Alavi 2001

Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations
and Research Issues

Author(s): Maryam Alavi and Dorothy E. Leidner
Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 107-136
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250961 .
Accessed: 20/08/2013 21:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alavi&Leidner/Knowledge
Management
REVIEW: KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENTAND
KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS:
CONCEPTUALFOUNDATIONSAND
RESEARCHISSUES' 2
By: Maryam Alavi few years, however, there has been a growing
John and Lucy Cook Chair of Information interest in treating knowledge as a significant
Technology organizational resource. Consistent with the
Goizueta Business School interest in organizational knowledge and knowl-
Emory University edge management (KM), IS researchers have
Atlanta, GA 30322 begun promoting a class of informationsystems,
U.S.A. referred to as knowledge management systems
Maryam_Alavi@bus.Emory.edu
(KMS). The objective of KMS is to support crea-
tion, transfer, and application of knowledge in
Dorothy E. Leidner
Texas Christian University organizations. Knowledge and knowledge man-
Fort Worth, Texas 76129 agement are complex and multi-faceted concepts.
U.S.A., and Thus, effective development and implementation
INSEAD of KMS requires a foundation in several rich
77305 Fontainebleau literatures.
FRANCE
dorothy.leidner@insead.fr To be credible, KMS research and development
should preserve and build upon the significant
literaturethat exists in different but related fields.
Abstract Thispaper provides a review and interpretationof
knowledge management literatures in different
Knowledge is a broad and abstract notion that has fields with an eye toward identifying the important
defined epistemological debate in western philo- areas forresearch. We present a detailed process
sophy since the classical Greek era. In the past view of organizational knowledge management
with a focus on the potential role of information
technology in this process. Drawing upon the
Watsonwas the acceptingsenioreditorforthis
1Richard
literaturereview and analysis of knowledge man-
paper.
agementprocesses, we discuss several important
2MISQReview articles survey, conceptualize,and research issues surroundingthe knowledge man-
synthesize priorMIS research and set directionsfor
futureresearch.Formoredetailssee agement processes and the role of ITin support of
http://www.misq.org/misreview/announce.html these processes.
MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1, pp. 107-136/March2001 107

Alavi & Leidner/Knowledge Management
Keywords: Knowledge management, knowledge techniques, and software agents) can be used to
management systems, research issues in knowl- systematize, enhance, and expedite large-scale
edge management, organizational knowledge intra-and inter-firmknowledge management.
management, knowledge management review
Althoughthe concept of coding, storing, and trans-
ISRL Categories: HA, A103, DD07, IB03
mitting knowledge in organizations is not new-
training and employee development programs,
organizational policies, routines, procedures, re-
ports, and manuals have served this function for
In post-capitalism, power comes from
years (Alavi and Leidner 1999)-organizational
transmitting informationto make it pro- and managerial practice has recently become
ductive, not from hiding it. more knowledge-focused. For example, bench-
Drucker 1995
marking,knowledge audits, best practice transfer,
and employee development pointto the realization
of the importance of organizationalknowledge and
Introduction intangibleassets in general (Grant 1996a, 1996b;
Spender 1996a, 1996b). Given the importance of
A knowledge-based perspective of the firm has organizational knowledge, our objective is to
emerged in the strategic management literature synthesize the relevant and knowledge-centered
(Cole 1998; Spender 1996a, 1996b; Nonaka and work from multiple disciplines that in our view
Takeuchi 1995). This perspective builds upon and contribute to and shape our understanding of
extends the resource-based theory of the firmini- knowledge management and knowledge manage-
tially promoted by Penrose (1959) and expanded ment systems in organizations.
by others (Barney 1991; Conner 1991; Wernerfelt
1984). The paper is organized as follows: the next
section presents a review of the management
The knowledge-based perspective postulates that literatureon knowledge and the firm.This section
the services rendered by tangible resources provides a comprehensive summary of alternative
depend on how they are combined and applied, views of knowledge and knowledge taxonomies
which is in turn a function of the firm's know-how and theirimplicationsfor knowledge management.
(i.e., knowledge). This knowledge is embedded in The following section adopts the process view of
and carried through multiple entities including knowledge management and presents this view in
organization culture and identity, routines, poli- detail with an eye toward identifyingthe potential
cies, systems, and documents, as well as indivi- role of information technologies in the various
dual employees (Grant1996a, 1996b; Nelson and stages of the knowledge management process. A
Winter 1982; Spender 1996a, 1996b). Because broader organizational perspective on knowledge
knowledge-based resources are usually difficultto management research is then provided by dis-
imitate and socially complex, the knowledge- cussing important research themes that emerge
based view of the firmposits that these knowledge from the review of the literature.The final section
assets may produce long-term sustainable provides a summary and presents the discussion
competitive advantage. However, it is less the of the four general conclusions of our work.
knowledge existing at any given time per se than
the firm's ability to effectively apply the existing
knowledge to create new knowledge and to take
action that forms the basis for achieving compe-
titive advantage from knowledge-based assets. It Knowledge and the Firm:
is here that informationtechnologies may play an An Overview and
important role in effectuating the knowledge- Basic Concepts
based view of the firm. Advanced information
technologies (e.g., the Internet, intranets, extra- The question of defining knowledge has occupied
nets, browsers, data warehouses, data mining the minds of philosophers since the classical
108 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

Greek era and has led to many epistemological Tuomi (1999) makes the iconoclastic argument
debates. Itis unnecessary for the purposes of this that the often-assumed hierarchy from data to
paper to engage in a debate to probe, question, or knowledge is actually inverse: knowledge must
reframe the term knowledge, or discover the exist before information can be formulated and
"universaltruth,"fromthe perspective of ancient or before data can be measured to form information.
modern philosophy. This is because such an As such, "rawdata" do not exist-even the most
understanding of knowledge was neither a deter-
elementary piece of "data" has already been
minant factor in building the knowledge-based
influenced by the thought or knowledge processes
theory of the firm nor in triggering researcher and that led to its identification and collection. Tuomi
practitioner interest in managing organizational
argues that knowledge exists which, when
knowledge. Itis, however, useful to consider the
manifold views of knowledge as discussed in the articulated, verbalized, and structured, becomes
information technology (IT), strategic manage- informationwhich, when assigned a fixed repre-
ment, and organizationaltheory literature.This will sentation and standard interpretation, becomes
enable us to uncover some assumptions about data. Critical to this argument is the fact that
knowledge that underlie organizationalknowledge knowledge does not exist outside of an agent (a
management processes and KMS. We will begin knower): it is indelibly shaped by one's needs as
by considering definitions of knowledge. well as one's initial stock of knowledge (Fahey
and Prusak 1998; Tuomi 1999). Knowledge is
thus the result of cognitive processing triggered by
The Hierarchical View of Data, the inflow of new stimuli. Consistent with this
Information, and Knowledge view, we posit that information is converted to
knowledge once it is processed in the mind of
Some authors, most notably in IT literature, individuals and knowledge becomes information
address the question of defining knowledge by once it is articulated and presented in the form of
distinguishingamong knowledge, information,and text, graphics, words, or other symbolic forms. A
data. The assumption seems to be that if knowl- significant implication of this view of knowledge is
edge is not something that is differentfrom data or that for individuals to arrive at the same under-
information, then there is nothing new or standing of data or information,they must share a
interesting about knowledge management (Fahey certain knowledge base. Another importantimpli-
and Prusak 1998). A commonly held view with cation of this definition of knowledge is that
sundry minorvariants is that data is raw numbers systems designed to support knowledge in organi-
and facts, information is processed data, and zations may not appear radically different from
knowledge is authenticated information (Dreske other forms of information systems, but will be
1981; Machlup 1983; Vance 1997). Yet the pre- geared toward enabling users to assign meaning
sumption of a hierarchyfromdata to informationto to informationand to capture some of their knowl-
knowledge with each varying along some dimen- edge in informationand/or data.
sion, such as context, usefulness, or interpre-
tability, rarely survives scrupulous evaluation.
What is key to effectively distinguishing between
information and knowledge is not found in the Alternative Perspectives
content, structure, accuracy, or utilityof the sup- on Knowledge
posed information or knowledge. Rather, knowl-
edge is information possessed in the mind of Knowledge is defined as a justified belief that
individuals: it is personalized information (which increases an entity's capacity for effective action
may or may not be new, unique, useful, or accu- (Huber 1991; Nonaka 1994). Knowledge may be
viewed from several perspectives (1) a state of
rate) related to facts, procedures, concepts,
mind, (2) an object, (3) a process, (4) a condition
interpretations, ideas, observations, and judg-
ments. of having access to information,or (5) a capability.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 109

Knowledge has been described as "a state or fact Table 1 summarizes the various views of knowl-
of knowing" with knowing being a condition of edge just discussed and their implications for
"understanding gained through experience or knowledge management and knowledge manage-
study; the sum or range of what has been per- ment systems. The perspective relied upon most
ceived, discovered, or learned" (Schubert et al. heavily in this article is that implied in the distinc-
1998). The perspective on knowledge as a state tion of knowledge from data and information,
of mindfocuses on enabling individualsto expand closely related to the perspective of knowledge as
their personal knowledge and apply it to the a state of mind.
organization's needs. A second view defines
knowledge as an object (Carlsson et al. 1996;
McQueen 1998; Zack 1998a). This perspective
Summary of Knowledge
posits that knowledge can be viewed as a thing to
be stored and manipulated (i.e., an object) Perspective
Alternatively,knowledge can be viewed as a pro- Three major points emerge from the above
cess of simultaneously knowing and acting
discussion: (1) A great deal of emphasis is given
(Carlsson et al. 1996; McQueen 1998; Zack to understanding the difference among data,
1998a). The process perspective focuses on the
information,and knowledge and drawing implica-
applying of expertise (Zack 1998a). The fourth tions from the difference. (2) Because knowledge
view of knowledge is that of a condition of access
is personalized, in order for an individual'sor a
to information(McQueen 1998). According to this
view, organizationalknowledge must be organized group's knowledge to be useful for others, it must
be expressed in such a manner as to be inter-
to facilitate access to and retrievalof content. This
view may be thought of as an extension of the pretable by the receivers. (3) Hoards of informa-
tion are of littlevalue; only that informationwhich
view of knowledge as an object, with a special
is actively processed in the mind of an individual
emphasis on the accessibility of the knowledge
through a process of reflection, enlightenment, or
objects. Finally, knowledge can be viewed as a
learning can be useful.
capability with the potential for influencing future
action (Carlsson et al. 1996). Watson (1999)
builds upon the capabilityview by suggesting that
knowledge is not so much a capabilityfor specific Taxonomies of Knowledge
action, but the capacity to use information;
learning and experience result in an abilityto inter- Drawing on the work of Polanyi (1962, 1967),
pret informationand to ascertain what information Nonaka (1994) explicated two dimensions of
is necessary in decision making. knowledge in organizations: tacit and explicit.
Rooted in action, experience, and involvement in
These different views of knowledge lead to a specific context, the tacit dimension of knowl-
different perceptions of knowledge management edge (henceforth referred to as tacit knowledge)
(Carlsson et al. 1996). If knowledge is viewed as is comprised of both cognitive and technical
an object, or is equated with informationaccess, elements (Nonaka 1994). The cognitive element
then knowledge management should focus on refers to an individual'smental models consisting
building and managing knowledge stocks. If of mental maps, beliefs, paradigms, and view-
knowledge is a process, then the implied knowl- points. The technical component consists of
edge management focus is on knowledge flow concrete know-how, crafts, and skills that apply to
and the processes of creation, sharing, and a specific context. An example of tacit knowledge
distributionof knowledge. The view of knowledge is knowledge of the best means of approaching a
as a capability suggests a knowledge manage- particularcustomer-using flattery, using a hard
ment perspective centered on building core sell, using a no-nonsense approach. The explicit
competencies, understandingthe strategic advan- dimension of knowledge (henceforth referredto as
tage of know-how,and creating intellectualcapital. explicit knowledge) is articulated, codified, and
The major implication of these various concep- communicated in symbolic form and/or natural
tions of knowledge is that each perspective language. An example is an owner's manual
suggests a different strategy for managing the accompanying the purchase of an electronic
knowledge and a different perspective of the role product. The manual contains knowledge on the
of systems in support of knowledge management. appropriate operation of the product.

Implications for Implications for

Knowledge Knowledge Manage-
Perspectives Management (KM) ment Systems (KMS)
Knowledge vis-a- Data is facts, raw numbers. KMfocuses on ex- KMSwill not appear
vis data and Informationis processed/ posing individuals to radically different from
information interpreted data. potentially useful infor- existing IS, but will be
Knowledge is personalized mation and facilitating extended toward helping
information, assimilation of informa- in user assimilation of
tion information
State of mind Knowledge is the state of KMinvolves enhancing Role of IT is to provide
knowing and understanding. individual'slearning access to sources of
and understanding knowledge rather than
through provision of knowledge itself
information
Object Knowledge is an object to Key KMissue is Role of IT involves
be stored and manipulated. building and managing gathering, storing, and
knowledge stocks transferringknowledge
Process Knowledge is a process of KMfocus is on Role of IT is to provide
applying expertise. knowledge flows and link among sources of
the process of knowledge to create
creation, sharing, and wider breadth and depth
distributingknowledge of knowledge flows
Access to Knowledge is a condition of KMfocus is organized Role of IT is to provide
information access to information, access to and retrieval effective search and
of content retrieval mechanisms for
locating relevant
information
Capability Knowledge is the potential KMis about building Role of IT is to enhance
to influence action. core competencies intellectual capital by sup-
and understanding porting development of
strategic know-how individualand organiza-
tional competencies
Knowledge can also be viewed as existing in the aspect in the interpretationof this classification is
individual or the collective (Nonaka 1994). the assumption that tacit knowledge is more valu-
Individualknowledge is created by and exists in able than explicit knowledge; this is tantamount to
the individual whereas social knowledge is equating an inabilityto articulate knowledge with
created by and inherent in the collective actions of its worth. Few, with the exception of Bohn (1994),
a group. Both Nonaka and others (e.g., Spender venture to suggest that explicit knowledge is more
1992, 1996a, 1995b) rely heavily on the tacit- valuable than tacit knowledge, a viewpoint that if
explicit,individual-collectiveknowledge distinction accepted mightfavor a technology enabled knowl-
but do not provide a comprehensive explanation edge management process (technology being
as to the interrelationships among the various used to aid in explicating, storing, and dissemin-
knowledge-types. One potentially problematic ating knowledge).

Management
Whether tacit or explicit knowledge is the more former is not alone in providingboth benefits and
valuable may indeed miss the point. The two are challenges to organizations. Explicitknowledge
not dichotomous states of knowledge, but may pose a particular challenge related to an
mutually dependent and reinforcing qualities of assumption of legitimacy by virtue of being
knowledge: tacit knowledge forms the back- recorded (Jordan and Jones 1997). This could
ground necessary for assigning the structure to lead to decision makers favoring explicit knowl-
develop and interpretexplicit knowledge (Polyani edge, at the expense of contradictory tacit
1975). The inextricable linkage of tacit and knowledge, because it may be viewed as more
explicit knowledge suggests that only individuals legitimized and, hence, justifiable. Moreover,
with a requisite level of shared knowledge can given the ephemeral nature of some knowledge,
truly exchange knowledge: if tacit knowledge is explicating knowledge may result in a rigidityand
necessary to the understanding of explicit knowl- inflexibility, which would impede, rather than
edge, then in order for IndividualB to understand improve, performance.
Individual A's knowledge, there must be some
overlap in their underlying knowledge bases (a The tacit-explicitknowledge classification is widely
shared knowledge space) (Ivariand Linger 1999; cited, although sundry other knowledge classi-
Tuomi 1999). However, it is precisely in applying fications exist that eschew the recondite subtleties
technology to increase "weak ties" (i.e., informal of the tacit-explicit dimension. Some refer to
and casual contacts among individuals)in organi- knowledge as declarative (know-about or knowl-
zations (Pickering and King 1995), and thereby edge by acquaintance [Nolan Norton 1998]),
increase the breadth of knowledge sharing, that IT procedural (know-how), causal (know-why),
holds promise. Yet, absent a shared knowledge conditional (know-when), and relational (know-
space, the real impact of IT on knowledge with) (Zack 1998c). A pragmatic approach to
exchange is questionable. This is a paradox that classifying knowledge simply attempts to identify
IT researchers have somewhat eschewed, and types of knowledge that are useful to organiza-
that organizational researchers have used to tions. Examples include knowledge about custo-
question the application of IT to knowledge mers, products, processes, and competitors,
management. To add to the paradox, the very which can include best practices, know-how and
essence of the knowledge management challenge heuristic rules, patterns, software code, business
is to amalgamate knowledge across groups for processes, and models; architectures,technology,
which IT can play a major role. What is most at and business frameworks; project experiences
issue is the amount of contextual information (proposals, work plans, and reports); and tools
necessary for one person or group's knowledge to used to implement a process such as checklists
be readily understood by another. and surveys (KPMG1998b).
It may be argued that the greater the shared An understanding of the concept of knowledge
knowledge space, the less the context needed for and knowledge taxonomies is importantbecause
individuals to share knowledge within the group theoretical developments in the knowledge
and, hence, the higher the value of explicit management area are influenced by the distinc-
knowledge and the greater the value of ITapplied tion among the different types of knowledge.
to knowledge management. On the other hand, Furthermore, the knowledge taxonomies dis-
the smaller the existing shared knowledge space cussed here can informthe design of knowledge
in a group, the greater the need for contextual management systems by calling attention to the
information, the less relevant will be explicit need for support of different types of knowledge
knowledge, and hence the less applicable will be and the flows among these different types.
ITto knowledge management. Knowledge management may provide an oppor-
tunityfor extending the scope of IT-based knowl-
Tacit knowledge has received greater interest and edge provision to include the different knowledge
attention than has explicit knowledge, and yet the types summarized in Table 2.
112 MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001

Management
Knowledge Types Definitions Examples

Tacit Knowledge is rooted in actions, Best means of dealing with specific
experience, and involvement in customer
specific context
Cognitive tacit: Mental models Individual'sbelief on cause-
effect relationships
Technical tacit: Know-how applicable to specific Surgery skills
work
Explicit Articulated,generalized knowledge Knowledge of major customers in a
region
Individual Created by and inherent in the Insights gained from completed
individual project
Social Created by and inherent in collective Norms for inter-group
actions of a group communication
Declarative Know-about What drug is appropriate for an
illness
Procedural Know-how How to administer a particulardrug
Causal Know-why Understanding why the drug works
Conditional Know-when Understanding when to prescribe
the drug
Relational Know-with Understanding how the drug
interacts with other drugs
Pragmatic Useful knowledge for an Best practices, business
organization frameworks, project experiences,
engineering drawings, market
reports
Knowledge Management and 13% facing a loss of income because of the

in Organizations departure of a single employee. In another sur-
vey, the majority of organizations believed that
The recent interest in organizational knowledge much of the knowledge they needed existed
has prompted the issue of managing the knowl- inside the organization, but that identifying that it
edge to the organization's benefit. Knowledge existed, finding it, and leveraging it remained
management refers to identifying and leveraging problematic (Cranfield University 1998). Such
the collective knowledge in an organization to help problems maintaining, locating, and applying
the organization compete (von Krogh 1998). knowledge have led to systematic attempts to
Knowledge management is purportedto increase manage knowledge.
innovativeness and responsiveness (Hackbarth
1998). A recent survey of European firms by According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), most
KPMG Peat Marwick(1998b) found that almost knowledge management projects have one of
half of the companies reported having suffered a three aims: (1) to make knowledge visible and
significant setback from losing key staff with 43% show the role of knowledge in an organization,
experiencing impaired client or supplier relations mainlythrough maps, yellow pages, and hypertext
MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001 113

Management
tools; (2) to develop a knowledge-intensive culture and behavior by analyzing transaction data
by encouraging and aggregating behaviors such (KPMG 1998a), among others. Indeed, there is
as knowledge sharing (as opposed to hoarding) no single role of ITin knowledge management just
and proactively seeking and offering knowledge; as there is no single technology comprising KMS.
(3) to builda knowledge infrastructure-not only a
technical system, but a web of connections among Reviewing the literaturediscussing applications of
people given space, time, tools, and encourage- IT to organizational knowledge management
ment to interact and collaborate. initiatives reveals three common applications:
(1) the coding and sharing of best practices,
Knowledge management is largely regarded as a (2) the creation of corporate knowledge direc-
process involving various activities. Slight discre- tories, and (3) the creation of knowledge net-
pancies in the delineation of the processes appear works. One of the most common applications is
in the literature, namely in terms of the number internalbenchmarking with the aim of transferring
and labeling of processes rather than the under- internal best practices (KPMG 1998a; O'Dell and
lying concepts. At a minimum,one considers the Grayson 1998). For example, an insurance com-
four basic processes of creating, storing/retrieving, pany was faced with the commoditization of its
transferring, and applying knowledge. These market and declining profits. The company found
major processes can be subdivided, for example, that applying the best decision making expertise
into creating internal knowledge, acquiring exter- via a new underwritingprocess supported by a
nal knowledge, storing knowledge in documents knowledge management system enabled it to
versus storing in routines (Teece 1998) as well as move into profitableniche markets and, hence, to
updating the knowledge and sharing knowledge increase income (Davenport and Prusak 1998).
internally and externally. We will return to the
knowledge management processes in the frame- Another common application of knowledge
work section and consider the role of IT within management is the creation of corporate direc-
each process. tories, also referred to as the mapping of internal
expertise. Because much knowledge in an organi-
zation remains uncodified, mapping the internal
Knowledge ManagementSystems expertise is a potentially useful application of
knowledge management (Ruggles 1998). One
Knowledge management systems (KMS) refer to survey found that 74% of respondents believed
a class of information systems applied to that their organization's best knowledge was
managing organizational knowledge. That is, they inaccessible and 68% thought that mistakes were
are IT-based systems developed to support and reproduced several times (Gazeau 1998). Such
enhance the organizational processes of knowl- perception of the failure to apply existing knowl-
edge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer, and edge is an incentive for mapping internal
application. While not all KMinitiatives involve an expertise.
implementation of IT,and admonitions against an
emphasis on ITat the expense of the social and A third common application of knowledge man-
culturalfacets of KMare not uncommon (Daven- agement systems is the creation of knowledge
port and Prusak 1998; Malhotra1999; O'Dell and networks (Ruggles 1998). For example, when
Grayson 1998), many KMinitiatives rely on IT as Chrysler reorganized from functional to platform-
an important enabler. While ITdoes not apply to based organizational units, they realized quickly
all of the issues of knowledge management, it can that unless the suspension specialists could
support KM in sundry ways. Examples include communicate easily with each other across plat-
finding an expert or a recorded source of knowl- form types, expertise would deteriorate. Chrysler
edge using online directories and searching formed Tech Cul, bringing people together
databases; sharing knowledge and working virtuallyand face-to-face to exchange and build
together in virtualteams; access to informationon their collective knowledge in each of the specialty
past projects; and learning about customer needs areas. In this case, the knowledge management
114 MISQuarterly
Vol.25 No. 1/March2001

effort was less focused on mapping expertise or are not suggesting that IT applied to the KM
benchmarking than it was on bringingthe experts efforts of a given organization must provide the
together so that importantknowledge was shared means of capturing all types of knowledge men-
and amplified. Providing online forums for com- tioned; the specific types of knowledge forming
munication and discussion may form knowledge the substance of an IT will depend upon an
networks. Buckman Laboratories uses an online organization's context. We are suggesting, how-
interactive forum where user comments are ever, that IT as applied to KM need not be
threaded in conversational sequence and indexed constrained to certain types of knowledge,
by topic, author, and date. This has reportedly because the advances in communication and
enabled Buckman to respond to the changing information technologies enable greater possi-
basis of competition that has evolved from merely bilities than existed with previous classes of
selling products to solving customers' chemical informationsystems.
treatment problems (Zack 1998a). In another
case, Ford found that just by sharing knowledge, While the preponderance of knowledge manage-
the development time for cars was reduced from ment theory stems from strategy and organiza-
36 to 24 months, and through knowledge sharing tional theory research, the majorityof knowledge
withdealers, the delivery delay reduced from 50 to management initiatives involve at least in part, if
15 days (Gazeau 1998). not to a significant degree, informationtechnology.
Yet little IT research exists on the design, use, or
success of systems to support knowledge
Summary: Knowledge and the Firm management. The next section will examine the
four basic knowledge management processes and
Informationsystems designed to support and aug- the role that IT may play in each process.
ment organizational knowledge management
need to complement and enhance the knowledge
management activities of individuals and the
collectivity. To achieve this, the design of infor- Organizational Knowledge
mation systems should be rooted in and guided by
an understanding of the nature and types of Management Processes:
organizational knowledge. Different perspectives A Frameworkfor Analysis
on knowledge and various knowledge taxonomies of the Role of an
were discussed earlier. These discussions high- InformationSystem
light the importance of assessing and under-
standing an organization'sknowledge position and In this section, we develop a systematic frame-
its existing intellectual resources. Such an under- work that will be used to further analyze and
standing is needed for formulating a knowledge discuss the potential role of information techno-
management strategy and in analyzing the role of logies in organizational knowledge management.
information technology in facilitating knowledge This framework is grounded in the sociology of
management (discussed in the next section). In knowledge (Berger and Luckman 1967; Gurvitch
the information systems (IS) field, it has been
1971; Holzner and Marx 1979) and is based on
common to design systems primarilyfocused on the view of organizations as social collectives and
the codified knowledge (that is, explicit organiza-
"knowledge systems." According to this frame-
tional knowledge). Management reporting sys- work,organizations as knowledge systems consist
tems, decision support systems, and executive of four sets of socially enacted "knowledge
support systems have all focused on the collection processes": (1) creation (also referred to as
and dissemination of this knowledge type.
construction), (2) storage/retrieval, (3) transfer,
Knowledge management systems may provide an and (4) application (Holzner and Marx 1979;
opportunity for extending the scope of IT-based Pentland 1995). This view of organizations as
knowledge provision to include the different knowledge systems represents both the cognitive
knowledge forms and types shown in Table 2. We and social nature of organizational knowledge and

its embodiment in the individual's cognition and the other hand, the socialization mode may
practices as well as the collective (i.e., organiza- involve transferringexisting tacit knowledge from
tional) practices and culture. These processes do one member to another through discussion of
not represent a monolithic set of activities, but an ideas. New organizational knowledge per se may
interconnected and intertwinedset of activities, as not be created, but only knowledge that is new to
explained later in this section. the recipient. The combination mode in most
cases involves an intermediate step-that of an
individual drawing insight from explicit sources
Knowledge Creation (i.e., internalization) and then coding the new
knowledge into an explicit form (externalization).
Organizationalknowledge creation involves devel- Finally, internalizationmay consist of the simple
oping new content or replacing existing content conversion of existing explicit knowledge to an
within the organization's tacit and explicit knowl- individual'stacit knowledge as well as creation of
edge (Pentland 1995). Through social and new organizational knowledge when the explicit
collaborative processes as well as an individual's source triggers a new insight.
cognitive processes (e.g., reflection), knowledge
is created, shared, amplified, enlarged, and Figure 1 illustrates the interplayamong Nonaka's
justified in organizational settings (Nonaka 1994). knowledge creation modes, and hence may be
This model views organizational knowledge crea- useful in interpreting relationships between the
tion as involvinga continual interplaybetween the four modes.
tacit and explicit dimensions of knowledge and a
In Figure 1, each arrow represents a form of
growing spiral flow as knowledge moves through
individual,group, and organizational levels. Four knowledge creation. The arrows labeled A
modes of knowledge creation have been iden- represent externalization; the arrows labeled B
tified: socialization, externalization, internaliza- represent internalization; the arrows labeled C
tion, and combination (Nonaka 1994). The sociali- represent socialization; and the arrows labeled D
zation mode refers to conversion of tacit represent combination.
knowledge to new tacit knowledge through social
interactions and shared experience among It may be useful to consider the conditions and
organizational members (e.g., apprenticeship). environments that facilitate new knowledge crea-
The combination mode refers to the creation of tion. Nonaka and Konno (1998) suggest that the
new explicit knowledge by merging, categorizing, essential question of knowledge creation is
reclassifying, and synthesizing existing explicit establishing an organization's "ba"(defined as a
knowledge (e.g., literature survey reports). The common place or space for creating knowledge).
other two modes involve interactions and con- Four types of ba corresponding to the four modes
version between tacit and explicit knowledge. of knowledge creation discussed above are
Externalization refers to converting tacit knowl- identified: (1) originating ba, (2) interacting ba,
edge to new explicit knowledge (e.g., articulation (3) cyber ba, and (4) exercising ba (Nonaka and
of best practices or lessons learned). Internali- Konno 1998). Originating ba entails the sociali-
zation refers to creation of new tacit knowledge zation mode of knowledge creation and is the ba
from explicit knowledge (e.g., the learning and fromwhich the organizational knowledge creation
understanding that results from reading or process begins. Originatingba is a common place
discussion). in which individuals share experiences primarily
through face-to-face interactions and by being at
The four knowledge creation modes are not pure, the same place at the same time. Interactingba
but highly interdependent and intertwined. That is associated with the externalization mode of
is, each mode relies on, contributes to, and knowledge creation and refers to a space where
benefits from other modes. For example, the tacit knowledge is converted to explicit knowledge
socialization mode can result in creation of new and shared among individuals through the pro-
knowledge when an individual obtains a new cess of dialogue and collaboration. Cyber ba
insight triggered by interaction with another. On refers to a virtualspace of interaction and corres-

Storage (document, Storage (document,

e-mail, intranet...) e-mail, intranet...)
Legend: Each arrowrepresents a form of knowledge creation.

A-Externalization; B-Internalization;C-Socialization;
D-Combination
aLSOtIi- S *Sf *. * V g.
ponds to the combination mode of knowledge can be enhanced through the use of various forms
creation. Finally, exercising ba involves the of informationsystems. For example, information
conversion of explicit to tacit knowledge through systems designed for support of collaboration,
the internalization process. Thus, exercising ba coordination, and communication processes, as a
entails a space for active and continuous indivi- component of the interacting ba, can facilitate
dual learning. Understanding the characteristics teamwork and thereby increase an individual's
of various ba and the relationship with the modes contact with other individuals. Electronic mail and
of knowledge creation is importantto enhancing group support systems have been shown to
organizational knowledge creation. For example, increase the number of weak ties in organizations.
the use of ITcapabilities in cyber ba is advocated This in turn can accelerate the growth of knowl-
to enhance the efficiency of the combination mode edge creation (Nonaka 1994). Intranets enable
of knowledge creation (Nonaka and Konno 1998). exposure to greater amounts of on-line organiza-
Data warehousing and data mining, documents tional information,both horizontallyand vertically,
repositories, and software agents, for example, than may previously have been the case. As the
may be of great value in cyber ba. level of informationexposure increases, the inter-
nalization mode of knowledge creation, wherein
We furthersuggest that considering the flexibility individuals make observations and interpretations
of modern IT,other forms of organizationalba and of information that result in new individual tacit
the corresponding modes of knowledge creation knowledge, may increase. In this role, an intranet
MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 117

can support individual learning (conversion of Similar to the knowledge creation process
explicit knowledge to personal tacit knowledge) described in the previous section, a distinction
through provisionof capabilities such as computer between individual and organizational memory
simulation (to support learning-by-doing) and has been made in the literature. Individualmem-
smart software tutors. ory is developed based on a person's observa-
tions, experiences, and actions (Argyris and
Computer-mediatedcommunication may increase Schon 1978; Nystrom and Starbuck 1981;
the quality of knowledge creation by enabling a Sanderlands and Stablein 1987). Collective or
forum for constructing and sharing beliefs, for organizational memory is defined as "the means
confirming consensual interpretation, and for by which knowledge from the past, experience,
allowing expression of new ideas (Henderson and and events influence present organizational
Sussman 1997). By providing an extended field activities"(Stein and Zwass 1995, p. 85). Organi-
for interactionamong organizational members for zational memory extends beyond the individual's
sharing ideas and perspectives, and for esta- memory to include other components such as
blishing dialog, informationsystems may enable organizationalculture,transformations(production
individuals to arrive at new insights and/or more processes and workprocedures), structure(formal
accurate interpretations than if left to decipher organizational roles), ecology (physical work
informationon their own. Boland et al. (1994) setting) and information archives (both internal
provide a specific example of an information and external to the organization) (Walsh and
system called Spider that provides an environ- Ungson 1991).
ment for representing, exchanging, and debating
different individual perspectives. The system Organizational memory is classified as semantic
actualizes an extended field in which "assump- or episodic (El Sawy et al. 1996; Stein and Zwass
tions are surfaced and questioned, new constructs 1995). Semantic memory refers to general, explicit
emerge and dialog among different perspectives and articulated knowledge (e.g., organizational
is supported" (Boland et al. 1994, pp. 467). As archives of annual reports), whereas episodic
such, the quality and frequency of the knowledge memory refers to context-specific and situated
creation is improved. knowledge (e.g., specific circumstances of organi-
zational decisions and their outcomes, place, and
time). Memorymay have both positive and nega-
tive potential influences on behavior and perfor-
Knowledge Storage/Retrieval mance. On the positive side, basing and relating
organizational change in past experience facili-
Empiricalstudies have shown that while organi- tates implementation of the change (Wilkinsand
zations create knowledge and learn, they also Bristow 1987). Memory also helps in storing and
forget (i.e., do not remember or lose track of the reapplying workable solutions in the form of stan-
acquired knowledge) (Argote et al. 1990; Darret dards and procedures, which in turn avoid the
al. 1995). Thus, the storage, organization, and re- waste of organizational resources in replicating
trieval of organizational knowledge, also referred
previous work.
to as organizational memory (Stein and Zwass
1995; Walsh and Ungson 1991), constitute an On the other hand, memory has a potential nega-
importantaspect of effective organizational knowl- tive influence on individual and organizational
edge management. Organizational memory performance. At the individuallevel, memory can
includes knowledge residingin various component result in decision-making bias (Starbuckand Hed-
forms, includingwrittendocumentation, structured berg 1977). At the organizational level, memory
informationstored in electronic databases, codi-
may lead to maintaining the status quo by rein-
fied human knowledge stored in expert systems,
forcing single loop learning (defined as a process
documented organizational procedures and pro- of detecting and correcting errors) (Argyris and
cesses and tacit knowledge acquired by indivi- Schon 1978). This could in turn lead to stable,
duals and networks of individuals (Tan et al. consistent organizational cultures that are resis-
1999). tant to change (Denison and Mishra 1995).

Despite the concerns about the potential con- Knowledge Transfer

straining role of organizational memory, there is a
positive perspective on the influence of IT-enabled Having discussed knowledge creation and
organizational memory on the behavior and storage/retrieval, we now expand Figure 1 into
performance of individuals and organizations. Figure 2 and consider the important issue of
knowledge transfer. The arrows from Figure 1 are
Advanced computer storage technology and now represented as two-way arrows.
sophisticated retrieval techniques, such as query
languages, multimedia databases, and database In Figure 2, the arrows labeled D represent the
management systems, can be effective tools in process of knowledge application and those
enhancing organizational memory. These tools labeled E represent the learning, or new knowl-
increase the speed at which organizational edge creation, that occurs when individuals apply
memory can be accessed. Weiser and Morrison knowledge and observe the results. The arrows
(1998) give the example of AI-STARS, a project labeled F represent the transfer of an individual's
memory system at DEC (Digital Equipment explicit knowledge to group semantic memory
Corporation) that combines such information as (which can occur, for instance, when individuals
bulletin board postings, product release state- place reports they have prepared on a group
ments, service manuals, and e-mail messages to server for others to view). The arrows labeled G
enable rapid access to product information for represent the possible transferfromindividualtacit
assisting customer problems. Product memory knowledge to group episodic memory. Individuals
can be facilitated with corporate intranets, so that may likewise learn from the group semantic and
product and pricing changes can be immediately episodic memories, reflected in arrows F and G.
noted in the system instead of having brochures Indeed, the group episodic memory is critical in
reprinted.This in turnavoids the lag time resulting helping an individualinterpretand learn from the
from the time a change occurs to the time when group semantic memory.
the sales personnel become aware of the change
(Leidner 1998). As the figure illustrates, an important process in
knowledge management is that of knowledge
Groupware enables organizations to create intra- transfer, with each transfer of knowledge repre-
organizational memory in the form of both struc- sented by an arrow. Transfer occurs at various
tured and unstructured informationand to share levels: transfer of knowledge between individuals,
this memory across time and space (Vanden- from individuals to explicit sources, from indivi-
bosch and Ginzberg 1996). For example, McKin- duals to groups, between groups, across groups,
nsey's Practice Development Networkplaces core and from the group to the organization.
project documentation online for the purposes of
promotingmemoryand learningorganization-wide Considering the distributed nature of organi-
(Stein and Zwass 1995). ITcan play an important zational cognition, an importantprocess of knowl-
role in the enhancement and expansion of both edge management inorganizational settings is the
semantic and episodic organizational memory. transfer of knowledge to locations where it is
Document management technology allows knowl- needed and can be used. However, this is not a
edge of an organization's past, often dispersed simple process in that organizations often do not
among a variety of retention facilities, to be effec- know what they know and have weak systems for
tively stored and made accessible (Stein and locating and retrieving knowledge that resides in
Zwass 1995). Drawing on these technologies, them (Huber 1991). Communication processes
most consulting firms have created semantic and informationflows drive knowledge transfer in
memories by developing vast repositories of organizations. Gupta and Govindarajan (2000)
knowledge about customers, projects, compe- have conceptualized knowledge transfer (knowl-
tition, and the industries they serve (Alavi 1997). edge flows in their terminology) in terms of five

G G
Legend:
D--TheProcess of KnowledgeApplication
E--TheProcess of Learning
F--TheTransferof Individual
ExplicitKnowledgeto GroupSemanticMemoryand vice versa
G--TheTransferof Individual
TacitKnowledgeto GroupEpisodicMemoryand vice versa
S 0 '0 * 0 0 0 0
-
elements: (1) perceived value of the source unit's The majorityof the literaturefocuses on the third
knowledge, (2) motivational disposition of the element, that of the knowledge transfer channels.
source (i.e., theirwillingness to share knowledge), Knowledge transfer channels can be informal or
(3) existence and richness of transmission chan- formal, personal or impersonal (Holtham and
nels, (4) motivationaldisposition of the receiving
Courtney 1998). Informalmechanisms, such as
unit (i.e., their willingness to acquire knowledge
unscheduled meetings, informal seminars, or
from the source), and (5) the absorptive capacity
coffee break conversations, may be effective in
of the receiving unit,defined as the abilitynot only
to acquire and assimilate but also to use knowl- promoting socialization but may preclude wide
dissemination (Holtham and Courtney 1998).
edge (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). The least con-
trollable element is the fifth: knowledge must go Such mechanisms may also be more effective in
small organizations (Fahey and Prusak 1998).
through a recreation process in the mind of the
receiver (El Sawy et al. 1998). This recreation However, such mechanisms may involve certain
depends on the recipient's cognitive capacity to amounts of knowledge atrophy in that, absent a
process the incoming stimuli (Vance and Eynon formal coding of the knowledge, there is no
1998). guarantee that the knowledge will be passed

accurately from one member to others. This technologies can also enhance transfer. For
parallels problems with the recipient's ability to example, offshore drilling knowledge is made
process the knowledge. Learning problems can available globally at BritishPetroleum by desktop
involve recipients filtering the knowledge they video conferencing in which a screen will include
exchange, interpretingthe knowledge from their images of the participants, windows of technical
own frame of reference, or learning from only a data, video clips of the physical issue under consi-
select group of knowledge holders (Huysam et al. deration, specifications, contractual data, and
1998). Formal transfer mechanisms, such as plans (Cranfield University 1998).
training sessions and plant tours, may ensure
greater distributionof knowledge but may inhibit ITcan increase knowledge transfer by extending
creativity. Personal channels, such as appren- the individual'sreach beyond the formal communi-
ticeships or personnel transfers, may be more cation lines. The search for knowledge sources is
effective for distributing highly context specific usually limited to immediate coworkers in regular
knowledge whereas impersonalchannels, such as and routine contact with the individual. However,
knowledge repositories, may be most effective for individuals are unlikely to encounter new knowl-
knowledge that can be readilygeneralized to other edge through their close-knit work networks
contexts. Personnel transfer is a formal, personal because individuals in the same clique tend to
mechanism of knowledge transfer. Such trans- possess similar information (Robertson et al.
fers, common in Japan, immerse team members 1996). Moreover, studies show that individuals
in the routines of other members, thereby allowing are decidedly unaware of what their cohorts are
access to the partner's stock of tacit knowledge doing (Kogut and Zander 1996). Thus, expanding
the individual's network to more extended,
(Fahey and Prusak 1998). A benefit is that
learning takes place without the need to first although perhaps weaker, connections is central
convert tacit knowledge to explicit, saving time to the knowledge diffusion process because such
and resources and preserving the original knowl- networks expose individuals to more new ideas
(Robertson et al. 1996). Computer networks and
edge base (Fahey and Prusak 1998). The most
electronic bulletin boards and discussion groups
effective transfer mechanism depends upon the
create a forumthat facilitates contact between the
type of knowledge being transferred (Inkpen and
Dinur 1998). Much as the existence of "care"may person seeking knowledge and those who may
have access to the knowledge. For example, this
be important to knowledge transfer between
may be accomplished by posting a question in the
individuals,the existence of a close, tight interface
form of "does anybody know" or a "request for
is criticalat the organizational level. A narrowand
help" to the discussion group. Corporate direc-
distant interface has been found to be an obstacle
tories may enable individuals to rapidlylocate the
to learning and knowledge sharing (Inkpen and
individualwho has the knowledge that might help
Dikur 1998).
them solve a current problem. At Hewlett-
Packard, the primarycontent of one system is a
IT can support all four forms of knowledge set of expert profiles containing a directory of the
transfer, but has mostly been applied to informal, backgrounds, skills, and expertise of individuals
impersonal means (throughsuch venues as Lotus who are knowledgeable on various topics. Often
Notes discussion databases) and formal, imper- such metadata (knowledge about where the
sonal means (such as knowledge maps or corpor- knowledge resides) proves to be as importantas
ate directories). An innovative use of technology the original knowledge itself (Andreu and Ciborra
for transfer is the use of intelligentagent software 1997). Providing taxonomies or organizational
to develop interest profiles of organizational mem- knowledge maps enables individuals to rapidly
bers in order to determine which members might locate either the knowledge or the individualwho
be interested recipients of point-to-pointelectronic has the needed knowledge, more rapidly than
messages exchanged among other members would be possible without such IT-based support
(O'Dell and Grayson 1998). Employing video (Offsey 1997).

Knowledge Application bedding them into IT might facilitate efficient

handling of routine, "linear,"and predictable situa-
An important aspect of the knowledge-based tions during stable or incrementally changing
theory of the firmis that the source of competitive environments, when change is radical and dis-
advantage resides in the application of the continuous, there is a persistent need for con-
knowledge rather than in the knowledge itself. tinual renewal of the basic premises underlying
Grant (1996b) identifies three primary mechan- the practices archived in the knowledge reposi-
isms for the integration of knowledge to create tories (Malhotra1999). This underscores the need
organizationalcapability:directives, organizational for organizational members to remain attuned to
routines, and self-contained task teams. Directives contextual factors and explicitly consider the
refer to the specific set of rules, standards, pro- specific circumstances of the current environ-
cedures, and instructions developed through the ment. A second problem may be deciding upon
conversion of specialists' tacit knowledge to expli- the rules and routines to apply to a problem, given
cit and integrated knowledge forefficient commun- that over time, the organization has learned and
ication to non-specialists (Demsetz 1991). codified a large number of rules and routines, so
Examples include directives for hazardous waste that choosing which rules to activate for a specific
disposal or airplane safety checks and main- choice making scenario is itself problematic.
tenance. Organizational routines refer to the Shared meanings and understandings about the
development of task performance and coordi- nature and needs of a particularsituation can be
nation patterns, interactionprotocols, and process used to guide rule activation (Nolan Norton 1998).
specifications that allow individuals to apply and
integrate their specialized knowledge without the Although there are challenges with applying
need to articulate and communicate what they existing knowledge, IT can have a positive
know to others. Routines may be relatively simple influence on knowledge application. IT can
(e.g., organizing activities based on time- enhance knowledge integrationand applicationby
patterned sequences such as an assembly line), facilitatingthe capture, updating, and accessibility
or highly complex (e.g., a cockpit crew flying a of organizational directives. For example, many
large passenger airplane). The third knowledge organizations are enhancing the ease of access
and maintenance of their directives (repair
integration mechanism is the creation of self-
contained task teams. In situations in which task manuals, policies, and standards) by makingthem
available on corporate intranets. This increases
uncertainty and complexity prevent the speci-
the speed at which changes can be applied. Also,
fication of directives and organizational routines,
teams of individuals with prerequisite knowledge organizational units can follow a faster learning
curve by accessing the knowledge of other units
and specialty are formed for problem solving.
having gone through similar experiences. More-
over, by increasing the size of individuals'internal
Technology can support knowledge application by social networks and by increasing the amount of
embedding knowledge into organizational rou-
organizationalmemory available, informationtech-
tines. Procedures that are culture-bound can be
nologies allow for organizational knowledge to be
embedded into ITso that the systems themselves
applied across time and space. IT can also
become examples of organizational norms. An enhance the speed of knowledge integrationand
example is Mrs. Field's use of systems designed application by codifying and automating organi-
to assist in every decision from hiringpersonnel to zational routines. Workflow automation systems
when to put free samples of cookies out on the are examples of IT applications that reduce the
table. The system transmits the norms and beliefs need for communication and coordination and
held by the head of the company to organizational enable more efficient use of organizational
members (Bloodgood and Salisbury 1998). Tech- routines through timely and automatic routing of
nology enforced knowledge application raises a work-related documents, information,rules, and
concern that knowledge willcontinue to be applied activities. Rule based expert systems are another
after its real usefulness has declined. While the means of capturing and enforcing well specified
institutionalization of "best practices" by em- organizational procedures.

J
,,~~~~~~~
Legend:
H-An individualdrawingupongroupmemoryand applyingthe knowledgeto a situation.
I- The learningderivedfroman individualin applyingknowledgethatbecomes partof the group'sepisodic memory.
J-The sharingof knowledgeacross groupsystems, such as the sharingof best practices.
6 0 *0e* S~~~~~~C
. S S S S S
Summary: OrganizationalKnowledge menon. Figure 3 builds upon Figure 2 to illustrate

Management Processes the "web"of knowledge management activities in
organizational settings. The figure introduces two
To summarize, this section has described and new groups-Groups 2 and 3-to illustrate the
elaborated on a knowledge management frame- potential knowledge transfer across groups. For
work based on the view of organizations as simplicity purposes, only one member is repre-
knowledge systems. One of the important impli- sented in Groups 2 and 3.
cations of this framework is that knowledge
management consists of a dynamic and con- Figure 3 depicts the transfer of knowledge among
tinuous set of processes and practices embedded individuals and groups. Once individualA shares
in individuals, as well as in groups and physical (transfers) some knowledge with individual B,
structures. At any point in time and in any part of individual B's knowledge processes may have
a given organization, individuals and groups may been triggered. For example, A's knowledge
be engaged in several different aspects and transfer may lead to B's knowledge creation. B
processes of knowledge management. Thus, may chose to apply the knowledge, consult with
knowledge management is not a discrete, inde- other members, or record the knowledge.
pendent, and monolithic organizational pheno- Knowledge hence flows between individuals and

a majorchallenge of KMis to facilitate these flows another's semantic memory, how does the
so that the maximum amount of transfer occurs receiving group validate the information and
(assuming that the knowledge individuals create determine whether to apply it? Group gate-
has value and can improve performance). keepers (internalboundary spanners) may act as
Individuals in a group or community of practice links between the episodic memory of two groups
then develop a group knowledge (the collectivity and, hence, increase the relevance of knowledge
of their stored memory, be it organized informally transfer. Do certain individuals act as such inter-
in e-mail communications or formally in a nal boundary spanners, searching within an
knowledge repository). The individual is con- extended networkfor practices that mightimprove
nected to the group processes through transfer their unit? In short, to improve knowledge man-
(an individual may share knowledge with the agement, utilizinginformationtechnology implies
group during a decision-making meeting, for attention not only to improving the individualand
example) or through a centralized storage group level processes of knowledge creation and
mechanism (e.g., computer files or regular storage, but also to improvingthe linkages among
meetings). Individuals can then call on the individuals and between groups.
centralized memory to make decisions, if needed
(arrows H). Individualslearn from the application Another implication of this framework is that the
of knowledge and their learning becomes four knowledge processes of creation, storage/
embedded into their tacit knowledge space and retrieval,transfer, and application are essential to
the group's episodic memory (arrows I). Organi- effective organizational knowledge management.
zational knowledge processes would then consist We contend that the application of information
of the summation of the individual and group
technologies can create an infrastructure and
knowledge processes. In this case, one group environment that contribute to organizational
may have acquired and applied knowledge to a
knowledge management by actualizing, sup-
given situation and coded this knowledge in the
form of a certain routine. This "best practice"may porting, augmenting, and reinforcing knowledge
then be shared with other groups by allowing processes at a deep level through enhancing their
access to group memory systems (arrows J) or by underlying dynamics, scope, timing, and overall
facilitatingintergroupdialogue. synergy. Table 3 summarizes the four processes
and the potential role of IT in facilitating each
Figure 3 can elucidate some of the major chal- process. While the four processes are presented
lenges of knowledge management at the indivi- as discrete, it is importantto realize that we are
dual, group, and the organizational (i.e., inter- not implying a linear sequence, as evident in the
groups) levels. One primarychallenge is to make Figures 1, 2 and 3. An individualmay create new
individualknowledge available, and meaningful, to knowledge (have a new insight) and immediately
others (Ackerman and Halverson 1999). At the apply this knowledge (use it as the basis of a
group level, this means enabling a group's decision, for example) without either storing it
episodic memory to be accessible to other groups, (except in his/her internalmemory) or transferring
implying an overlap in group membership. The itto others. The application of the knowledge may
codification of knowledge into semantic memory lead to additional new knowledge (perhaps
neither guarantees efficient dissemination nor
concerning how best to apply the knowledge),
effective storage (Jordan and Jones 1997).
which may or may not be coded or transferred.
Transfer among groups may be challenged not
Knowledge that has been applied mightbe coded
only by the lack of shared episodic memory, but
after application (e.g., incorporatedintoan organi-
by the practical issue of informinggroups of when
the semantic memory of a group has been modi- zational routine).The objective of Table 3 is not to
fied (say, a new importantdocument summarizing provide an exhaustive set of ITtools for KM,but to
a flaw in product design is now available on the illustrate that a variety of IT tools may be drawn
group intranet of an overseas R&D unit). Even if upon for support of different KM processes in
one group is aware of, and chooses to access, organizations.

iI@JI.iIO1''A 1itIS[JiiL1i1Ui
[:1. K@[UkTi IeI.(III1iIeEIiI@J(JilEt1E{O][E@JUE
Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge

Management Creation Storage/Retrieval Transfer
Processes
Supporting Datamining Electronicbulletinboards Electronicbul
Information Learningtools Knowledgerepositories Discussionfo
Technologies Databases Knowledgedi
ITEnables Combiningnew sources of Supportof individualand Moreextensiv
knowledge organizationalmemory network
Just in time learning Inter-groupknowledge Morecommu
access channelsavai
Fasteraccess
ce
0 knowledgeso
I Groupwareand communication
techn
01 Platform
:r
Technologies
2a I INTRANETS
ol
PO
C)
0
U)
CJ

Research Issues in Knowledge creation spaces, is also considered an important

catalyst for knowledge creation. For instance, at
Management 3M, employees can set aside 15% of their work
time to pursue personal research interests.
The review of the literatureon knowledge, knowl-
Computer terminals are located throughout the
edge management, and knowledge management
company, including large open meeting areas
systems uncovers a broad gamut of potential around which people may gather to partake in
research streams. While much theory exists on
discussions. In concert with the integration of
knowledge management, littleempirical work has
open access to knowledge databases, coor-
been undertaken. Hence, there are large gaps in
dination between production, marketing, distri-
the body of knowledge in this area. In this sec-
bution, and product design is improved (Graham
tion, we will briefly highlight some research and Pizzo 1998). As was shown in Figure 3,
themes that, in our view, aim at bridgingthe gaps.
individuals may benefit more from semantic
memory if they also share an episodic memory.
Organizationaldesign can be used to increase the
Research Issues on episodic memory and, hence, make the semantic
Knowledge Creation memory more readily interpretable.
Much of the existing research on knowledge Some argue that the close ties in a community
creation focuses on the source and state of knowl- limitknowledge creation because individuals are
edge. Research is now needed that moves unlikely to encounter new ideas in close-knit
beyond the source and state to consider the con- networks where they tend to possess similar
ditions that facilitate knowledge creation. Descrip- information (Robertson et al. 1996). This view
tive studies have identified culture as a major upholds the need for weak ties to expose indivi-
catalyst, or alternatively a major hindrance, to duals to new ideas that can trigger new knowledge
knowledge creation and sharing. A knowledge- creation. In terms of design, much can be done to
friendlyorganizational culture has been identified encourage knowledge creation, storage/retrieval,
as one of the most importantconditions leading to and transfer. Distant, informal,spontaneous con-
the success of KM initiatives in organizations tact between different organizational subunits
(Davenport and Prusak 1998). Firm-wide KMS might be an importantmechanism for knowledge
usually require profound cultural renovations be- creation (Roberston et al. 1996). The alternate
cause, traditionally,organizations have rewarded view argues that knowledge creation is better
their professionals and employees based on their served by close ties in a community of practice
individual performance and know-how. Cultural since individuals share a common language and
barriersto KM(e.g., organizational norms that pro- would be more at ease discussing ideas openly
mote and encourage knowledge hoarding) cannot and challenging the ideas of others. Moreover,
be effectively reduced or eliminated through IT such communities develop a shared under-
applications. In many organizations, a major cul- standing or a "collective knowledge base" (Brown
tural shift may be required to change employees' and Duguid 1998) from which knowledge
attitudes and behavior so that they willinglyand emerges. Hayduk (1998) hypothesizes that
consistently share their knowledge and insights. learning processes are more effective when
If so, must cultural change occur before knowl- shared within or among a self-selected peer
edge management initiatives can be successfully group. Thus, one research question whether IT
undertaken or can knowledge management initia- can enhance knowledge creation by enabling
tives facilitate cultural change? What cultures weak ties (e.g., spontaneous e-mail exchanges
foster knowledge creation? Research can exa- among distant members of an organization)while
mine the relationships between various organi- reinforcing close ties (by allowing more frequent
zational cultures and knowledge creation. interactions among the members of a community
of practice). Can, and if so, how do, communities
Organizationaldesign, in particularthe buildingof of practice evolve rapidly through electronic
communities of practice and shared knowledge connections and interactions alone?

Bffl^fflBB^^H^^^of HHHHH
Research Question 1: What conditions facilitate knowledge creation in organizations?
Research Question la: Do certain organizational cultures foster knowledge creation?
Research Question 1b: Can IT enhance knowledge creation by enabling weak ties to develop and
by reinforcingexisting close ties?
Research Question Ic: How is knowledge originatingfrom outside a unit evaluated for internal use?
Research Question Id: Does lack of a shared context inhibitthe adoption of knowledge originating
from outside a unit?
Research is also needed to determine how tight smarter (Glazer 1998). Instead, they are task-
collaborationshould be withinthe shared space to focused, shifting existing workloads to fight dead-
improve and accelerate knowledge creation and lines. Moreover, in many organizations, members
whether shared knowledge creation spaces can feel that their futures with the company are
be designed in such a manner to tighten collabor- dependent upon the expertise they generate and
ation (El Sawy et al. 1998). Research could also not on the extent to which they help others. In
consider how knowledge coming from outside the such situations, it is then expected that individuals
shared space is evaluated: does a lack of context will attempt to build up and defend their own
prevent the effective adoption of outside knowl- hegemonies of knowledge (von Krogh 1998).
edge? Or are members able to adopt and modify People may be unaware of what they have
outside knowledge to meet their needs? Answers learned; moreover, even if they realize what they
to these questions have implicationsforthe appro- have learned from a project,they may be unaware
priate scale and features of knowledge manage- of what aspects of their learning would be relevant
ment systems. Table 4 summarizes the research for others. Without a systematic routine for cap-
questions concerning knowledge creation. turing knowledge, a firmmight not benefit from its
best knowledge being captured. Research is
needed to address the issue of what types of
incentives are effective in inculcating organiza-
Research Issues on Knowledge tional members with valuable knowledge to
Storage and Retrieval contribute and share their knowledge.
Knowledge storage involves obtaining the knowl- An importantconsideration withstoring knowledge

edge from organizational members and/or exter- is how much context to include. When the context
nal sources, coding and indexing the knowledge
surroundingknowledge creation is not shared, it is
(forlater retrieval),and capturing it. Incentives are
questionable whether storing the knowledge
importantto overcome some of the majorbarriers without sufficient contextual detail will result in
to knowledge storage success. These barriers
effective uses. This could lead to the essence of
include the lack of employee time to contribute
the knowledge being lost (Zack 1998c). In addi-
theirknowledge (CranfieldUniversity1998; KPMG
tion to the question of how much context to
1998b) and a corporate culture that has histori-
capture is the question of how much knowledge to
cally not rewarded contributing and sharing of code and store. The more readily available the
insights (Brown and Duguid 1998; Cranfield Uni-
knowledge, the more likelyits reuse. On the other
versity 1998; KPMG1998b). Many organizations hand, the more readily available, the greater the
are relatively lean and many employees do not
likelihood of knowledge misuse, i.e., knowledge
have time to make knowledge available, share it
being misapplied to a different context. Further-
with others, teach and mentor others, use their
more, today's knowledge may be tomorrow's
expertise to innovate, or find ways of working
ignorance in the sense that knowledge emerges

Management
E1 eJL.7{*1*1 f.I.U@IU [*tiLe] mI.UUIeJuIJ I m1IuIsU..*fs1'i'i[10 Le(I(e] tIs[E1 lie E(IE d4k1
Research Question 2: What incentives are effective in encouraging knowledge contributionand

sharing in organizations?
Research Question 2a: How much context needs to be included in knowledge storing to ensure
effective interpretationand application?
Research Question 2b: Is stored knowledge accessed and applied by individuals who do not know
the originatorof the knowledge?
Research Question 2c: What retrieval mechanisms are most effective in enabling knowledge
retrieval.
and evolves over time and any system designed the explicit components of their knowledge, we
to store the knowledge must ensure that the would expect them to transfer more knowledge
knowledge is dynamic and updated rather than than they would if they had to rely solely on verbal
static. To be useful, it should be easy to retrieve or face-to-face communication. However, this
the captured knowledge. Creation of easy to use does not imply that individuals will expand the
and easy to remember retrievalmechanisms (e.g., number of other people with whom they share
search and retrieval commands) are important knowledge. They may simply share more with the
aspects of an organizational KM strategy. A same individuals (such as via e-mail or group-
variety of search and retrieval approaches and ware) by virtue of the ease and speed with which
tools (e.g., browsers) to access organizational they are able to electronically transfer information
knowledge captured in data warehouses and to their cohorts. Thus, a primaryquestion con-
knowledge repositories exist. Two general models cerning knowledge transfer is the degree to which
to information retrieval exist, the "pull"and the knowledge transfer is increased in an organization
"push"models. The pull model is the traditional as a result of applying information technology to
model and involves search for and retrieval of the knowledge management initiative.
informationbased on specific user queries. Inthe
push model, informationis automaticallyretrieved A second major issue involves locating knowl-
and delivered to the potential user based upon edge, both how to find needed knowledge
some predetermined criteria. The challenge in documents and how to find the knowledge needed
withina large collection of documents (Dworman
design of organizational knowledge retrievalstra-
tegies is providing timely and easy access to 1998). One system, Homer, sorts through col-
lections of documents to find specific information
knowledge while avoiding a condition of informa-
tion overload. Thus, as summarized in Table 5, relevant to a query as well as to identify patterns
of information in a large collection of documents
research is needed to address several important
issues regarding knowledge storage and retrieval. (Dworman 1998). A problem, similarto the infor-
mation overload problem, exists when individuals
are aware that the relevant knowledge exists in
organizational memory, but are discouraged from
Research Issues on searching for the knowledge by the sheer volume
Knowledge Transfer of available knowledge. For example, most devel-
opers at Hewlett-Packard are aware that the
The notion of knowledge transfer raises several SPaM system holds all of their past projects
important issues: first is the question of to what history, but rarelyseek answers in SPaM because
degree knowledge needs to be, and even can be, findingthe answer would take days (Powell 1998).
transferredinternally,which may depend upon the Thus, research on the development of effective
extent of interdependency among subgroups or organizational and technical strategies for orga-
individuals (Leonard and Sensiper 1998). Given nizing, retrieving,and transmittingknowledge are
the ease withwhich individualsare able to transfer needed to facilitate knowledge transfer.

I
Research Question 3: How can knowledge be effectively transferred among organizational units?
Research Question 3a: To what degree does the application of ITto knowledge transfer increase
the transfer of knowledge among individuals within a group and between groups?
Research Question 3b: What organizational and technical strategies are effective in facilitating
knowledge transfer?
Research Question 3c: What social, cultural, or technical attributes of organizational settings
encourage knowledge transfer by balancing the push and pull processes?
Research Question 3d: Does the application of ITto knowledge transfer inadvertently discourage
external searches for knowledge?
A third important issue on knowledge transfer formance often depends more on an abilityto turn
concerns knowledge flows between the provider knowledge into effective action and less on
(source) and the knowledge seeker. From the knowledge itself. Itis widely recognized that orga-
provider'sperspective, flow is a selective pull pro- nizations have gaps between what they know and
cess; from a seeker's perspective, flow is a selec- what they do (Pfeffer and Sutton 2000). There
tive push process (Holthouse 1998). Balancing may be several reasons for organizational mem-
the pull and push processes then is an important bers to access and assimilate knowledge but not
aspect of knowledge transfer in organizations. apply it (i.e., act upon it). Reasons include dis-
Research that focuses on social, cultural, and trusting the source of knowledge, lack of time or
technical attributes of organizational settings that opportunityto apply knowledge, or risk aversion
encourage and facilitate knowledge flows by (particularlyin organizations that punish mistakes)
balancing the push and pull processes is (Davenport and Prusak 1998). Thus, knowledge
access and transfer are only partial steps toward
important.
knowledge application. Learning literature pro-
vides us with some important insights into the
Finally,a consideration with knowledge transfer is
the extent to which individuals discontinue exter- cognitive processes underlying knowledge
nal searches for new knowledge and rely solely on absorption and its applications to problem solving
and decision making by individuals. For example,
internal knowledge, so that knowledge is trans-
work in the area of knowledge structures has
ferred internally but little external knowledge is
demonstrated that in most cases the cognitive
transferredinto the organization. A reliance on IT
processes (problem solving and decision making)
may facilitate the process of coding knowledge of individuals in organizational settings are
into semantic memory and improvinginternallink-
enacted with little attention and through invoking
ages within a group and among groups, but
preexisting knowledge and cognitive "routines"
individuals may consequently spend more time
(Gioia and Pool 1984). This approach leads to
focusing on internal than external searches for reduction in cognitive load and is, therefore, an
knowledge. Table 6 summarizes the research effective strategy in dealing with individualcogni-
questions concerning knowledge transfer. tive limitations. On the other hand, it creates a
barrierto search, absorption, and application of
new knowledge in organizations (Alavi 2000).
Research Issues on
Knowledge Application An important area of KMresearch consists of an
identificationof these factors and the development
The processes of knowledge creation, storage/ of organizational practices and systems to bridge
retrieval, and transfer do not necessarily lead to the knowledge application gap. Table 7 sum-
enhanced organizational performance; effective marizes the research questions concerning knowl-
knowledge application does. Organizational per- edge application.

! El .J Bl[] I. MImi. EE ] [
Research Question 4: How can an organization encourage application of knowledge that is made
available?
Research Question 4a: What factors contributeto the knowing-doing gap in organizations and how
can they be reduced or eliminated?
Research Question 4b: What organizational practices can help bridge the knowledge application
gap?
IT and the Knowledge and use. On the one hand, some argue that cap-
Management Initiatives turing knowledge in a KMSinhibitslearning (Cole
1998) and may result in the same knowledge
The above four areas of research questions being applied to different situations even when it
included questions related to the role of IT in the might not be appropriate. Proponents of this view
four knowledge management processes. There maintain that IT plays a limited role in knowledge
are also many broad questions related to the role creation because ITis only helpful if an individual
and impact of IT on knowledge management knows what he is looking for (the search is
initiatives, several of which are highlighted in this necessary but the solution is obvious) (Powell
section. 1998). In this case, littlenew knowledge creation
can occur. Moreover, some argue that the mech-
Our analysis of the literaturesuggests that ITcan anistic and rigid nature of IT-based KM is
lead to a greater breadth and depth of knowledge incapable of keeping pace with dynamic needs of
creation, storage, transfer,and application in orga- knowledge creation (Malhotra 1999). However,
nizations. While these suppositions in general this argument is not so much about information
can be applied to most IT designed to provide technology as about the role of explicitknowledge.
informationand could formthe subject of research The issue is how to ensure that individualsmodify
in themselves, an interesting line of research explicit knowledge to meet their situation and
would consider the subsequent question of thereby create new knowledge. Once individuals
whether and how having knowledge available from modify and use knowledge from a KMS, do they
more vertical and horizontal sources in the orga- then transfer their experiences into modified
nization in a more timely manner may enhance knowledge for others to use, or is existing knowl-
individualand organizational performance. Does edge continually reused in various ways with no
an increase in the breadth and depth of knowl- record of the modifications? What level of trust do
individuals have in knowledge that resides in a
edge result in greater use of a knowledge
management system and greater use of available system but the originator of which they do not
knowledge, or contrarily,does such an expanded personally know? How can trust be developed to
enhance the individual's use of knowledge in a
availability discourage usage as the potential
search and absorption time for needed knowledge KMS?
mightsimultaneously increase? Does an increase
in the breadth, depth, quality, and timeliness of As with most informationsystems, the success of
organizational knowledge result in improved deci- KMS partially depends upon the extent of use,
sion making, reduced product cycles, greater which itself may be tied to system quality, infor-
productivity, or better customer service? In mation quality, and usefulness (Delone and
general, what are the consequences of increasing McLean 1992). System quality is influenced by
the breadth, depth, quality, and timeliness of attributes such as ease of use, characteristics of
organizational knowledge? human-computer interface, and flexibility and
effectiveness of search mechanisms. Research
There is debate as to whether information tech- focusing on KMS use process, and development
nology inhibits or facilitates knowledge creation of intuitive search, retrieval, and display, is

Management
--:1JI.1 ]
Research Question 5: What are the consequences of increasing the breadth and depth of available
knowledge, via informationtechnology, on organizational performance?
Research Question 5a: How can an organization ensure that knowledge captured via information
technology is effectively modified where necessary priorto application?
Research Question 5b: How can an organization ensure that IT captures modifications to
knowledge along with the original knowledge?
Research Question 5c: How do individuals develop trust in knowledge captured via IT, the
originatorof which they may not know?
Research Question 5d: What factors are related to the quality and usefulness of information
systems applied to knowledge management initiatives?
needed to enhance KMS quality. At the level of example, knowledge may be tacit or explicit;
knowledge quality, issues pertain to what kinds of it can refer to an object, a cognitive state, or
knowledge can be usefully codified and at what a capability; it may reside in individuals,
level of detail, how to protect coded knowledge groups (i.e., social systems), documents, pro-
from unauthorized access or copying, and how to cesses, policies, physical settings, or com-
ensure that the knowledge is maintained (KPMG puter repositories. Thus, no single or opti-
1998b). In terms of KMSusefulness, studies can mum approach to organizational knowledge
examine the extent to which available knowledge management and knowledge management
is reused. Ratios of knowledge accessed to systems can be developed. A variety of
knowledge available and knowledge used to knowledge management approaches and
knowledge accessed could give an indication of systems needs to be employed in organiza-
system usefulness. Equally importantto consider tions to effectively deal with the diversity of
would be the number of searches yielding no use- knowledge types and attributes.
ful knowledge. Table 8 summarizes the research
questions concerning the application of IT to 2. Knowledge management involves distinct but
knowledge management initiatives. interdependentprocesses of knowledge crea-
tion, knowledge storage and retrieval, knowl-
edge transfer, and knowledge application. At
any point in time, an organization and its
Summary and Conclusions members can be involved in multiple knowl-
edge management process chains. As such,
In this paper, we have presented a discussion of knowledge management is not a monolithic
knowledge, knowledge management, and knowl- but a dynamic and continuous organizational
edge management systems based on a review, phenomenon. Furthermore, the complexity,
interpretation,and synthesis of a broad range of resource requirements, and underlying tools
relevant literature. Several general conclusions and approaches of knowledge management
may be drawn from our work. processes vary based on the type, scope,
and characteristics of knowledge manage-
1. The literaturereview revealed the complexity ment processes.
and multi-faceted nature of organizational
knowledge and knowledge management. Dif- 3. KMS, by drawing on various IT tools and
ferent perspectives and taxonomies of knowl- capabilities, can play a variety of roles in
edge were reviewed and discussed. For supportof organizational knowledge manage-

Management
ment processes. Specific examples of ITfor Second AnnualHawaii InternationalConference

support of the four knowledge management on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society
processes delineated in the paper were Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1999.
presented in the framework section. It is Alavi, M. "KPMGPeat MarwickU.S.: One Giant
important to note that KMS, by drawing on Brain,"HarvardBusiness School, Case 9-397-
various and flexible IT capabilities, can lead 108, 1997.
to various forms of KM support, extending Alavi, M. "ManagingOrganizational Knowledge,"
beyond the traditionalstorage and retrievalof in Framing the Domains of IT Management
coded knowledge. Research: Glimpsing the Future through the
Past, R. W. Zmud (ed.), Pinnaflex Educational
4. Research questions regardingorganizational Resources, Cincinnati, OH, 2000.
knowledge management processes and the Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. "Knowledge Manage-
role of ITin these processes were presented. ment Systems: Emerging Views and Practices
These questions could form the basis of from the Field," Communications of the AIS
future research. (1:5), February 1999.
Andreu, R., and Ciborra, C. "Organizational
Organizational knowledge and knowledge man- Learning and Core Capabilities Development:
agement are popular topics in several extant The Role of InformationTechnology,"Journalof
literatures including strategic management and Strategic InformationSystems, June 1996, pp.
organizational theory as well as information 117-127.
systems. It is thus importantthat IS researchers Argote, L., Beckman, S., and Epple, D. "ThePer-
be aware of, understand, and build upon the sistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial
already significant work in the large extant litera- Settings," Management Science (36), 1990, pp.
tures. This will provide the diversity of perspec- 1750-1763.
tives and approaches that the study of such multi- Argyris, C., and Schon, D. A. Organizational
faceted and complex phenomenon requires. Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978.
It is our contention that in large global firms in Barney, J. B. "Firm Resources and Sustained
hypercompetitive environments, informationtech- Competitive Advantage," Journal of Manage-
nology willbe interlacedwithorganizational knowl- ment (17), 1991, pp. 99-120.
edge management strategies and processes. This Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. The Social Con-
is based on the observation that, in these firms, struction of Reality, Doubleday, Garden City,
KM processes span time and geographic dis- NY, 1967.
tance. This, combined withthe need for very short Bierly, P., and Chakrabarti, A. "Generic Knowl-
cycle times for product/service development and edge Strategies in the US Pharmaceutical
innovation, necessitates reliance on information Industry,"Strategic Management Journal (17),
and communication technologies. We, therefore, Winter Special Issue, 1996, pp. 123-135.
believe that the role of ITin organizational knowl- Bloodgood, J., and Salisbury, W. "What You
edge management ought to receive considerable Don't Know Can Hurt You: Considerations in
scholarly attention and become a focal point of Using ITto TransmitTacit Knowledge in Organi-
inquiry. It is our hope that the ideas, discussion, zations," in Proceedings of the FourthAmericas
and research issues set forth in this paper will Conference on Information Systems, E.
stimulate interest and future work in the knowl- Hoadley and I. Benbasat (eds.), Baltimore,MD,
edge management area by IS researchers. August 1998, pp. 51-53.
Bohn, R. "Measuring and Managing Technolo-
gical Knowledge," Sloan Management Review,
References Fall 1994, pp. 61-73.
Boland, R. J., Tenkasi, R. J., and Te'eni, D.
Ackerman, M. S., and Halverson, C. "Organi- "Designing Information Technology for Distri-
zational Memory:Processes, BoundaryObjects, buted Cognition," Organization Science (5:3),
and Trajectories,"in Proceedings of the Thirty- 1994, pp. 463-474.

Management
Brown, J., and Duguid, P. "Organizing Knowl- Dworan, G. "Discovering Patterns in Organiza-
edge," CaliforniaManagement Review (40:3), tional Memory,"WorkingPaper, Massachusetts
1998, pp. 90-111. Institute of Technology, 1998.
Carlsson, S. A., El Sawy, O. A., Eriksson, I., and El Sawy, O. A., Eriksson, I., Carlsson, S. A., and
Raven, A. "Gaining Competitive Advantage Raven, A. "Understanding the Nature of
Through Shared Knowledge Creation: In Shared Knowledge Creation Spaces Around
Search of a New Design Theory for Strategic Business Processes: An International
Information Systems," in Proceedings of the Investigation," Working Paper, University of
Fourth European Conference on Information Southern California,October 1998.
Systems, J. Dias Coelho, T. Jelassi, W. Konig, El Sawy, O. A., Gomes, G. M., and Gonzalez, M.
H. Krcmar,R. O'Callaghan, and M. Saaksjarvi V. "Preserving Institutional Memory: The
(eds.), Lisbon, 1996. Management of History as an Organization
Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal D. A. "Absorptive
Resource," Academy of Management Best
Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and
Paper Proceedings (37), 1996, pp. 118-122.
Innovation,"Administrative Science Quarterly
Fahey, L., and Prusak, L. "The Eleven Deadliest
(35), 1990, pp. 128-152. Sins of Knowledge Management," California
Cole, R. E. "Introduction," CaliforniaManagement
Review (45:3), Spring 1998, pp. 15-21. Management Review(40:3), 1998, pp. 265-276.
Conner, K. R. "A Historical Comparison of the Gazeau, M. "Le Management de la Con-
Resource-Based Theory and Five Schools of naissance," Etats de Veille, Juin 1998, pp. 1-8.
Thought Within IndustrialOrganization Econo- Gioia, D. A., and Pool, P. P. "Scripts in Organi-
mics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm," zational Behavior," Academy of Management
Journal of Management (17:1 ), 1991, pp. 121- Review (9:3), 1984, pp. 449-459.
154. Glazer, R. "Measuring the Knower: Towards a
Cranfield University. "The Cranfield/lnformation Theory of Knowledge Equity,"California Man-
Strategy Knowledge Survey: Europe's State of agement Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 175-194.
the Art in Knowledge Management," The Eco- Graham, K.,and Pizzo, V. "TheData Warehouse:
nomist Group, 1998. A Knowledge Creating Resource?" in
Darr, E. D., Argote, L., and Epple, D. "TheAcqui- Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Con-
sition, Transfer and Depreciation of Knowledge ference on Information Systems, E. Hoadley
in Service Organizations: Productivityin Fran- and I. Benbasat (eds.), Baltimore, MD, August
chises," Management Science (41:1 1), Novem- 1998, pp. 582-584.
ber 1995, pp. 1750-1613. Grant,R. M. "Prosperingin Dynamically-Competi-
Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. WorkingKnowl- tive Environments: OrganizationalCapabilityas
edge, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, Knowledge Integration,"Organization Science
1998. (7:4), July-August, 1996a, pp. 375-387.
Delone, W., and McLean, E. "InformationSys- Grant, R. M. "Towarda Knowledge-based Theory
tems Success: The Quest for the Dependent of the Firm," Strategic Management Journal
Variable,"InformationSystems Research (3:1), (17), Winter Special Issue, 1996b, pp. 109-122.
March 1992, pp. 60-95. Gupta, A., and Govindarajan, V. "Knowledge
Demsetz, H. "The Theory of the FirmRevisited," Flows within MultinationalCorporations,"Stra-
in The Nature of the Firm,J. Williamson and S. tegic Management Journal (21), 2000, pp. 473-
Winter (eds.), Oxford University Press, New 496.
York, 1991, pp. 159-178. Gurvitch, G. The Social Frameworks of Knowl-
Denison, D., and Mishra,A. "Towarda Theory of edge, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England, 1971.
Organizational Culture and Effectiveness," Hackbarth, G. "The Impact of Organizational
OrganizationScience (6:2), 1995, pp. 204-223. Memory on IT Systems," in Proceedings of the
Dretske, F. Knowledge and the Flow of Infor- Fourth Americas Conference on Information
mation, MITPress, Cambridge, MA, 1981. Systems, E. Hoadley and I Benbasat (eds.),
Drucker, P. "The Post-Capitalist Executive," August 1998, pp. 588-590.
Managing in a Time of Great Change, Penguin, Hayduk, H. "OrganizationalCulture Barriers to
New York, 1995. Knowledge Management," in Proceedings of

the FourthAmericas Conference on Information KPMG Management Consulting. Case Study:

Systems, E. Hoadley and I. Benbasat (eds.), Building a Platform for Corporate Knowledge,
Baltimore, MD, August 1998, pp. 591-593. 1998a.
Henderson, J. C., and Sussman, S. W. "Creating KPMG Management Consulting. Knowledge
and Exploiting Knowledge for Fast-Cycle Management: Research Report, 1998b.
Organizational Response: The Center for Leidner, D. "A Groupe Schneider Intranet, or
Army Lessons Learned," Working Paper No. Intranetsat Groupe Schneider," INSEADCase,
96-39, Boston University, 1997. Fontainebleau, France, 1998.
Hildebrand,C. "TheGreater Good," CIO, Novem- Leonard, D., and Sensiper, S. "The Role of Tacit
ber 15, 1994, pp.32-40. Knowledge in Group Innovation," California
Holtham, C., and Courtney, N. "The Executive Management Review(40:3), 1998, pp. 112-132.
Learning Ladder: A Knowledge Creation Pro- Machlup, F. Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribu-
cess Grounded in the Strategic Information tion, and Economic Significance, Volume I,
Systems Domain,"in Proceedings of the Fourth Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
Americas Conference on InformationSystems, 1980.
E. Hoadley and I. Benbasat (eds.), Baltimore, Malhotra, Y. "Beyond 'Hi-Tech Hidebound'
MD, August 1998, pp. 594-597. Knowledge Management: Strategic Information
Holtshouse, D. "Knowledge Research Issues," Systems for the New World of Business,"
California Management Review (40:3), 1998, Working Paper, BRINT Research Institute,
pp. 277-280. 1999.
Holzner, B., and Marx,J. The Knowledge Appli- McQueen, R. "Four Views of Knowledge and
cation: The Knowledge System in Society, Knowledge Management," in Proceedings of
Allyn-Bacon, Boston, 1979. the FourthAmericas Conference on Information
Huber, G. "OrganizationalLearning: The Contri- Systems, E. Hoadley and I. Benbasat (eds.),
buting Processes and the Literatures,"Organi- August 1998, pp. 609-611.
zation Science (2:1), 1991, pp. 88-115. Nelson, R. "WhyDo Firms Differ,and How Does
Huysman, M., Creemers, M., and Derksen, D. ItMatter?"Strategic Management Journal (12),
"Learningfrom the Environment: Exploringthe Winter Special Issue, 1991, pp. 61-74.
Relation Between Organizational Learning, Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. G. An Evolutionary
Knowledge Management and Information/ Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press,
CommunicationTechnology,"in Proceedings of Cambridge, MA, 1982.
the FourthAmericas Conference on Information Nolan Norton Institute. "Putting the Knowing
Systems, E. Hoadley and I. Benbasat (eds.), Organization to Value," White Paper, August
Baltimore, MD, August 1998, pp. 598-600. 1998.
Inkpen, A., and Dikur, I. "Knowledge Manage- Nonaka, I. "ADynamic Theory of Organizational
ment Processes and International Joint Ven- Knowledge Creation," Organization Science
tures," Organization Science (9:4), 1998, pp. (5:1), February 1994, pp. 14-37.
454-468. Nonaka, I., and Konno, N. "The Concept of 'Ba':
Ivari, J., and Linger H. "Knowledge Work as Buildinga Foundationfor Knowledge Creation,"
Collaborative Work: A Situated ActivityTheory California Management Review (40:3), 1998,
View," in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second pp. 40-54.
Annual Hawaii International Conference on Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-
Systems Sciences, IEEE Computer Society CreatingCompany: How Japanese Companies
Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1999. Create the Dynamics of Innovation,OxfordUni-
Jordan, J., and Jones P. "Assessing Your Com- versity Press, New York, 1995.
pany's Knowledge Management Style," Long Nystrom, P. C., and Starbuck, W. H. (eds.).
Range Planning (30:3), 1997, pp. 392-398. Handbook of OrganizationalDesign, Volume 1,
Kogut, B., and Zander, U. "What Firms Do? Oxford University Press, New York, 1981.
Coordination, Identity, and Learning," Organi- O'Dell, C., and Grayson, C. J. "IfOnly We Knew
zation Science (7:5), 1996, pp. 502-518. What We Know: Identificationand Transfer of

Management
InternalBest Practices,"CaliforniaManagement basat (eds.), Baltimore, MD, August 1998, pp.

Review(40:3), 1998, pp. 154-174. 618-620.
Offsey, S. "Knowledge Management: Linking Spender, J. C. "MakingKnowledge the Basis of a
People to Knowledge for Bottom Line Results," Dynamic Theory of the Firm," Strategic
JournalofKnowledge Management(1:2), 1997, Management Journal (17), Special Issues,
pp. 113-122. 1996a, pp. 45-62.
Pentland, B. T. "InformationSystems and Organi- Spender, J. C. "Organizational Knowledge,
zational Learning: The Social Epistemology of Learning, and Memory: Three Concepts in
Organizational Knowledge Systems," Search of a Theory,"Journal of Organizational
Accounting, Management and Information Change Management (9), 1996b, pp. 63-78.
Technologies (5:1), 1995, pp. 1-21. Spender, J. C. "Strategy Theorizing: Expanding
Penrose, E. T. The Theory of the Growthof the the Agenda," in Advances in Strategic Manage-
Firm,Wiley, New York, 1959. ment, P. Shrivastava, A. Huff, and J. Dutton
Pfeffer J., and Sutton R. I. The Knowledge-Doing (eds.), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1992, pp. 3-
Gap: How Smart Companies TurnKnowledge 32.
into Action, Harvard Business School Press, Starbuck, W., and Hedberg, B. "Saving an
Boston, 2000. Organization from a Stagnating Environment,"
Pickering,J. M., and King,J. L. "Hardwiring Weak in Strategy + Structure + Performance, H.
Ties: InterorganizationalComputer-Mediated Thorelli (ed.), University Press, Bloomington,
Communication, Occupational Communities, IN, 1977, pp. 249-258.
and Organizational Change," Organization Stein, E. W., and Zwass, V. "ActualizingOrgani-
Science (6:4), 1995, pp. 479-486. zational Memory with Information Systems,"
Polanyi, M. "Personal Knowledge," in Meaning, InformationSystems Research (6:2), 1995, pp.
M. Polanyi and H. Prosch (eds.), University of 85-117.
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975, pp. 22-45. Tan, S. S., Teo, H. H., Tan, B. C., and Wei, K. K.
Polanyi, M. Personal Knowledge: Towarda Post- "Developing a Preliminary Framework for
Critical Philosophy, Harper Torchbooks, New Knowledge Management in Organizations," in
York, 1962. Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Con-
Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and ference on Information Systems, E. Hoadley
Keoan Paul, London, 1967. and I. Benbasat (eds.), Baltimore, MD, August
Powell, W. "Learningfrom Collaboration:Knowl- 1998, pp. 629-631.
edge and Networks in the Biotechnology and Teece, D. "Capturing Value from Knowledge
Pharmaceutical Industries,"CaliforniaManage- Assets: The New Economy, Marketsfor Know-
ment Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 228-240. How, and Intangible Assets," California
Robertson, M., Swan, J., and Newell, S. "The Management Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 55-79.
Role of Networks in the Diffusion of Techno- Tuomi, I. "Data is More Than Knowledge: Impli-
logical Innovation," Journal of Management cations of the Reversed Hierarchy for Knowl-
Studies (33), 1996, pp. 335-361. edge Management and Organizational Mem-
Ruggles, R. "TheState of the Notion: Knowledge ory," in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second
Management in Practice," CaliforniaManage- Hawaii International Conference on Systems
ment Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 80-89. Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los
Sanderlands, L. E., and Stablein, R. E. "TheCon- Alamitos, CA, 1999.
cept of Organization Mind,"in Research in the Vance, D. M. "Information, Knowledge and
Sociology of Organization, Volume 5, S. Wisdom: The Epistemic Hierarchy and Com-
Bachrach and N. DiTomaso (eds.), JAI Press, puter-Based Information System," in Pro-
Greenwich, CT, 1987, pp. 135-162. ceedings of the ThirdAmericas Conference on
Schubert, P., Lincke, D., and Schmid, B. "A InformationSystems, B. Perkins and I. Vessey
Global Knowledge Medium as a Virtual Com- (eds.), Indianapolis, IN, August 1997.
munity: The NetAcademy Concept," in Pro- Vance, D., and Eynon, J. "Onthe Requirements
ceedings of the FourthAmericas Conference on of Knowledge-Transfer Using IS: A Schema
InformationSystems, E. Hoadley and I. Ben- Whereby Such Transfer is Enhanced," in

Management
Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Con- About the Authors

ference on Information Systems, E. Hoadley
and 1. Benbasat (eds.), Baltimore, MD, August Maryam Alavi is the John and Lucy Cook Chairof
1998, pp. 632-634. InformationStrategy, Goizueta Business School,
Vandenbosch, B., and Ginzberg, M. J. "Lotus Emory University. Maryam's publications have
Notes and Collaboration: Plus ca Change,"
appeared in several academic journals, including
Journal of Management Information Systems
Academy of Management Journal, Education
(13:3), Winter 1996-1997, pp. 65-82.
von Krogh, G. "Care in Knowledge Creation," Technology Research and Development, Infor-
California Management Review (40:3), 1998, mationSystems Research, Management Science,
pp. 133-153. and MIS Quarterly. Maryam is the twice-elected
Walsh, J. P., and Ungson, G. R. "Organizational Vice President of Education of Association of
Memory," Academy of Management Review InformationSystems (AIS). She was awarded the
(16:1), 1991, pp. 57-91. Marvin Bower Faculty Fellowship at Harvard
Watson, R. T. Data Management: Databases Business School (1996-1997) and served as the
and Organizations (2nd ed.), John Wiley, New
program co-chair of the 1990 ICIS (International
York, 1999.
Conference on InformationSystems), and the co-
Weiser, M., and Morrison, J. "Project Memory:
Information Management for Project Teams," chair of the 1995 ICIS Doctoral Consortium.
Journal of Management Information Systems Maryamwas elected as an AIS Fellow in 2000.
(14:4), 1998, pp. 149-166.
Wernerfelt, B. "A Resource-Based View of the Dorothy E. Leidner is an associate professor of
Firm,"Strategic Management Journal (5), 1984, informationsystems at Texas ChristianUniversity
pp. 171-180. in FortWorth, Texas. She is on leave of absence
Wilkins, A. L., and Bristow, N. J. "ForSuccessful
from INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France. Dorothy
Organization Culture, Honor Your Past," Aca-
received her Ph.D. in InformationSystems from
demy of Management Executive (1), 1987, pp.
221-229. the University of Texas at Austin, where she also
Zack, M. "An Architecture for Managing Expli- obtained her MBA and BA. She has previously
cated Knowledge,"Sloan Management Review, been on the faculty at Baylor Universityand has
September 1998a. been a visiting professor at the InstitutoTecno-
Zack, M. "Developing a Knowledge Strategy," logico y des Estudios Superiores de Monterrey,
Working Paper, Northeastern University, Mexico, at the Institutd'Administrationdes Entre-
September, 1998b. prises at the Universite de Caen, France, and at
Zack, M. "WhatKnowledge-Problems Can Infor-
Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.
mation Technology Help to Solve," in Pro-
ceedings of the FourthAmericas Conference on Dorothy has published her research in many
InformationSystems, E. Hoadley and I. Ben- journals, including MIS Quarterly, Information
basat (eds.), Baltimore, MD,August 1998c, pp. Systems Research, OrganizationScience, and the
644-646. Journal of Management InformationSystems.
136 Vol.25 No. 1/March2001

MISQuarterly


Alavi 2001

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Alavi 2001

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations

and Research Issues

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1, pp. 107-136/March2001 107

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

108 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 109

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

110 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

Implications for Implications for

MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 111

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

112 MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

Knowledge Types Definitions Examples

Knowledge Management and 13% facing a loss of income because of the

MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001 113

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 115

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

116 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

Storage (document, Storage (document,

Legend: Each arrowrepresents a form of knowledge creation.

MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 117

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

118 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

Despite the concerns about the potential con- Knowledge Transfer

MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 119

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

120 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 121

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

Knowledge Application bedding them into IT might facilitate efficient

122 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

Summary: OrganizationalKnowledge menon. Figure 3 builds upon Figure 2 to illustrate

MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 123

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

124 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

Research Issues in Knowledge creation spaces, is also considered an important

126 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

Knowledge storage involves obtaining the knowl- An importantconsideration withstoring knowledge

MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 127

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

Research Question 2: What incentives are effective in encouraging knowledge contributionand

128 MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

MIS Quarterly Vol. 25 No. 1/March 2001 129

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

130 MIS QuarterlyVol. 25 No. 1/March 2001

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

MISQuarterlyVol.25 No. 1/March2001 131

This content downloaded from 129.173.72.87 on Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:48:02 PM

ment processes. Specific examples of ITfor Second AnnualHawaii InternationalConference