The Learning OrganizationA critical review of knowledge management modelsRodney McAdamSandra McCreedy

Article information:To cite this document:Rodney McAdamSandra McCreedy, (1999),"A critical review of knowledge management models", The LearningOrganization, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 91 - 101Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696479910270416

Downloaded on: 09 February 2015, At: 16:56 (PT)References: this document contains references to 36 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8699 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Maria Mrtensson, (2000),"A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool", Journal of KnowledgeManagement, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 204-216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270010350002Ganesh D. Bhatt, (2001),"Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction betweentechnologies, techniques, and people", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 68-75 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270110384419Nada K. Kakabadse, Andrew Kakabadse, Alexander Kouzmin, (2003),"Reviewing the knowledgemanagement literature: towards a taxonomy", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 75-91 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270310492967

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 316947 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

A critical review ofknowledgemanagement models

Rodney McAdam and

Sandra McCreedy

Introduction

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s a new range

of business improvement philosophies, ap-

proaches and methodologies have been

continuously developed. This development

has been largely based on various combina-

tions of business practice and academic

theory. Examples of these approaches are

myriad and include organisational learning,

the learning organisation, total quality man-

agement, business process re-engineering, to

name but a few.

Of more recent times, especially in the past

two to three years, knowledge management

(KM) has started to emerge as an area of

interest in academia and organisational prac-

tice. The literature reveals a rapidly increasing

body of knowledge relating to KM which

covers many different disciplines and areas of

interest to academics and practitioners.

For example, a search of over 100 Web sites

on knowledge management (Quintas et al.,

1997) revealed the following heterogeneous

range of interests, perspectives and issues:

economics, intellectual capital, engineering

approaches (flexible manufacturing systems),

aspects of computing and knowledge media,

organisation studies (informed by anthropol-

ogy, sociology etc.), epistemology (including

learning, situated cognition and cognitive

psychology), other aspects of classification

and definition informed by artificial intelli-

gence, human resource issues etc.

Many important questions and issues arise

in regard to KM. For example, is it an

emerging paradigm through which many

existing strands of theory and practice can at

last be beneficially integrated, or is KM a

temporary aberration promising yet more

false dawns in regard to organisation devel-

opment and management learning?

Also, what is the underlying epistemology

of knowledge management? As questioned by

Richardson et al. (1987) is knowledge based

on scientific data or socially constructed or a

mixture of both? The answer to this question

has far reaching implications in choosing

approaches to embody and disseminate

knowledge within organisations as existing

knowledge transfer approaches may not be

sufficient to cover the diversity of knowledge

classifications.

As well as issues relating to the emergence,

definition and classification of KM there are

unresolved conflicts in regard to the

The authors

Rodney McAdam is Senior Lecturer and

Sandra McCreedy is a Research Assistant, both at

the Ulster Businesss School, University of Ulster, Belfast,

Northern Ireland.

Keywords

Knowledge management, Models,

Organizational development

Abstract

There is an increasing interest in the area of knowledge

management (KM) within organisations and academia.

Because of the emergent nature of the field there is a lack

of classification of suitable knowledge management

models to use in conducting further research, literature

evaluation and organisational applications. This paper

discusses the definitions and classifications of knowledge

management, representing a wide spectrum of views

from mechanistic to more socially orientated. An

evaluative framework is established from which three

knowledge management models can be critically dis-

cussed. Three KM model classifications are critiqued,

namely knowledge category models, intellectual capital

models and socially constructed models. Finally a

modified KM model is tentatively suggested to act as a

useful guide for further research and organisational

application. This model takes a holistic approach to

scientific and socially constructed knowledge, assuming

the need for both emancipatory and business benefits

from KM. The model represents KM as a highly recursive

process, rather than sequential.

91

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . pp. 91100

# MCB University Press . ISSN 0969-6474

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

emancipatory elements of KM (Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995). Will the application of KM

principles within organisations lead to the

concurrent enhancement of business perfor-

mance and employee emancipation or will it

ultimately lead to employees giving more of

their minds and bodies to further establish the

existing status quo?

It is contended that given the continual

change and emergent nature of the field over

the past two to three years, it is now an

appropriate time to try to have a more in-

depth enquiry into the KM discourse to

attempt to clarify how KM can be more

beneficially researched and applied to orga-

nisations and those who work in them.

In initially attempting to address these

questions and issues, this paper critically

examines some of the existing models of KM

which reflect the different viewpoints within

the overall field. All of the KM models

examined are built upon key philosophical

assumptions and the critical discussion seeks

to examine these assumptions and views.

Following a short description of the aims,

perspectives and objectives of the paper there

is a short discussion on the definition,

classification and emergent nature of KM.

This discussion is followed by the establish-

ment of a critical framework through which to

evaluate some of the key existing KM models,

following which, the models are critically

discussed. Finally some conclusions are made

in regard to suggesting a suitable model

through which to further investigate the field

of KM.

Aims, perspectives and objectives

The aim of this paper is to investigate the

current understanding of the theory and

practice of the emerging field of KM by

critically evaluating existing knowledge man-

agement models, so that research and

improved approaches in this area can be

developed and applied to organisations and

those who work in them.

Throughout the paper a critical perspective

will be taken so that the underlying assump-

tions of KM can be revealed and questioned.

Although, as pointed out by Burgoyne and

Reynolds (1997), there are a number of

approaches relating to `` working out of a

critical perspective'', the `` critical reflection''

approach is adopted throughout the paper.

Burgoyne and Reynolds (1997) summarise

Kemmis's (1985) account of the character-

istics of a critically reflective perspective as:. concerned with questioning assumptions;. its focus is social rather than individual;. it is concerned with emancipation.

To achieve the aim of the paper and apply a

critical perspective, the following objectives

have been defined:. to clarify the definitions and classifica-

tions of KM;. to establish a framework for critically

evaluating existing KM models;. to critically evaluate KM models which

represent a wide spectrum of views within

the field;. to suggest a suitable framework for

carrying out a further in-depth critique of

the field of KM, leading to improved

theory and practice within the field.

Schools of thought within knowledge

management

While definitions of any subject matter can be

helpful in regard to clarifying the scope and

depth of the subject under consideration, they

can also be notoriously difficult to articulate.

Definitions can often result in unwarranted

simplistic reductionist arguments. When the

subject which is being considered is in the

management domain the difficulty is com-

pounded even further due to the subjective

and eclectic nature of the field. When the

subject is not only in the management field

but is also emerging rather than established,

then the difficulty with definitions is even

further magnified. Such is the case with the

emerging subject area of KM, as pointed out

by Quintas et al. (1997) who argued that `` it is

difficult to scope and define this disparate and

emergent field and understand the processes

involved to determine programmes/interven-

tions''.

The following definitions, which are but a

representative sample, are listed below and

then discussed:

Knowledge management is ... knowledge crea-

tion, which is followed by knowledge

interpretation, knowledge dissemination and

use, and knowledge retention and refinement

(De Jarnett, 1996).

Powerful environmental forces are reshaping the

world of the manager of the 21st century. These

forces call for a fundamental shift in organisation

process and human resource strategy. This is

knowledge management (Taylor et al., 1996).

92

A critical review of knowledge management methods

Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Knowledge management is the process of

critically managing knowledge to meet existing

needs, to identify and exploit existing and

acquired knowledge assets and to develop new

opportunities (Quintas et al., 1997).

The crux of the issue is not information,

information technology ... the answer turns out

to lie more with psychology and marketing of

knowledge within the family than with bits and

bytes (Peters, 1992).

Knowledge management is the activity which is

concerned with strategy and tactics to manage

human centred assets (Brooking, 1997).

Firstly, a cursory reading of the definitions

reveals that KM is seen as relating to both

theory and practice for example the defini-

tions of De Jarnett (1996) and Quintas et al.

(1997) respectively. Much of the existing

literature on knowledge is highly theoretical

and conceptual, especially in the field of

cognitive psychology; however, broadly

speaking, most of the reflective literature on

KM combines both theory and practice in a

fairly seamless and often recursive manner.

Secondly, the definitions are not predicated

on information technology. For example,

Peters' definition positively asserts that KM is

not situated in the technology domain. This

omission raises an important issue. Recent

advances in technology have led to faster data

transfer, but it remains a useful enabler rather

than a central tenet at the heart of KM.

Thirdly, people and learning issues are

central to KM (see the definitions of Quintas

et al.). The vast majority of the existing

literature on KM covers these two related

issues, usually in an organisational context

and covering both theory and practice.

The wide range of definitions also reflect

the fact that those people working in the field

of KM come from a wide range of disciplines,

such as psychology, management science,

sociology, strategy, production engineering

etc. (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Thus KM

not only combines theory and practice but is

also multidisciplinary. Scarborough (1996)

comments: `` the sprawling and eclectic lit-

erature and the ambiguity and definitional

problems ... allow different groups to project

their own interests and concerns onto it''.

In the literature there is a lot of confusion

between the terms knowledge management

(KM) and intellectual capital (IC); for ex-

ample, EFQM (1997) and others use the

terms interchangeably. However, it is con-

tended that KM and IC are different but

related issues. It was Drucker (1995) who

stated: `` we are entering the knowledge society

in which the basic economic resource is no

longer capita ... but is and will be knowledge''.

This viewpoint effectively labels knowledge as

a resource like land or oil which has in-

dependent existence outside human and

social systems. Ultimately Drucker is con-

sidering knowledge as being capitalised

hence the term intellectual capital. This type

of capital is seen as consisting of intangible

assets not frequently recorded on the balance

sheet and can include employee skills, in-

formation, patents, copyright, brands, R&D,

licensing opportunities, innovative use of

assets such as databases etc. Brooking (1997)

suggests that KM is actively concerned with

the strategy and tactics to manage IC or

human-centred assets. KM from this stand-

point is seen as leveraging IC (Peters, 1992),

or as recognising or rediscovering assets that

the organisation is not using to full potential,

ultimately employees. This approach is simi-

lar to that of Handy (1990) who spoke of

creating value from intangible assets. Thus

these approaches imply that the key areas

within KM are IC and the management of IC.

However the concept of knowledge as

simply relating to IC or a manageable asset is

a highly mechanistic view and is much

criticised by those who see knowledge as

socially constructed (Gergen, 1991; Alvesson

and Willmott, 1996). This more social-

orientated view focuses on knowledge

construction as being a key area of KM.

KM as an emerging paradigm

Is KM a passing fad, a significant trend or a

paradigm in its own right? Answers to these

questions will influence the investment of

organisations in KM and its ultimate cred-

ibility in the academic literature. Ultimately

there will be a reluctance to invest time and

resources in ephemeral movements.

It is important to clarify what is implied by

terms applied to emerging bodies of knowl-

edge such as KM. Firstly, when a subject is

written about and discussed the summation of

all that is known about it is referred to as a

body of knowledge. When this body of

knowledge becomes sufficiently significant

and influential on theory or practice it is then

classified into what McLaughlin and Thorpe

(1993) called, either a toolbox of techniques,

or a philosophy. A toolbox of techniques is

largely problem-solving methodologies in a

subject area. A philosophy implies a set of

93

A critical review of knowledge management methods

Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

beliefs which provide those who subscribe to

them with a distinct world view.

Secondly, the idea of views gives rise to the

term paradigm. Kuhn (1970, 1974) and

Clegg et al. (1996) defined paradigms as

theories of world views that define legitimate

problems, methods and solutions for a com-

munity. Typical components of a paradigm

are laws and theoretical assumptions, princi-

ples and methodological prescriptions. A

typical cycle in organisation study is where a

paradigm and its associated laws and as-

sumptions develops from a body of

knowledge and acts as a guide to practice.

Then ambiguities and novelties become ap-

parent but are overlooked for as long as

possible. Some dissipate (fads), but others

become too important and influential to be

denied and the paradigm is overthrown by a

competing paradigm, which promises to solve

the novelties or ambiguities. It is interesting to

note that Kuhn concluded that there are no

set standards for proving the superiority of

one paradigm over another, rather the switch

from one paradigm to another is akin to an act

of conversion.

How is KM classified in regard to para-

digms? Firstly, KM is more than a toolbox of

techniques. Had it remained solely in the

information technology domain then it could

have been classified as another set of IT

solutions to existing problems and hence a

fad. Ramsay (1996) equates faddishness to

superficial quick fixes which implies a much

narrower viewpoint than that which currently

exists for KM. But is KM a business or

organisational paradigm in its own right? The

work of Clegg et al. (1996) implies that

paradigms can be large, all embracing, para-

digms, or paradigms that relate to a particular

part of a large paradigm. For example the

large paradigm of postmodernism can include

the paradigms of feminism and ecological

views. Thus the possibility arises that KM

could emerge into a large paradigm or be a

paradigm which is a subset of a larger

emerging paradigm. Clegg et al. (1996) define

the current emerging large paradigm of

organisation theory and practice in terms of

Table I.

This representation puts Kuhn's work on

succeeding paradigms in a current organisa-

tional context in that it shows the paradigm

on the left-hand side of the table replacing the

paradigm on the right-hand side.

It is interesting to compare Table I with the

current approaches to KM. Firstly there is a

`` knowledge is truth'' view (Morgan, 1986)

which represents approaches to KM which

take a absolutist approach to knowledge

construction, associating it with the assimila-

tion of factual inputs. These `` facts'' are

labeled as scientific and therefore cannot be

disputed. Gergen (1991) describes such

indisputability as `` scientists adding sanctity

to ideology''. Richardson et al. (1987) de-

scribe these views of knowledge as enforcing

`` the removal of discriminatory power'' and

queries how ideas can be evaluated and

critiqued with this approach. Overall, this

positivist approach to knowledge and KM

equates more to the right-hand side of

Table I.

Secondly, within the field of KM, there is a

view that knowledge is socially constructed.

Burgoyne et al. (1994) state that `` philosophy

of science has largely been replaced on the

intellectual agenda by the history and sociol-

ogy of knowledge which emphasises cultural

and historical processes rather than rationally

superior knowledge''. This approach agrees

with Habermass's view that knowledge con-

stitutes human interest rather than being

restricted to a functionalist science approach.

Lave and Wenger (1991) conclude that

Table I Old and new management paradigms

New paradigm Old paradigm

Organisational learning Organisation discipline

Virtuous circles Vicious circles

Flexible organisations Inflexible organisations

Management leaders Management administrators

Open communication Distorted communication

Core competencies drive product

development

Strategic business units drive

product development

Strategic learning capacities are

widespread

Strategic learning occurs at the

apex of the organisation

Assumption that most organisation

members are trustworthy

Assumption that most

organisation members are

untrustworthy

Most organisation members are

empowered

Most organisation members are

disempowered

Tacit and local knowledge of all

members of the organisation is the

most important factor in success,

and creativity creates its own

prerogative

Tacit and local knowledge of

most members of the

organisation must be disciplined

by managerial prerogative

Source: Clegg et al. (1996)

94

A critical review of knowledge management methods

Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

knowledge achieved in this way is cultural and

is provided by a socio-historical context

usually made available through the everyday

experience of individuals. Overall, this social

constructionist view of KM equates more to

the left side of Table I.

If KM is to continue as an emerging

paradigm, and not simply be a convenient

mechanistic tool, then the field must address

the social side of knowledge construction

(mainly the left side of Table I) in addition to

the more scientific side of knowledge con-

struction (right-hand side of Table I). By

taking this more holistic viewpoint KM can

play an important role in post-capitalist

deregulated organisations which emphasise

knowledge and learning (all of Table I). For

example, KM plays a key role in facilitating

communities of practice that form as learning

groups within widely dispersed or virtual

organisations (such as ABB and McKinseys).

The conception of KM as an emerging

paradigm consistent with larger movements in

organisational theory and practice has im-

portant implications. For example, Kuhn

(1974) points out that when a paradigm is

identified by the academic community then

research is undertaken to articulate and fill

out the paradigm. Perhaps this explains the

phenomenal increase in academic research in

the area of KM over the past few years. Also

when a paradigm is identified (by conversion

or otherwise) there is a wide range of

organisational applications developed from

the theory. Once again the literature reflects

an enormous growth in the number of

organisations of all types becoming involved

in KM. As knowledge is fundamental to

organisations, learning the potential implica-

tions of an emerging paradigm in this area has

potentially enormous consequences for the

field of management learning and organisa-

tional development.

A critique of knowledge management

Many models of KM, covering a wide

spectrum of viewpoints, are described in the

literature. A critique of these models is helpful

in that the underlying assumptions and

reasoning can be revealed. In this section a

number of KM models are critiqued and a

preferred representative model is tentatively

suggested as useful for further work on

structuring research and organisational ap-

plications of KM.

All models must be treated with caution.

An example (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996) is

the modelling of information systems which

sometimes can be imposed on organisations

from a technical viewpoint rather than asking

the customers (internal organisational mem-

bers) what actually happens or what is

required. In commenting on the modelling of

operations research, which assumes models

are built on objective results, Alvesson and

Willmott (1992) describe such assumptions

as `` naive realism''. Thus models must be

treated with caution. It is suggested that they

are useful so long as they are critiqued to

understand the underlying assumptions in the

representation, rather than accepting them as

objective representations of reality.

Recognising these considerations and lim-

itations, the following paragraphs give a

critique of some typical models in the field of

KM. The models have been selected as

covering a range of KM views, rather than as

an exhaustive list of KM models. Broadly, the

literature identifies three categories of KM

models, namely knowledge category models,

intellectual capital models and social con-

structed models.

Knowledge category models

These types of model categorise knowledge

into discrete elements. For example, Non-

aka's model is an attempt at giving a high-

level conceptual representation of KM and

essentially considers KM as a knowledge

creation process. In its simplest form it is

shown in Figure 1 (Nonaka and Takeuchi,

1995).

As seen from Figure 1, knowledge is

considered as consisting of tacit and explicit

elements. Tacit knowledge is defined by

Polanyi (1962) as nonverbalised, intuitive and

unarticulated. Explicit or articulated

Figure 1 Nonaka's knowledge management model

95

A critical review of knowledge management methods

Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

knowledge is specified as being in writing,

drawings, computer programs etc. (Hedlund,

1994). However, is it appropriate to solely

categorise knowledge in such a way? Where

does the concept of P and Q knowledge

(McLoughlin and Thorpe, 1993) fit with this

view, where P is programmed knowledge and

Q is knowledge gained by questioning insight.

Tacit knowledge does not exactly map onto

Q, neither does explicit knowledge exactly

map unto P. Thus P and Q represent a

different categorisation of knowledge. There-

fore from a critical standpoint Nonaka's

categorisation of knowledge is perhaps limited

or unidimensional.

The model assumes tacit knowledge can be

transferred through a process of socialisation

into tacit knowledge in others and that tacit

knowledge can become explicit knowledge

through a process of externalisation (top 2

squares of the model in Figure 1). The model

also assumes (bottom 2 squares) that explicit

knowledge can be transferred into tacit

knowledge in others through a process of

internalisation, and that explicit knowledge

can be transferred to explicit knowledge in

others through a process of combination.

Therefore, the transforming processes are

assumed to be socialisation (everyday com-

radeship), externalisation (formalising a body

of knowledge), internalisation (translating

theory into practice) and combination (com-

bining existing theories). However, perhaps

knowledge transfer in organisations is much

more complicated and convoluted than this

simple matrix suggests. Perhaps this model

implies a mechanistic approach to knowledge

categorisation more consistent with the right-

hand side of Table I, although the four

processes within the model, as described

above, could be interpreted as largely con-

sistent with the left-hand side of Table I.

A more elaborate version of Nonaka's

model is shown in Figure 2 (Hedlund and

Nonaka, 1993).

This model assumes there are four different

levels of `` carriers'', or agents, of knowledge in

organisations (ontological axis) namely the

individual, the small group, the organisation

and the interorganisational domain (impor-

tant customers, suppliers, competitors etc.).

While the model is helpful in that it relates the

carriers to the types of knowledge (albeit

limited), it remains problematic in that it

assumes the carriers, like the knowledge, can

be simply segregated (more consistent with

the right-hand side of Table I). An analogy is

drawn with the management competency

movement which assumes a simplistic deseg-

regation of management tasks rather than a

more representative holistic approach.

Another example of a knowledge category

model is that of Boisot (1987). Figure 3

shows Boisot's model which considers

knowledge as either codified or uncodified,

and as diffused or undiffused, within an

organisation. Boisot uses the term `` codified''

to refer to knowledge that can be readily

prepared for transmission purposes (e.g.

financial data). The term `` uncodified'' refers

to knowledge that cannot be easily prepared

for transmission purposes (e.g. experience).

The term `` diffused'' refers to knowledge that

is readily shared while `` undiffused'' refers to

knowledge that is not readily shared.

If knowledge is categorised as both codified

and undiffused (top left quadrant of Figure

3), then the knowledge is referred to as

propriety knowledge. In this case, knowledge

is prepared for transmission but is deliberately

restricted to a selectively small population, on

a `` need to know'' basis (e.g. projected profits,

share price issues). The bottom left quadrant

of Figure 3 covers knowledge that is relatively

uncodified and undiffused, which is referred

to as personal knowledge (e.g. perceptions,

insights, experiences). The top right quadrant

covers knowledge that is both codified and

diffused and is referred to as public knowl-

edge (e.g. journals, books, libraries). Finally,

Figure 2 Hedlund and Nonaka's knowledge management model

96

A critical review of knowledge management methods

Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

the bottom right quadrant of Figure 3 refers

to common sense knowledge which is

relatively diffused but also uncodified. Such

knowledge is considered by Boisot as being

built up slowly by a process of socialisation,

harbouring customs and intuition (more

consistent with the left-hand side of Table I).

There are a number of parallels between

Nonaka's model and that of Boisot. For

example, Nonaka's categorisation of explicit

and tacit knowledge has at least some degree

of correspondence with Boisot's reference to

codified and uncodified knowledge. Also, in

both models the horizontal dimension relates

to the spread or diffusion of knowledge across

the organisation. Boisot's model suffers the

same limitations as Nonaka's model in that

codified and uncodified are but two discrete

categories of knowledge (more relevant to the

right-hand side of Table I). Also, the idea of

diffused knowledge (less defined ontological

axis than Nonaka's model) is rather general

and it is not clear if it includes incorporating

knowledge within the organisation, as well as

spreading it.

In summary, knowledge category models of

KM involve knowledge transforming pro-

cesses of socialisation similar to the left-hand

side of Table I. However, some of the

categorisation of knowledge in these models is

mechanistic and more consistent with the

right-hand side of Table I.

Intellectual capital models

A number of models in the literature repre-

sent KM as essentially intellectual capital

(IC). A typical IC model is the Skandia IC

model (Figure 4 from Chase, 1997; and Roos

and Roos, 1997).

The model assumes IC or KM can be

segregated into human, customer, process

and growth elements which are contained in

two main categories of human capital and

structural/organisation capital. Lank's (1997)

account of the Skandia approach to KM is

predicated on this type of model. The model

assumes a very scientific approach to knowl-

edge and assumes it can be commodified

hence the link with organisational capital (this

approach is consistent with the right-hand

side of Table I). Skandia was the first

company in the world to publish a supple-

ment to its annual report on the company's

intellectual capital philosophy and activities

(Chase, 1997). However, this intellectual

capital view of KM ignores the political and

social aspects of KM. Also, like Nonaka's

model, it assumes KM can be decomposed

into objective elements rather than being a

socio-political phenomenon. This mechanis-

tic approach, more consistent with the right-

hand side of Table I, can result in simplistic

mechanised approaches to complex social-

related issues (e.g. reward and recognition,

power relations, empowerment etc.)

The Skandia example, as described by Lank

gives a strong emphasis to measurement

associated with each of these decomposed

elements of KM assuming it can be tightly

controlled, as is the case for tangible assets.

Unfortunately this approach can result in

attempts to fit objective measures to subjec-

tive elements. Once again this mechanistic

approach to measurement is more consistent

with the right-hand side of Table I.

In summary, intellectual capital models are

mechanistic in nature, and assume that

knowledge can be treated as an asset, similar

to other assets. Such an approach is largely

associated with the right-hand side of Table I.

Socially constructed models of KM

This group of models assumes a wide defini-

tion of knowledge and views knowledge as

Figure 4 Intellectual capital model of knowledge management (Skandia)Figure 3 Boisot's knowledge category model

97

A critical review of knowledge management methods

Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

being intrinsically linked within the social and

learning processes within the organisation.

There is a large area of commonality between

these types of models and those models

seeking to represent the learning organisation

and organisational learning (e.g. Burgoyne et

al., 1994). A typical example of these types of

models is shown in Figure 5.

The model is Demerest's (1997) adaptation

of Clark and Staunton's (1989) model of KM

(Figure 5). Firstly, the model emphasises the

construction of knowledge within the organi-

sation. This construction is not limited to

scientific inputs but is seen as including the

social construction of knowledge. The model

assumes that constructed knowledge is then

embodied within the organisation, not just

through explicit programmes but through a

process of social interchange. Following

embodiment there is a process of dissemina-

tion of the espoused knowledge throughout

the organisation and its environs (this ap-

proach is consistent with the left-hand side of

Table I). Ultimately the knowledge is seen as

being of economic use in regard to organisa-

tional outputs. The solid arrows in Figure 5

show the primary flow direction while the

plain arrows show the more recursive flows.

The model is similar to that of Jordan and

Jones (1997) who speak of knowledge acqui-

sition, problem solving, dissemination,

ownership and storage. There are also simi-

larities with Kruizinga et al.'s (1997) model

which includes knowledge policy, infrastruc-

ture and culture. There are also parallels with

Scarborough's (1996) approach which covers

strategic knowledge, structural and cultural

knowledge, systems knowledge and commu-

nities of practice and routines. The model in

Figure 5 is attractive in that it does not

assume any given definition of knowledge but

rather invites a more holistic approach to

knowledge construction. Perhaps the solid

arrows or main flow is a limitation in that it

implies that recursive flows are less important.

It also implies a simplistic processual ap-

proach (mechanistic and hence akin to the

right-hand side of Table I) while, in reality,

the flows of knowledge transfer may be

extremely rapid and circulatory, as in the case

for some forms of action learning.

The `` use'' box in the model is limited to

organisational outputs and does not include

emancipatory enhancements (hence, it is

more orientated towards the right-hand side

of Table I). These factors can be seen as

complementary rather than mutually

exclusive.

Figure 6 is a slightly modified version of

Demerest's model which seeks to address

these limitations by explicitly showing the

influence of both social and scientific para-

digms of knowledge construction (hence both

sides of Table I). The model also extends the

`` use'' element to cover both business and

employee benefits. If KM is to have the

support and commitment of all stakeholders

in an organisation then employee emancipa-

tion must be addressed along with the

business benefits. These issues should not be

seen as mutually exclusive but as comple-

mentary. Also more recursive arrows are

added to Figure 6 to show that KM is not

seen as a simple sequential process.

It is suggested that the model of Figure 6 is

a useful means for structuring further research

into the field of KM as it represents a

balanced view of Table I. It allows KM to be

associated with the emerging social paradigm

while at the same time contributing to the

current paradigm (Table I).

Figure 5 Knowledge management model

Figure 6 Modified version of Demerest's knowledge management model

98

A critical review of knowledge management methods

Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Conclusions and recommendations

The examination of existing definitions and

classifications of KM show a wide spectrum

of viewpoints. These range from the more

mechanistic to more socially orientated. The

mechanistic type of definitions and classifi-

cations assume an intellectual capital

approach (knowledge viewed as an asset)

while the social type assumes a social con-

structionist approach where knowledge is

constructed in the social relationships within

organisations.

Clegg et al.'s (1996) classification of old

and new paradigms enabled Table I to be

constructed which was found to be a useful

evaluative framework for examining KM

models and their associated assumptions.

Three broad classifications of models were

identified and critiqued. Firstly, knowledge

category models made reference to social

processes for transforming knowledge; how-

ever the categorisation of knowledge in these

models was somewhat mechanistic. Secondly,

the intellectual capital models were found to

be more mechanistic, assuming that knowl-

edge can be treated similarly to other assets

(right-hand side of Table I). Thirdly, socially

constructed models were found to give a more

balanced approach between the scientific and

social approaches to KM.

Finally, Figure 6 was constructed, a sug-

gested approach to KM (based on socially

constructed models Figure 5). This model

takes a balanced approach between scientific

and socially constructed knowledge. Also the

`` uses/benefits'' of KM are viewed as both

emancipatory and as business oriented.

Throughout the model, knowledge flows are

seen as highly recursive rather than as

sequential. It is suggested that this model

could act as a useful guide for further research

and literature evaluation in the area of

knowledge management.

References

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992), Critical Manage-ment Studies, Sage, London.

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996), Making Sense ofManagement, Sage, London.

Boisot, M. (1987), Information and Organisations: TheManager as Anthropologist, Fontana/Collins,London.

Burgoyne, J. and Reynolds, M. (1997), ManagingLearning, Integrating Perspectives in Theory andPractice, Sage, London.

Burgoyne, J., Pedlar, M. and Boydell, T. (1994), Towardsthe Learning Company, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead.

Brooking, A. (1997), `` The management of intellectualcapital'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30No. 3, pp. 364-5.

Clarke, P. and Staunton, N. (1989), Innovation inTechnology and Organisation, Routledge, London.

Chase, R. (1997), `` The knowledge based organisation: aninternational survey'', Journal of KnowledgeManagement, Vol. 1 No. 1.

Clegg, S., Barrett, M., Clarke, T., Dwyer, L., Gray, J., Kemp,S. and Marceau, J. (1996), `` Management knowl-edge for the future: innovation, embryos and newparadigms'', in Clegg, S. and Palmer, G. (Eds),The Politics of Management Knowledge, Sage,London.

Demerest, M. (1997), `` Understanding knowledge man-agement'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30No. 3, pp. 374-84.

De Jarnett, L. (1996), `` Knowledge the latest thing'',Information Strategy, The Executives Journal,Vol. 12, pt 2, pp. 3-5.

Drucker, P. (1995), `` The information executives trulyneed'', Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb,pp. 54-62.

EFQM Report (1997), Knowledge Management in Europe,Current Practice Survey Results, September.

Gergen, J. (1991), The Saturated Self, Basic Books, USA.Handy, C. (1990), `` The age of unreason'', Harvard

Business School Press, Boston, MA.Hedlund, G. (1994), `` A model of knowledge management

and the N-Form Corporation'', Strategic Manage-ment Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 73-90.

Hedlund, G. and Nonaka, I. (1993), `` Models of knowledgemanagement in the West and Japan'', in Lorange,B., Chakravarthy, B., Roos, J. and Van de Ven, H.(Eds), Implementing Strategic Processes, Change,Learning and Cooperation, Macmillan, London,pp. 117-44.

Jordan, J. and Jones, P. (1997), `` Assessing yourcompany's knowledge management style'',Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3,pp. 392-8.

Kemmis, S. (1985), `` Action research and the politics ofreflection'', in Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D.(Eds), Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning,Kogan Page, London, pp. 139-63.

Kruizinga, E., Heijst, G. and Spek, R. (1997), `` Knowledgeinfrastructures and intranets'', Journal of KnowledgeManagement, Vol. 1 No. 1, Aug/Sept, pp. 27-32.

Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolution,University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Kuhn, T. (1974), `` Second thoughts on paradigms'', inSuppe, F. (Ed.), The Search for PhilosophicalScientific Theories, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL.

Lank, E. (1997), `` Leveraging invisible assets: the humanfactor'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30No. 3, pp. 406-12.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation, CambridgeUniversity Press.

McLoughlin, H. and Thorpe, R. (1993), `` Action learning a paradigm in emergence: the problems facing achallenge to traditional management education anddevelopment'', British Journal of Management,Vol. 4, pp. 19-27.

99

A critical review of knowledge management methods

Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organisations, Sage,London.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, K. (1995), The KnowledgeCreating Company: How Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford

University Press, Oxford.Peters, T. (1992), Liberation Management, Pan Books,

New York, NY.Polanyi, M. (1962), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post

Critical Philosophy, Harper, Torchbooks, New York,NY.

Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997), `` Knowledge

management: a strategic agenda'', Journal of LongRange Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 385-91.

Ramsay, H. (1996), `` Managing sceptically: a critique of

organisational fashion'', in Clegg, S. and Palmer, G.

(Eds), The Politics of Management Knowledge,Sage, London.

Richardson, J., Eysenck, M. and Piper, D. (1987), StudentLearning: Research in Education and CognitivePsychology, Open University Press, London.

Roos, G. and Roos, J. (1997), `` Measuring your company'sintellectual performance'', Journal of Long RangePlanning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 413-26.

Scarborough, H. (1996), Business Process Re-design: TheKnowledge Dimension, http://bprc.warwick.ac.uk/rc-rep-8.1, November.

Taylor et al. (1997), International Journal of TechnologyManagement, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 385-91.

Further reading

Edvinsson, L. (1997), `` Developing intellectual capital atSkandia'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30No. 3, pp. 366-73.

100

A critical review of knowledge management methods

Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy

The Learning Organization

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Nadine Newman, Dunstan Newman. 2015. Learning and knowledge: a dream or nightmare for employees. The LearningOrganization 22:1, 58-71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Mikko Dufva, Toni Ahlqvist. 2014. Knowledge creation dynamics in foresight: A knowledge typology and exploratory methodto analyse foresight workshops. Technological Forecasting and Social Change . [CrossRef]

3. Silvia Martelo-Landroguez, Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro. 2014. Linking knowledge corridors to customer value throughknowledge processes. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:2, 342-365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Guillaume Boutard. 2014. Towards mixed methods digital curation: facing specific adaptation in the artistic domain. ArchivalScience . [CrossRef]

5. Alexia Mary Tzortzaki, Athanassios Mihiotis. 2014. A Review of Knowledge Management Theory and Future Directions.Knowledge and Process Management 21:1, 29-41. [CrossRef]

6. Karim Moustaghfir, Giovanni Schiuma, Karim Moustaghfir, Giovanni Schiuma. 2013. Knowledge, learning, and innovation:research and perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management 17:4, 495-510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. Ravi Shankar, Neha Mittal, Samuel Rabinowitz, Alok Baveja, Sourish Acharia. 2013. A collaborative framework to minimiseknowledge loss in new product development. International Journal of Production Research 51:7, 2049-2059. [CrossRef]

8. Ritesh CHUGH. 2013. Workplace Dimensions: Tacit Knowledge Sharing in Universities. Journal of Advanced ManagementScience 1:1, 24-28. [CrossRef]

9. Dursun Delen, Halil Zaim, Cemil Kuzey, Selim Zaim. 2013. A comparative analysis of machine learning systems for measuringthe impact of knowledge management practices. Decision Support Systems 54, 1150-1160. [CrossRef]

10. Guillaume Boutard, Catherine Guastavino. 2012. Archiving electroacoustic and mixed music. Journal of Documentation 68:6,749-771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Edgar Serna M.. 2012. Maturity model of Knowledge Management in the interpretativist perspective. International Journalof Information Management 32:4, 365-371. [CrossRef]

12. Jayanthi Ranjan, Rajat Gera. 2012. Bridging the gap in knowledge transfer between academia and practitioners. InternationalJournal of Educational Management 26:3, 252-273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

13. Charles EgbuConstruction Innovation through Knowledge Management 235-249. [CrossRef]14. J. Zhang, T. E. El-Diraby. 2012. Social Semantic Approach to Support Communication in AEC. Journal of Computing in

Civil Engineering 26:1, 90-104. [CrossRef]15. Rasheed Sulaiman V, Laxmi Thummuru, Andy Hall, Jeroen Dijkman. 2011. Tacit knowledge and innovation capacity:

evidence from the Indian livestock sector. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 7:1, 32-44. [CrossRef]16. Edda Tandi Lwoga. 2011. Knowledge management approaches in managing agricultural indigenous and exogenous knowledge

in Tanzania. Journal of Documentation 67:3, 407-430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]17. Bijaya Mishra, A. Uday Bhaskar. 2011. Knowledge management process in two learning organisations. Journal of Knowledge

Management 15:2, 344-359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]18. P. Chasek, W. Essahli, M. Akhtar-Schuster, L. C. Stringer, R. Thomas. 2011. Integrated land degradation monitoring and

assessment: Horizontal knowledge management at the national and international levels. Land Degradation & Development22:2, 272-284. [CrossRef]

19. Graeme SmithCase study from Ordnance Survey: social networking and the transfer of knowledge within supply chainmanagement 131-154. [CrossRef]

20. Iftikhar Hussain, Shakeel Ahmed, Steven Si. 2010. Personal Knowledge Abilities and Knowledge Management Success.Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 09:04, 319-327. [CrossRef]

21. Mara De Los ngeles Briceo Moreno, Csar Augusto Bernal Torres. 2010. Estudios de caso sobre la gestin delconocimiento en cuatro organizaciones colombianas lderes en penetracin de mercado. Estudios Gerenciales 26:117, 173-193.[CrossRef]

22. Tanya Linden, Jacob Cybulski. 2010. A Hermeneutic Study of Pattern Mining as a Knowledge Creation Process: ExploringMultimedia Design Practices. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 09:03, 263-275. [CrossRef]

23. Yacine Rezgui, Christina J. Hopfe, Chalee Vorakulpipat. 2010. Generations of knowledge management in the architecture,engineering and construction industry: An evolutionary perspective. Advanced Engineering Informatics 24:2, 219-228.[CrossRef]

24. Jean-Pierre Booto Ekionea, Grard Fillion, Prosper Bernard, Michel Plaisent. 2010. Les technologies de linformation, lagestion des connaissances et un avantage concurrentiel soutenu: une analyse par la thorie des ressources. Revue de l'universitde Moncton 41:1, 247. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

25. John P. Moriarty, Clive Smallman. 2009. En route to a theory of benchmarking. Benchmarking: An International Journal16:4, 484-503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

26. Champika Liyanage, Taha Elhag, Tabarak Ballal, Qiuping Li. 2009. Knowledge communication and translation a knowledgetransfer model. Journal of Knowledge Management 13:3, 118-131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

27. Mohammad Hosein Rezazadeh Mehrizi, Nick Bontis. 2009. A cluster analysis of the KM field. Management Decision 47:5,792-805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

28. Mohammed Arif, Charles Egbu, Ola Alom, Malik M.A. Khalfan. 2009. Measuring knowledge retention: a case study ofa construction consultancy in the UAE. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 16:1, 92-108. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

29. CHALEE VORAKULPIPAT, YACINE REZGUI. 2008. Value creation: the future of knowledge management. TheKnowledge Engineering Review 23:03. . [CrossRef]

30. Abdulaziz O. Alsadhan, Mohamed Zairi, Kay Hooi Alan Keoy. 2008. From P Economy to K Economy: An empirical studyon knowledge-based quality factors. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19:7-8, 807-825. [CrossRef]

31. Soo-Jin Park, Myeong-Hee Lee. 2008. Awareness of the Privacy Concerns in Knowledge Management in ScholarlyPublications from 2000 to 2004. Journal of the Korean Society for information Management 25:2, 99-114. [CrossRef]

32. Zhichang Zhu. 2008. Knowledge, knowing, knower: what is to be managed and does it matter?. Knowledge ManagementResearch & Practice 6:2, 112-123. [CrossRef]

33. Chalee Vorakulpipat, Yacine Rezgui. 2008. An evolutionary and interpretive perspective to knowledge management. Journalof Knowledge Management 12:3, 17-34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

34. Meliha Handzic, Amila Lagumdzija, Amer Celjo. 2008. Auditing knowledge management practices: model and application.Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6:1, 90-99. [CrossRef]

35. M Begoa Lloria. 2008. A review of the main approaches to knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research &Practice 6:1, 77-89. [CrossRef]

36. Bill Martin. 2008. Knowledge management. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 42:1, 369-424. [CrossRef]37. Murat Hakan Altnta, Tuncer Tokol, Talha Harcar. 2007. The effects of export barriers on perceived export performance.

EuroMed Journal of Business 2:1, 36-56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]38. Meliha Handzic, Amila Lagumdzija, Amer Celjo. 2007. A Survey of Knowledge Management Adoption in Public

Administration. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 06:03, 219-230. [CrossRef]39. Tayyab Maqsood, Derek H.T. Walker, Andrew D. Finegan. 2007. Facilitating knowledge pull to deliver innovation through

knowledge management. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 14:1, 94-109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]40. Miltiadis D. Lytras, Athanasia Pouloudi. 2006. Towards the development of a novel taxonomy of knowledge management

systems from a learning perspective: an integrated approach to learning and knowledge infrastructures. Journal of KnowledgeManagement 10:6, 64-80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

41. Stephen Gourlay. 2006. Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation: A Critique of Nonaka's Theory. Journal of Management Studies43:7, 1415-1436. [CrossRef]

42. Steffen Jrgensen, Peter M. Kort, Engelbert J. Dockner. 2006. Venture capital financed investments in intellectual capital.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 30:11, 2339-2361. [CrossRef]

43. Saurabh Gupta, Amy Scott Metcalfe. 2006. Using peer-to-peer technology for collaborative knowledge management: concepts,frameworks and research issues. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 4:3, 187-196. [CrossRef]

44. Yacine Rezgui. 2006. Ontology-Centered Knowledge Management Using Information Retrieval Techniques. Journal ofComputing in Civil Engineering 20:4, 261-270. [CrossRef]

45. Michael Stankosky, Ellen F. Mac Garrigle. 2006. Validating Enterprise Management Engineering Through the Use ofKnowledge Capital Assessments. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 05:02, 129-142. [CrossRef]

46. Bino Catass, JanErik Grjer. 2006. Indicators: on visualizing, classifying and dramatizing. Journal of Intellectual Capital7:2, 187-203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

47. Miguel Baptista Nunes, Fenio Annansingh, Barry Eaglestone, Richard Wakefield. 2006. Knowledge management issues inknowledgeintensive SMEs. Journal of Documentation 62:1, 101-119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

48. Carla Laurentis. 2006. Digital Knowledge Exploitation: ICT, Memory Institutions and Innovation from Cultural Assets. TheJournal of Technology Transfer 31:1, 77-89. [CrossRef]

49. Adrian Bueren, Ragnar Schierholz, Lutz M. Kolbe, Walter Brenner. 2005. Improving performance of customerprocesseswith knowledge management. Business Process Management Journal 11:5, 573-588. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

50. Ravi Shankar, Amol Gupta. 2005. Towards framework for knowledge management implementation. Knowledge and ProcessManagement 12:4, 259-277. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by In

tern

atio

nal I

slam

ic U

nive

rsity

Mal

aysia

At 1

6:56

09

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

51. Snunith Shoham, Alon Hasgall. 2005. Knowledge workers as fractals in a complex adaptive organization. Knowledge andProcess Management 12:3, 225-236. [CrossRef]

52. Karen Anderson, Rodney McAdam. 2005. An empirical analysis of lead benchmarking and performance measurement.International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 22:4, 354-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

53. Meliha Handzic, Albert Z. ZhouAn integrated view of KM 3-15. [CrossRef]54. Rachel McLean, Nigel M. Blackie. 2004. Customer and company voices in ecommerce: a qualitative analysis. Qualitative

Market Research: An International Journal 7:4, 243-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]55. Charles O. Egbu. 2004. Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational innovations in the

construction industry: an examination of critical success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 11:5,301-315. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

56. Karen Anderson, Rodney McAdam. 2004. A critique of benchmarking and performance measurement. Benchmarking: AnInternational Journal 11:5, 465-483. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

57. Ioannis E. Diakoulakis, Nikolaos B. Georgopoulos, Dimitrios E. Koulouriotis, Dimitrios M. Emiris. 2004. Towards a holisticknowledge management model. Journal of Knowledge Management 8:1, 32-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

58. Tatiana Sotirakou, Mary Zeppou. 2004. The MATE model: a strategic knowledge management technique on the chessboardof publicsector modernization. Management Decision 42:1, 69-88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

59. Henning Gebert, Malte Geib, Lutz Kolbe, Walter Brenner. 2003. Knowledgeenabled customer relationship management:integrating customer relationship management and knowledge management concepts[1]. Journal of Knowledge Management7:5, 107-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

60. Rumesh Kumar Sharma. 2003. Understanding Organizational Learning Through Knowledge Management. Journal ofInformation & Knowledge Management 02:04, 343-352. [CrossRef]

61. Fang Zhao. 2003. Transforming Quality in Research Supervision: A knowledge-management approach. Quality in HigherEducation 9:2, 187-197. [CrossRef]

62. Thou Tin Lim. 2002. Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management01:01, 57-63. [CrossRef]

63. Jeffrey R. Puddy, If Price, Louise Smith. 2001. FM policies and standards as a knowledge management system. Facilities19:13/14, 504-515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

64. Rodney McAdam, Renee Reid. 2001. SME and large organisation perceptions of knowledge management: comparisons andcontrasts. Journal of Knowledge Management 5:3, 231-241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

65. Philip C. Wright, Frederick K.C. Tao. 2001. The missing link: coaching as a method of improving managerial skills in smallerbusinesses in Asia. Career Development International 6:4, 218-225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

66. Majed Al-Mashari. 2001. Process orientation through enterprise resource planning (ERP): a review of critical issues.Knowledge and Process Management 8:3, 175-185. [CrossRef]

67. Anne Christie, Eric Sandelands. 2000. The knowledge harvest: ensuring you reap what you sow. Journal of Workplace Learning12:3, 83-89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

68. Jamie OBrienLessons from the Private Sector 173-198. [CrossRef]69. Neeta BaporikarOrganizational Barriers and Facilitators in Embedding Knowledge Strategy 149-173. [CrossRef]70. Sari MetsoA New Perspective on Knowledge Management Research 193-206. [CrossRef]Do

wnl

oade

d by

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isla

mic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia A

t 16:

56 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

(PT)