knowledge management implementation frameworks= a review

7/29/2019 Knowledge Management Implementation Frameworks= a Review

1/12

& Research Article

Knowledge Management ImplementationFrameworks: A Review

Kuan Yew Wong and Elaine Aspinwall*

School of Engineering, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Birmingham, UK

One reason why many organizations are still struggling with knowledge management (KM)

and failing in their endeavours to realize its full potential is that they lack the support of astrong theoretical foundation to guide them in its implementation. A sound KM implementa-tion framework helps to fulfil this need by providing important guiding principles and direc-tions. However, developing such a framework can be a challenging task for managers andpractitioners as they may lack the knowledge of what characteristics, elements and constructsshould be included in it. Implementation frameworks that do not have the necessary elementsin place can paint an incomplete picture of KM and its implementation process, thus providinga suboptimal guidance for conducting KM. This paper reviews the existing KM implementa-tion frameworks presented in the literature in order to determine and propose a set of guide-lines for constructing them. By utilizing these guidelines to develop a KM implementationframework, it is hoped that a stronger theoretical foundation can be constructed, thus facilitat-

ing the accomplishment of KM. Copyright# 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge management (KM) deals with the man-agement of knowledge-related activities (Wiig,1997; Civi, 2000) such as creating, organizing, shar-ing and using knowledge in order to create valuefor an organization. A more formal definition ofKM, given by the American Productivity and Qual-ity Center, is the strategies and processes of identi-fying, capturing and leveraging knowledge

(Manasco, 1996). It is an emerging field that hasgained considerable attention, predominantly fromthe industrial community. This is evidenced by thesignificant number of organizations embarking onvarious KM programmes in their quest to enhancetheir competency and organizational performance.Clearly, the question now is no longer whetherorganizations need KM or not, but rather howthey can implement and subsequently manage it.

Although the importance of KM has been widelypromoted and recognized, it seems that few organi-zations are truly capable of leveraging and mana-ging knowledge in their organizations. Accordingto Storey and Barnett (2000), a significant propor-tion of KM initiatives will fail. This is becauseimplementing KM is not a piecemeal and easytask that organizations can undertake. It involvesthe support of a technological infrastructure, achange in organizational culture and the manage-

ment of different types of knowledge. Organiza-tions that have jumped on the bandwagon toimplement it may fail in their efforts if they donot know how and where to start and lack the gui-dance of a proper and cohesive implementationframework.

Implementing KM remains a challenging task fororganizations and as Drucker (1993), the father ofmodern management theory, has asserted, one ofthe most important challenges facing organizationsin a contemporary society is to build systematicpractices for managing knowledge. Therefore, it isappropriate that a sound implementation frame-work be developed to guide organizations before

Knowledge and Process Management Volume 11 Number 2 pp 93104 (2004)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/kpm.193

Copyright# 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

*Correspondence to: Elaine Aspinwall, School of Engineering,Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of

Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.E-mail: [email protected]


2/12

the actual implementation takes place to ensure thesuccess of their KM endeavours. The issue here isto provide directions on constructing a KM imple-mentation framework and to reveal what key ele-ments should be included in it. By simplyconstructing such a framework or adapting itfrom the literature, and blindly following it withouthaving the proper elements in place, may hamperan organizations effort to successfully implementKM. In addition, it is important that a KM imple-mentation framework be viewed differently froma KM framework. The former should suggest away forward to implementing KM, whereas the lat-ter might not be centred on this. This distinction canalso be drawn from the information systems (IS) lit-erature where there are frameworks that provide anunderstanding of IS (Bacon and Fitzgerald, 2001;

ODonovan and Roode, 2002) and those for imple-menting it (Hansen, 1995; Barnes and Targett, 1999).

This paper reviews the various KM implementa-tion frameworks that have been reported in the lit-erature, the purpose being to compare them, toidentify their similarities and differences and to pro-vide important insights about the elements or con-tents that are addressed. By doing this, the way ispaved for the authors to suggest a set of guidelinesfor building a KM implementation framework.Acknowledgement of these guidelines will certainlylay the foundation for practitioners and managers todevelop a more comprehensive, cohesive andapplicable implementation framework that willhelp them in their journey towards achieving KM.

The main objective of this paper, therefore, is topropose a set of guidelines that entails key charac-teristics to be considered when constructing a KMimplementation framework. To accomplish this,the paper first looks at the definition of an imple-mentation framework and why one is needed inthe KM field. It then goes on to identify and reviewthe various KM implementation frameworks thathave been presented in the literature by classifyingthem according to the approaches used in their

construction. Following this, it discusses some ofthe important insights gained from analysing theimplementation frameworks, such as their commonfeatures and limitations. Based on this analysis, thepaper concludes with a set of guidelines for devel-oping what should be a more comprehensive KMimplementation framework.

DEFINING AN IMPLEMENTATIONFRAMEWORK

Many researchers and scholars in the field of KMhave used the word framework in a haphazard

and ad hoc manner without defining it (Jarrar,2002; Mentzas, 2001; Gore and Gore, 1999). Theyhave developed KM frameworks but no mentionhas been made regarding their meaning. In orderto fully appreciate what is meant by a frameworkand to avoid confusion, a clear definition is needed.

The Oxford English Dictionary (2003) defines a fra-mework as a structure composed of parts framedtogether, esp. one designed for enclosing or sup-porting anything; a frame or skeleton. Accordingto Popper (1994), a framework is a set of basicassumptions or fundamental principles of intellec-tual origin that forms the underlying basis foraction. Thus, it can be interpreted as a structurethat comprises relevant entities or a set of guidingprinciples and ideas that support a discipline. IfKM is to be accomplished, a structure, a set of prin-

ciples or a framework is needed to underpin andprovide a theoretical basis for performing the rele-vant actions and activities.

Rubenstein-Montano et al. (2001b) stated that KMframeworks are characterized by their role as over-seer or provider of guidance for the discipline. Thismeans that they direct work in the discipline andprovide guidance and direction for how KMshould be carried out. Dale (1999) defined a frame-work as a means of developing and presentingplans; it is a guide that allows organizations to exe-cute an appropriate course of action at a pacewhich suits their business situation. More essen-tially, frameworks secure links between theoryand practice and so can help to ease the emergenceof KM into practice.

The KM frameworks that have been presented inthe literature tend to focus on different aspects ofKM and have different purposes. Among them,the most notable includes the knowledge creationframework developed by Nonaka (1991, 1994)and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), which describeshow the evolution and conversion between explicitknowledge (characterized by its ability to be codi-fied or put in writing) and tacit knowledge

(which is mostly people bounded and hard toarticulate) can lead to a knowledge creation spiralin an organization. Arguably, this is not a KMframework per se, as it only deals with the creationof knowledge, which is only a portion of whatconstitutes KM.

The second type of KM framework found inthe literature comprises those that characterizeand describe the knowledge cycle processes ofKM. As evident from the analysis carried out byRubenstein-Montano et al. (2001a), many of themonly provide a set of activities where the emphasisis on the knowledge cycle processes or activities.They mainly address the phases of knowledge

RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management

94 K. Y. Wong and E. Aspinwall


3/12

flow (from creation to application) in an organiza-tion without providing guidance on how to imple-ment KM. As such, it is believed that this type offramework answers the question What is KM?by explaining and describing the types of KMprocess. Examples of such frameworks are numer-ous and include the one by Bose and Sugumaran(2003) as well as a majority of those reviewed byRubenstein-Montano et al. (2001a).

Another type of KM framework includes thosethat have been developed by researchers to serveas a basis for examining how KM has been per-formed in industry. These frameworks provide areference to facilitate the structuring, analysis andevaluation of the KM initiatives undertaken in var-ious case companies. The frameworks developedby Apostolou and Mentzas (1998) and Lai and

Chu (2002) fall into this category.The literature review has highlighted a further

type of high-level KM framework. These are theones that provide more detailed directions on theimplementation of KM. This type of frameworkseems to address not only the question of whatis but also how to because it prescribes and sug-gests ways for organizations to engage in KM activ-ities. In essence, these are the implementationframeworks that are the focus of this paper.

Based on the general definition given for frame-works and the distinction between an implementa-tion framework and a framework in the contextof KM, it is appropriate to propose a definitionfor a KM implementation framework. In this paper,it is taken to be a structure or a set of guiding prin-ciples which is depicted in such a way as to provideguidance and direction on how to carry out KM inan organization. Essentially, it addresses not onlythe what is question by delineating the key con-cepts and elements of KM, but also the how toquestion by suggesting its modus operandi.

WHY AN IMPLEMENTATIONFRAMEWORK IS NEEDED

In the authors opinion, developing a KM imple-mentation framework should be the first stage ofany initiative to implement KM. Developing sucha framework lays the essential groundwork andit can be equated to designing a prototype beforea new vehicle is manufactured. It provides welldefined constructs and guiding principles to ensurethat there is no wavering from the KM plan. Inother words, it helps to ensure that organizationsdo not veer from a correct path of accomplishingKM. Without proper guidance, organizations may

focus too heavily on the use of information technol-ogy without bringing a correspondent change totheir human and cultural aspects (Arora, 2002).They may focus their strategy on the managementof explicit knowledge by improving access to it, itstransfer and use while neglecting the managementof tacit knowledge. In some cases, organizationspursue a KM initiative without aligning it withtheir overall business strategies and objectives, thusfinding themselves to be less successful and notachieving their intended goals. All these problemsemanate from the absence of a sound framework toguide the implementation process. In essence, aKM implementation framework is needed to sup-port the implementation process and to improvethe chances of successfully incorporating KM intoan organization.

Based on the authors perspective and some ofthe points raised by Holsapple and Joshi (2002),other reasons why a KM implementation frame-work is important, include the following:

To improve the awareness and understanding ofthe KM domain. It provides a conceptual defini-tion of KM and it helps people to understandwhat KM is and what knowledge elements andprocesses are involved. Thus, it helps to alleviatethe confusion surrounding this discipline as itprovides a clarification of the KM phenomenon.

To provide a more holistic view of KM. It enablespeople to look at it and consider all its facetsfrom a broader perspective. In addition, it helpspeople to reflect on and conceptualize KM in anintegrative manner.

It facilitates the communication of KM across anorganization. A framework provides a commonvocabulary and language for people. It helpsmanagers to communicate their KM vision totheir employees and it helps the discourse ofKM implementation issues in the organization.

It helps to determine the scope of KM projectsand initiatives. This is because a framework

sets the virtual boundary of KM for organiza-tions to employ as it outlines the phases andactivities to be addressed as well as the elementsand influences to be considered.

As an assessment tool, it helps managers andpractitioners to determine if they have consid-ered all the relevant issues pertaining to KMimplementation. It helps managers to cover andaddress key issues of KM which might otherwisebe overlooked.

Finally, an implementation framework facilitatesthe management of the implementation processand helps to coordinate organizational efforts ina more systematic and controlled manner.

Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE

Knowledge Management Implementation Frameworks 95


4/12

CLASSIFICATION OF IMPLEMENTATIONFRAMEWORKS

To date, different approaches have been employedto construct frameworks. Some are depicted in theform of a diagram or visual representation, whileothers use a series of steps to be followed (Yusofand Aspinwall, 2000). Based on these approaches,KM frameworks can be classified as either system,step or hybrid. The first describes and charac-terizes KM in the form of a graphical representa-tion with the aim of providing a systemic andholistic perspective on KM implementation. Keyconstructs and elements are put together to provideboth an overview of their relationship and a meansof fully understanding the key issues in a unifiedmanner. Step approach frameworks, on the other

hand, provide a series of steps or procedures tobe followed in the KM implementation process.System approach frameworks are therefore moredescriptive in nature whereas step approach fra-meworks are more prescriptive. The hybrid con-tains elements of both of these approaches since itdescribes the overall perspective of the key con-cepts as well as prescribing steps to be followed.Publications regarding KM implementation frame-works were few and far between. However, thosethat were found will now be reviewed using theabove classification. It should be noted that, whilenot all of these approaches have been clearly speci-fied as implementation frameworks, they areincluded in the review because they are consistentwith the authors definition of implementation fra-meworks. The purpose is to draw some generalinferences in order to propose a set of guidelinesfor developing such frameworks.

SYSTEM APPROACH FRAMEWORKS

Holsapple and Joshi (2002) proposed a threefoldKM framework with three main building blocks,

namely knowledge resources, KM activities andKM influences. The knowledge resources compo-nent represents the organizations pool of knowl-edge that is embodied in any of the six types ofresources: participants knowledge, culture, infra-structure, knowledge artifact, purpose and strat-egy. The KM activities block characterizes theprocesses that an organization should use tomanipulate its knowledge resources. Holsappleand Joshi (2002) identified four such activities:acquiring, selecting, internalizing and using knowl-edgethe latter refers to the activities of generat-ing and externalizing knowledge. How theseactivities are accomplished depends on the influ-

ence of a number of factors, which are set out inthe third building block: KM influences. This blockdescribes the influences that can shape the imple-mentation of KM in an organization and theyhave been broadly grouped into three categories:resource (financial, human, knowledge and materi-al), managerial (leadership, coordination and mea-surement) and environmental (competitors,customers, markets, suppliers and other climates).Although their framework does not prescribe waysto conduct KM, the three building blocks whenviewed together provide the key ingredients forimplementing it.

Jarrar (2002) analysed 40 cases of KM applicationin various large organizations in order to identifybest practices and, based on his analysis, he pro-posed a framework for KM implementation. It

comprises four building blocks, each containing aset of activities and practices to successfully imple-ment KM. Set a strategic priority for KM is thefirst building block of the framework. He proposedthat the starting point for KM is to give a strategicpriority to its activities which can be facilitatedthrough aligning the KMs goals and strategieswith the organizational business strategies, linkingKM to value creation, and gaining senior manage-ment support and commitment. The second build-ing block is define and understand organizationalknowledge. Before embarking on the actual coreprocesses of KM, organizations should definewhat they consider as knowledge, identify theirknowledge assets and understand how and whereknowledge is developed in their organization.Once the knowledge assets have been identified,organizations can then proceed to manage them.This gives rise to the third building block, whichis manage knowledge. This element deals withissues such as collecting, presenting, transferringand measuring knowledge, and focuses on build-ing infrastructures and tools to support KM. Activ-ities that are included in this block are establish aprocess to transfer learning within the organiza-

tion; utilize information technology capability;employ a team to manage the KM process; andmeasure the value of intellectual capital. The lastbuilding block is the knowledge environment,which highlights the importance of a conduciveand suitable organizational culture for facilitatingknowledge sharing, creation and development inthe organization.

Gore and Gore (1999) prescribed a knowledgemanagement framework which can underpin theadoption of KM in an organization. They assertedthat the raison detre for a knowledge managementapproach is knowledge creation and, central totheir framework, are three important aspects which




5/12

organizations should consider in implementingKM. The first is the exploitation of existing explicitknowledge in which activities such as reviewingthe information flow and examining the utilizationof current information bases would be beneficial tothe organization. The second aspect is the captur-ing of new explicit knowledge that can be derivedfrom the analysis of working practices, productsand processes. The last aspect is the creation of tacitknowledge and its conversion into organizationalknowledge. The opportunity to self-organize andto form teams is the main driver for tacit knowl-edge creation and, simultaneously, the interactionwhich takes place in the team forms a foundationfor externalizing an individuals tacit knowledgeinto organizational knowledge. Together with theseaspects, they also specified the importance of top

management formulating a vision to underpin thewhole KM process.

A framework developed within the context of thefour phases review, conceptualize, reflect and actwas discussed by Wiig et al. (1997) in their effortto suggest a range of methods and techniques forperforming KM. The first phase, review, refers tothe act of monitoring and evaluating organizationalperformance to determine whether expectedresults have been achieved or not. The secondphase, conceptualize, consists of two main activ-ities which are inventorying knowledge in an orga-nization and analysing the knowledge household.Inventorying knowledge means discerning thestate of knowledge in an organization by identify-ing the knowledge assets, determining which busi-ness processes use them and linking the twotogether. Analysis of the knowledge householdrefers to the identification of problems or bottle-necks, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities andthreats concerning the knowledge. The reflectphase deals with the formulation and prioritizationof improvement ideas, translating those selectedinto improvement plans and assessing their asso-ciated risk. The act phase points to the actual imple-

mentation of the plans and, typically, involves thefollowing generic knowledge activities: develop,distribute, combine and consolidate. These fourphases typify a KM cycle and jointly form an itera-tive and cyclic KM framework.

STEP APPROACH FRAMEWORKS

McCampbell et al. (1999) proposed a sequence ofsteps to guide the implementation of KM practiceswithin an organization. They are:

(1) Form powerful coalition.(2) Communicate vision of KM.

(3) Establish teams for needs assessment.(4) Analyse the needs of KM.(5) Identify and collect knowledge.(6) Design a technological structure to warehouse

knowledge.(7) Test the technology.(8) Maintenance of the technology.(9) Retest the technology.

(10) Training of knowledge workers.(11) Roll out the use of KM practices.(12) Track usage.(13) Make systems go live.(14) Measure quality and productivity, measure

the performance of KM practices, conduct aneed assessment review (which are ongoingprocesses).

In their elaboration of these steps, they made adistinction between internal and external knowl-edge. Generally, their approach is technologicallydriven and focuses on building a knowledge repo-sitory because terms such as design a technologicalstructure, test the technology, maintenance of thetechnology and the like are central elements intheir framework.

Wiig (1999) introduced a set of 16 common build-ing blocks in a step-wise manner to guide the intro-duction of KM practices in an organization. Theywere presented in the following order of imple-mentation:

(1) Obtain management buy-in.(2) Survey and map the knowledge landscape.(3) Plan the knowledge strategy.(4) Create and define knowledge-related alterna-

tives and potential initiatives.(5) Portray benefit expectations for knowledge

management initiatives.(6) Set knowledge management priorities.(7) Determine key knowledge requirements.(8) Acquire key knowledge.(9) Create integrated knowledge transfer pro-

grammes.(10) Transform, distribute and apply knowledge

assets.(11) Establish and update a KM infrastructure.(12) Manage knowledge assets.(13) Construct incentive programmes.(14) Coordinate KM activities and functions enter-

prise-wide.(15) Facilitate knowledge-focused management.(16) Monitor knowledge management.

Accompanying these building blocks, Wiig(1999) discussed the purpose and characteristicsof each building block and provided examples ofKM activities to introduce them.




6/12

HYBRID APPROACH FRAMEWORKS

A very comprehensive implementation approachhas been developed by Rubenstein-Montano et al.(2001b). First, they built an underlying frame-work based on the notion of systems thinking,which is said to encourage the consideration ofthe entire knowledge spectrum. This frameworkdepicted the KM tasks or processes to be per-formed and identified the attributes that couldinfluence the success or failure of KM: organiza-tional culture, learning, strategy and types ofknowledge (explicit versus tacit). By adopting andbuilding on the contexts and principles containedin this framework, they proceeded to develop amethodology, which prescribed a series of stepsto be followed in implementing KM. The metho-

dology is divided into five general phases: strate-gize, model, act, revise and transfer. Each phaseis further decomposed into specific proceduresand sub-procedures, providing a very detailedguide to performing KM. Mapping the elementsdescribed in the framework onto the steps pro-posed, it is apparent that strategy is addressed inthe strategize phase as is culture, while learningis addressed in the act phase and KM tasks gener-ally span all the phases. The types of knowledge(explict versus tacit), however, are not directlyoutlined in the phases and can only be implicitlydeduced from certain of the sub-proceduresproposed.

Mentzas (2001) suggested a framework to lever-age the value of organizational assets. It is por-trayed with the following elements and structure:(1) knowledge assets that need to be managed areat the heart of the framework; (2) knowledge strat-egy, process, structure and system, which areneeded to facilitate knowledge-related activities,surround the knowledge assets; (3) knowledgeinteraction networks at the individual, team, orga-nizational and inter-organizational levels make upthe outer periphery of the framework. In addition,

Mentzas (2001) outlined certain phases that canhelp the thinking and planning of a KM project.They are awarenessgain awareness about theimportance and benefits of KM; plandeterminethe vision, scope and feasibility of the KM initia-tive; developbuild, test and review the designof an holistic solution for KM; operateroll out acompany-wide KM implementation; measure-mentmeasure the effectiveness of the KMinitiative; and lastly trainingprovide training tothe knowledge workers and staff on the new pro-cesses and technologies. This approach, togetherwith that developed by Rubenstein-Montano et al.(2001b), are quite appealing and attractive because

both of them have been explicitly organized intodifferent phases which are quite similar to thePlanDoCheckAct (PDCA) cycle of qualitymanagement.

ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTATIONFRAMEWORKS

Based on the review of the implementation frame-works, it is apparent that there is a lack of consis-tency amongst them since their constituents aswell as their emphases tend to vary. This supportsthe view of Rubenstein-Montano et al. (2001a),who reviewed KM frameworks in general, thatthere is a lack of consensus and common groundabout the necessary elements that should be cov-

ered. For example, while the framework proposedby Holsapple and Joshi (2002) outlines the exis-tence of knowledge influences that can affect theconduct of KM, no influential factor is found tobe depicted in the framework developed by Goreand Gore (1999) and McCampbell et al. (1999).Gore and Gore (1999) have specifically differen-tiated the knowledge types to be managed, i.e. tacitand explicit, but this issue was not addressed byJarrar (2002) and Wiig et al. (1997).

It is not the intention here to provide a divergentview of the frameworks discussed, but instead to

identify and consolidate the main elements orissues addressed in them in order to recommenda set of principles that should be considered inthe development of a KM implementation frame-work. Based on a systematic deductive analysis,four elements can be inferred from the frameworks.They are:

(1) the structure;(2) knowledge types or knowledge resources;(3) KM processes or activities;(4) KM influences or factors.

These four elements have been identified

because they appeared to be the more salient onesfound in the framework. Tables 1, 2 and 3 show thecomparisons of each type of framework by map-ping them onto these elements.

In terms of structure, the frameworks are com-pared on a PlanExecuteEvaluate basis. In the sys-tem approach category, Wiig et al. (1997) explicitlystructured their framework into four phases: con-ceptualize, reflect, act and review; while Holsappleand Joshi (2002) did not employ any structure.Those proposed by Jarrar (2002) and Gore andGore (1999) did not appear to have a clear struc-ture. With regard to the frameworks in thestep approach category, no clear structure was




7/12

Table 1 Comparisons of system approach frameworks

Holsapple andJoshi (2002)

Jarrar(2002)

Gore and Gore(1999)

Wiig et al.(1997)

StructurePlan Set strategic priority

Define andunderstandknowledge

Formulate vision ConceptualizeReflect

Execute ActEvaluate Review

Knowledgetypes/resources

Knowledgeembedded inparticipants,culture, infrastructure,artifacts, purposeand strategy

Tacit knowledgeExplicit knowledge

KM processes/activities

Acquire, select,internalize and use

knowledge

Collect, present,distribute and

measure knowledge

Mainly focuses onknowledge creation

and externalization

Develop, distribute,combine and

consolidateknowledge

KM influences/factors Resource influencesManagerial influencesEnvironmentalinfluences

Knowledgeenvironment

External and internaldevelopments

, not indicated or not clearly indicated.

Table 2 Comparisons of step approach frameworks

McCampbell et al. (1999) Wiig (1999)

Structure

Plan Form powerful coalition Obtain management buy-inCommunicate vision of KM Survey and map the knowledge landscapeEstablish teams for needs assessment Plan the knowledge strategyAnalyse the needs of KM Create and define knowledge-related alternatives and

potential initiativesPortray benefit expectations for knowledge managementinitiativesSet knowledge management prioritiesDetermine key knowledge requirements

Execute Identify and collect knowledge Acquire key knowledgeDesign a technological structure Create integrated knowledge transfer programmesTest the technology Transform, distribute and apply knowledge assetsMaintenance of the technology Establish and update a KM infrastructureRetest the technology Manage knowledge assetsTraining of knowledge workers Construct incentive programmes

Roll out the use of KM practices Coordinate KM activities and functions enterprise-wideMake systems go live Facilitate knowledge-focused management

Evaluate Track usage Monitor knowledge managementMeasure quality and productivityMeasure the performance of KMpracticesConduct a need assessment review

Knowledge Internal knowledge Can be inferred from the step: manage knowledgetypes/resources External knowledge assetsKM processes/ Identify and collect knowledge Acquire, transform, distribute and apply knowledgeactivitiesKM influences/ Can be inferred from the steps: construct incentivefactors programmes and facilitate knowledge-focused

management

, not indicated or not clearly indicated.




8/12

delineated in either McCampbell et al.s (1999) orWiigs (1999). However, most of the steps thatthey proposed could be grouped into the PlanExe-cuteEvaluate format. The hybrid approach frame-works seem to perform best in this aspect, becauseRubenstein-Montano et al. (2001b) structured theirapproach into strategize, model, act, revise andtransfer, while Mentzas (2001) organized his intodifferent stages such as plan, develop, operateand measure.

The second element concerned the differenttypes of knowledge. Gore and Gore (1999) andRubenstein-Montano et al. (2001b) signified thepresence of tacit and explicit knowledge in theirframeworks, while McCampbell et al. (1999) differ-entiated between internal and external knowledge.Holsapple and Joshi (2002) acknowledged thedistinction of various types of knowledge by clas-sifying them into different knowledge resources,i.e. knowledge embedded in participants, culture,infrastructure, artifacts, purpose and strategy.Mentzas (2001), on the other hand, included theterm knowledge assets in his framework, butdid not clearly specify what types needed to

be managed. Aside from these, the issue of knowl-edge types and resources was either not addressedor inadequately addressed by the other frame-works.

One of the elements found in most of the frame-works reviewed was that involving the KM pro-cesses or activities. For example, Holsapple andJoshi (2002) suggested acquire, select, internalizeand use knowledge; Jarrar (2002)collect, present,distribute and measure knowledge; Wiig et al.(1997)develop, distribute, combine and consoli-date knowledge; McCampbell et al. (1999)identi-fy and collect knowledge; and Wiig (1999)acquire, transform, distribute and apply knowl-

edge. The framework developed by Gore andGore (1999) was, however, rather one-sided inthis respect, since it focused predominantly onknowledge creation and externalization.

Another constituent that seems to be covered bysome of the frameworks was the KM influences orfactors. For instance, Holsapple and Joshi (2002)cited resource, managerial and environmentalas influences which could affect the bearing ofKM in an organization, and Jarrar (2002) men-tioned knowledge environment in his framework.Rubenstein-Montano et al. (2001b) suggested cul-ture, strategy and learning as influences, whilestrategy, structure and system were considered byMentzas (2001) as elements which could facilitateknowledge creation and sharing.

Aside from these four key elements, one impor-

tant consideration for a KM implementation frame-work which was found missing in most of thosereviewed was the provision of an integrated andbalanced view of the role which technology andhuman beings played in KM. Some of the frame-works did not explicitly mention this issue, whileothers seemed to underscore one particular ele-ment and neglect the other. For example, the seriesof steps prescribed by McCampbell et al. (1999) wasvery much technologically centred as it focusedon developing a technological structure to supportthe KM process, whereas Holsapple and Joshi(2002) contended that their framework could beused in a technological and social domain, butthey did not clearly show that in their framework.Generally, most of the frameworks reviewed didnot adequately address this issue by providing aclear portrayal between a technological and ahuman element.

The discussions above therefore, lay the founda-tion for proposing guidelines to be followed whendeveloping a KM implementation framework. Theauthors suggest that an implementation frameworkshould:

(1) be developed with a clear structure such that itprovides directions on how to conduct andimplement KM;

(2) clearly delineate the knowledge resources ortypes of knowledge to be managed because dif-ferent types of knowledge require differentmanagement strategies;

(3) highlight the necessary KM processes or activ-ities which are needed to manipulate theknowledge;

(4) include the influences or factors that will affectthe performance and bearing of KM;

(5) provide a balanced view between the role oftechnology and of human beings in KM.

Table 3 Comparisons of hybrid approach frameworks

Rubenstein-Montano Mentzas (2001)et al. (2001b)

StructurePlan Strategize Awareness

Model PlanExecute Act Develop

Transfer OperateEvaluate Revise Measurement

Knowledge types/ Tacit knowledge Knowledgeresources Explicit knowledge assetsKM processes/ KM tasks ProcessactivitiesKM influences/ Culture Strategyfactors Strategy Structure

Learning System




9/12

Having suggested these guidelines, the next sec-tion will discuss why each in turn is crucial whenconstructing a KM implementation framework.

DISCUSSION OF GUIDELINES

As has been stated, the first element to be con-sidered when developing a KM implementationframework is to employ a clear structure depictingthe tasks which need to be undertaken. From anorganizations perspective, a structure determineshow employees are organized both horizontallyand vertically, how tasks and responsibilities aredivided among them and how they interact for-mally and informally with one another. Puttingthis into context demonstrates that an implementa-

tion framework should adopt a structure that canclearly organize and characterize the type of activ-ities to be performed. One way to achieve this is toorganize and divide the activities into differentphases or stages, as evident from the frameworksdeveloped by Wiig et al. (1997), Rubenstein-Monta-no et al. (2001b) and Mentzas (2001). Although dif-ferent terminologies have been used by authors tostructure their frameworks, there are similaritiesand common ideas amongst them. For instance,the term strategize is quite analogous to concep-tualize because both are concerned with the plan-ning of KM. Although there is no commonlyaccepted method for structuring a framework, awell defined concept such as the PlanDoCheckAct (PDCA) cycle (Dale and Cooper, 1992) canalways be used to organize the tasks that need tobe performed.

A KM implementation framework should recog-nize the different types of knowledge that reside inan organization in order to address them appropri-ately. To date, the most prevalent way to differenti-ate types of knowledge is to categorize it as eithertacit or explicit. The distinction between the twoshould be apparent in the framework because

each of them demands different management stra-tegies. Explicit knowledge is formal and is oftenarticulated, expressed, represented, codified anddocumented. It is relatively easy to store explicitknowledge in a repository and to transfer and dis-tribute it throughout an organization. In contrast,tacit knowledge is very personal, deeply rooted inan individuals mind, and profoundly embeddedin ones experience, action, behaviour and value.As such, it is hard to clearly express and codifytacit knowledge because it is something that is hid-den and entrenched in an individual. Evidently,these two categories are located at different endsof the knowledge spectrum with disparate charac-

teristics and hence should be treated differently.Tacit knowledge is created solely by individuals,whereas explicit knowledge can be acquired fromexternal sources. A corporate listing of peoplewho are knowledgeable in a particular area is oneway of organizing tacit knowledge, whereas a com-puterized knowledge map would be more relevantfor explicit knowledge. Likewise, face-to-face con-versations, group meetings and practice forumsare better for transferring tacit knowledge whereasshared lessons-learned databases, groupware andelectronic data interchange are more appropriatefor explicit knowledge. Goh (2002) suggested thattacit knowledge demanded a softer and moreinterpersonal means of transfer but explicit knowl-edge required a harder and more technologicallydriven approach. Rubenstein-Montano et al.

(2001b) affirmed it quite aptly by stating that tacitknowledge cannot be treated in the same wayexplicit knowledge is treated.

Having considered the types of knowledge to bemanaged, the next thing that should be covered ina KM implementation framework is the processesand activities that manage these knowledgeresources. KM processes are fundamental functionsthat an organization performs in processing andmanipulating its knowledge resources (Holsappleand Joshi, 2002). Some authors have referred tothem as KM activities, while others have calledthem KM tasks, but conceptually they representthe same thing. They should be addressed in aKM implementation framework because they high-light to practitioners the major activities thatshould be undertaken to operate with their knowl-edge resources. Examples of such KM processesinclude creating, acquiring, capturing, organizing,storing, accessing, transferring, sharing, distribut-ing, applying and using knowledge, to name buta few. It is these processes that actually create ben-efits for organizations from their knowledgeresources. In retrospect, KM itself is concernedwith the management of knowledge-related activ-

ities with the aim of enhancing an organizationsperformance. According to Wiig (1997), the chair-man of the United States Knowledge ResearchInstitute, KM is the management of effectiveknowledge processes (EKP) to maximize an enter-prises knowledge-related effectiveness and returnsfrom its knowledge assets. These processes lie atthe heart of KM and it is imperative, therefore,that a KM implementation framework gives a cleardelineation and representation of those that arenecessary. An assortment of KM processes hasbeen reported in the literature and, in fact, thereare many standalone frameworks that have beendeveloped around this concept only.




10/12

In providing a more comprehensive guide toimplementing KM, a framework should alsoanswer the question of how the accomplishmentof KM will be influenced. This suggests that animplementation framework should also take intoaccount the influences that will shape the perfor-mance of KM. Practitioners and managers need tobe aware of both the inhibitors that will impedetheir progress towards achieving a knowledge-based organization and the enablers that will facil-itate their efforts in addressing KM. Acknowled-ging and appreciating these influences is crucialas it helps organizations to formulate measures totake advantage of and capitalize on the enablersthat will help them, while at the same time mitigat-ing and diminishing the inhibitors that will hindertheir efforts. The types of influences that will affect

the performance of KM have already beenresearched in great detail in the KM literature.Organizational culture, in particular, has beenadvocated by various researchers as a crucial factorthat will determine the success or failure of a KMinitiative (Beckman, 1999; Jarrar, 2002; Apostolouand Mentzas, 1998; Liebowitz, 1999). This isbecause organizational culture has far-reachingimplications on how knowledge is created, sharedand distributed in an organization. A culture thatemphasizes knowledge hoarding, discredits trust,cooperation and collaboration, undermines learn-ing and knowledge seeking, and encourages thepunishment of mistakes, often finds it difficult tocreate and share knowledge. However, it is outsidethe scope of this paper to elaborate on what typesof influences should be included in a framework,and the authors feel that it is sufficient to suggestthat a comprehensive KM implementation frame-work should incorporate a set of influences thatwill provide important insights to managers forplanning the right strategies to implement KM.

Another important consideration for a KMimplementation framework is to provide abalanced view between a technological and a social

approach to KM. If this issue is not adequatelyaddressed, there may be an inherent tendency forpractitioners to take an overly narrow approachtowards implementing KM. An exclusive inclina-tion towards either a pure technological or socialview may lead to an incomplete picture of whatis needed for a successful KM effort. An overly nar-row approach to KM can be problematic and mosttechnologically driven approaches have failed, lar-gely because they ignored the people issues in KM(Carter and Scarbrough, 2001). Information tech-nology is a good repository for storing knowledgeand an effective channel for transferring knowl-edge that goes beyond the boundaries of space

and time, but in itself is not KM. In contrast,humans alone are inadequate to promote goodKM practice because they are slow in converting,manipulating and transferring knowledge. There-fore, KM should always be viewed as a systemthat comprises a technological subsystem as wellas a social one, which is in line with the socio-tech-nical perspective discussed by Sena and Shani(1999). In order to enable KM, both hard toolsand soft skills need to be created and nurtured(Gao et al., 2002; Offsey, 1997) and hence it is crucialthat both elements are designed into a KM imple-mentation framework.

CONCLUSIONS

One reason why many organizations are still strug-gling with KM and why they have not yet realizedthe full potential of a deliberate KM effort is thatthey lack the support of a strong foundation andtheoretical underpinning to guide them. The authorsbelieve that a sound KM implementation frameworkhelps to fulfil this void by providing importantguidelines and necessary support to help organiza-tions embark on their journey to become knowl-edge-based organizations. It offers directions onhow to implement KM and facilitate its transforma-tion from theory into practice. However, developinga KM implementation framework can be a challen-ging task for managers and practitioners as theymay be ignorant of what characteristics, elementsand constructs should be included in the frame-work. Implementation frameworks that do notpossess the necessary elements can paint an incom-plete picture of KM and its implementation process,thus providing less than optimal guidance fororganizations to accomplish KM.

In addition, the review of the existing KM imple-mentation frameworks in this paper reveals thatthey are fragmented since the elements and con-structs that characterize them tend to vary. There

is little common ground and guidelines to providea direction on what should be included in animplementation framework. Therefore, this paperadvances a set of guidelines that should be consid-ered when a KM implementation framework is tobe developed. These guidelines are the results ofthe synthesis and analysis carried out on existingKM implementation frameworks and related KMliterature. The guidelines proposed in this paperfor developing a KM implementation frameworkare as follows:

(1) Incorporate a clear structure to organize thetasks.




11/12

(2) Address the different knowledge resources ortypes.

(3) Include the KM processes or activities thatmanipulate the knowledge.

(4) Point out the influences that can affect the per-formance of KM.

(5) Provide a balanced view between a technologi-cal and a social perspective.

These guidelines are felt by the authors to beimperative for KM for two reasons: (1) they pro-vide a set of principles to help in the developmentof a more comprehensive implementation frame-work; and (2) they help to ensure that the samegeneral requirements and elements are addressedwhen developing an implementation framework.Furthermore, these guidelines could be used as auseful benchmarking tool to evaluate KM imple-mentation frameworks.

Arguably, it was found that most of the frame-works reviewed still suffer from certain drawbacks,which are not totally in accordance with the guide-lines suggested in this paper. None of the frame-works reviewed has taken all the guidelines intoaccount. The next stage of this research project isto develop a more comprehensive and pragmaticKM implementation framework that embraces allthe guidelines provided above. Hopefully, with astronger theoretical underpinning, the pathtowards implementing KM in organizations will

be easier.

REFERENCES

Apostolou D, Mentzas G. 1998. Managing corporateknowledge: a comparative analysis of experiences inconsulting firms. Proceedings of the Second InternationalConference on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management.Basel, Switzerland.

Arora R. 2002. Implementing KM: a balance score cardapproach. Journal of Knowledge Management 6(3): 240249.

Bacon CJ, Fitzgerald B. 2001. A systemic framework forthe field of information systems. Database for Advancesin Information Systems 32(2): 4667.

Barnes SJ, Targett D. 1999. A framework for strategicinformation systems implementation in the UnitedKingdom health sector. Topics in Health Information

Management 19(4): 6274.Beckman T. 1999. The current state of knowledge man-

agement. In Knowledge Management Handbook, Liebow-itz J (ed.). CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL; 1.11.22.

Bose R, Sugumaran V. 2003. Application of knowledgemanagement technology in customer relationshipmanagement. Knowledge and Process Management10(1): 317.

Carter C, Scarbrough H. 2001. Towards a second genera-tion of KM? The people management challenge. Educa-tion and Training 43(4/5): 215224.

Civi E. 2000. Knowledge management as a competitiveasset: a review. Marketing Intelligence and Planning18(4): 166174.

Dale B, Cooper C. 1992. Total Quality and HumanResources. Blackwell: Oxford.

Dale BG. 1999. Managing Quality. Blackwell: Oxford.Drucker PF. 1993. Post-capitalist Society. Butterworth

Heinemann: Oxford.Gao F, Li M, Nakamori Y. 2002. Systems thinking on

knowledge and its management: systems methodologyfor knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge

Management 6(1): 717.Goh SC. 2002. Managing effective knowledge transfer: an

integrative framework and some practice implications.Journal of Knowledge Management 6(1): 2330.

Gore C, Gore E. 1999. Knowledge management: theway forward. Total Quality Management 10(4, 5):554560.

Hansen HR. 1995. Conceptual framework and guidelinesfor the implementation of mass information systems.

Information and Management 28(2): 125142.Holsapple CW, Joshi KD. 2002. Knowledge management:

a threefold framework. Information Society 18(1): 4764.Jarrar YF. 2002. Knowledge management: learning for

organisational experience. Managerial Auditing Journal17(6): 322328.

Lai HC, Chu TH. 2002. Knowledge management: areview of industrial cases. Journal of Computer Informa-tion Systems 42(5): 2639.

Liebowitz J. 1999. Key ingredients to the success of anorganizations knowledge management strategy.Knowledge and Process Management 6(1): 3740.

Manasco B. 1996. Leading firms develop knowledge stra-tegies. Knowledge Inc. 1(6): 2629.

McCampbell AS, Clare LM, Gitters SH. 1999. Knowledgemanagement: the new challenge for the 21st century.

Journal of Knowledge Management 3(3): 172179.Mentzas G. 2001. An holistic approach to realizing the

full value of your knowledge assets. Knowledge Man-agement Review 4(3): 1011.

Nonaka I. 1991. The knowledge-creating company.Harvard Business Review 69(6): 96104.

Nonaka I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizationalknowledge creation. Organization Science 5(1): 1437.

Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. 1995. The Knowledge-creating Com-pany: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of

Innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.ODonovan B, Roode D. 2002. A framework for under-

standing the emerging discipline of informationsystems. Information Technology and People 15(1):2641.

Offsey S. 1997. Knowledge management: linking peopleto knowledge for bottom line results. Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1(2): 113122.

Oxford English Dictionary. 2003. Oxford University Press.http://www.oed.com [31 January 2003].

Popper KR. 1994. The Myth of the Framework: In Defence ofScience and Rationality. Routledge: London.

Rubenstein-Montano B, Liebowitz J, Buchwalter J,McCaw D, Newman B, Rebeck K, The KnowledgeManagement Methodology Team. 2001a. A systemsthinking framework for knowledge management. Deci-sion Support Systems 31(1): 516.

Rubenstein-Montano B, Liebowitz J, Buchwalter J,McCaw D, Newman B, Rebeck K. 2001b. SMARTVi-sion: a knowledge-management methodology. Journalof Knowledge Management 5(4): 300310.




12/12

Sena JA, Shani AB. 1999. Intellectual capital and knowl-edge creation: towards an alternative framework. InKnowledge Management Handbook, Liebowitz J (ed.).CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL; 8.18.16.

Storey J, Barnett E. 2000. Knowledge management initia-tives: learning from failure. Journal of Knowledge Man-agement 4(2): 145156.

Wiig KM. 1997. Knowledge management: an introduc-tion and perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management1(1): 614.

Wiig KM. 1999. Introducing knowledge managementinto the enterprise. In Knowledge Management Handbook,Liebowitz J (ed.). CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL; 3.13.41.

Wiig KM, De Hoog R, Van Der Spek R. 1997. Supportingknowledge management: a selection of methods andtechniques. Expert Systems with Applications 13(1):1527.

Yusof SM, Aspinwall E. 2000. Total quality managementimplementation frameworks: comparison and review.Total Quality Management 11(3): 281294.



knowledge management implementation frameworks= a review

Documents