Content uploaded by Charles Despres
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charles Despres on Jun 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A review of survey
research in knowledge
management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and
Charles Despres
Introduction
The concept of knowledge management
(KM) has grown and gathered importance in
the field of business man agement. Some ten
years after its introduction, KM has a role in
MBA and PhD curricula, is a keyword in
bibliographic databases, forms the conceptual
nucleus of a developing literature, is sought
after by leading firms and just as readily
prescribed by all the major consultants .
Knowledge management is increasingly
positioned as a viable approach to the new age
of business and a growing number of
professionals and academics are working to
elaborate its principles and application
technologies. The developmental path that
KM has followed is similar to that traced by
the concept of organizational culture.
Introduced to business and academia circa
1980, the culture concept first met with
disdain, then situated itself o n the fringes of
respectable thought, gained adherents by
demonstrating ‘‘usefulness’’, advanced a
research program complete with new
problems and new methodologies, and was
eventually admitted to the profess ional and
academic mainstream a decade later.
Organizational culture is now a respectable
topic, so much so that it is required material
in that holy of holies, the MBA program.
Its passag e to respectability is unexceptional
for sociologists of science, however, among
them Kuhn (1970, p. 201) who argued that
the knowledge embraced by a field of
endeavor is ‘‘ intrinsically the commo n
property of a group or else nothing at all’’.
The message in this phrase and much of
Kuhn’s work is that the d evelopment of
scientific knowle dge is largely a sociological
phenomenon involving the dynamics of
power, communities and social facts. Social
psychology rather than ‘‘truth’’, he claimed,
provides the ways and means that lead a
community to create the distinction between
bunk and ‘‘reality’’. Scientific domains, he
wrote, pass from a period of scattered and
competing thought to mainstream
acceptance, at which point the domain proves
its worth by posing problems that it is capable
of solving (Kuhn, 1970). I f one accepts these
propositions, it is ‘‘normal’’ to observe the
diversity of approaches that still exist in KM.
The authors
Daniele Chauvel is a Director and Charles Despres is
Director of International Development, both at The
European Center for Knowledge Management, Graduate
School of Business, Marseille-Provence, Marseille, France.
Keywords
Information, Management, Surveys
Abstract
Among the tools that knowledge management (KM) now
deploys to assess its state of development are those
surveys which determine current practice, establish
benchmarks and offer a quantitative/qualitative
description of what occurs ``in reality’’. The premise of this
paper is that a competent analysis of survey research in
any domain opens a window on the thinking that the field
has on itself. Reports a research program which identified
surveys that have been conducted in KM between 1997-
2001, analyzes these surveys for the themes that form
their conceptual foundations, and determines through
thematic deconstruction the topics that appear to be
major and minor preoccupations in KM. This developed a
framework of six bipolar dimensions that account for all
the organizing logics employed in the group of surveys.
Presses this framework against previous research in which
Despres and Chauvel identified the structuring devices
used in conceptual models of KM. Concludes by making
projections for future thinking in KM given the view it
appears to be taking on itself.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1367-3270.htm
207
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
pp. 207±223
# MCB UP Limited
.
ISSN 1367-3270
DOI 10.1108/13673270210434322
This is a new concept that in tegrates fields of
endeavor uncharacteristically found together,
hence its fuzzy nature. But we appear to be
entering a second phase of development
where the rhetoric and the thinking are
winding around more coherent themes.
Agreement on proble ms and heuristics is a
key to such coherence. We have previously
reported, for example, that KM appears to be
defining itself around seven main structuring
devices (Despres and Chauvel, 2000), and
that the field has presented a number of
models and conceptual systems to itself
(Despres and Chauvel, 1999). Another
indicator is logically found in the tools this
field is deploying to generate knowledge
about its knowledge.
‘ ... Tools (such as surveys) are created by
toolmakers who invest their devices
with a certain sphere of knowledge.
These tools are then employed to
generate information which typically
re-enters the tool maker’s sphere of
knowledge to confirm, de ny or
embellish what (s)he believes (s)he
already knows... ’
One such tool set comprises the surveys
conducted in KM to determine current
practice, establish benchmarks and track
developments. This article takes the self-
referential nature of such tools as its starting
point.
Tools (such as surveys) are created by
toolmakers who invest their devices with a
certain sphe re of knowledge. These tools are
then employed to generate information which
typically re-enters the tool maker’s sphere of
knowledge to confirm, deny or embellish
what (s)he believes (s)he already knows.
Independent of their products, tools are
therefore informative as to the thinkin g of
their authors. Kuhn, for example, asserted
that scientists pr acticed ‘‘normal science’’ by
structuring their research (tools) in order to
generate conventional – not revolutionary –
knowledge. The knowledge generated by
these tools is an artifact and in formative, but
the nature of the tools themselves is also
informative with regard to the conceptual
foundations of the thinkers in the field. The
purpose of this article is therefore as follows:
(1) to identify the surveys that have been
conducted in KM between 1997 and
2001;
(2) to analyze these surveys for the major
themes that they evoke; and
(3) to determine from this review and
analysis the topics that appear to be major
preoccupations in the field of KM, those
receiving little or no attention, and to
project future developments in the field.
The nature of surveys
Survey methodology is popular for a number
of reasons. First, it brings an issue into focus
by defining and detailing its various
characteristics, which, in a reporting phase,
causes users to focus their attention . This is a
non-trivial feature since much of the effort
devoted to managing or changing
organizations, for example, is devoted to
generating a clear and consensual view of the
issue at hand. Second, the results of a survey
are typically quantified and therefore
amenable to statistical treatment. This
appeals to western minds that appreciate
authority and precision in such matters.
Third, statistic al inference allows one to
extend the results obtained from a sample of
respondents to a larger popu lation, thereby
permitting more global statements. This links
to an efficiency logic for researchers and
practitioners since the time and cost involved
in working with an entire population is
typically prohibitive. Fourth, it cannot be
ignored that survey methodology is fast and
straightforward compared to many other
research methods. This allows researchers,
research centers and practitioners to act in a
relatively qu ick and intellectually respectable
manner.
Surveys and those who conduct them are
not a homogeneous set, howe ver. We will
make a broad distinction between two schools
of thought in this regard: the classical
(positivist) perspective and the interpretive
(post-positivist) perspective on survey
research. The classical perspective is closely
associated with the scientific m ethod as it was
refined during the twentieth century, while
interpretivism arose as a serious respons e (in
208
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
the field of business m anagement) during the
1980s.
The cla ssical approach
The classical school holds that su rvey
research generates a ‘‘ detailed and
quantified description, a precise map and/or a
precise measurement of potential’’. This is
accomplished by following well established
methods for developing the rese arch plan, the
survey instrument (many forms exist), the
measurement device(s) (many methods
exist), the sampling plan (populations are
rarely surveyed), the collection/coding/
analysis of data and finally, the way results are
reported. This generally unfolds in the
following way:
(1) the researcher fixes his/her attention on
some phenom enon and poses one or
more research questions;
(2) this phenomenon is ‘‘operationalized’’ by
properly defining it, an exercise that
yields a set of variables (characteris tics or
facets of the phenomenon);
(3) a series of survey questions are
embroidered around the variables;
(4) metrics are attached to the survey
questions, very often in the form of a
Likert scale[1];
(5) the survey instrument is assembled, pilot
tested and sen t to a predetermined
sample of respondents;
(6) the surveys that are returned (typically
between 5 and 20 per cent of the total
sent) are statistically analyzed, providing
the raw material for research reports,
survey-feedback programs, pu blications
and so on.
The approach outlined in these six steps
encapsulates most of the su rvey research
reported in the business literature dating from
1950 to the present day. It reposes on three
significant assumptions, however, which are
open to debate:
(1)
Reality.
The classical school ass umes that
a reality exists ‘‘out there’’, that this
reality is singular, and that the
phenomena circulating within it are
knowable to the point of defining all their
characteristics and c ausal relations with
other phenomena.
(2)
Objectivity.
If reality is made up of
knowable phenomena, and the
researcher’s job is to study these
phenomena, the researcher and the
phenomena are in no way conn ected and,
hence, the researcher can be objective[2].
(3)
Common meanings.
Since the researcher is
studying phenomena which are
observable to all, circulating in a re ality
common to all, the meanings of the words
assigned to the phenomena are (in the
ideal) perfectly shared by the researcher
and all others.
The inte rpretive approach
The interpretive school takes issue with all
three assumptions and claims that the
classical school is seriously misguided –
particularly with regard to issues that are
inherently subjective (e.g. sociology,
psychology and much of business
management). Interpretivists hold that
realities are multiple rather than singular ,
objectivity is a myth, that action arises from
interactions in circumscribed situations, and
that the meanings ascribed to the words we
use are im perfectly shared, at best. The divide
separating these two schools of thought is
wide inde ed. Interpretivists stress the
fundamentally interpretive nature of social
reality while the classical school attempts to
objectify and reify its objects of study, making
them concrete and amenable to action.
Interpretivists charge that the classical school
is motivated by business performance or
profitability and concerned with manipulating
reifications to those ends. They question
whose interests are thereby served: those of
the management, those of the employees,
those of the researchers, those of the
consultants, and so on.
If the classical project is to define, measure,
codify and eventually control a phenomenon,
interpretivists are fo cused on how individuals
conceptualize their world and make sense of
it. This is generally accomplished through
ethnographic research or other methods,
which permit researchers to generate a ‘‘thick
description’’ of how individuals or small
groups construe a given reality. Forms of
survey methodology in this vein do exist but
Interpretivists are more likely to employ other
methods, such as cognitive mapping, case
histories, focus groups, Delphi techniques
and so on. From this perspective, then, there
209
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
are three critiques of the classical school’s
approach that are germane to this review:
(1)
Realities.
Survey methods g enerally
present a respondent with the
researcher’s view of reality and, since
realities are ideograph ic, this is rejected.
Surveys built around quantitative an alysis
are further in dicted for presenting a
limited set of response options which,
again, spring from the researcher’s
structure of knowledge.
(2)
Circularity.
Researchers in this vein
therefore study their own view of reality,
not that of the responde nts, with the
result that they report the opinions that
others hold concerning the reality the
researcher construes.
(3)
Disparity.
Survey methods are virtually
uniform in making the assumption that
the meanings of the word s employed by a
researcher and a respondent are shared,
and this is held to be invalid.
Tools
It is possible to argue both sid es of the divide
presented by classicists and inter pretivists,
but that is not the purpose of this study.
Instead, and as noted above, we considered
the surveys conducted in KM to be indicators
of the thinking of their designe rs and
therefore pointers to the development of
knowledge in this field. Our work is squarely
aimed at developing greater insight into the
underlying structure of knowledge in the field
of KM itself. Our assumptions in approac hing
the study in this manner were as follows:
(1) The corp us of knowledge a field presents
to itself and its users is based on an
underlying structure of knowledge.
(2) This structure of knowledge is knowable
and may be accessed in various ways. In a
previous work, for example (Despres and
Chauvel, 2000), we deconstructed
models of KM presented in 72 published
works and found seven basic structuring
devices.
(3) The too ls and technologies a field
employs to gene rate knowledge ar e
indicative of this structure of knowledge.
Independent of their products, these tools
and technologies are informative as to the
thinking of their authors,
(4) The surveys conducted by the field of
KM are technolog ies which may be
deconstructed to yield insights as to an
underlying structure of knowledge.
Surveys in knowledge management
Methodology
We conducted a search of the literature in
order to identify academic and practitioner
surveys reported over the period 1997 to
2001. This search was carried out in English,
French and Spanish, and employed the
electronic databases noted in Table I using
the keywords survey and knowle dge
management in English, ‘‘
enqueˆte
’’ and
‘‘
gestion des connaissances
’’ in French, and
‘‘
encuesta
’’ and ‘‘
gestion del conocimiento
’’ in
Spanish.
Anbar (MCB);
ProQuest (UM I);
Ebsco; and
Social Science Citation Index.
The meta-search engine ‘‘BullsEye ’’[3] was
used to search the Intern et as well. The
version of BullsEye we employed [4] set over
700 sub-engines on this task and, on 11
August 2001, returned 28 relevant hits.
This search strategy yielded 59 items
relating to surveys and KM. We then
examined the results and removed those that
were brief reports or analyses of surveys,
references to surveys, or simple citations of
surveys in order to obtain a set of actual
survey instrum ents. This resulted in 23 items
which for m the body of data which we used
in subsequent analyses. This group of 23
surveys is, we believe, reaso nably
comprehensive and represents the major
tendencies in this field’s survey research over
the period 1997-2001. They are not
exhaustive, however. The initial set o f 59
items contained references to proprietary
research conducted by periodicals[5], or
funded by manufacturers or corporate
research institutes[6], and access to the
original ins truments was impossible. The
research that was excluded for this reason
tended to deal with software or IS products,
KM pr actices (Kanter, 1999), human-
machine interaction, focused topics such as
knowledge transfer (Davis and Riggs, 1999),
210
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
and human resource issues such as skill and
competency develop ment, learning strategies
or the relationship between employee
turnover, KM and bu siness performance[7].
Since our research methodology required
access to original survey instruments, 23 o f
the 59 surveys originally identified were
considered usable. These 23 surveys,
displayed in Table I, were treated as a
databank which we content analyzed with the
intent of extracting the major organizing
themes among the topics, variables and
purposes contained therein. This was first
accomplished on a survey-by-survey basis in
order to generate a thematic database. This
thematic database was then analyzed in order
to perceive commonalitie s, differences,
patterns and outliers.
Results
Table II reports the general characteristics of
this group of 23 surveys. Geographically, the
group focuses on Europe and/or North
America and, while this may r eflect the
positioning of KM su rvey research around the
world, the result is questionable since our
search was restricted to English, French and
Spanish. Within the European/North
American axis, the majority of surveys were
multinational in orie ntation with only four
investigating KM in a specific country.
Sample sizes range from 20 to 1,626, with the
majority of surveys collecting between 50 and
400 responses. These 23 surveys were most
often initiated solely by a consulting firm (13
cases), but never by a corporate research unit
or publishing firm acting alone. A
combination of academic, corporate,
consulting and/or publishing firms initiated
the survey in five cases, and five others were
authored and administered solely by an
academic.
These surveys were conducted with a
variety of purposes, approac hes and
problematics in mind. Th e longitudinal
benchmarking study MAKE (Known
Network, Teleos, 1999, 2000, 2001), for
example, was aimed at evaluating
performance as a knowledge-based
organization in order to rank the responding
companies, while the KPMG KM Research
Report (KPMG Consulting, 1998, 2000;
KPMG, The Netherlands, 1999) probed for
an aware ness of KM an d any implementation
initiatives that a company may have
undertaken. The purpose of
Europe’s State of
the Art in KM
survey (Cranfield Business
School, 1998, p. 13) was to ‘‘ chart the
relationship between knowledge and its
components to business actions’’, while the
Good Practices in Knowledge Creati on &
Exchange
survey (Rajan and Lank, 1998)
explored KM phenomena through the
perspective of knowledge creation and
conversion. The ‘‘Assessing KM initiative’s
success as a function of organization culture’’
survey (Ribiere, 2001) took still another tack,
focusing on the relationship between
organizational culture and KM initiatives.
The results obtained from these surveys
therefore vary in terms of the constructs
employed, their meanings, the phenomena
investigated, and the domain of applicability
for the results obtained. This is to be
expected. The value of a particular survey is
always judged by a particular user in relatio n
to the issues (s)he faces; the results from
several kindred surveys o bviously provide a
larger and more reliable basis for judgment. It
is, fro m this perspective, appropriate to
catalog the results of survey research in a
domain like KM with the goal of developing a
databank, as it were, of pertinent information
– a description of what the field knows. This,
of course, was not our purpose.
Thematic analysis
This databank of survey instruments (Table I)
was deconstructed, survey by survey, in order
to identify majo r r esearch themes and detect
or extract the constructs they employed.
Where it was not possible to obtain an actual
construct, we inferred it from the text at hand.
We then examined these themes and
constructs, and assembled an overarching
framework which, we be lieve, represents the
organizing logics used by the authors of the
surveys. We termed the six dimensions
identified in this way as phenomena, action,
level, knowledge, technology and outcomes
(Figure 1).
This framework is presented as six
dimensions with contrasting poles,
dichotomies that seemed apparent to us as we
211
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
Table I A review of survey research in knowledge management: 1997-2001
Year Identification Initiators(s) Methodology Cases Elements measured Explicit intent
1997 Europe’s state of the art in KM Cranfield Business School
Information strategy
Xerox
Physical questionnaire and
some personal interviews
260 compan ies Approaches to knowledge in business processes and
context
Key tasks in KM
Formal mechanisms for KM
Business knowledge needs
Actors, cu ltural dimension
Knowledge t echnologies
Knowledge barriers
Knowledge r ewarding
Grounded on a research model
developed t o ``chart the
relationship between
knowledge and its components
to business actions’’
1997 Creating the knowledge-based
organization
Journal of KM
Benchmarking Exchange
Best Practices Club
Physical and Web-based
questionnaire
143 compan ies KM benefits
KM implementation
KM perf ormance
KM responsibilities
Assessment
Importance of KM tools
Barriers to KM suc cess
Practitioner’s views on the
effectiveness of organizations at
creating, managing and valuing
knowledge
1997 Benchmarking study of leading
US companies
Wiig and Odem 20 cases KM and business strategy
Transfer of kno wledge or best practices
Customer focused knowledge
Personal responsibility for knowledge
Intellectual asset manageme nt
Innovation and knowledge creation
A benchmarking study to
highlight the emerging practices
in KM
1998 KM research report KPMG
Harris Research Ce nter
Physical questionnaire 100 UK companies Current state of KM
Cost of ignoring human knowledge
Failures to exploit technological infrast ructure
Need o f vision and strategy
Investment in kno wledge
Benefit/failures of KM initiative
Technologies t o support KM
A willingness to know how far
the companies have gone in
launching KM initiatives and
how strategic their approaches
are
1998 What on earth is a CKO Earl and Scott Physical questionnaire
Interviews
Sample size of 20 Geographic, bu siness firm size locat ions
Role characteristics/role behaviors
Job specifications/job descriptions/experience s
To understand the new
phenomenon of the CKO, and
how this study provides an
understanding on KM practices
(continued)
212
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
Table I
Year Identification Initiators(s) Methodology Cases Elements measured Explicit intent
1999 Good practices in knowledge
creation and exchange
ICL (Rajan et al.)
Create (Rajan et al.)
Focus
Intervi ews
Questionnaires
In-company workshops
Senior executives
147 companies
155 interviewees
Infrastructure of knowledge creation
Knowledge conversion process
Management of knowledge
Constraints for knowledge conversion
Knowledge culture: systems, behaviors, values
This study is about how
companies retain, utili ze and
create knowledge, identifying
good practices and ways to
enhance knowledge creation
1999 The most important benefit of
KM
Highlights of bus iness
intelligence
Entovation (Amidon)
Ernst and Young
400 senior executives Identification of benefits of KM
Causes of success
Causes of failures
To identify the benefits of KM
with description o f the main
causes of failures and success
1999 Strategies for the knowledge
economy: from rhetoric to
reality
Korn-Ferry International and
Marshall School of Business
(Center for Effective
Organizations) University of
South California
Physical questionnaire
Intervi ews
Focus groups
10 leading
technology intensive
compan ies (USA,
Asia, Eu rope
4,500 scientists and
500 business and
technical leaders
Knowledge strategy and business strategy
Leadership, leadership role and actions
Knowledge environment, creativity, innovation
Knowledge practices and structures: human resources
and organizational
Knowledge sharing
Knowledge related processes and be haviors
Training, recruitment, individual development
Effectiveness
To cut through the existing
rhetoric about knowledge
management to identify the key
tasks for leaders seeking to
build effective knowledge
organizati ons
1999 Survey on KM Management Review
AMA Research Institute
Physical questionnaire 1,626 US managers State of existing KM programs
Obstacles of KM programs
Results and goals of KM projects
Definition of KM components
Measurable benefits
Difficulties in KM projects
To assess the state of KM,
obstacles, the process es,
obstacles and results an d goals
1999 KM in France Arthur Andersen
Trivium
Valoris
Physical questionnaire 68 French companies Necessary conditions for KM
Obstacles for KM
Str ategic vs. operational implementatio n
Actors in KM projects
Benefits of KM
Assessment of K M benefits
To assess the vision of KM in
large French companies: from
the concept to implem entation,
ambition and benefits of KM
(continued)
213
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
Table I
Year Identification Initiators(s) Methodology Cases Elements measured Explicit intent
1999 MAKE Teleos
KNOW Network
Delphi research method Top executives at
500 global
compan ies
Knowledge culture
Top management support
Knowledge-based goods and services de livery
Enterprise’s intellectual capital
Environment of knowledge sharing
Culture of co ntinuous learning
Management custo mer knowledge
Management of knowledge to generate shareholder
value
Evaluation of firm performance
in being a knowledge-based
organizati on for ranking
purpose
1999 Knowledge man agement survey KPMG, The Netherlands Questionnaire 25 mid- to large-size
compan ies from
different indu stries
Reasons to KM initiative in the economic environment
Initiators to KM
Strategic reasons to KM and fields for improvement
KM vision
Human factors, soft values (profile, behavior, culture)
Commitment, leadership
Role of IT
Barriers and failures or incompleteness of KM
initiative
Knowledge sharing, knowledge creation
Benefits
To find out to what degree
companies really master
knowledge management and to
conclude that ``knowledge
management is common sense,
but not yet common practice’’
2000 KM research report KPMG
Harris Research Center
Longitudinal study 423 compan ies Awareness of the value of KM
Status of KM projects currently underway
Critical knowledge
Exploitation of IT infr astructure
KM strategy
Obstacles to KM
Rewards and performance assessment of KM
KM journey
The awareness of KM a nd
subsequent initiatives taken by
enterprises to imp lement KM
2000 Le knowl edge management en
France
Arthur Andersen
Trivium
Valoris
Physical questionnaire 75 cases Awareness of the value of KM
Key aspects of KM: CRM, competency management
Actors in KM
Practices in KM
Dimensions of KM projects
To assess the vision of KM in
large French companies, with
the importance acknowledged
to KM, actors, practices and
projects
(continued)
214
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
Table I
Year Identification Initiators(s) Methodology Cases Elements measured Explicit intent
2000 MAKE Teleos
KNOW Network
Delphi research method 331 cases Knowledge culture
Top management support
Knowledge-based goods an d services delivery
Enterprise’s intellectual capit al
Environment of knowledge sharing
Culture of continuous learning
Management customer knowledge
Management of knowledge to generate shareholder
value
Evaluation of firm performance
in being a knowledg e-based
organization for ranking
purpose
2000 Investigation into the human
side of knowledge creation and
knowledge management
H. Ranzau,
University of Lincolnshire and
Humbe rs ide (UK)
Web survey Methods of knowledge creation and KM
Organizational changes and KM
Culture and KM
Information overload and KM
Organizational structure and KM
Investigation into the human
side of knowledge creation and
knowledge management
2001 MAKE Teleos
KNOW Network
Delphi research method 1,800 experts invited
with a response rate
of 17.3 %
Knowledge culture
Top management support
Knowledge-based goods an d services delivery
Enterprise’s intellectual capit al
Environment of knowledge sharing
Culture of continuous learning
Management customer knowledge
Management of knowledge to generate shareholder
value
Evaluation of firm performance
in being a knowledg e-based
organization for ranking
purpose
2001 Global KM benchmarking
survey
Knowledge Associates Web survey Critical success factors
KM infrastructure
K networking levels
Assessing KM orie ntation in
organizations and the level of
advancement
2001 Knowledge manag ement: a
survey on current practices
Gupta et al. Web survey
Follow up by physical
questionnaire and telephone
inter views
50 cases Definition of knowledge
Definition of KM
KM trends
KM practices
KM challenges
KM measurem ent: effectiveness of KM
Future of KM
An understanding of KM trends
and current practices
(continued)
215
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
Table I
Year Identification Initiators(s) Methodology Cases Elements measu red Explicit intent
2001 Creating a knowledge culture McKinsey 40 companies Leadership
Corporate culture/strat egy
Corporate synergies
Corporate goals
Product development/process innovation
Reward policy
Sharing environment
Processes and techniques for knowledge application,
distribution, application
Comparison between successful
and less successful companies
in KM implementation
2001 Enqueà te KM KM Technolog ies Physical questionnaire
and Web-based questionnaire
49 cases Definition of KM
Goal of KM
Organizational, functional and cultura l context
Project management
Implementation processes: cost, time, coverage
Corporate level of commitment
Benefi ts
To assess the vision of KM to
weigh its own offer of KM
services
2001 Assessing KM initiative’s
success as a function of
organization culture
Ribiere
(George Washington University,
USA)
Web survey 70 cases Assessment of the culture of organization
Assessment of type of KM practice
Assessment of success of such KM initiative
The survey aims to assess the
culture of the organization,
based on its level of trust and
solidarity, the type of KM
practice im plemented and the
success of such KM initiat ives
2001 Turnover and KM Bontis We b survey Employee tur nover
Employee satisfaction and reten tion
Knowledge externalization
Knowledge ge neration
Knowledge distribution
Business performan ce
To invest igate the r elationship
between the management of
knowledge
216
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
conducted the analysis. The dimensions
themselves are presented in n o particular
order and a de scription of each follows below.
The framework was d eveloped in an
incremental fashion: as the content analysis
advanced, we mapped each construct and
variable extr acted from the survey being
analyzed onto one of the dimensions in the
existing framework. When we were unable to
do so for a given construct or variable, we
created a new dimension. The proposition,
then, is that the framework in Figure 1 is
comprehensive in accounting for the
constructs and variables employed in the 23
survey instruments.
Phenomena
Most of the surveys we reviewed contained
items which we categorized as the enablers
and/or barriers associated with KM. These
are generally defined as structural or
functional conditions in a company that are
responsible, at some level, for the su ccess or
failure of a KM initiative. The
Global KM
Benchmarking Survey
(Knowledge Associates,
2001), the Arthur Andersen surveys (Valoris,
1999, 2000) and the KPMG surveys (1998,
2000), for example, explored the idea of
enablers and barriers at length under the
appellation of critical success factors or key
drivers.
Surveys which employed the concept of
enablers also evoked that of barrie rs, an d vice-
versa, which is to be expected since one term
has little meaning without the other . Enablers
typically included awareness of th e value of
knowledge assets, the significance of their role
in the company, the existence of a KM
strategy, its integration with corporate
strategy, the commitment of top-level
management, and the components of a
knowledge-sharing culture. In contrast,
barriers are those phenomena which were
perceived as hindering the implementation of
a KM pr ogram and several surveys probed
failures and obstacles in this light. The
Cranfield survey (Cranfield Business School,
1998), for example, grouped barriers into four
categories: those arising from people,
Figure 1 Six-dimension framework
Table II Characteristics of 23 knowledge management
surveys published between 1999 and 2001
% No.
Nature of initiating org anization
Academic only 22 5
Corporate research units only ± 0
Consulting firms only 57 13
Media firms only ± 0
A combination of the a bove 22 5
Geographic origin
Europe 70 16
N. America 30 7
Asia ± 0
Geographic region surveyed
Europe only 22 5
N. America only 9 2
Asia only ± 0
A combination of the a bove 70 16
Sample size
0 to 50 cases 22 5
51 to 200 cases 26 6
More than 200 cases 35 8
No data 17 4
217
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
management, structur e and knowledge. The
1998 KPMG survey examined failures due to
the misuse of technical infrastructure and the
‘‘un-management’’ of knowledge. The 1999
AMA and Management Review Research
survey assessed barriers due to the natur e of
knowledge and people, while the
Good
Practices in Knowledge Creation & Exchange
survey (Rajan
et al.
, 1999) focused more on
the constraints to knowledge creation.
Action
The second dimension identifies observable
actions that range from broad, corporate
strategies to more individualized practices or
behaviors. The key distinction in this regard is
a focus on deeds as opposed to reflection or
discourse. Organizational action at the level of
practices points to the development of an
infrastructure that is dedicated to the
management of knowledge and includ es a
range of procedures, routines, work habits
and tools that may be pu t in play. The
Cranfield survey (Cranfield Business School,
1998), for example, examined formal
mechanisms and key KM tasks in this regard,
and the AMA (1999) survey probed for the
elements and components of KM business
processes in an organization. Items associated
with action also involved the strategic choices
a firm made in order to develop a KM
program, inc luding no tions such as
organizational structure, role assignments,
budgetary allocations and concrete changes in
the business value chain. The
Global KM
Benchmarking Survey
(Knowledge Associates,
2001) in vestigated the way KM strategy was
implemented, while the 2000 Arthur
Andersen (Valoris, 2000) survey probed the
relationship between KM and a firm’s
customer relationship management
orientation within is market environment.
Level
The distinction between individuals, groups,
organizations and even more expansive
phenomena, such as organizational culture or
the environment, has become a convention in
business management. By ‘‘level’’ we refer to
these units of social aggregation and at whic h
point a survey focused its inquiry. Individuals
are obviously the fundamental reality of
organizations and this is particularly true in
knowledge-intensive systems that draw their
primary resource from the mind of a human.
Individuals accomplish work in groups that
confer an identity, physical and psychological
resources, organizational power, a
sensemaking groun d and so o n. Org anizations
are complex systems in which individuals and
groups are the foundational elements, while
organizational culture is that somewhat
intractable conc ept that r elates to ideology,
collective n orms, common values, the
semiotics that generate understanding,
stories, beliefs and so on.
Even a quick review of the KM literature
reveals that all four levels are the object of
programs and problem atics. Some surveys
explored the interrelationship of these levels
(Chase
et al.
, 1997)) while others stratified
their questions level by level. Authors
weighted their surveys differently along this
continuum, but all included items relating to
the first three levels: individuals, groups and
the organization itself. For example, a
significant part of the 2000 Arthur Andersen
(Valoris, 2000) survey investigated the actors
of a KM initiative with items such as, ‘‘
who is pushing hardest?’’. Surveys exploring
issues at the level of the individual were
typically concerned with practices, tasks,
habits and attitudes. The
Good Practices in
Knowledge Creation & Exchange
(Rajan
et al.
, 1999) survey addressed the issue of
knowledge creation at the level of the
employee whil e the Benchmarking of Leading
US Companies survey (1997) assessed
individual responsibility for KM. Those
exploring group phenomena frequently
evoked vertic al and horizontal networking
(e.g. the
Global KM Benchmarking Survey
(Knowledge Associates, 2001)). T hose
aiming at higher levels of aggregation, such as
the organization, examined work structures
and business processes while those dealing
with culture often probed for environmental
elements pertinent to inter-personal
exchange, sharing and innovation through
knowledge creation (R ibiere, 2001; Rajan
et al.
, 1999).
Knowledge
Ever faithful to its enigmatic nature, the field
of KM motivated survey researchers to probe
the nature of its essential element, knowledge
218
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
itself. This undoubtedly seems amusing to the
observers of this field, but any manager or
researcher who has attemp ted to maneuver
knowledge to some concrete end will
appreciate the difficulty of the issue. One
difficulty lies in defining what counts as
relevant knowledge in the first place. Another
is lodged in the ever-quickening pace with
which much of our ‘‘kn owledge’’ falls into
decay. A third – seldom raised in this field –
relates to the logical inconsistency of trying to
generate new, innovative knowledge by
manipulating an existing cognitive framework
which is, after all, respo nsible for one’s
current positioning (the ‘‘out-of-the-box’’
conundrum).
The surveys in this review wer e more
tractable, however. On one e nd of the
dimension lie the processes and pr actices
associated with the identification of
knowledge considered important to a firm.
On the other we found items relating to the
ways and means of valorizing or leveraging the
knowledge assets thus identified. A number of
surveys assessed the way companies define,
identify and locate knowl edge (especially
critical knowledge) in relation to strategic
objectives (e.g. Valoris, 1999, 2000; KPMG
Consulting, 1998, 2000). Others, such as the
Strategies for the Knowledge Economy
(Mohrman and Finegold, 2000) survey or the
Survey of Current Practices
(Gupta
et al.
,
2001), investigated intervening steps, which
typically involved ways of capturing, storing,
codifying and accessing knowledge. Rajan
et al.
(1999) also surveyed practices relating to
knowledge creation and innovation, which is
often considered the e nd point of a linearly-
defined chain of cognitive processes .
Technology
The Greek origins of the word ‘‘technology’’
(technologia) refer to the systematic
treatment of an art, a fact that will comfort
some and disturb others in the field of KM.
The WWWebster Dictionary[8] defines
‘‘technology’’ as ‘‘ the practical application
of knowledge especially in a particular area’’.
It is in this sense that we included this
dimension, as a pointer to the tools and
techniques that are currently employed for
managing knowledge in organizations.
Technology is always of interest in
professional fields since it bundles more
abstract (academic) issues in a very concrete
and action-oriented way. The field of KM is
no excep tion, having been introduced via
IS/IT solutions which remain solidly at its
core. These find themselves, however,
increasingly balanced by human-social
technologies that tend to concern themselves
with the social psychology of organizing a
knowledge-based enterprise.
And so it was with the surveys in this
review, all of which developed items r elating
to this dimension. We found constructs and
variables related to ‘‘hard’’ technologies
(IS/IT systems and software), ‘‘soft’’
technologies (the social psychology of
organizing), and – to a lesser extent – the
interaction between these two (man-machin e
interaction). A hard technology app roach
typically assessed the role, nature,
introduction, integr ation and adaptation of an
IS/IT technology to support a KM initiative
(Valoris, 1999, 2000; KPMG Consulting,
1998, 2000; KPMG; The Netherlands, 1999;
Ribiere, 2001; Known Network, Teleos,
1999). A soft technol ogy approach typically
addressed work organization, remu neration
patterns, reporting relationships, task
definition, or the role of a human resource
management department
vis-a`-vis
a
knowledge-based strategy (Rajan
et al.
, 1999;
Cranfield Business School, 1998).
Outcomes
The last dimension concerns the upshot of a
KM in itiative and, in the vernacular, focuses
on the ‘‘so what’’ issue. Business managers are
understandably skeptical when yet another
‘‘good idea’’ rolls acr oss their desk, blending
more or less well with the last management
in-thing and inevitably, it seems, fading into
the next. Many pronounced KM just such a
fad when it appeared on the horizon some ten
years ago. It is proving tenacious, but it is also
beginning to stand the test of a genuinely
useful and profitable approach to business
management. The dimension we label
‘‘outcomes’’ bespe aks the concern that survey
researchers demonstrate in this regard.
The surveys in this review focused on two
broad outco me categories: the costs and the
benefits of a KM initiative. Costs were
generally categorized in terms of financial
219
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
outlays, time investments, HR or personnel
efforts, organizational re-engineering outlays
and related. Benefits tended to encompass
global assessments of improved competitive
advantage (Valoris, 2000), marketing and
customer relationship management, employee
development and satisfaction (KPMG, 2000;
AMA, 1999), an d increased shareholder value
(Knowledge Associates, 2001). Many of these
cost/benefit constructs appeared to have been
developed according to a transactions cost
logic, the aim of which is to adjust
organizational routines so that benefits are
maximized and costs minimized.
Discussion
This analysis of survey research in KM has
several limitations. The first is that the scope
of investigation excluded surveys that focused
solely on a specialty domain (e.g. software
products, IS installations or human resource
programs), or which wer e proprietary and
therefore inaccessible. The second is that we
further diminished this scope of investigation
by utilizing only thos e surveys for which we
were able to obtain the original instrument.
The result of these two factors is that only 23
of the 59 surveys originally identified were
included in the study for reasons of
methodology or accessibility. This weakens
the conclusions drawn above, and notably our
proposition that the epistemological
foundation of survey research in KM turns
around six basic dimensions. A third factor,
which may constitute a limitation for some,
involves methodology.
Content analysis is a robust technique with
methodological conventions that often
include th e prescription to utilize dedicated
software. We did not employ such software
given the relatively small text base involved,
and instead applied the time honored method
of notes, journals, c onclusions and
corroboration between researchers. Despite
these limitations, we believe that the content
of the surveys in this review can be located in
the framework of the six dimensions. This
conceptual structure is, for the authors,
emergent in that we first produced
independent analyses, which were synthesized
to create the si x-dimension framework with
little discussion or diffic ulty. It is, by the same
token, the pro duct of two researchers who
have worked together for several years and we
acknowledge a compatibility (at least) with
regard to views on the field of KM. This
constitutes a fourth constraint in that the six
dimensions should, in the future, be
submitted to other researcher s for
validation.
It is perhaps enlightening i n this regard to
note the parallels betwee n the present wor k
and one of our previous articles. In Despres
and Chauvel (2000) we identified and
thematically analyzed nine models of KM to
arrive at a set of seven structuring devices,
which, we held, formed the conceptual
foundation of the models. The results of this
work are positioned to the left of Figure 2
together with a brief definition, and the
results of the present work are plac ed on the
right.
‘ ... Mode ls attempt to schematize a system
of thought and ar e inherently abstract.
Surveys, on the other hand, are
generally more pragmatic in nature
since they probe the behaviors, opinions
and experienc es of a ctors in everyday
contexts... ’
Models attempt to schematize a system of
thought and are inherently abstract. Surveys,
on the other hand , are generally more
pragmatic in nature since they probe the
behaviors, opinions and experiences of actors
in everyday contexts. This is evident in
Figure 2, where the dimensions on the left are
more abstract than those on the right.
Nonetheless, several associations are present
and indicated by the arrows that link the two
sets of dimensions. It is clear, for example,
that the dimension of knowledge, which we
identified in the present work, is linked to the
dimensions of time and type that were
identified in Despres and Ch auvel (2000).
Models evoking the notions of time and type
lay a conceptual groundwork, as it were, for
the more pragmatic concern of detecting
useful knowledge and leveraging it. Related to
this, the dimension of outcomes, which is
identified in the prese nt work, has no
corresponding item in Despres and
Chauvel (2000).
220
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
The notion of knowledg e culture that we
evoked in Despres and Chauvel (2000) finds
no comfortab le counterpart in the present
work because the surveys in this review failed
to account for the respondent’s environment.
We observed little attempt to differentiate
organizational types or environments in a
meaningful way, and differences in
organizational cultures were seldom
addressed. This group of surveys
overwhelmingly worked w ith a European/
North American/MNC sampling base and no
Asian, South American, A frican or Eastern
European companies were specifically cited.
Cross-national comparisons were virtually
absent, with only Europe’s state of the art in
KM (Cr anfield Business School, 1998) and
the KM research report (KPMG Cons ulting,
1998, 2000) addressing the matter. Similarly,
there was no cross-industry analysis provided
by the group of 23 surveys. This assumed
homogeneity constitutes a deficiency in KM
survey research that should be redressed in
future works. This also reflec ts the obvious
tendency in KM literature to prescribe a tool,
method, or way of thinking to a large range of
companies or business problems. Differences
in organizational form or circumstance are
simply unaccounte d for. These 23 surveys
demonstrate, however, that a certain
mainstream view of KM is be ing instantiated.
This view is imperfect, however, as evidenced
by the fact that a number of surveys probed
the conceptions or definitions of KM held by
the respondents, as well as their level of
interest in the topic. This field may be
developing a mainstream view of its core
content – ‘‘normal science ’’ in Kuhnian terms
– but it has yet to arrive at its destination. This
developing mainstream includes the simplistic
assumption that KM in one context is similar
or identical to KM in another. It is also very
concerned wi th outcomes (the costs and
benefits of KM) and, from this perspective, is
clearly anxious with regard to its contribution
to the business bottom line.
Conclusion
This review of survey research in KM
identified 59 surveys that were conducted
between 1997 and 2001, thematically
analyzed 23 and c oncluded that each has
embellished a view of KM that turns around
six dichotomous dimension s:
(1) phenomena;
(2) action;
(3) level;
(4) knowledge;
Figure 2 KM structuring devices
221
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
(5) technology; and
(6) outcomes.
To the extent the objective of assessing the
‘‘reality’’ of KM in everyday contexts was
present in this group of surveys, we argue that
these dimensions are informative with re gard
to the assumptions of their designers and the
view of KM that is now being advanc ed. This
view has been found to be very business
oriented and focused on outcomes, concerned
with practical implementation issues, an d
simplistic in assuming away differences in
organizational characteristics and
environments. This bespeaks the adolescence
of this field, as does the fact that many sur veys
explored the way companies identified useful
knowledge and probed for definitions of KM
itself. The field would benefit from future
research that is longitudinal in nature and
which assessed cros s-national differences.
Industry comparisons are also need ed, as are
ways of differentiating organizational
characteristics, including features of
organizational culture, when designing survey
research and reporting its results.
Notes
1 Rensis Likert is responsible for popularizing the
response scale that carries his name where, in a
numerical range ( typically from 1 to 5, or 1 to 7) a
respondent is asked to select one (``interval’’)
response such as ``completely agree’’, ``agree’’, ``no
opinion’’, ``disagree’’, ``completely disagree’’ and so
on.
2 As defined by the WWWebster Dictionary (http://
www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary), the word
objective denotes a `` phenomenon, or condition
in the realm of sensible experience independent of
individual thought and perceptible by all observers:
having reality independent of the mind’’.
3 Bullseye: http://www.intelliseek.com/
4 BullsEye 2 for ZDNet, build version 2.5. A
description of this software is available at
http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/stories/info/
0,,59913,.html
5 Journals and periodicals like InformationWeek
(issue 728, 99/5/4), Computerworld (Vol. 33 No. 1,
99/4/1), International Review of Law (Vol. 14 No. 1,
March 2000), International Journal of Computer
Studies (Vol. 51 No. 3, September 1999)
6 For example, a survey conducted by CSC, mentioned
in International Journal of Technology (Vol. 20
No. 5-8, 2000) or by SIM, a consulting company in
Philadelphia with the purpose to test the KM
features of Lotus.
7 For example, TPFL survey of KM roles and skills,
2000 or survey conducted by the Center for
Competitiveness at Luton Business School, UK,
2000.
8 http://www.m-w.com/
References
AMA & Management Review Research (1999), ``Survey on
knowledge management’’, Management Review,
April, p. 20-27.
Amidon, D. (1999), ``Delivering knowledge innovation,
strategies for the millennium’’, available at: www.
entovation.com
Bontis, N. (2001), ``KM and turnover’’, available at:
www.business.mcmaster.ca/mktg/nbontis/
Cranfield Business School (1998), Europe’s State of the Art
in Knowledge Management, Information Strategy,
The Economist Group, London, p. 17.
Chase, R. (1998), ``Benchmarking exchange, best practice
club, creating the knowledge-based organization’’,
Journal of Knowledge Management, available at:
www.knowledgebusiness.com
Davis, B. and Riggs, B. (1999), ``InformationWeek research
survey’’, InformationWeek, No. 728, p. 40.
Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (1999), ``Knowledge
management(s)’’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 110-20.
Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (Eds) (2000), ``A thematic
analysis of the thinking in knowledge
management’’, Knowledge Horizons: The Present
and the Promise of Knowledge Management,
Butterworth-Heinemann, New York, NY.
Earl, M. and Scott, I. (1999), What on Earth is a CKO,
London Business School, London.
Gupta, B., Lyer, L.S. and Aronson, J.E. (2001), ``Knowledge
management: a survey of current practices’’,
California State University, Monterrey, CA, available
at: www.monterey.edu
Kanter, J. (1999), ``Knowledge management, practically
speaking’’, Information Systems Management,
Vol. 16 No. 4, Fall, pp. 7-16.
KnowledgeAssociates (2001), ``Global KM benchmarking
survey’’, available at: www.knowledgeassociates.
com
Known Network, Teleos (1999), ``MAKE’’, available at:
www.knowledgebusiness.com
Known Network, Teleos (2000), ``MAKE’’, available at:
www.knowledgebusiness.com
Known Network, Teleos (2001), ``MAKE’’, available at:
www.knowledgebusiness.com
KPMG Consulting (1998), ``Knowledge management
research report 1998’’, available at: kpmg.
interact.nl/publication/kmsurvey.shtml
KPMG Consulting (2000), Knowledge Management
Research Report 2000, available at: kpmg.
interact.nl/publication/kmsurvey.shtml
KPMG The Netherlands (1999), ``Common sense, but is it
also common practice?’’, available at: kpmg.
interact.nl/publication/kmsurvey.shtml
222
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223
Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Mohrman, S.A. and Finegold, D. (2000), ``Strategies for the
knowledge economy: from rhetoric to reality’’, Center
for Effective Organizations, Marshall School of
Business, study funded by Korn-Ferry International,
available at: www.marshall.usc.edu.ceo
Rajan, A., Lank, E. and Chapple, K. (1999), Good Practices
in Knowledge Creation & Exchange, Focus Central
London.
Ribiere, V. (2001), ``Assessing knowledge management
initiatives’ success as a function of organizational
culture’’, PhD dissertation, George Washington
University, Washington, DC, available at: www.
km.gwu.edu
Valoris, T. (1999), Le K nowledge Management en France,
Arthur Andersen & Co., Paris.
Valoris, T. (2000), Le Knowledge Management en France,
Arthur Andersen & Co., Paris.
Wiig, K. and Odem, P. (1997), ``Benchmarking unveils
emerging KM strategies’’, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 202-12.
Further reading
Harrison, M. (1987), Diagnosing Organizations:
Models, Methods and Processes, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Hauschild, S., Licht, T. and Stein, W. (2001), ``Creating a
knowledge culture’’, available at: www.mckinsey.
com
Mesureau (2001), ``EnqueÃte KM’’, KM Technologies,
available at: www.km-technologie.fr
Ranzau, H. (2001), ``An investigation into the
human side of knowledge creation and
knowledge management’’, MBA thesis,
University of Lincolnshire and Humberside,
available at: www.geocities.com/hranzauh/
welcome.html
Sapsford, R. (1999), Survey Research, Sage Publications,
London, p. 1.
Smith, J.M. and Webster, L. (2000), ``The knowledge
economy and SMEs: a study of skills requirement’’,
Business Information Review, Vol. 17 No. 3,
September, pp. 138-46.
223
A review of survey research in know ledge management: 1997-2001
Daniele Chauvel and Charles Despres
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 6
.
Number 3
.
2002
.
207±223