KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 1

Knowledge Management (KM) Sustainability: An Annotated Bibliography

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 2

Is KM Dead?
Anonymous. (2008). Is collaboration a multi-billion-dollar distraction? Knowledge
Management Review 11(1), 6. Retrieved 26 September 2009 from
ABI/INFORM Global.
In this anonymous article, the writer asks whether sharing
knowledge can result in multi-billion-dollar losses in corporate
productivity. He believes that furthering knowledge via email,
instant messages and blogs is highly collaborative. However, this
interaction has significant drawbacks. Both volume and digital
content overwhelm knowledge workers to the point of distraction.
This, in turn, results in loss of time, attention and productivity. To
help workers reduce distraction and become more productive, the
author advises them to be discerning in choosing the most
appropriate communication medium at the most appropriate time.
Chua, A. (2007, April 28). Business Insight (A Special Report); The curse of
success: Knowledge-management projects often look good in the
beginning; But then problems arise. Wall Street Journal (Eastern
Edition), p. R.8. Retrieved September 27, 2009, from ABI/INFORM
Global. (Document ID: 1261787511).
This very interesting article takes a look at some of the curses of
successful KM projects. Three case studies are presented in which
a KM system attained a high level of success before exhibiting one
or more dysfunctional outcomes. Lessons learned are provided with
each case study.
The first case study looks at a bank in Hong Kong that designed
a fully integrated database to assist agents at its customer-service
call center. After initial success, disaster occurred when the
database was extended to five other bank departments.
The second case study looks at a European
telecommunications company that supplied engineers at its support
centers with a "digital repository" of solutions for technical
problems. Unfortunately, the engineers became reliant on these
solutions. They became more adept at searching for solutions at
hand, and less so at actual problem-solving.
The third case study follows a college in Malaysia that built an
online forum to facilitate broad faculty participation in developing e-
learning programs. While membership on the forum soared, it
became evident that a core group were promoting their own ideas
and practices as well as alienating others with opposing views.
Davenport, T., Prusak, L., & Strong, B. (2008, March 10). Business Insight (A
Special Report): Organization; Putting ideas to work: Knowledge
management can make a difference -- but it needs to be more
pragmatic. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. R.11. Retrieved
September 27, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document
ID: 1442818651).
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 3

Over the past 15 years or so, many large organizations have

embraced the idea of managing knowledge. In practice, however,
some of them are still struggling to make it work. Their knowledge-
management efforts, while useful in some ways, haven't
necessarily led to better products and services or more effective
practices. This article examines what went wrong and how a new
approach is needed to transition KM into a more pragmatic
discipline.
This article looks closely at three knowledge-related activities:
knowledge creation, knowledge dissemination and knowledge
applications. By looking at individual companies such as Nokia,
Proctor & Gamble, The World Bank, Fluor and Intel, we see
examples of successful KM implementations as well as suggestions
for managing them more effectively.
Lee, J. & Rosenbaum, A. (2003). Knowledge management: Portal for corporate
espionage? Retrieved 26 September 2009 from www.kmworld.com.
In this article, the authors Lee and Rosenbaum suggest that KM
is disadvantageous because it opens the doors of business to
corporate espionage. Throughout the article, the authors explain
KM in order to prepare readers to see its loopholes. Additionally,
they analyze the main components of KM and show how spies and
competitors can easily penetrate each one. Finally, they conclude
that every KM system is also an anti-KM system. Companies
cannot be knowledge enabled and yet knowledge secure.
KM is its own enemy. Companies embracing KM risk having
their vision, strategy, judgment, market plans, client data and
custom software—in a word, their secrets—revealed. Yet, the
authors offer no alternative to KM. Had they provided some
software options for securing KM systems, their article would have
offered information that organizations could use in their battles
against corporate espionage.
Nunes, M., Annansingh, F., Eaglestone, B., & Wakefield, R. (2006,
January). Knowledge management issues in knowledge-intensive
SMEs. Journal of Documentation, 62(1), 101-119. Retrieved
September 25, 2009, doi:10.1108/00220410010642075.
Top expectations of KM in organizations include growth
and innovation; productivity and efficiency (reflected in
absolute cost savings); better customer relationships; better
employee learning, satisfaction and retention; and improved
management decision-making. Suggests that KM is losing
favour, with only large organizations (not SMEs) investing in
KM. The outcomes of such a shift include the following:
 Slashed budgets and eliminated or outsourced KM
departments (NOTE: the authors do not state why this is
happening)
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 4

 Decreased popularity, with drastic reduction in number of

business books written on the subject, numerous
cancelled KM conferences, and increase in number of
popular business media articles stating that KM is dead
 Fewer CKOs in Fortune 500 companies than five years
ago
The authors’ core argument suggests that in order for KM
to succeed in SMEs, its advantages need to be clear and
easy to attain (ROI), and its short-term benefits need to be
explicit. This argument is based on the results of case
studies completed for and with two SMEs in the U.S.
Thurm, S. (2006, January 23). Companies struggle to pass on knowledge that
workers acquire. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. B.1. Retrieved
September 27, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document
ID: 974292421).
Informal knowledge sharing can be very effective, but it's limited
in scope. Employees rarely learn from colleagues they don't already
know. In 2005, when consulting firm Bain & Co. asked 960
executives about the effectiveness of 25 management tools, KM
ranked near the bottom. Furthermore, Thomas H. Davenport, a
professor of information management at Babson College, finds the
notion of folks casually conversing in the modern downsized
corporation to be "quaint."
However, managers haven’t given up on KM because the notion
of sharing knowledge remains as captivating as it is elusive.
Looking at some examples from Xerox, London’s water supplier
and Raytheon, we see some different, positive approaches to KM.
Despite these examples, according to Hadley Reynolds, research
director for the Delphi Group, even though we’ve been at this for 25
years, we still have a lot to learn about what kinds of environments
best support knowledge work.
Wilson, T. (2002, October). The nonsense of 'knowledge management'.
Information Research, 8(1). Retrieved September 26, 2009, from Library,
Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.
This paper takes a critical look at the origins and basics of KM
and its development as a field of consultancy practice. The
conclusion reached is that KM is, in large part, a management fad,
propagated mainly by certain consultancy companies, and it will
most likely fade away like previous fads.
According to Wilson, KM became a fashionable name in the
business world because of the following:
 In the past, many firms fixated on internal organization data, so
a different term was needed to replace data; knowledge fit the
bill
 IT had a bad reputation for not delivering solutions, so they
needed to re-brand as knowledge
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 5

 Management woke up and realized that all the text it had been
accumulating on spreadsheets and in documents needed to be
managed
 Consultants were out of work and had overused the term
organizational learning. KM provided a new umbrella for them to
work under.
 Departments of information management are often low on the
totem pole at universities, so they seized KM in order to climb
up the pole
Wong, KY & Espinwall, E. (2004). Characterizing knowledge management in the
small business environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 44-
62 Retrieved 26 September, 2009 from ABI/ INFORM Global.
In this article, the authors Wong and Espinwall shed the light on
the implementation of KM in small businesses, bearing in mind that
SMEs have unique features. The authors delve deeply into small
businesses characteristics, advantages and disadvantages, their
strengths and weaknesses, and their key problems and issues, all
in relation to KM implementation. Understanding these aspects is
crucial to a successful KM implementation.
Wong and Espinwall highlight that small businesses generally
lack a clear understanding of KM and are slow in adopting formal
and systematic KM practices. SMEs are characterized by their
ownership and management, structure, culture and behavior,
systems, processes and procedures, human resources, and
customers and market. Each one of these features can be viewed
advantageously or disadvantageously in the process of KM
implementation. The difference in viewpoint lies in one’s awareness
of KM. Each feature can either be the great facilitator or the
stumbling block.
With the advent of globalization and with knowledge as its main
asset, SMEs need to employ knowledge as an essential element of
survival. However, they have not been able to successfully
implement KM for different reasons. Awareness of, understanding
of and sensitivity to their situation are crucial if KM is to be
implemented in their environment. SMEs are in a good position to
apply KM, but they are also faced with a serious limitation—scarcity
of resources. Generally speaking, SMEs have a dire shortage of
time, financial and human resources, knowledge and expertise,
which creates unique impediments to successful adoption.
Zuckerman, A., & Buell, H. (1998). Is the world ready for knowledge
management? Quality Progress, 31(6), 81-84. Retrieved
September 23, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document
ID: 30008695).
Practicing KM may be beyond the ability of many
managers and employees because it requires the ability to
analyze and effectively target the right knowledge assets
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 6

and apply them to business practices. And although

advanced technologies, like search engines and databases,
can quicken rudimentary forms of KMa great asset to
businessesthese technologies cannot make sense of the
content they are storing, and the people who run these
technologies are rarely able to describe the knowledge
assets they manage. The article includes short studies of
how organizations such as Pfizer, Inc., Johnson & Johnson
and Chemical Leaman Tank Lines leverageor fail to
effectively leverageKM.

Defining KM
Ekionea, J., & Swain, D. (2008, January). Developing and Aligning a
Knowledge Management Strategy: Towards a Taxonomy and a
Framework. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1),
29-45. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Library, Information
Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.
In this article, the authors present a conceptual
framework for KM (in business enterprises) that aligns with
business strategies, the results of which include improved
financial growth, cost reductions and customer satisfaction.
An important aspect of the methodology is for businesses to
identify their strategic character to support appropriate
knowledge-related interactions.
In a second, related article (see Swain & Ekionea below),
the authors again argue that KM must align with business
strategies to be successful, and they propose a taxonomy for
use.
Hsieh, P. (2009, May). A knowledge navigator model (KNMR) to navigate
the knowledge management implementation journey. Proceedings
of World Academy of Science: Engineering & Technology, 41,
1202-1221. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from Academic Search
Complete database.
This comprehensive article-cum-guidebook says
attention should be paid to the implementation stage of an
enterprise’s KM initiative in order to help staff adjust to and
evaluate the new solution, resetting courses as needed. The
author defines the KM maturity level in greater detail than
has previously been done (e.g., American Productivity &
Quality Center has get started; develop strategy; design and
launch initiative; expand and support; institutionalize KM) in
these five stages (p. 1208):
1. Knowledge chaotic – No formal KM processes exist, nor
is organizational knowledge used effectively
2. Knowledge conscientious – Several isolated, grassroots
knowledge-enabling activities have developed and are
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 7

shaping the practices of functional departments, with

discussion within the organization about the successes
and failures of these activities
3. Knowledge management – Formal, stable, practiced KM
programs are in place, and the organization is learning
from its KM-related errors while implementing KM on a
larger, expanding scale
4. Knowledge management advanced – KM has proven so
successful that it is officially part of the organization’s
funded activities, and managers are able to harness
knowledge from all the touch points in the organization,
with organizational boundaries to knowledge access
removed
5. Knowledge management integration – A dynamic
evolution of KM where KM is continually reviewed,
renewed and improved, and the organization can adapt
with flexibility to meet new KM requirements
The framework presented is a “systematic and structured
instrument, consisting of 16 KAs and 68 corresponding
KM activities” (p. 1209), making it a strong resource for
KM research.
Lang, J. (2001). Managerial concerns in knowledge management. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 43. Retrieved September 23,
2009, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts
with Full Text database.
This article presents two key arguments. The first
suggests that, although IT has traditionally been the group in
charge of KM technologies and, in turn, of KM, IT is better at
delivering information than it is at managing knowledge. The
second is that knowledge management is an inherently
problematic term for organizations: knowledge is social or
community-based, contextual and personal, but
management endeavors to systematize and control.
Management’s focus on tangible business results rather than
so-called soft knowledge favours the management element
of KM, which results in the unfortunate implementation of KM
tools that are incongruent with human dimensions of
knowledge organization – and which leaves the best of
knowledge (e.g., the insights that may lead to sustainable
competitive advantage) on the table.
Swain, D., & Ekionea, J. (2008, June). A Framework for Developing and
Aligning a Knowledge Management Strategy. Journal of Information
& Knowledge Management, 7(2), 113-122. Retrieved September
23, 2009, from Library, Information Science & Technology
Abstracts with Full Text database.
See annotation for Ekionea & Swain (2008, January).
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 8

Success Factors: What Are They?

Burgess, D. (2005). What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside
their unit? Journal of Business Communication 42(4), 324-348.
Adopting KM is, for some companies, a challenge, but an even
bigger challenge is getting different business units to share
knowledge with each other, according to researcher Diana
Burgess. She examined different motivators affecting a person’s
attitude toward knowledge sharing. Burgess noticed that an
organization’s approach to KM deeply affects the way its
employees view KM systems. Different barriers prevent employees
from participating in knowledge transfer processes. These include
fear of humiliation, avoidance of punishment and lack of a reward
system. In a second study, Burgess found that employees were
motivated to transfer knowledge in order to move up in the
corporate ladder or just to share knowledge with a circle of friends,
especially through social networking sites.
Chan, I., & Chao, C. (2008, April). Knowledge management in small and
medium-sized enterprises. Communications of the ACM, 51(4), 83-
88. Retrieved September 25, 2009, doi:10.1145/1330311.1330328.
Leveraging the research of Gold et al., Chan and Chao
argue that effective KM is primarily influenced by two
elements:
 Infrastructure capability, including technology, structure
and culture
 Process capability, from acquisition of knowledge (e.g.,
from suppliers) to conversion of competitive intelligence
into plans of action to application of knowledge gained
from trial and error to, finally, protection of knowledge
from inappropriate use within the organization
In this study, SMEs showed interest in KM because of “its
proven impacts on productivity and profits in many other
organizations” (p. 84) as well as its ability to reduce
duplication of work and to gain competitive advantages.
SMEs are failing to use KM or to meet their KM goals due to
“limited human capital and relatively small organizational
size” (p. 84), and where KM is implemented, it is most often
left to the IT department to not only capture knowledge but to
convert explicit knowledge into actions, which the IT
department is not equipped to do. Finally, because KM is still
a new idea, a “wait and see” attitude exists, preventing
SMEs from leveraging KM until it is proven elsewhere.
Conley, C. & and Zheng, W. (2009). Factors critical to knowledge management
success. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(3), 334-348.
Conley and Zheng identified 10 factors for helping organizations
implement a successful KM system:
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 9

Role of top executives: Top executives must promote and raise

awareness about the importance of sharing, storing and retrieving
knowledge as a cornerstone of adopting KM systems.
Organizational culture: Viewed as the most challenging obstacle
to overcome, organizational culture is the backbone of successful
KM. Fostering trust, nurturing innovation, and encouraging
collaborative ownership contribute to an efficient implementation of
the knowledge system.
Strategy: Because strategy dictates which business goals
should be met within a specific period, KM systems must adapt to
meet these goals.
Organizational structure: Rigid, mechanistic organizations
cannot expect their employees to easily share knowledge or add to
the existing body of knowledge. Organic structures, however,
support initiatives taken by employees to improve KM systems,
allowing the systems to thrive and benefit the organization.
Processes: Establishing a well-developed plan is a crucial first
step in building a versatile knowledge system.
Technology infrastructure: To avoid unnecessary delays before
and during the implementation process, the organization must
prepare its technological infrastructure to contain the knowledge
being created everyday. However, executives must not forget that
technology is only a means to an end.
Training and education: Educating employees about the
purpose of initiating a KM system, and defining the system and its
benefits are not sufficient. Ongoing efforts must be made to
educate employees in the various ways they can use the system for
their benefit and the organization’s.
Measurement: It is imperative that the organization regularly
assess its KM system not only to create value but also to monitor
the effectiveness of the KM system in realizing the organization’s
goals.
Incentives: Offering employees incentives to participate in the
KM initiative fosters a culture of sharing and builds trust between
employees. However, studies have shown that incentives do not
guarantee sustained participation over long periods.
KM team: This team is responsible for promoting KM and
supervising the progress of KM throughout the period of
implementation.
Hass, M, & Hansen, M. (2007, November). Different knowledge, different
benefits: Towards a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in
organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 28(11), 1133-1153.
Retrieved September 26, 2009, from Business Source Complete
database.
Knowledge-sharing efforts often fail to result in improved task
outcomes inside organizationsand may even hurt project
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 10

performance. However, Hass and Hansen found that organizations

that plan carefully before launching a knowledge-sharing initiative,
and support these efforts along the way, have a much better
chance of adding value.
This paper identifies two distinct ways in which knowledge
sharing usually occurs in organizations. The first is through direct
contact between individuals (transmission of tacit or non-codified
knowledge) and the second is through the use of written documents
available from databases or libraries. Based on their study of 182
sales teams, Haas and Hansen suggest that organizations that
care about knowledge sharing must look beyond intermediate goals
(i.e., promoting knowledge capture, search and transfer) when
setting up KM initiatives and instead focus on the outcomes the
firms are trying to achieve.
Jasimuddin, S.(2008). A holistic view of knowledge management strategy.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 57-66.
In this paper, Jasimuddin contends that sharing and transferring
knowledge between business units is crucial to organizational
success. Knowledge transfer plays a critical role in an
organization’s ability to respond quickly to change, innovate and
achieve competitive success.
In an attempt to investigate the best mechanisms for knowledge
transfer within an organization, Jasimuddin conducted research
based on one of the UK’s best high-tech corporations and leaders
in worldwide e-business, with over 100,000 employees. Using
interviews, observations and documents, he compiled data on
which knowledge transfer process participants found most effective
and why. Interviewees stated that knowledge can be shared either
tacitly or explicitly via either soft or hard mechanisms. Soft
mechanisms tend to transfer tacit knowledge through face-to-face,
active, direct communication. Hard mechanisms transfer explicit
knowledge using information and communication technology.
Interviewees’ preferences were classified into two groups. One
group preferred hard mechanisms and the other chose soft ones.
However, they both agreed that there is not a fit-for-all mechanism.
Neither can be exclusively relied on. Each of the mechanisms has
its strengths and weaknesses, and thus to ensure maximum
efficiency and effectiveness, an integrated hybrid—a combination of
both mechanisms that takes advantage of the positive features of
each—has to be adopted.
In his conclusion, Jasimuddin stated that the most effective way
to transfer knowledge is via an amalgamation of both soft and hard
mechanisms that can meet the needs of any situation.
Kimble, C., & Bourdon, I. (2008, December). Some success factors for the
communal management of knowledge. International Journal of
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 11

Information Management, 28(6), 461-467. Retrieved September 23,

2009, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.08.007.
Kimble and Bourdon present several factors that lead to
successful intra-organizational KM initiatives, including the
following:
 Fostering the presence of a culture that encourages
positive attitudes to knowledge sharing
 Working with the behaviors of employees within an
organization
 Allowing members of the organization to draw upon
stored information and contribute to its maintenance
 Leveraging community-based models to encourage
knowledge sharing
 Developing communal structures (i.e., communities of
practice) that enable the negotiation of knowledge
through social interactions and networking
This article also echoes the contention of Lang (2001)
that IT is deeply involved in organizational KM but that
“organizational knowledge remains firmly anchored in
individuals” (p. 461).
Switzer, C. (2008). Time for change: Empowering organizations to succeed in the
knowledge economy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 18-28.
In this article, author Cameron Switzer calls for a paradigm shift
in the field of business management. Switzer believes that
companies have to realize they are living in the knowledge age, in
which everything revolves around knowledge. The key to success
is learning how to own knowledge, use it and create goods and
services from it.
Switzer believes change is an inevitable part of survival for
organizations in the knowledge age. In fact, companies have to
seek change in every part of their management structure. This
change should not be restricted to certain positions. On the
contrary, it should encompass everyone in the organization, from
the CEO down through the ranks. Roles, tasks and responsibilities
should be assessed and reassessed. Workers, managers, leaders
and executives must change in the following ways:
 They need to think of, communicate within, and run the
company
 Management strategies should include more autonomy, and all
ranks of employees should be more self-directed, so each
person becomes the manager of his or her own position
 The knowledge age’s quintessential wealth—intellectual
capital—should be well taken care of. Companies must create
an environment that allows the knowledge holders to feel
comfortable sharing with the organization and thus transforming
knowledge into a ‘‘fixed’’ capital asset.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 12

In a world where nothing is constant but change, organizations

must constantly innovate, upgrade, learn, un-learn and relearn, and
develop higher levels of efficiency if they wish to survive and
develop. They need to be aware of the daily changes in the global
market and decide what they should maintain or let go of to adapt
successfully.

KM and Technology
Edwards, J., Shaw, D., & Collier, P. (2005). Knowledge management systems:
Finding a way with technology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1),
113-125.
This article discusses a study of 10 organizations and 78
participants. Its purpose was to differentiate between KM and
information systems; determine the role of information systems,
specifically, and technology, generally, in improving KM; and help
the 10 organizations develop action plans to better manage their
knowledge. The authors identified four tensions that affected the
decision-making process with regard to using technology in KM:
 Amount of knowledge versus the quality of knowledge gathered
 Centralized knowledge storage versus decentralized
 Credibility and reliability of those responsible for sorting and
storing knowledge
 Imposing knowledge on employees versus encouraging
employees to use knowledge
Though the writers identified these four tensions, they did not
discuss the steps necessary to address the tensions. On the other
hand, these four problems are neither exhaustive nor general.
Rather, they are the specific byproduct of discussions with the 10
organizations participating in the study. The authors mentioned that
they offered organizational action plans, depending on the type of
problem faced, yet the action plans and feedback were not
discussed.
Jermol, M., Lavrac, N., & Urbancic, T. (2003, June). Managing business
intelligence in a virtual enterprise: A case study and knowledge
management lessons learned. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy
Systems, 14(3), 121-136. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from
Academic Search Complete database.
The authors propose a virtual enterprise (VE) model that
is based on data mining (to discover previously undetected
patterns and relationships in data for business intelligence)
and decision support (to support people who are faced with
difficult decisions with decision modeling techniques and
decision support databases), wherein academic and
business partners can connect long after a project ends.
They also note that KM “is usually described with four main
processesknowledge generation, knowledge transfer, knowledge
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 13

development and knowledge use” (p. 128)but not all four

processes need to be present for KM to occur. They discuss the
importance of network intelligence, where an individual’s
knowledge becomes stronger when connected to the knowledge of
others, to successful VE KM. Knowledge mapping, hey say, can
represent the knowledge domains of experts (business and
academic) in the VE, which then allows the VE to determine if it has
the skills to respond to a business opportunity.
Lamont, J. (2008, January). KM past and future: Web 2.0 kicks it up a notch. KM
World, 17(1), 12-24. Retrieved September 27, 2009, from Academic
Search Complete database.
In the past decade, many static systems have emerged such as
KM, Enterprise content management (ECM), business process
management (BPM) and business intelligence (BI). However, with
the addition of Web 2.0 products, KM can come much closer to its
early vision of providing free-flowing, vital information in a way that
is adaptive and user-driven.
This article identifies many features that Web 2.0 products need
to have in order to accommodate KM, including scalability,
relevancy rankings, allowing users to create their own tags and
overall effective user experience. According to Jerome Nadel, chief
experience officer at Human Factors International
(humanfactors.com), “KM environments are no longer measured
only on how well they lead users to relevant knowledge; the new
measure is how effectively they promote participation” (p. 13). Web
2.0 products hold much potential for augmenting the capabilities of
traditional KM products.
Malhotra, Y. (2005). Integrating knowledge management technologies in
organizational business processes: Getting real time enterprises to deliver
real business performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 7-
28.
Yogesh Malhotra discusses the impact of technology on KM
systems and consequently on organizations as a whole. Malhotra
believes that a gap exists between the technology used to collect
knowledge and knowledge itself. For example, technology fails
sometimes to keep up with new strategies developed by
organizations to achieve better performance. As business
executives shift strategies to meet market demands or address
competition, technological tools do not always collect and store
knowledge in an efficient and effective way.
Malhotra believes that two models govern organizational use of
technology: the technology-push model and the strategy-pull
model. While the technology-push model focuses on technological
tools that push predetermined knowledge out to a specific group of
employees at a specific time, exposing the model to a higher risk of
failure, the technology-pull model emphasizes the importance of
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 14

KM as a means to an end and gives access to all employees to

stored knowledge for business purposes, which contributes to its
high success rate. Though the two models have their own
advantages and disadvantages, a combination of both, under
special circumstances, can help organizations meet their goals.
McAfee, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 21-28. Retrieved September 26, 2009,
from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1020961391.
According to McAfee, KM is a thing of the past. Workers are
dissatisfied with KM because it fails to provide the channels and
platforms needed, and the technologies it does offer are not doing a
good job of capturing knowledge.
McAfee coined the term Enterprise 2.0, which can be defined as
the platforms that companies can buy or build in order to make
visible the practices and outputs of their knowledge workers. The
author uses the acronym SLATES to indicate the six components of
Enterprise 2.0 technologies: Search, Links, Authoring, Tags,
Extensions and Signals.
The goal of Enterprise 2.0 is to usher in a new era by making
both the practices of knowledge work and its outputs more visible.
Tebbutt, D. (2009, March). Web 2.0 plus KM equals a winner. Information World
Review, Retrieved September 27, 2009, from CINAHL Plus with Full Text
database.
KM has lost its initial luster as humans are hopeless at
identifying their own knowledge and then typing it into a computer.
Plus, employees might wonder why they are being asked to give up
all their hard-earned knowledge.
However, people are happy to give their knowledge to friends,
family and colleagues via social networking sites. Social networking
is essentially realizing all the hopes and dreams that KM initially
envisioned. It has broken down the resistance to sharing and helps
to prevent information hoarding.
The article uses the example of IBM’s Beehive, an internal
service which staff can use to profile their private lives. Most staff
are happy to use this but would clam up at the idea that this
information is going out to the whole world. A closed and secure
system seems to be an ideal venue for KM to flourish.

KM and People
Davenport, R. (2005). Why does knowledge management still matter? Training
and Development 59(2), 18-25. Retrieved September 26, 2009 from
ABI/INFORM Global.
Davenport interviews academics and professionals, bringing
focus to KM as an indispensable tool for organizational survival.
However, managing knowledge is no easy task, especially because
management processes are deeply embedded in human
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 15

interaction. Depending on the perspective of the person responsible

for sustaining KM practices, any technological approach will or
won’t be adopted regardless of its relevance to knowledge itself.
Characteristics of a good KM system are ownership of
knowledge by users and commitment from the organization to
foster knowledge. Technology on its own cannot produce, though it
may contribute to, an effective KM system.
Davenport’s interviewees underscore the significance of the
human element in generating a knowledge system that works. For
them, a good knowledge system starts at the top level, where an
executive adopts the initiative, revolutionizes the organizational
culture and encourages employees to share their knowledge
without doubts or fear.
Lamont, J. (2008, June). Social networking: KM and beyond. KM World, 17(6),
12-13. Retrieved September 27, 2009, from Academic Search Complete
database.
This article supports the idea that social networking should be
added to traditional KM offerings; however, organizations should be
careful about why they are adding social networking capabilities.
The specific goals of the organization should drive their selection of
social networking solutions.
Moreover, next-generation workers are not only accepting, but
demanding increased interactivity, comparable to what they use
every day in their private lives. Barry Libert, founder and chairman
of Mzinga, says that people have a natural tendency to share, but
the rigidity of KM systems actually discourages them from doing so.
Social networking, in addition to enabling information sharing,
can help transition a person from stranger to colleague. The article
profiles several vendors of KM products who have implemented
social networking including Vignette, Mzinga and Ektron.
Pan, S., Newell, S., Huang, J., & Galliers, R. (2007, February).
Overcoming knowledge management challenges during ERP
implementation: The need to integrate and share different types of
knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science & Technology, 58(3), 404-419. Retrieved September 25,
2009, doi:10.1002/asi.20523.
The enterprise resource planning (ERP) adoption
process comes with KM challenges and is best understood
as a non-linear social process of relationship building, with
different types of relationship building throughout the
process. Suggests that networking activities and social
capital can have a positive effect on any type of IT
implementation project, including KM, knowledge sharing
and knowledge integration. Shows that “many of the
problems associated with KM come from the very nature of
knowledge itself and its social embeddedness” and that,
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) SUSTAINABILITY 16

accordingly, the right relationships can help overcome

barriers to managing knowledge during the ERP adoption
process.
Rao, V. (2008, September 28). Social media vs. knowledge management: A
generational war. Blog post from
http://enterprise2blog.com/2008/09/social-media-vs-knowledge-
management-a-generational-war/
This fascinating blog post by Venkatesh Rao caused sparks to
fly around the world as KM experts such as David Snowden and
Andrew McAfee responded with their own commentaries.
Rao believes that we are in the middle of a hidden KM-SM war.
The real cause of the war is a generational thing. KM was
conceived as a top-down Boomer (b. 1946–1962) management
effort, created by this generation just as it was moving into
leadership positions. Social media, is a Millenial and Gen Y (b.
1980–) movement. This overall generational and cultural divide has
shaped the ongoing corporate cultural war.
Rao goes on to describe the five social dimensions and five
technical dimensions of the war. He concludes that the war will end
when the Boomers retire and the Millenials win by default. KM will
quietly die and SM will win the soul of Enterprise 2.0. The new
leadership will quietly slip the best of KM ideas into SM without
anyone knowing.
David Snowden commented directly on the same page as the
blog post noted above.
Andrew McAfee’s response can be found here:
http://andrewmcafee.org/2008/11/are_our_technologies_at_
war_with_each_other/