reviewing knowledge management literature - journal-archieves24

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1005

OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Reviewing Knowledge Management Literature

Javed Iqbal 1 and Yassir Mahmood

2

Abstract

Knowledge Management (KM) is getting remarkable attention and is conceived as an important

domain within the business as well as in the research field. It is necessary to synthesize the KM

related work that in our view may reveal the major research themes. The aim of this research is

to analyze and review the relevant literature in the field of KM with the primary objective of

uncovering fundamental KM trends to build a map for future direction. In this regard

―Information System Management‖ journal has been selected while the articles reviewed were

published during the period 1999-2011. The findings suggest that much lesser collaboration

exists for research between academia and industry. The conceptual /descriptive methods have

dominated KM research. Organization as unit of analysis with KM strategies were found to be

the most widely published topics within KM domain. Further a number of literature gaps are

explored that need attention of researchers in the context of KM research.

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Information System Management, Research Trends,

review

1 Assistant professor, HOD, Department of Technology Management Faculty of Management Sciences (FMS), International

Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan

2 PhD scholar, Faculty of Management Sciences (FMS), International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

1- Introduction

―Knowledge is power, in post-capitalism, power comes from transmitting information to

make it productive, not from hiding it‖ Peter Drucker. For an organization knowledge is at

central stage (Davenport et al., 1998) and has been accredited an indispensible component for the

development of core competencies (Massa and Testa 2009). In today‘s knowledge based

economy, this intellectual resource is considered much important than any other resource. To add

value to knowledge there is a need for Knowledge Management (KM).

KM is getting remarkable attention and is conceived as an important domain within the

business as well as in the research field. It is rapidly becoming an integral part of business. In

near future KM related strategies will act as a source of competitive keenness for any

organization (Alavi and Leidner 2001). Thus KM can be stated as a prerequisite for enhancing

productivity and flexibility in organizations (Martensson 2000). Hence for an organization the

management of knowledge is an increasingly vital requirement.

KM in research has been defined in many ways, like Sousa and Hendriks (2006) defined

it as ―Knowledge management addresses policies, strategies, and techniques aimed at supporting

an organization‘s competitiveness by optimizing the conditions needed for efficiency

improvement, innovation, and collaboration among employees‖ (Sousa and Hendriks 2006).

While Alavi and Leidner (2001) have a different definition, they defined it as ―Knowledge

management is largely regarded as a process involving various activities considers the four basic

processes of creating, storing/retrieving, transferring, and applying knowledge‖ (Alavi and

Leidner 2001).

Since the inception of knowledge economy era the KM field has received severe attention

from academics and corporate sectors (Xu and Bernard 2011; Laleci et al. 2010). The boundaries

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

of KM are expanding with each passing day also in recent times due to enormous growth in

number of research publications, it is crucial to identify the diversity and breadth of KM field.

Recognizing the importance of KM, it is necessary to synthesize the KM related work from

multiple disciplines that in our view may reveal the major research themes. But to study KM as a

separate discipline of study, a number of difficulties are in the way (Dwivedi et al. 2011).

Regardless of these challenges, a stream of research continues to be conducted for managing

knowledge.

This study provides a literature review pertaining to KM research to capture and reveal

related patterns that are shared in past research to provide a better understanding and insight into

the future direction. In this regard ―Information System Management‖ journal has been selected

for the purpose while the articles reviewed were published during the period 1999-2011 with a

number of dimensions in KM research field are focused like publication year, active authors,

research paradigm, unit of analysis and major research topics. Also some demographic themes

like institute, country and continent having most of publications in KM research are identified. In

doing so a number of recent research trends in KM field are described.

The aim of this research is to analyze and review the relevant literature in the field of KM

with the primary objective of uncovering fundamental KM trends and to build a map for future

trends. The structure of this paper is as follow: the next section consists the research

methodology followed by the research findings, while in last conclusion and limitations of the

research are discussed.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

2-Research Methodology

For the purpose to review the literature on the KM, this study selected a single journal.

The selection of a single journal for review is not a new criterion. Recently Avison et al. (2008)

also used the same criteria of a single journal for reviewing KM literature. In this regard

―Information Systems Management‖ journal is selected. The previous name of this journal was

―Journal of Information System‖ whose name was changed to ―Information Systems

Management‖ in 1992. The journal Information System Management (ISM) has some of the

most cited articles in the field of KM. As far as this review is concerned, the articles were

selected using ―Advance Search‖ technique. During the search process, the keywords

―Knowledge Management‖ were employed in the ―Article Title‖ textfield, while ―Information

Systems Management‖ keywords were given in the ―Journal Title‖ textfield. The same search

technique was also used by Lee and Chen (2012) and a related search technique was used by

Diwivedi et al. (2011) in their meta-analysis. Against the search a total of 20 articles list was

received. Some sort of manual analysis was conducted in order to refine the article‘s list. Two

articles were dropped from the list. The one was not related to KM and the other was an editorial

note. The list of selected 18 articles for final analysis is included in table 1. The time span of the

selected articles is spread over 13 years i.e., the oldest article is from 1999 and the newest is

from 2011.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Table 1: Articles Reviewed

Author (s) Paper Year

1. Bourdreau, A. & Couillard, G. Systems Integration and Knowledge Management 1999

2. Bowman, B. J. Building Knowledge Management Systems 2002

3. Burkhard, R. J. et al. The Emerging Challenge of Knowledge Management

Ecosystems: A Silicon Valley High Tech Company Signals the

Future

2011

4. Chen, W. et al. Investigating Knowledge Management Factors Affecting

Chinese ICT Firms Performance: An Integrated KM

Framework

2011

5. Dwivedi, Y. K. et al. Research Trends in Knowledge Management: Analyzing the

Past and Predicting the Future

2011

6. Ghosh, B. & Scott, J. E. Effective Knowledge Management Systems for a Clinical

Nursing Setting

2006

7. Gray, P. Knowledge Management 2002

8. Hoven, J. V. D. Information Resource Management: Foundation for

Knowledge Management

2001

9. Kanter, J. Knowledge Management, Practically Speaking 1999

10. Karwowski, W. & Ahram, T. Z. Interactive Management of Human Factors Knowledge for

Human Systems Integration Using Systems Modeling

Language.

2009

11. King, W. R. Integrating Knowledge Management Into IS Strategy 1999

12. King, W. R. Playing an Integral Role in Knowledge Management 2000

13. King, W. R. IT Strategy and Innovation: Recent Innovations in Knowledge

Management

2006

14. King, W. R. Text Analytics: Boon to Knowledge Management? 2009

15. Kocharekar, R. K-Commerce: Knowledge-Based Commerce Architecture with

Convergence of E-Commerce and Knowledge Management

2001

16. Misra, D. C. et al. E-Knowledge Management Framework for Government

Organizations

2003

17. Sharp, D. Knowledge Management Today: Challenges and Opportunities 2003

18. Vail, E. F. Knowledge Mapping: Getting Started with Knowledge

Management

1999

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

3-Findings

The articles selected were analyzed along a number of dimensions. Each of the dimension

is discussed in parts below.

3.1 KM studies published year wise

The first analysis of this study has been undertaken is the KM publication year wise. This

category was adapted from Diwivedi et al. (2011). The details of the yearly publications are

included in table 2. The results suggest that highest number of articles were published in the year

1999 with 22.22% publications followed by the year 2011 with 16.66% of the total KM

publications. The lowest number of articles were published in the year 2000 with just 5.55 %

publication. In journal ISM the trend of KM publication is higher at the lower and upper end of

the selected duration i.e., 1999 was the time when the highest number of articles were got

published. Similarly in 2011, once again relatively the higher number of articles were published.

As it is known that 1999 was the time when KM was an emerging concept so it acquired the

attention of researchers. While in 2011 in organizations, once again the emphasis is put on KM

to get edge in the market.

Table 2: Year wise KM publications (adapted from Diwivedi et al. 2011)

Year Article Count

2011 3

2009 2

2006 2

2003 2

2002 2

2001 2

2000 1

1999 4

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Figure 1: KM publication yearly

3.2 KM studies in different volumes

Table 3 has the details of articles published in different volumes. A total of 8 volumes of

the ISM journal have published KM articles in which volume 16 has the highest number of

articles i.e., 22.22%, followed by volume 28 having 16.66% of the total KM articles; while

volume 17 has the least number of articles i.e., just 5.55%.

Table 3 Article in Different Volumes

Vol. Number Article Count

Vol. 16 4

Vol. 28 3

Vol. 18 2

Vol. 19 2

Vol. 20 2

Vol. 24 2

Vol. 26 2

Vol. 17 1

3.3 Active author’s contribution

To identify the authors who are contributing most, the selected articles were analyzed.

Table 4 has the details of active authors in KM field. As far as ISM journal is concerned, at the

top of the list is William King who has published 22.22% of the total articles. The rest of 27

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

authors have contribution only in a single article. This confirms the fact that most of authors

have published just once in the ISM journal; the most influencing authors in KM have not

contributed even a single article in this journal.

Table 4: Active Authors (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)

Author‘s Name Article Count Author‘s Name Article Count

King, WR 4 Karwowski, W 1

Sharif ,AM 1 Ahram, TZ 1

Al-Karaghouli,W 1 Bukhard, RJ 1

Bourdrea, A 1 Hill, TR 1

Coillard, G 1 Venkatsubramanyan, S 1

Hoven, JVD 1 Dwivedi,YK 1

Kanter, J 1 Venkitachalam, K 1

Sharp, D 1 Scott, JE 1

Misra, DC 1 Vail, EF 1

Hariharan, R 1 Weerakkody, V 1

Khaneja, M 1 Chen, W 1

Kocharekar, R 1 Elnaghi, M 1

Ghosh, B 1 Hatzakis,T 1

Bowman, BJ 1 Gray, P 1

3.4 Number of authors in a single article

Almost 61.11% of the articles are written by a single author. This is followed by the articles

which are written by 2 or 3 authors, each category has 16.66% contributions. Only 5% of the

articles are written by 5 authors (see table 5 for details). Further analysis suggest that almost 45%

of the articles are the joint efforts of multiple authors which state that comparing with joint

efforts authors mostly prefer to write articles by their own. The reason may be that most authors

may have the view that joint based efforts articles are less valued.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Table 5: Authors in a single article (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)

No. Of Authors Article Count

1 Author 11

2 Author 3

3 Author 3

5 Author 1

3.5 Contributors from academia and industry

To identify whether the major portion of publications is from academia or industry the

articles were analyzed. This category was adapted from Avison et al. (2008). The results suggest

that significant number of articles were from academia (66.66%) comparing with the industry

(27.77%). The mix effort was only 5.55%. It is concluded from the results that the industry is

contributing to KM literature but with a very low frequency. Comparing with Avison et al.

(2008) findings it is clear that in ISM journal the industry contribution is much greater. Further

only a small proportion came from industry-academia with joint efforts which reveal that much

lesser collaboration exists between academia and industry.

Table 6: Academia vs industry contribution (adapted from Avison et al. 2008)

Vol. Number Article Count

Academia 12

Industry 5

Mix 1

3.6 KM studies according to institutions

When it comes to KM research from different institutes, a total of 10 institutes were

found to be publishing the KM research in ISM. Table 7 depicted the details of such institutes.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

At the top of the list is the University of Pittsburg and Brunel University, both of these having

highest number of publications i.e., 22.22% each. This is followed by the University of Colorado

having 11.11% publications. The rest of the 7 institutes have just 5.55% articles each. This

illustrates that only a few institutes are participating in KM publications. Further analysis

suggests that all institutes belong to only two countries U.K and U.S.A. The institutes from

U.S.A have relatively higher publications everywhere as far as U.K is concerned it is home to

ISM journal so their institutes preferred to publish in a home journal.

Table 7: Institutes representation in KM publication (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)

Institute Name Article Count Institute Name Article Count

University of Pittsburgh 4 Swansea University 1

Brunel University 4 Cardiff University 1

University of Colorado 2 Babson College 1

University of Central Florida 1 University of Nevada 1

San Jose State University 1 Claremont Graduate University 1

3.7 KM studies according to countries

The articles when analyzed to find out the contribution of different countries to KM

research, a very short list was obtained. Only four countries were found to be involved in

publishing the KM research in ISM journal. In this category U.S.A is ahead of all with 44.44%

of the total publication followed by U.K (33.33%) and Canada (16.66%). At the bottom of the

list is India with 5.55% publications; once again a dense contribution to KM publication from the

U.K and U.S.A. The countries who are big giants in research like China, Australia and many

European countries (except UK) are missing from the list. This demonstrates that except a few

countries the countries renowned for research never contributed to KM literature in ISM journal.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Figure 2: KM studies by Country

3.8 KM studies according to continent

In the selected articles only three continents (See table 9 for details) are represented i.e.,

North America (61.11%), Europe (33.33%) and Asia (5.55%). The too short list indicates that

only a few countries are adding to KM literature belonging to different continents.

Table 9: KM studies by Country (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)

Country Name Article Count

North America 11

Europe 6

Asia 1

Table 8: KM studies by Country (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)

Country Name Article Count

U.S.A 8

U.K 6

Canada 3

India 1

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

3.9 KM studies according to unit of analysis

The selected articles were analyzed for the most common unit of analysis based on

Dwivedi et al. (2011) categorization. The results are drawn in table 10, whose details are as

follow: a significant number of articles i.e., 66.66% used ‗organization‘ as unit of analysis. This

is followed by ‗industry‘ whose weightage is 16.66%, while each of 5.55% of the articles used

‗government‘ and ‗tool/software‘ as unit of analysis. In 5.55% of the articles the unit of analysis

is not clear so they are included in ‗others‘ category. This suggests that KM is still mostly

investigated at organizational level as in organizations the KM impacts are drastic and robust.

Table 10: KM studies according to unit of analysis (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)

Unit of Analysis Article Count

Organization 12

Industry 3

Tool/Software 1

Government 1

Others 1

3.10 KM studies according to research paradigm

One of the important aspects of a research article is the research paradigm it falls in. To

investigate the different research paradigms used in the KM publications, the selected articles

were examined based on the categorization of Dwivedi et al. (2011). The different research

paradigms defined by Dwivedi et al. (2011) are: Descriptive/Conceptual/Theoretical, Positivism,

Interpretive and Critical. Table 11 has the details of different research paradigms. The results

determined that the KM research is dominated by ‗Conceptual/Descriptive/Theoretical‘ research

paradigm with 72.22% of the publications. Such research paradigm mainly comprises articles

which are based on literature reviews, personal view points or studies that are highly conceptual

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

in nature (Dwivedi et al. 2011). This is followed by the Positivist and Interpretive research

paradigms as both have equal number of publications i.e., 11.11%. About 5.55% articles‘

research paradigms were not clear, it was difficult to determine in which research paradigm they

fall so these were included in ‗Unknown‘ category. The reason for dominant conceptual

paradigm may be that in this review a fair number of articles came from industry (practitioners)

and the practitioners mostly prefer to write a conceptual paper.

Table 11: KM studies according to Research Paradigm (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)

Research Paradigm Article Count

Descriptive/Conceptual/Theoretical 13

Positivist 2

Interpretive 2

Unknown 1

3.11 KM studies according to research methodology

Likewise research paradigm this category was also adapted from Dwivedi et al. (2011).

The different research methodologies which were defined by Dwivedi et al. (2011) are:

Qualitative, Quantitative, Mixed and Conceptual/Theoretical/Meta-analysis. According to the

results of analysis, significant portion of KM publications falls in ‗Conceptual/Theoretical/Meta-

analysis‘ category. This category has the highest number of articles published that is 77.77% of

the total publications. While as far as Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed research methods are

concerned each of them have just 5.55% publications. In some of the articles the research

method was unclear so these were included in ‗Unknown‘ category whose weightage is 5.55%.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Table 12: KM studies according to Research Methodologies (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)

Research Methodology Article Count

Conceptual/Theoretical/Meta-analysis 14

Qualitative 1

Quantitative 1

Mixed 1

Unknown 1

3.12 Major Research topics within KM field

Adapted from the Dwivedi et al. (2011) the articles were analyzed for major KM topics.

Dwivedi et al. (2011) in their study identified 6 major topic categories. In this study analysis the

list consists of only 4 categories. The results depict that KM strategy was dominant as far as KM

topics were concerned with 38.88% representation. The 2nd

highest representation was by KM

system 33.33%, followed by KM Processes/Implementation 11.11% and in last KM planning

5.55%. While 11.11% of the articles were short of covering any major KM topic, hence these

were included in ‗others‘ category.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Table 13: Major research topics in KM field (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)

KM topic/Research issues Frequency

KM Strategy/Policy 7

KM System 6

KM Processes/Implementation 2

KM Planning 1

Others 2

3.13 IT support for KM

Subramani et al. (2003) reviewed KM literature from 1990 to 2002 and highlighted eight

different factors including ―IT support for KM‖. The factor is also of keen interest in our study as

during analysis we come across the fact that a number of articles point towards the KM-IT link.

Our analysis demonstrates that one way or the other majority of the articles have been directed

towards a relationship between KM/KMS and IT/IS. Based on the above arguments this study

proposes two categories:

1) IT supported articles

a. KM and IT.

b. KM and IS.

c. KM technologies.

2) Non IT articles.

The results (as drawn in table 14) suggest that IT supported articles accumulated a huge

portion of the publication. As high as 88.88% of the articles discussed IT related terminologies,

while just 11.11% articles fall in ‗non IT articles‘ category. Further analysis of ‗IT supported

articles‘ illustrate that 44.44% articles fall in KM and IT, while 27.77% fall in KM technologies

and 16.66% fall in KM and IS category (see figure 3).

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Figure 3: IT and Non IT Articles

Table 14: IT supported KM articles (adapted from Subramani et al. 2003)

IT vs Non-IT Articles Frequency

IT supported articles 16

KM and IT 8

KM Technologies 5

KM and IS 3

Non IT articles 2

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

4. Discussion and Conclusion

In this review reflecting the ISM journal KM literature, the main focus was to provide an

overview of current KM research from different perspectives. This research contributed to not

only the analysis of existing KM literature by revealing trends in KM research, it also

highlighted the key areas covered in the KM field. The analysis included in this study is along a

series of dimensions like duration/era that published significant amount of KM research. Active

authors in the field of KM, their institutes and the universities that dominated KM research have

been subsumed. And last but not least the prevailing research paradigms and major KM topics

are explored.

The concentration of attention behind all the analysis is to identify the gaps in the KM

research and to uncover the lacking areas. In this regard a few important trends are identified.

The first one is related with the KM publication era. In late 1990‘s and early 2000‘s a significant

amount of KM publication took place as this was the time when KM concept was evolved. Since

then the KM publication slowed down but recently (2011) once again KM publication got

momentum and significant amount of KM research was published. This momentum illustrates

that once again organizations are diverting their focuses towards this intellectual capital of

‗knowledge‘. Secondly only a few nations are contributing to KM publications, in our list only

four countries around the globe participated in KM publications. This is a serious issue for the

KM field, as for such a diverse and emerging field the rest of the world has to take steps for

enhancing KM research. Same is the case with research institutes which points out only a few

institutions contributed to KM research. Universities have to pay attention to KM and may make

it an important part of their academic education. Thirdly an important finding is regarding

academic and industry research. Comparing with prior study findings i.e., Avison et al. (2008), in

this study industry contribution to KM research was recorded as 35% which is quite high than

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Avison et al. (2008) study (12%). Also this is confirmed that academia and industry are still far

apart as a minute proportion of publication (5.55%) came from the joint efforts of academia and

industry. To minimize this gap both sectors should promote a collaborative environment for

research. As far as the research paradigms are concerned the conceptual/theoretical research has

dominated. The reason for dominant conceptual paradigm may be that in this review a fair

number of articles came from industry (practitioners) and the practitioners mostly prefer to write

a conceptual paper also a dense research proportion came from period late 1990‘s, this was the

time when KM field was in emergence state. In research an emergence field is mostly populated

with conceptual/theoretical type of research. Organization was mainly focused as unit of

analysis, not only a single article addressed ―individuals/group‖ as unit of analysis. On the other

hand in major research topics category ‗KM strategy‘ and ‗KMS‘ prevailed suggesting that for

organization focusing KM strategy and building KMS are of vital importance. An important

contribution of this research study is identifying and exploring KM-IT relationship. This

highlights that KM research focused on managing knowledge as an organizational resource, for

which IT plays a vital role in supporting organizational KM.

This research has many theoretical implications and opened a new gateway to future

research. As the trends indicates that recently momentum took place in KM publication. Hence it

suggest that any KM publication will be preferred if it focuses on the lacking areas in KM field

like: 1) KM studies from less developed countries, 2) from industry, 3) Qualitative and

Quantitative research approaches having empirical data 4) taking individuals/group as unit of

analysis and 5) focusing KM processes.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

It is anticipated that this research will act a useful source in the context of KM research

literature. Further comprehensive and useful insights into the current research gaps have been

provided which may set the future research directions.

5. Limitations of the study

Like any good research this study has a number of limitations. First, the study was

undertaken in a very limited time and the resources available were also very limited. Second the

search query we used include ―knowledge management‖ only in the title of article. There is a

possibility that an article title may be short of ‗knowledge management‘ but still covers

knowledge management topics in the main text. Third, only one journal is selected for KM

review and the sample was too small. A more comprehensive research is needed in order to

overcome the limitations of this study.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

References

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. E. (2001): ―Knowledge management and knowledge management

systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues‖. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-113.

Bourdreau, A. and Couillard, G. (1999): ―Systems Integration and Knowledge Management‖.

Information Systems Management, 16(4), 1-9.

Bowman, B. J. (2002): ―Building Knowledge Management Systems‖. Information Systems

Management, 19(3), 32-40.

Burkhard, R. J. Hill, T. R. and Venkatsubramanyan, S. (2011): ―The Emerging Challenge of

Knowledge Management Ecosystems: A Silicon Valley High Tech Company Signals the

Future‖. Information Systems Management, 28(1), 5-18.

Chen, W. Elnaghi, M. and Hatzakis, T. (2011): ―Investigating Knowledge Management Factors

Affecting Chinese ICT Firms Performance: An Integrated KM Framework‖. Information

Systems Management, 28(1), 19-29.

Davenport, T. H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M. C. (1998): ―Successful knowledge management

projects''. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.

Drucker, P. (1995): "The Post-Capitalist Executive". Managing in a Time of Great Change,

Penguin, New York.

Dwivedi, Y. K. Venkitachalam, K. Sharif, A. M. Al-Karaghouli, W. and Weerakkody, V. (2011):

―Research Trends in Knowledge Management: Analyzing the Past and Predicting the Future‖.


Ghosh, B. and Scott, J. E. (2006): ―Effective Knowledge Management Systems for a Clinical

Nursing Setting‖. Information Systems Management, 24(1), 73-84.

Gray, P. (2002): ―Knowledge Management‖. Information Systems Management, 19(1), 89-93.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Hoven, J. V. D. (2001): ―Information Resource Management: Foundation for Knowledge

Management‖, Information Systems Management, 18(2), 1-4.

Kanter, J. (1999): ―Knowledge Management, Practically Speaking‖. Information Systems


Karwowski, W. and Ahram, T. Z. (2009): ―Interactive Management of Human Factors

Knowledge for Human Systems Integration Using Systems Modeling Language‖. Information


King, W. R. (1999): ―Integrating Knowledge Management Into IS Strategy‖. Information


King, W. R. (2000): ―Playing an Integral Role in Knowledge Management‖. Information


King, W. R. (2006): ―IT Strategy and Innovation: Recent Innovations in Knowledge

Management‖. Information Systems Management, 24(1), 91-93.

King, W. R. (2009): ―Text Analytics: Boon to Knowledge Management‖? Information Systems


Kocharekar, R. (2001): ―K-Commerce: Knowledge-Based Commerce Architecture with

Convergence of E-Commerce and Knowledge Management‖. Information Systems Management,

18(2), 1-6.

Laleci, G. B. Aluc, G. Dogac, A. Sinaci, A. Kilic, O. and Tuncer, F. (2010): A semantic backend

for content management systems‖. Knowledge-Based Systems, 23(8), 832–843.

Lee, M. R. and Chen, T. T. (2012): ―Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge

management: From 1995 to 2010‖. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47-58.

ijcrb.webs.com



OCTOBER 2012

VOL 4, NO 6

Martensson, M. (2000): "A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool".

Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 204-216.

Massa, S. and Testa, S. (2009): ―A knowledge management approach to organizational

competitive advantage: Evidence from the food sector‖. European Management Journal, 27,

129-141.

Misra, D. C. Hariharan, R. and Khaneja, M. (2003): ―E-Knowledge Management Framework for

Government Organizations‖. Information Systems Management, 20(2), 38-48.

Sharif, A. M. and Al-Karaghouli, W. (2011): ―From the Special Issue Editors: Exploring the

Frontiers of Knowledge Management Transfer in the Public and Private Sector‖. Information


Sharp, D. (2003): ―Knowledge Management Today: Challenges and Opportunities‖. Information


Sousa, C. A. A. and Hendriks, P. H. J. (2006). ―The diving bell and the butter-fly—the need for

grounded theory in developing a knowledge-based view of organizations‖. Organizational

Research Methods, 9, 315.

Subramani, M. Nerur, S. P. and Mahapatra, R. (2003). ―Examining The Intellectual Structure of

Knowledge Management, 1990–2002 – An Author Co-citation Analysis, Management

Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota, 2003, p. 23.

Vail, E. F. (1999): ―Knowledge Mapping: Getting Started with Knowledge Management‖.


Xu, Y. and Bernard, A. (2011): ―Quantifying the value of knowledge within the context of

product development‖. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(1), 166-175.

reviewing knowledge management literature - journal-archieves24

Documents