledge-intensive business services". Journal of Intellectual Capital. 14 (2): 192–211. doi:10.1108/14691931311323841.
  87. ↑ Stefan, Ioana; Bengtsson, Lars (2017). "Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process". Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 120: 252–260. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.014 . S2CID   85557336.
  88. 1 2 3 Estrada, Isabel; Faems, Dries; de Faria, Pedro (2016). "Coopetition and product innovation performance: The role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms" (PDF). Industrial Marketing Management. 53: 56–65. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.013.
  89. 1 2 3 Olander, Heidi; Vanhala, Mika; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia (2014). "Reasons for choosing mechanisms to protect knowledge and innovations". Management Decision. 52 (2): 207–229. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2012-0791.
  90. 1 2 3 Telg, Nina; Lokshin, Boris; Letterie, Wilko (2023). "How formal and informal intellectual property protection matters for firms' decision to engage in coopetition: The role of environmental dynamism and competition intensity". Technovation. 124: 102751. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102751 . S2CID   257908051.
  91. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Thalmann, Stefan; Ilvonen, Ilona (2018), North, Klaus; Maier, Ronald; Haas, Oliver (eds.), "Balancing Knowledge Protection and Sharing to Create Digital Innovations", Knowledge Management in Digital Change, Progress in IS, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 171–188, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73546-7_10, ISBN   978-3-319-73545-0 , retrieved 2023-05-09
  92. 1 2 Olander, Heidi; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia; Mähönen, Jukka (September 2009). "WHAT'S SMALL SIZE GOT TO DO WITH IT? PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL ASSETS IN SMEs". International Journal of Innovation Management. 13 (3): 349–370. doi:10.1142/S1363919609002339. ISSN   1363-9196. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
  93. 1 2 Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia (2011-08-02). "Enabling collaborative innovation – knowledge protection for knowledge sharing". European Journal of Innovation Management. 14 (3): 303–321. doi:10.1108/14601061111148816. ISSN   1460-1060. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
  94. ↑ Rouyre, Andrey (2019). Managing Knowledge Sharing-Protecting Tensions in Coupled Innovation Projects among Several Competitors. SAGE Journals.
  95. 1 2 WIPO (2019). Understanding Intellectual Property. World Intellectual Property Organization.
  96. ↑ Law Insider (2019). Knowledge of Infringement Sample Clauses. Law Insider.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.