- Knowledge Management
Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of practices used by organisations to identify, create, represent, distribute and enable adoption of what it knows, and how it knows it. It has been an established discipline since
1995[Stankosky, 2005] with a body of university courses and both professional and academic journals dedicated to it. Many large companies have resources dedicated to Knowledge Management, often as a part of ' Information Technology', ' Human Resource Management' or Business strategydepartments. Knowledge Management is a multi-billion dollar world-wide marketFact|date=June 2008.
Knowledge Management programs are typically tied to organisational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, developmental processes, lessons learnt transfer (for example between projects) and the general development of collaborative practices. Knowledge Management is frequently linked and related to what has become known as the learning organisation,
lifelong learningand continuous improvement. Knowledge Management may be distinguished from Organisational Learning by a greater focus on the management of knowledge as an asset and the development and cultivation of the channels through which knowledge, information and signal flow.
There is a broad range of thought on Knowledge Management with no unanimous definition. The approaches vary by author and school. Knowledge Management may be viewed from each of the following perspectives:
* Techno-centric: A focus on technology, ideally those that enhance knowledge sharing/growth.
* Organisational: How does the organisation need to be designed to facilitate knowledge processes? Which organisations work best with what processes?
* Ecological: Seeing the interaction of people, identity, knowledge and environmental factors as a
complex adaptive system. In addition, as the discipline is maturing, there is an increasing presence of academic debates within epistemologyemerging in both the theory and practice of knowledge management. British and Australian standards bodies both have produced documents that attempt to bound and scope the field, but these have received limited acceptance or awareness.
Knowledge Management has always existed in one form or another. Examples include on-the-job peer discussions, formal apprenticeship, discussion forums, corporate libraries, professional training and mentoring programs. However, with computers becoming more widespread in the second half of the 20th century, specific adaptations of technology such as
knowledge bases, expert systems, and knowledge repositories have been introduced to further enhance the process.
The emergence of Knowledge Management has also generated new roles and responsibilities in organisations, an early example of which was the
Chief Knowledge Officer. In recent years, Personal knowledge management(PKM) practice has arisen in which individuals apply KM practice to themselves, their roles and their career development.
Schools of thought in Knowledge Management
There are a variety of different schools of thought in Knowledge Management. These include:
intellectual capitalmovement with Leif Edvinssonand Tom Stewart.
* A focus on collaboration including
social planningconcepts of community of practice, community consultation processes, public participationand a range of collaborative technologies. Much of this work originates from research by Etienne Wengerand the Lotus Institute (now absorbed into IBM Research). Other prominent figures include Saint-Onge, McDermott and others.
* The use of
social network analysisto understand interactions between people within organisations, both qualitatively and quantitatively, associated with Valdis Krebs, Stephen Borgatti, Robert L. Crossand others.
* A body of work derivative of
information theoryassociated with Larry Prusakand Thomas H. Davenportand linked to the conversion of internalized tacit knowledge into explicit codified knowledge (SECI) allowing successful knowledge sharing as highlighted by Ikujiro Nonakaand Hirotaka Takeuchi. This is probably the dominant school of thought, as represented by publications and includes later developments by authors such as Probst, Von Krough & Malhotra amongst many others including Knowledge Asset Management.
* Management of tangibles & intangibles, living networks, co-creation and whole systems through
value networksand value network analysis(Allee). This work also includes linkages and connections to theory associated with the Learning organization.
* Complexity approaches associated with
David Snowden(see Cynefin) Max Boisot, J C Spender and others. Variations of this include the use of narrative (Snowden, David M. Bojeand others) as a form of fragmented knowledge.
*Systems thinking capacity based approach developed by Parent, Roy, & St-Jacques proposing a new knowledge management paradigm that views knowledge as a systemic, socially constructed, context-specific representation of reality. This is in sharp contrast to past approaches, focusing attention on the capacities that must be present in organizations and social systems as a precondition for knowledge transfer to occur. Knowledge in this context is viewed not as an object to be transferred but as a by-product of interactions between individuals with varying capacities.
Key concepts in Knowledge Management
Dimensions of knowledge
A key distinction made by the majority of knowledge management practitioners is Nonaka's reformulation of Polanyi's distinction between tacit and
explicit knowledge. The former is often subconscious, internalized, and the individual may or may not be aware of what he or she knows and how he or she accomplishes particular results. At the opposite end of the spectrum is conscious or explicit knowledge -- knowledge that the individual holds explicitly and consciously in mental focus, and may communicate to others. In the popular form of the distinction, tacit knowledge is what is in our heads, and explicit knowledge is what we have codified.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) [Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H.,1995] argued that a successful KM program needs, on the one hand, to convert internalized tacit knowledge into explicit codified knowledge in order to share it, but, on the other hand, it also must permit individuals and groups to internalize and make personally meaningful codified knowledge they have retrieved from the KM system.
The focus upon codification and management of explicit knowledge has allowed knowledge management practitioners to appropriate prior work in information management, leading to the frequent accusation that knowledge management is simply a repackaged form of
information management. [Eg Wilson, T.D. (2002) "The nonsense of 'knowledge management'" Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 144 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html] ]
Critics have argued that Nonaka and Takeuchi's distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is oversimplified and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory. Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., symbols outside of our heads). Different definitions for
tacitknowledge exist, for example ("We know more than we can tell") PolanyiFact|date=August 2008, ("tacit is subconscious in mental states and structures") ChomskyFact|date=August 2008, and ("tacit is knowledge that has "not yet" been codified") NonakaFact|date=August 2008.
Another common framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge discriminates between embedded knowledge as knowledge which has been incorporated into an artifact of some type (for example an information system may have knowledge embedded into its design); and embodied knowledge as representing knowledge as a learned capability of the body’s nervous, chemical, and sensory systems. These two dimensions, while frequently used, are not universally accepted.
It is also common to distinguish between the creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the transfer of "established knowledge" within a group, organization, or community. Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of social computing tools can be used for both creation and transfer.
Knowledge access stages
Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after knowledge-related activities. Some people would argue that there is a life cycle to knowledge use. Starting with capture (although that word is itself contentious) or creation, moving on to use and reuse with the ultimate goal of enriching an organisation's capability. In counter to this many would state that such a life cycle view is too linear in nature and reflects an information centric view. The applicability of this model will strongly depend on how repeatable subsequent activities of the company are, and how static the environment or context is in which they are carried out.
For example, individuals undertaking a new project for an organization might access information resources to identify lessons learned for similar projects, access relevant information again during the project implementation to seek advice on issues encountered, and access relevant information afterwards for advice on after-project actions and review activities. Knowledge management practitioners offer systems, repositories, and corporate processes to encourage and formalize these activities with varying degrees of success. The recorded knowledge could either be captured in databases of experiences, or embedded directly into updates of guidelines for subsequent projects.
Similarly, knowledge may be accessed before the project implementation, for example as the project team learns lessons during the initial project analysis. Similarly, lessons learned during the project operation may be recorded, and after-action reviews may lead to further insights and lessons being recorded for future access. Note: In this context recording knowledge relates only to those aspects of knowledge which can be codified as text, or drawings.
Different organizations have tried various knowledge capture incentives, including making content submission mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance measurement plans. There is considerable controversy over whether incentives work or not in this field and no firm consensus has emerged. General reflectiveness of the organization, time pressure on the individual, quality and completeness checks on the submissions, and regular clean-out and condensation of collective submissions to keep them readable will all influence the success. Some organizations use facilitators to capture the submissions for the teams, in order to achieve consistent quality and ease the administrative load on operational staff.
Adhoc knowledge access
One alternative strategy to encoding knowledge into and retrieving knowledge from a knowledge repository such as a
database, is for individuals to make knowledge requests of subject matter experts on an ad hocbasis. A key benefit claimed for this strategy is that the response from the expert individual is rich in content and contextualized to the particular problem being addressed and personalized to the particular person or people addressing it. Other benefits are that the workload on the knowledge user is reduced in validating historically collected knowledge, and that the knowledge is only recorded when needed reducing the risk of information overload. The downside of this strategy is that it is tied to the availability and memory recall skill of specific individuals in the organization. It does not capture their insights and experience for future use should they leave or become unavailable, and also does not help in the case when particular technical issues or problems previously faced change with time to the point where a new synthesis is required, the experts' memories being out of date. Adhoc knowledge sharing should therefore be accompanied by a knowledge retention program to capture critical knowledge in time before staff is leaving or before long breaks in use of the experience occur. The emergence of narrative approaches to knowledge management attempts to provide a bridge between the formal and the ad hoc, by allowing knowledge to be held in the form of stories.
Drivers of Knowledge Management
There are a number of claims as to the "drivers", or motivations, leading organizations to undertake a knowledge management program. Popular business objectives include gaining
competitive advantagewithin the industry and increasing organizational effectiveness with improved or faster learning and new knowledge creation. As knowledge management programs can often lead to greater innovation, better customer experiences, consistency in good practices, knowledge access across a global organization, and other organizational benefits, many knowledge management programs will usually set some of these as end objectives as well. The government sector represents a highly active area, for example [http://www.diplomacy.edu/Books/knowledge/Default.htm DiploFoundation Conference on Knowledge and Diplomacy (1999)] outlines the range of specific KM tools and techniques applied in diplomacy.
Some typical considerations driving a Knowledge Management program include:
* Making available increased knowledge content in the development and provision of products and services
* Achieving shorter
new product developmentcycles
* Facilitating and managing organizational innovation and learning
* Leveraging the expertise of people across the organization
* Increasing network connectivity between employees and external groups with the objective of improving information flow
* Managing the proliferation of data and information in complex business environments and allowing employees to access appropriate information sources
* Managing intellectual capital and intellectual assets in the workforce (such as the expertise and know-how possessed by key individuals) as individuals retire and new workers are hired
Knowledge Management technologies
The early Knowledge Management technologies were online corporate yellow pages (expertise locators) and document management systems. Combined with the early development of collaborative technologies (in particular
Lotus Notes), KM technologies expanded in the mid 1990s. Subsequently it followed developments in technology in use in Information Management. In particular the use of semantic technologies for search and retrieval and the development of knowledge management specific tools such as those for communities of practice.
More recently social computing tools (such as blogs and wikis) have developed to provide a more unstructured, self-governing approach to the transfer, capture and creation of knowledge through the development of new forms of community, network or matrix. However, such tools for the most part are still based on text and code, and thus represent explicit knowledge transfer. These tools face challenges in distilling meaningful re-usable knowledge and intelligible information and ensuring that their content is transmissible through diverse channels, platforms and forums.
Knowledge mappingis commonly used to cover functions such as a knowledge audit (discovering what knowledge exists at the start of a knowledge management project), a network survey (Mapping the relationships between communities involved in knowledge creation and sharing) and creating a map of the relationship of knowledge assets to core business process. Although frequently carried out at the start of a Knowledge Management programme, it is not a necessary pre-condition or confined to start up.
Knowledge Management enablers
Historically, there have been a number of "technologies " 'enabling' or facilitating knowledge management practices in the organization, including
expert systems, knowledge bases, various types of Information Management, software help desktools, document managementsystems and other IT systems supporting organizational knowledge flows.
The advent of the Internet brought with it further enabling technologies, including
e-learning, web conferencing, collaborative software, content managementsystems, corporate 'Yellow pages' directories, email lists, wikis, blogs, and other technologies. Each enabling technology can expand the level of inquiry available to an employee, while providing a platform to achieve specific goals or actions. The practice of KM will continue to evolve with the growth of collaboration applications, visual tools and other technologies. Since its adoption by the mainstream population and business community, the Internet has led to an increase in creative collaboration, learning and research, e-commerce, and instant information.
"Organisational" enablers for knowledge management programs include
Communities of Practice, Networks of Practice, before-, after- and during- action reviews (see After Action Review), peer assists, information taxonomies, coachingand mentoring, and so on.
Knowledge Management roles and organizational structure
Knowledge Management activities can be a discrete function or a part of an existing departmental function, such as Information Technology, Human Resources, Quality, Library functions or Strategy. Organisations can also be project based, using cross-functional teams incorporating specialist skills.
Knowledge Management reasons of failure or success
No established evidence attests to the reasons behind failure and success of Knowledge Management initiatives in organizations. Some argue that a failure to sustain investment is one factor, but it can equally be argued that if knowledge management delivered on its promises investment would continue. As with many management initiatives, particularly those with a heavy IT basis (as can be the case with Knowledge Management), frequent questions are raised about the level of consultation necessary before a program is started; these questions are linked to issues of cultural change and a willingness to share and collaborate with colleagues. There is no evidence that Knowledge Management, in all these respects, is any different from other management initiatives. Fact|date=August 2008
Knowledge Management networks and institutions based on academic institutions
*The [http://www.gwu.edu/~iki/ Institute for Knowledge and Innovation] (George Washington University, U.S.A)
*The [http://www.henleymc.ac.uk/henleyres03.nsf/pages/kmf Henley Knowledge Management Forum]
*The [http://www.ki-network.org Knowledge and Innovation Network (KIN)] ( [http://www.wbs.ac.uk/ Warwick Business School] , UK)
Chief Knowledge Officer
Personal knowledge management
* Battle Command Knowledge System
Community of practice
Complexity theory and organizations
Enterprise content management
Enterprise social software
Knowledge management for development
Knowledge Management System
Personal knowledge management
Public sector knowledge management
Self service software
Tacit knowledge& Explicit knowledge
Value network analysis
* Amidon, D. (2002) "The Innovation SuperHighway: Harnessing Intellectual Capital for Collaborative Advantage" , Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN 0-75067-592-6.
* Allee, V.(1997) "The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational Intelligence" , Elsevier, ISBN 0-7506-9842-X.
* Allee, V. (2003) "The Future of Knowledge: Increasing Prosperity through Value Network"s, Elsevier ISBN 0-7506-7591-8.
* Barbiero, D.(2004), " [http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/tacitknowledge.html tacit knowledge] " in Dictionary of Philosophy, retrieved August 1, 2008
* Becerra-Fernandez, I., A. González and R. Sabherwal (2004), "Knowledge Management: Challengers, Solutions and Technologies", ISBN 0-13-101606-7.
* Benbya, H. (2008), "Knowledge Management Systems Implementation: Lessons from the Silicon Valley", Oxford Chandos Publishing, ISBN 1-84334-267-7.
* Bhagat, P. M. (2005), "Pattern Recognition in Industry", Elsevier, ISBN 0-08-044538-1.
* Boisot, M. (1998), "Knowledge Assets", Oxford, ISBN 0-19-829086-1.
* Bontis, N. (2002), "World Congress on Intellectual Capital Readings", Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann , ISBN 0-7506-7475-X.
* Brown, John Seely, Paul Duguid. (2002) "The Social Life of Information" , Harvard, ISBN 1-57851-708-7.
* BRINT Institute. (1994-2007), "A Case For Knowledge Management: Rethinking Management for the New World of Uncertainty and Risk", BRINT Institute LLC, New Hartford, NY. URL: [http://www.kmbook.com Online Living Book]
* Buckman, R. H. (2004), "Building a Knowledge-Driven Organization", McGraw Hill, ISBN 0-07-138471-5.
* Bukowitz, Wendi, Ruth Williams. (1999) "The Knowledge Management Fieldbook", Financial Times/Prentice Hall 1999, ISBN 0-27363-882-3.
* Bray, D. (2006). "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, June 2006. [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961043 Article available on SSRN]
* Callaghan, J. (2002), "Inside Intranets & Extranets: Knowledge Management and the Struggle for Power", Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0-333-98743-8.
* Choo, C. & Bontis, N. (2002), "The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge ", Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-513866-X.
* Clare, M. and Detore A. (2000), "Knowledge Assets Professional's Guide to Valuation and Financial Management", Apsen Publishers, ISBN 0-15-607000-6.
* Collison, C. & Parcell, G (2004), "Learning to Fly" - Practical Knowledge Management From Leading and Learning Organizations, Capstone Publishing, ISBN 1-84112-509-1
* Cross, R. and Parker, A. (2004), "The Hidden Power Of Social Networks", Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass, ISBN 1-59139-270-5.
* Davenport, T. (2005), "Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performances And Results from Knowledge Workers ", Harvard, ISBN 1-59139-423-6.
* Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1997), "Working Knowledge", Harvard 1998, ISBN 0-87584-655-6.
* Desouza, K.C. (2005),"New Frontiers of Knowledge Management",Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 1-40394-240-4
* Desouza, K.C. and Awazu, Y. (2005), "Engaged Knowledge Management: Engagement with New Realities", Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 1-40394-510-1.
* Despres, Charles, Danielle Chauvel. (2000), "Knowledge Horizons: the present and promise of Knowledge Management ", Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN 0-75067-247-1.
* Dixson, Nancy M, Nate Allen, Tony Burgess, and Pete Kilne. (2005), "Company Command: Unleashing the Power of the Army Profession ", Center for the Advancement of Leader Development & Organizational Learning, ISBN 0-97645-410-6.
* Dixon, N. M. (2000), "Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know", Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, ISBN 0-87584-904-0.
* Drucker, Peter F. (1999), "Management Challenges for the 21st Century ", Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN 0-75064-456-7.
* Drucker P. F., D. Garvin, D. Leonard, S. Straus and J. S. Brown (1998), "Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management," HBS Press, ISBN 0-87584-881-8.
* Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997), "Intellectual Capital: Realising Your Company’s True Value by Finding its Hidden Brainpower". New York: HarperBusiness, ISBN 0-88730-841-4.
* Easterby-Smith, M. and M. A. Lyles (editors). (2003). "The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management", Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 0-631-22672-9.
* Frid, R. (2004), "Frid Framework for Enterprise Knowledge Management: A Common KM Framework for the Government of Canada", IUniverse Publishing, ISBN 0-595-30699-3.
* Gammack, J., Hobbs, V. and Pigott, D. (2007), "The Informatics Book", Thomson, South Melbourne. ISBN 0-17013-044-4.
* Garvin, D. A. (2000), "Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work", Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, ISBN 1-57851-251-4.
* Harman, C. and Brelade, S. (2000), "Knowledge Management and the Role of HR", Financial Times Prentice Hall, London, ISBN 0-27364456-4
* Nissen, M.E. (2006), "Harnessing Knowledge Dynamics: Principled Organizational Knowing & Learning", IRM Press, Hershey, PA, ISBN 1-59140-774-5.
* Müller-Prothmann, T. (2006): Leveraging Knowledge Communication for Innovation. Framework, Methods and Applications of Social Network Analysis in Research and Development, Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Peter Lang, ISBN 0-8204-9889-0.
* Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), "The Knowledge-Creating Company", New York: Oxford University Press.
* O'Dell, C. and C. J. Grayson Jr. (1998), "If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice", Free Press, New York, ISBN 0-684-84474-5.
* O'Sullivan, K. J. (2007), "Strategic Knowledge Management in Multinational Organizations" Idea Group Publishing, Hershey PA. ISBN 978-159904630-3
* Polanyi, M. (1967), "The Tacit Dimension", Doubleday, Garden City, NY, ISBN 0-385-06988-X.
* Rumizen, M. C. (2001), "Complete Idiot's Guide to Knowledge Management", Alpha, ISBN 0-02-864177-9.
* Schwartz, D, editor (2005), "Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management", Idea Group Reference, ISBN 1-59140-574-2.
* Senge, Peter M. (1994), "The Fifth Discipline", Currency (1994), ISBN 0-38526-095-4.
* Smith, Mark K. (2003), " [http://www.infed.org/thinkers/polanyi.htm Michael Polanyi and tacit knowledge] ", retrieved 6. August 2008
* Stankosky, M., editor (2004), "Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management: The Latest in University Research", Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN 0-7506-7878-X
* Sveiby, K. E. (1997), "The New Organizational Wealth: Managing & Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets," Berrett-Koehler, ISBN 1-57675-014-0.
* Suresh, J. K. and Mahesh, K. (2006), "Ten Steps to Maturity in Knowledge Management: Lessons in Economy", Chandos, Oxford, UK, ISBN 1-84334-130-1.
* Stewart, T. (1997) "Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations," New York: Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-48228-0.
* Tiwana, A. (2002), "The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Orchestrating IT, Strategy, and Knowledge Platforms" (2nd Edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002, ISBN 0-13-009224-X.
* United Nations (2003), "Expanding Public Space for the Development of the Knowledge Society", Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting on Knowledge Systems for Development, 4-5 September 2003, United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs, United Nations, New York, 2003, PDF: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN014138.pdf
* von Krogh, Georg and Johan Roos. (1999), "Managing Knowledge: Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition", Sage Publications Ltd, ISBN 0-76195-181-4.
* Wenger, E., R. McDermott, W.Snyder. (2002), "Cultivating Communities of Practice", Harvard, ISBN 1-57851-330-8.
* Wenger, E. (1998), "Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity", Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-52166-363-6.
* Wissensmanagement Forum (Hg.): "An Illustrated Guide to Knowledge Management", Graz 2002, URL: http://www.wm-forum.org [http://www.wm-forum.org/files/Handbuch/An_Illustrated_Guide_to_Knowledge_Management.pdf Download PDF Version]
* Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (2001). "Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues," MIS Quarterly, 25, 1, 107-136.
* Applen, J.D. (2002). "Technical Communication, Knowledge Management, and XML." "Technical Communication". Arlington, VA. Volume 49. Number 3. pp. 301-13.
* Becerra-Fernandez, I., and Sabherwal, R. (2005). “Knowledge Management at NASA-Kennedy Space Center,” by I. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1, 159-170.
* Bellenger, Gene (2002) "Emerging Perspectives", Systems Thinking [http://www.systems-thinking.org/kmgmt/kmgmt.htm Knowledge Management - Emerging Perspectives]
* Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N., Jacobsen, K. and G. Roos. (1999) "The Knowledge Toolbox: A review of the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources",
European Management Journal, 17, 4, 391-402.
* Bontis, N. (1999). "Managing Organizational Knowledge by Diagnosing Intellectual Capital: Framing and advancing the state of the field",
International Journal of Technology Management,18, 5/6/7/8, 433-462.
* Bontis, N. (2002). "The rising star of the Chief Knowledge Officer", Ivey Business Journal, March/April, 20-25.
* Bray, D. (2007). " [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991169 Literature Review - Knowledge Management Research at the Organizational Level] ", Social Science Research Network.
* Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L. and Borgatti, S.P. (2001), “Knowing what we know: supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks”, Organizational Dynamics Vol 30, No 2, pp. 100-120.
* Ekbia, H. and Hara, N. (2004) The Quality of Evidence in Knowledge Management Literature: the Guru Version. At https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/2022/598/1/JIS-0443v2EkbiaHaraKMResearch.pdf
* Hamburg, Terstriep & Rehfeld (2006 Nov), "Knowledge-Based Services for Economic Agencies based on Internet Technologies",Icfai Journal of Knowledge Management, Icfai University Press. Article available on SSRN
* Hansen, M. R., N. Nohria and T. Tierney (1999). 'What's your strategy for managing knowledge?' "Harvard Business Review" (March-April).
* Huijsen, W., Driessen, S. J. and Jacobs, J. W. M. (2004a), “Explicit Conceptualizations for Knowledge Mapping”, Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2004), Vol 3, pp. 231-236, Porto, April 2004.
* Knorr-Siedow, T. (2005) Knowledge management and enhanced policy application; in: Van Kempen, R. et alter: Restructuring large housing estates in Europe, Bristol, pp 321-341
* Malhotra, Y (2005) "Integrating Knowledge Management Technologies in Organizational Business Processes: Getting Real Time Enterprises to Deliver Real Business Performance",
Journal of Knowledge ManagementVol . 9 no. 1 pp 7-28.
* Malhotra, Y. (2000), "Knowledge Assets in the Global Economy: Assessment of National Intellectual Capital". Journal of Global Information Management, 8(3), July-Sep, 5-15.
* Malhotra, Y. (2004), "Why Knowledge Management Systems Fail? Enablers and Constraints of Knowledge Management in Human Enterprises". In Michael E.D. Koenig & T. Kanti Srikantaiah (Eds.), Knowledge Management Lessons Learned: What Works and What Doesn't, Information Today Inc. (American Society for Information Science and Technology Monograph Series), 87-112.
* Markus, M. (2001) "Toward a Theory of Knowledge Reuse: Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors in Reuse Success," Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 1, 57-93.
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VPF-452WK9S-1&_user=1543922&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236205%232002%23999919998%23291708!&_cdi=6205&_sort=d&_docanchor=&wchp=dGLbVtb-lSztz&_acct=C000053639&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1543922&md5=7bf39c1e730f079b3f1ece67cceb819f] Mudambi, R. (2002) "Knowledge management in multinational firms", "Journal of International Management", 8, 1, 1-9.
* Nissen, M.E. (2006) "Dynamic Knowledge Patterns to Inform Design: A Field Study of Knowledge Stocks and Flows in an Extreme Organization," Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 3, 225-263.
* Powell, J and Swart, J (2005) "This is what the fuss is about"- a systemic modeling for organizational knowing ,
Journal of Knowledge ManagementVol . 9 no. 2 pp 45-58
* Powell, J and Swart, J (2005) "Men and Measures" - capturing knowledge requirement in firms through qualitative system modeling, Journal of Operational Research.
* Sabherwal, R., and Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2003). “An Empirical Study of the Effects of Knowledge Management Tools at Individual, Group, and Organizational Levels,” Decision Sciences, 34(2), 225-261.
* Sabherwal, R., and Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2005) “The Effectiveness of Alternative Knowledge Integration Processes for Three Types of Specific Knowledge: Some Insights from the NASA-Kennedy Space Center,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(3), 301-315.
* Sabherwal, R., and Sabherwal, S. (2005). “Knowledge Management using Information Technology: Determinants of Impact on Firm Value,” Decision Sciences, 36(4), 531-567.
* Sabherwal, R., and Sabherwal, S. (2007). “How Do Knowledge Management Announcements Affect Firm Value? A Study of Firms Pursuing Different Business Strategies,” by IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(3), August, 409-422.
* Sensky, T. (2002). "Knowledge management", Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 8, 5, pp387-395. Available at: [http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/8/5/387]
* Serenko, A. and Bontis, Nick. (2004). "Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature", Knowledge and Process Management, 11, 3, 185-198. [http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/mktg/nbontis//ic/publications/KPMSerenkoBontis.pdf]
* Snowden, D J. "Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self-Awareness."
Journal of Knowledge Management, Special Issue 6, no. 2 (2002): 100-11. [http://www.cognitive-edge.com/articledetails.php?articleid=13]
* Swart, J (2006) "Intellectual Capital" : Disentangling an enigmatic concept, Journal of Intellectual Capital Vol 7 No 2 pp 136-159.
* Thomas, J. C., Kellogg, W.A., and Erickson, T. (2001) The Knowledge Management puzzle: Human and social factors in knowledge management. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 863-884.
* Vail III, E.F. (1999), “Mapping Organisational knowledge”, Knowledge Management Review, Vol 2, May/June, pp. 10-15.
* Weeks, Michael R. (2004), "Knowledge Management in the Wild," "Business Horizons", Vol. 47, No. 6 (Nov-Dec), pp. 15-24.
* Wexler, M.N. (2001), “The who, what and why of knowledge mapping”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 5, No 3, pp. 249-263
* Wilson, T.D. (2002) "The nonsense of 'knowledge management'" Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 144. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html
* [http://wiki.ittoolbox.com/index.php/Knowledge_Management Knowledge Management on ITToolBox's Wiki]
* National Library for Health [http://www.library.nhs.uk/knowledgemanagement Knowledge Management Specialist Library] - collection of resources to support knowledge management in health
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.