Content uploaded by Enis Elezi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Enis Elezi on Jun 21, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; DOI 10.25019/MDKE/6.3.01
ISSN 2392-8042 (online) © Faculty of Management (SNSPA)
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge
Management Model Building
Enis ELEZI
University of Bolton
Deane Rd, Bolton BL3 5AB, Bolton, Greater Manchester, UK
ee3mpo@bolton.ac.uk
Christopher BAMBER
Organizational Learning Centre
66 Castle Street BL2 1AE, Bolton, Greater Manchester, UK
cbamber@olceurope.com
Abstract. This paper presents a conceptual framework for use, by organizational
researchers, knowledge management practitioners and business analysts, as a guide to
building Knowledge Management (KM) models. This is accomplished through a careful
selection of ten prominent KM models which have been discussed critically and used to
deepen the theoretical understanding of KM implementation and development. A
critical review of ten KM models offers practitioners, as well as researchers, an
examination of the ontological and epistemological backgrounds and origins of
existing models’ in order to highlight the required components for composing effective
KM models. There is limited research supporting the utilization, adaptation or even
adoption of KM models that can assist managers seeking a competitive advantage
through the implementation of KM processes. Authors of existing KM models claim to
provide holistic KM models but when referring back to the central meaning of
knowledge and management concepts those models do not generate a thorough
coverage of the required characteristics and components. This paper has critically
investigated ten widely acknowledged KM models but recognizes that there is a
plethora of KM models emerging which have varied foci. The conceptual review of KM
models is not an empirical investigation, moreover, a critical analysis that presents a
conceptual framework for KM model building. In carrying out this research study, the
paper presents the shortfalls of this theoretical research approach but nevertheless, the
proposed conceptual framework is envisaged as having value to both practitioners and
researchers. This paper sheds light on a series of concerns related to existing KM
models, their origins, constructs, and contextualization. For organizational
researchers, knowledge management practitioners and business analysts this research
study elaborates on issues related to validity, applicability, and generalizability of KM
models and defines a set of criteria for KM model building. The paper also impacts on
the science of KM presenting perspectives, scope, and contexts in which knowledge is
processed.
Keywords: KM conceptual framework; KM model building; organizational
researchers; KM practitioners; business analysts; KM perspectives.
344 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
Introduction
The competitiveness of global institutions is driven by effective utilization and
promotion of their developing capabilities to deliver ever changing and demanding
customer needs. Managing knowledge is seen as a pre-requisite for institutions
aiming to improve competitiveness and performance and this has encouraged an
increased internal focus on Knowledge Management (KM) practices.
The area of Knowledge Management (KM) has been receiving considerable attention
in the last two decades and is taking prominence as a result of issues related to
international business, cultural values and beliefs and organizational performance
(Massingham & Massingham, 2014; Riege, 2005). It is therefore not surprising that
KM has been the subject of research in several areas such as business enterprise,
health, and government policymaking, academic research groups or institutions
(Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Graham & Logan, 2004; Suorsa, 2015). Consequently, many
different KM models have been generated considering, not only concerning technical
and hardware elements from particular domains where studies have been conducted
but also, universal elements that involve facilitators, learning styles and capabilities,
actors involved, trust and barriers. Therefore, this research study intends to provide
a review of particular models aiming to highlight constructive aspects and a critical
evaluation of implications.
The value of knowledge for competitive advantage is often discussed and likewise
referring to the efficacy of knowledge the eminent business scholar and renowned
Japanese organizational theorist and decorated Professor Emeritus, Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995, p.162) said:
”In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting
competitive advantage is knowledge”.
Nonaka and his doctrine believe that knowledge can be of different forms and
categories depending on the pathway individuals and/or organizations experience.
Accordingly, Davenport and Prusak (2000, p.5) when describing how organizations
capture knowledge and disseminate knowledge have expanded on the Nonaka
understanding of the efficacy of knowledge and explains it;
“...is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight
that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and
information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it
often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in
organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms."
On the other hand, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, p.58) delineate knowledge from a
philosophical point of view such as “justified true belief” where knowledge is a
“...dynamic human process of justifying personal belief towards the truth.”
Nevertheless, KM consists of a wider scope than just reaching knowledge
dissemination and many practitioners are keen to exploit knowledge for competitive
advantage, accordingly, Skyrme (2011) cited in Frost (2014) defines it as;
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 345
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
“...the explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge and its associated
processes of creation, organization, diffusion, use, and exploitation - in pursuit of
business objectives”
This work intends to provide a critical review of the literature based on a narrative
methodology and examines theories and models within the area of KM. The selective
literature considers KM models that are produced within a research context and have
been significantly contributing to the development of the KM field.
Methodology
The reason for focusing on theoretical and conceptual models and not considering
specifically practitioner based models consists of three main points:
1- In academic research KM models are accompanied by the sense of epistemology
and ontology. A practitioner applies a more pragmatic view by intending to provide
a solution which might be tailored to suit a particular organization’s needs.
2- Academic studies introduce and provide a thorough understanding of several
concepts within the area. Meanwhile, practitioners draw conclusions on case study
evidence and real-world interventions within consultancy projects.
3- From an academic perspective, there are opportunities to elaborate on ideas,
frameworks, and models prior to implementation, therefore, reducing or avoiding
risk prior to its implementation. Models deriving from industry may be very different
as a result of organizational objectives and strategies. In other words,
generalizability or validity of the model or framework might be leading towards
unrealistic expectations if applied somewhere else.
This is not to say that an academic model is more appreciated than a model deriving
from industry or vice versa. This relies on the grounds of aiming to have a wider
understanding of the field, contributors, issues, challenges, and perspectives and
being able to produce a model with high impact and applicability.
The objectives of this research study
This is a conceptual paper that analyses particular published theories that are
prevalent in the field of knowledge management. Therefore, the authors draw upon
currently published research literature with the aim of furthering the theoretical
work in the field of KM. The authors present an original theory of their own, a
framework for KM model building, showing how their new theory links in with
previous KM models, theories and literature. Although many KM models exist and
much has been discussed in the literature regarding the effectiveness and efficacy of
knowledge management modeling this research study aims to better understand KM
model building through four objectives:
1. To categorize the approaches of studying KM theories and understand the
epistemological and ontological development of the models
2. To provide a critical analysis of published and popularized academic KM models
346 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
3. To critically examine the holistic nature of the models and therefore assess the
applicability of the models
4. To suggest a framework for composing a new KM model that addresses any
shortfalls or contradictions within each model.
These research objectives have provided a direction and focus for the research and
thus the study provides a positive contribution to the debate surrounding the impact
of knowledge management models and the modeling of knowledge with
organizational frameworks.
Ontological and epistemological origins of KM models
It is noted that KM models have different origins and one of the issues is framing the
categories of these models while another issue is the usefulness of models within
varying settings. Literature suggests that initially KM models are derived from the
composition of a KM theoretical groundwork which would accommodate a varied list
of KM frameworks (Edvardsson & Durst, 2014; Massingham & Massingham, 2014).
In other words, constructs of knowledge management are created from a particular
theoretical bias and developed with a construct in mind for its use within a particular
setting. Also, there is a tendency to distinguish between models that are of a
technological nature (developed from an IT, scientific or engineering ontological
perspective) and people-oriented (developed from a humanistic, socialist or
sociological ontology). These differentiated approaches raise difficulties in
understanding and applying KM models as, it has been discussed previously,
knowledge is a social phenomenon generated and embedded in humans, even though
technology aids capture, storage, manipulation, and dissemination. Thus, a
combination of human capabilities and technological advancement is expected to
strengthen the usefulness of KM models.
An additional concern noticed from literature was the applicability of the models
within industry scenarios and the differences between theory and practical aspects.
Booker, Bontis, and Serenko (2008) and Serenko, Bontis, Booker, Sadeddin, and
Hardie (2010) have reported a decline of the contribution from practitioners of KM
with the academics conducting field research. This was explained due to the
theoretical aspects of models provided in academia and because of the scope of the
KM field models were not very inclusive in an industry context. Additionally, most
KM models because of the origin being from theoretical research, lack of guidance
for pragmatic direction and practical utilization. Also, not many of them have been
validated or examined for viable results in a business background, which increases
the doubtfulness of the effectiveness of the models.
Another issue, probably the most important issue, consists of adaptability and
generalizability of the models. Literature highlights that criticism has been given to
every KM model and is mostly illustrated through a benchmarking approach
between frameworks. By now, there are many classifications for the models and one
of them is standardized and tailored frameworks. Standardized models (i.e. Choo,
1998; Hedlund & Nonaka, 1991; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) have been criticized for
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 347
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
the generic approach and are not widely applicable as industries and other factors
influence the end result. On the other hand, models that can be utilized for bespoke
cases (Frid, 2004; Kogut & Zandler, 1992) raise questions regarding generalizability
issues. As a consequence, there is a need to reframe or discuss the main components
of a KM model and to consider the application of a framework that would permit the
substitution of components depending on the industry scenario but yet would be
widely applicable.
Perspectives of knowledge management models
The area of KM has been described as multifaceted and characterized by several
studies focusing on a variety of perspectives which have resulted with an
incremental number of definitions and models (Dalkir, 2013). Generally speaking,
from their origins there are three main perspectives where KM focuses, business,
cognitive or knowledge science and as a process particularly on technology. These
three main perspectives are illustrated in table 1.
Table 1. The main KM perspectives used to develop the selected KM models
Knowledge
management
perspective
How knowledge is
treated
The main purpose
of KM from the KM
perspective
Example
literature and
models that
predominantly
sits within the
KM perspective
Business
Knowledge is mainly
managed explicitly
Managed through
documentation, policies
and procedures
To compose, attain
and distribute both
tacit and explicit
knowledge by
disseminating it
tangibly
SECI Model
Demarest’s Model
Boisot’s Model
Hedlund and
Nonaka’s model
Cognitive and
knowledge
science
Within individuals and for
individuals or teams
Knowledge is developed
and transformed through
human-facilitated change
To provide human
interaction and
social exchange of
knowledge
Wiig’s Model
Demarest’s Model
KTA Model
Boisot’s Model
Hedlund and
Nonaka’s model
Choo’s Model
Process or
Technological
Knowledge is captured in
depositories and made
available through the
technological process.
Knowledge is mainly
managed with ICT
solutions
To capture
knowledge at each
process stage and
consider ICT for its
control and
management
Stankosky and
Baldanza Model
Frid’s Model
Wiig’s Model
From the business perspective, in the main organizations treat knowledge as explicit
through documentation, policies, and procedures. Also, the business perspective
approaches tacit knowledge which is framed as the know-how embedded in human
348 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
intellectual capacities. As a result, scholars argue, KM is a combined and cooperated
technique towards the composition; attaining and distribution of knowledge types
(Dalkir, 2013; Massingham & Massingham, 2014).
However, from a different perspective such as knowledge, or cognitive science,
knowledge is the essential supply that permits individuals to understand, express
and practice the know-how that they possess (Barão, de Vasconcelos, Rocha, &
Pereira, 2017). Bratianu (2016, 2018) and Barley, Treem, and Kuhn (2018) argue
that through time, knowledge is developed and transformed as a result of social
changes where humans have the main role as initiators, facilitators, and receivers.
Consequently, knowledge is promoted as the fundamental source of progressing
social life and its effectiveness is detected by practices implemented. Recently,
Bratianu (2018) develops this cognitive aspect and discusses KM in respect to
organizational dynamics from a humanistic perspective and explains that
organizational knowledge is of multifold nature formulated as a result of rational
knowledge, emotional knowledge, and spiritual knowledge. Making use of
metaphors Bratianu (2018, p.14) explains that the energy metaphor “does not
transfer the conservation law of energy because knowledge can be created and
destroyed”. Bratianu (2018) argues that each of these fields may vary in different
organizations in terms of time and space.
Alternatively, from a process and/or technological perspective, knowledge is made
available in an understandable and applicable format for the interested people
(Dayan, Heisig, & Matos, 2017). As a result, the collective knowledge is utilized to
enhance receptiveness and innovation in an organizational context (Barão et al.,
2017; Barley et al., 2018; Bratianu, 2016; Dayan et al., 2017). Consequently, forming
channels for managing the information required on regular basis to provide
knowledge for decision making and achieving the desired developments.
Review of knowledge management models
This section reviews the KM literature through the lenses of ten knowledge
management theories that have promoted KM models (Boisot, 1998; Choo, 1998;
Demarest, 1997; Frid, 2004; Graham et al., 2006; Hedlund & Nonaka, 1991; Kogut &
Zandler, 1992; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Stankosky & Baldanza, 2001; Wiig, 1997).
The review so far, suggests that KM modeling is a complex and multifaceted process,
and a joint consideration of the ontological development, epistemological origin and
perspectives of knowledge management in business settings. Therefore, research
teams and KM model developers have undertaken several approaches that have
resulted in their developed KM models, these approaches and resultant models are
discussed in further specific detail. The review also concludes that KM modeling uses
different approaches and conceptualizations to understand the beliefs that truly
influence KM behavior.
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 349
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
Tacit
knowledge
Explicit
knowledge
Tacit
knowledge Explicit
knowledge
Socialization Externalization
Internalization Combination
Empathizing
Embodying Articulating
Connecting
Figure 1. SECI Model (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)
Even though in academic collegiums and industry, the model has been widely
promoted for its importance, several shortcomings have been highlighted in regards
to validity and reliability of the framework. First and foremost, the study conducted
by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) involved only Japanese companies and the outcome
were internationally generalized and ignoring other countries and organizational
socio-cultural values and beliefs.
Second, Gourlay (2006) noted that the percentage of variances attained through
confirmatory factor analysis met satisfactory levels for the transforming stages such
as socialization and combination but not for externalization and internalization.
Thus the survey conducted was capable of validating only two components of the
model indicating that the model was potentially flawed.
Third, the methodology used in creating the model was of a case study qualitative
approach and as such, it investigated social phenomena of the attributes and factors,
which knowledge involves. Particularly, implementation of a case study strategy
facilitates the understanding of a complex issue in an organizational context. Hence,
a case study expert Yin (2010) suggests generalizability, quantifiability, external
validity, and internal reliability are compromised.
Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization (SECI model)
This framework as shown in figure 1, has provided a significant contribution to the
KM area and is widely discussed in academic forums and has also been utilized by
both practitioners and industry. The epistemology of the SECI model is based on
organizational knowledge creation where the emphasis is the transition and
transformation of knowledge in different contexts. Within the model of socialization,
externalization, combination, and internalization are the categories that shape the
transition of knowledge which is acknowledged as both tacit and explicit.
350 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
The knowledge-to-action process framework
Graham et al. (2006) introduced a conceptual model named knowledge to action
(KTA) based on two mechanisms which have been labeled as knowledge creation
and implementation through the action cycle, each exemplified by different
components.
Figure 2. KTA Model (Graham et al., 2006)
Graham et al. (2006) argued that the effectiveness of the application of the model in
improving knowledge management is highly depended on the knowledge creation
phase.
The authors of the model (Graham et al., 2006; Graham & Logan, 2004) argue that
such models are provided as a guide to implementation and can be and should be
adapted to suit individual organizational contexts and maturity. However, the
authors are not clear on defining the types of change that might be required, factors
influencing any possible changes and if the changes will have an impact on the
knowledge creation or action cycle.
Graham et al. (2006) state this model can be utilized simultaneously and/or
sequentially between components and their phases which allows a flexible
application of the model. However, Graham et al. (2006) authors have not indicated
specific margins between the two mechanisms (knowledge creation and action).
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 351
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
Skeptics of this approach say this is perilous as; depending on the need, experience,
expertise, and environment settings; the effectiveness of the model might be
compromised (Grant, 1996; McAdam & McCreedy, 1999). Additionally, Dalkir (2013)
and Evans and Ali (2013) highlight that by not following a standardized flow of the
model the individuals in charge might take subjective actions based on their
understanding, values, and beliefs which are against several points discussed in the
model such as knowledge synthesis.
The Bosiot Space model
This model, represented in figure 3, classifies knowledge as codified when it can be
expressed in a clear written form and is easy to transmit and un-codified, when
difficult to dispense and is attained through individual’s experience. Additionally,
Boisot (1998) classifies knowledge as diffused and un-diffused depending on the
context of knowledge and if it can be distributed.
Personal knowledge is explained as a process that is based on un-codified and un-
diffused expressed through people experiences that might be differently perceived
even in the same scenarios. Property knowledge appears to be codified and un-
diffused which is commonly categorized as intellectual property and is seen among
consultants or categorized by patenting a certain product or service which will be
codified and un-diffused.
The model defines the public knowledge is codified and diffused, which is observed
in the usage of books, libraries or conferences. This is followed by common sense
knowledge which is un-codified but diffused and it is applied through externalization
and specialization processes introduced by Nonaka (Choo & Alvarenga Neto, 2010;
Hislop, 2013).
Figure 3. Boisot I- Space model (Boisot, 1998)
Boisot (1998) commented that the distribution of knowledge in an organization
context is applied through a horizontal direction of the model. Nevertheless,
categorization of knowledge as codified, un-codified, diffused and un-diffused does
not provide detailed insights into what stages of knowledge evolves, under what
352 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
circumstances and what is the application flow of the model. Furthermore, it is not
considered easily accessible and is not widely implemented (Dalkir, 2013).
Hedlund and Nonaka’s Knowledge Management and Transfer model
This model, represented in table 2, is established in two distinctive pillars such as
types of knowledge being considered and factors that contribute to the process of
knowledge transformation.
Table 2. Hedlund and Nonaka’s (1991) model
Individual
Group
Organization
Inter-
organizational
Domain
Articulated
knowledge
Knowing
Calculus
Quality circle’s
documented
analysis of its
performance
Organization
chart
Supplier’s patents
and documented
practices
Tacit
Knowledge
Cross-
cultural
Negotiation
Skills
Team
coordination
in complex
work
Corporate
culture
Customer’s
attitudes to
products and
expectations
The fundamental structure of this model is an endeavor to combine and illuminate
aspects of knowledge in several contexts. Authors promote communication among
different actors and types of knowledge which might occur at the same time or
sequentially.
Furthermore, it can be noted that this model also considers knowledge management
and transfer at the outer environment which relates with suppliers, customers and
other business partners (Edvardsson & Durst, 2014). Such a model has been
appreciated for the academic contribution it has given, however, some criticism has
been addressed in regards to the clarity of the model when it comes to application.
Critiques of this model value the wider aspects this model represents in terms of
involving several factors and discussing knowledge development and distribution
but they argue that the core elements of the model are deriving from Nonaka’s model
which receives similar critique (Massaro, Dumay, & Garlatti, 2015; Massaro, Pitts,
Zanin, & Bardy, 2014; McAdam & McCreedy, 1999; Nafei, 2014).
It considers types of knowledge and several components that would be associated
with the knowledge needed, however, organizations operate in a very complex
environment and the model does not provide enough evidence to support or clarify
the traits of the framework under certain circumstances of the business. It noted that
group factor is highly significant particularly for companies that are innovative and
allocate considerable financial recourses into R&D department, but is not clear on
what would be the case for a company of a different profile. Moreover, Hedlund and
Nonaka (1991) have not clearly presented what are the communication channels
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 353
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
Knowledge Chaotic
Knowledge Centric
Knowwldge Managed
Knowledge Focused
Knowledge Aware
Understand and implement objectives,
vision and other KM indices
Advocating and adopting departmental KM
vision and goals
Focus on new activities
Implant KM in business strategy through
performance reviews and business plans
Institutionalise initiatives and
evaluate intellectual assets
Figure 4. Frid’s (2004) model
‘Knowledge chaotic’ is stage 1 of the model, at this stage the company is considering
the implementation of the KM model by encompassing a mixture of vision, objectives
and other KM indices. It is vitally important to introduce and collect departmental
knowledge which will later be used in more details.
Following the initial step, stage 2 is ‘knowledge aware’ stage where management at
this stage need to compose a KM plan which would facilitate the collaboration amid
different departments and individuals among organization by increasing and
embedding KM vision and goals.
The ‘knowledge focus’ stage according to Frid (2004), is when organizations have
already drawn the vision and established KM plan and now need to act technically
within the organization. In other words, the KM is initiated by creating the
appropriate infrastructure, providing training, evaluate the implementation and
offer guidance for new adapters’, consider adjustment and include KM in company’s
financial budgets
Step 4, ‘knowledge managed’ stage occurs when KM vision and understanding amid
organization is strengthening and embedded within the different department and is
utilized by management in order to minimize the risk of the message being
transmitted through diverse types of knowledge.
Frid’s 5 Step Process model
This framework argues that a stepwise process can be used to assess the maturity of
knowledge and also implement knowledge management through that 5-step process
as illustrated in figure 4.
354 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
being incorporated with the business strategy even though adjustment might be
applied.
The highest level of knowledge management application maturity according to Frid
is the final stage of ‘knowledge centric.’ This step demonstrates that the company is
very KM oriented, has already institutionalized its initiatives and evaluates
intellectual assets (Frid, 2004).
This research study argues that Frid’s (2004) model is highly focused on the
implementation and measuring the maturity of knowledge thus potentially
disregarding the elements required to introduce and maintain a KM strategy through
an effective measurement and feedback loop.
Stankosky and Baldanza Enabling Factors and Disciplines model
This model was established on the grounds of factors that enable KM and a successful
implementation by highlighting the importance of learning, leadership, organization,
structure, culture, and technology. Due to the very large scope of KM field, Stankosky
and Baldanza (2001) have centered their theory on crucial organizational elements
related to leadership, organization’s structure, technology, and learning.
Enabling Factors
· Learning
· Leadership
· Organisational
structure and culture
· Technology
Disciplines
· Cognitive science
· Communication
· Individual and organisational
behaviour
· Psychology
· Finance
· Economics
· HRM
· Strategic planning
· Process engineering
· Systems engineering
· Computer technologies
· Software and library science
Knowledge
Management
Figure 5. Stankosky and Baldanza (2001) model
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 355
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
Serenko et al. (2010) and Parent, MacDonald, and Goulet (2014) recognize the
beneficial aspects of this model in understanding what components and
resources are required to apply KM in an organization. However, Stankosky and
Baldanza (2001) do not discuss issues on knowledge creation, capturing and
distributing channels. Accordingly, critiques of this model, Ragab, and Arisha,
(2013) noted that this model contributes in creating a roadmap for a KM model
but the cycle of knowledge movement within the organization is not explained
therefore rising doubts how knowledge will be managed following implantation
of KM practices.
Kogut and Zandler Competitive Advantage model
The approach of this model is based on the groundwork of knowledge-based theory
which treats knowledge as a source of competitive advantage.
Knowledge
Creation
Efficient Firms
Competitive
Advantage
Individual
“Unsocial
Sociality”
Knowledge
Capabilities
Knowledge
Transfer
Process &
Transformation
of Knowledge
Figure 6. Kogut and Zandler (1992) model
356 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
Kogut and Zandler (1992) consider organizations as social communities where
know-how is not maintained only tacitly but also explicitly through documentation,
procedures, and internal processes. Consequently, organizations are classified as a
repository of capabilities because of the social interaction among and with
employees which fosters the embedment of knowledge. This is completed through
organizing principles which the model creators define as;
“...the organizing knowledge that establishes the context of discourse and coordination
among individuals with disparate expertise and that replicates the organization over
time in correspondence to the changing expectations and identity of its members”
(Kogut & Zandler, 1992, p.388).
Critiques that have supported the Kogut and Zandler (1992) model have
acknowledged the usefulness in the multinational enterprise but have not
mentioned the efficacy of such in smaller and more local organizations, thus this
may put some doubt into the generalizability of the model particularly for SMEs’.
Choo’s Sense-Making model
The Choo (1998) model focuses on the significance of information and how it can be
utilized for sense-making, knowledge creation, and decision making. A continuous
combination of these three principles forms the basis for a strategic knowledge
management vision for the organization Choo (1998) argues.
Information and
External Knowledge Next Knowledge Cycle
Streams of
Experience Sense
Definition
Shared
Meanings
Knowledge
Creation
Decision
New Knowledge
New Capabilities
Shared Meanings
Figure 7. Sense-making model (Choo, 1998)
An advantage of this model is the holistic view it takes among KM processes in
relation to organizational decision making which is not very commonly observed in
other KM models. Therefore, this model is considered very realistic and forms the
grounds for a reliable implementation of KM practices in an organizational context.
Utilization of this model has been argued by Choo and Bontin (2002) as effective in
testing the organization’s management hypothesis or examining simulation
scenarios. Therefore, Choo (1998) may not be appropriate for guiding and assessing
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 357
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
organizations through the stages of implementation of knowledge management
systems and practices.
Wiig Model of Knowledge Levels and Knowledge Types
This model as illustrated in table 3 and table 4 promotes a social approach which
involves human participation in building and using knowledge depending on the
purpose and its context. Within the model, Wiig (1993) proposes four approaches of
knowledge such as completeness, connectedness, congruency, and perspective and
purpose. Therefore, and foremost, the model discusses knowledge from an
internalization viewpoint through different levels which Wiig (1993) has categorized
from a novice to a master as in the following table:
Table 3. Degrees of internalization in Wiig (1997) model
The Wiig matrix, table 4 shows the four knowledge types and how they manifest as
public, shared and personal knowledge forms.
Table 4. Wiig matrix (Wiig, 1997)
Knowledge
forms
Knowledge types
Facts
Concepts
Expectations
Methodological
Public
Measuring
Stability
and
Equilibrium
When stock
value exceeds
the request,
the price drops
Searching for
values in
variables outside
norms
Shared
Forecasts
analysis
Heavy
market
A small
addition will
not generate
sell problems
The identification
of some errors
from the past
Personal
The value
of the
variable is
The
company
has very
The suspicion
that an analyst
What are the
most recent
tendencies
Level
Category
Explanation
1
Novice
Unacquainted of the existing knowledge and the purpose
to use it for
2
Beginner
Aware of the existing knowledge and what to use it for,
however is not involved with it
3
Competent
Conscious of the exiting knowledge and its usage internally
and externally through documents and socialization
4
Expert
High authority of knowing and storing the knowledge in
person, comprehending areas of usage and its purpose
5
Master
Has a deep understanding and applies a full integration of
it among organization through different practices and
procedures
358 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
the most
used
good
references
made a
mistake
The Wiig KM model can be regarded as very realistic approach and be combined or
tested with other models or perspectives. Such a framework contributes to the
academics and practitioners by allowing a deeper view than simply tacit or explicit
knowledge. However, a limitation of this model may be the lack of applications of the
model in industry and consequently appears to be little or no detailed feedback about
the experiences of the use or application of the model.
Demarest’s Knowledge Construction and Utilization model
This Demarest (1997) model is created with a particular focus on the construction of
knowledge and sees management of knowledge as a social approach rather than a
scientific contribution. Demarest (1997) suggested accordingly that created
knowledge is embedded in an organization, not only through knowledge expressed
explicitly, but through promoting a social interaction among staff and departments
(McAdam & McCreedy, 1999). The arrows in figure 8 illustrate that KM is not
considered as a sequential process but it can be utilized in different patterns as
depending on the type of knowledge, owner and the need for it (Choo, 2006;
Davenport, De Long, & Beer, 1998; McAdam & McCreedy, 1999).
Demarest says the model is based on a holistic approach which highlights the
functional and social relationships among knowledge object and processes in
contrary to the SECI model which is characterized as a mechanistic framework by
categorizing KM facts. The foundation of this model emphasizes the fact that social
and scientific attributes would be a combined pre-requisite to construct knowledge.
Thus, organizations should create new knowledge through research or, training and
development programs or, socially through workshops, forums or, through
communities of practice.
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 359
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
Scientific Paradigm
Knowledge
Embodiment
Employee Emancipation
Business Benefits
Social Paradigm
Knowledge
Dissemination
Knowledge
Management
Utilise
Knowledge
Construction
Figure 8. Demarest model (McAdam & McCreedy, 1999)
Although Demarest (1997) discusses embodiment of knowledge management, the
focus of the Demarest (1997) model is on the creation and construction of a
knowledge management system and Demarest (1997) does not present much in the
way of directing implementation and suggesting detailed methods of embedment of
successful KM.
Discussing the proposed guiding framework for KM model building
As it has been illustrated through the constructive criticism of the ten models
presented above, KM has been studied from different perspectives, constructs and
contexts as a result models are generated with different foci. Knowledge as a concept
is very multifaceted; however, its core understanding relies upon philosophical
views originating from when Plato defined knowledge as a true belief. In other
words, anything that is true and is justifiable can be translated as knowledge
whereas from an organizational point of view, there are various components that are
classified as true beliefs which mostly are associated with experiences, expertise,
processes or procedures in place. Nevertheless, it should be noted that these
organizational beliefs change continuously due to the strategic objectives of the
organizations which derives as a response to the market trends, competitiveness and
economic environment. Thus, knowledge is normally changing rapidly and does not
have any boundaries in terms of notions, initiators, developers or receivers.
Consequently, due to the complexity of knowledge itself it is difficult to provide an
unarguable perception of how knowledge is managed.
360 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
Having said this, the ten models discussed above do not individually present a
thorough consideration of KM components and principles. Authors have named the
models as KM models; however, they emphasize on certain categories such as
knowledge creation, knowledge transfer or sharing and knowledge implementation
rather than all aspects of knowledge management. If claiming to produce a holistic
KM model all aspects should be covered and investigated for further integration. The
effectiveness of a KM model is in doubt unless all the above concepts are covered and
synergized accompanied by appropriate guidance for adequate utilization. Table 5
illustrates the focal point of each model critiqued in this research study. Also, table 5
explains the context in which each model has been created. There is a need for
academics to reframe the meaning of KM and/or clearly state at what stage of KM
field their model emphasizes. Otherwise, the generation of models within this area
will cause confusion and mislead scholars and practitioners for further development.
Table 5. The scope and context of KM models investigated
Model
Knowledge
Management
Emphasis
Contextualization
SECI (Nonaka &
Takeuchi,
1995)
Knowledge
creation
Focused on the transition and transformation of
knowledge through socialization, externalization,
combination, and internalization. Developed from
knowledge of the Japanese automotive industry.
KTA (Graham
et al., 2006)
Knowledge
creation and
implementation
Synergizing the inquiries, tools, and products for
the knowledge creation combining with
knowledge implementation form the basis of a
successful KM strategy. Created with a healthcare
framework practice perspective in Canada.
Boisot (1998)
Knowledge
classification
Considers the states of knowledge as codified and
un-codified and its transferability as diffusible or
un-diffusible. Considering knowledge as an asset.
Hedlund and
Nonaka’s
model (1991)
Inter-relation of
articulated and
tacit knowledge
The emphasis is to combine different aspects of
knowledge with actors involved in organizational
management and this might occur at the same
time or sequentially. Comparison of West and
Japanese case studies.
Frid’s (2004)
Knowledge
maturity
Provides a 5 step model to apply KM and evaluate
the maturity of it as the implementation process
progresses. Developed with reference to the
Canadian Government.
Stankosky and
Baldanza
(2001)
Knowledge
enablers
Recommend the applicability of KM through
leadership, organizational structure, technology,
and learning. The model developed from an
engineering perspective.
Kogut and
Zandler (1992)
Knowledge for
competitive
advantage
Defines the effectiveness of KM on basis of
integrating tacit and explicit knowledge within an
organization’s systems. Derived with knowledge
of multinational corporation’s competitive
advantage.
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 361
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
Choo’s (1998)
Knowledge for
sensemaking
Highlights the significance of information as an
initial step leading towards knowledge creation
and decision making which overall form the
grounds for implementing KM within the
organization. Using the concepts of Nonaka
assessed literature of practical experiences of
organizations.
Wiig (1997)
Knowledge
embedment and
accessibility
It analyses the internalization of knowledge and
categorizes it in three different forms and four
different types allowing knowledge to be studied
from different angles depending on the scenario
given. Focused on the internalization of
knowledge and its management.
Demarest
(1997)
Knowledge
construction
This model treats knowledge as a social attribute
that is effectively constructed through a stable
social coordination of individuals, procedures, and
processes.
Authors of KM models within their clarification of constructs claim to provide a
holistic KM model but when referring back to the central meaning of knowledge and
management concepts they do not generate a thorough coverage of the required
characteristics and components. Considering the epistemology and ontology of the
theories presented in the models as shown in table 5 they can be classified as
mechanistic and/or social approaches. This is reflected in the nature of models being
promoted where one school of thought treats knowledge mechanistically, framing it
as an asset, and other theorists discussed it from a social perspective emphasizing
the creation and transferring of knowledge based on scenarios, individuals’ needs
and willingness.
Considering the differences between these schools, it can be understood that
knowledge is created through a social interaction, however, a more mechanistic
approach is required to embed, materialize and distribute it among the organization
departments. As a result, a model that would combine these concepts is believed to
provide a wider coverage of the KM field and generate a realistic model that can be
validated in a commercial enterprise.
The field of KM has been a theme receiving considerable attention specifically as the
globalization factor increments and competition is very fierce and knowledge
appears to be the distinguishing component for success. The following table
illustrates the categorization of the models being studied in this research study.
362 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
This research study proposes a framework where certain components are included
for a significant consideration in composing a KM model for individual purposes. As
observed, the majority of models discussed take under analysis sequential parts of
KM such as knowledge creation, transferring, application or embedment, which
contribute to a KM system overall, however not all models complete the whole
picture of managing knowledge. Therefore, for the use by organizational
researchers, knowledge management practitioners and business analysts this
research study proposes the following guiding framework as a pre-requisite in
assuring a well-developed individualized KM model depending entirely on
organizational context.
Table 7. The proposed guiding framework for KM model building
Identify and
embed both
KM
approaches
Establish
Processes for
each
Knowledge
Processing
Stage
Recognize
all
Knowledge
Forms &
Types
Identify and
Implement
Necessary
Resources
Ensure the
Management of
KM Facilitating
Factors
Social
Constructivism
and
Mechanistic/
Materialistic
Identify needs
& Initiate
creation
Explicit
Individuals /
teams /
departmental
staff
Align Leadership
and
Organization’s
Objectives
Establish-
Form-Adapt
Implicit /
Tacit
Procedural
Documents and
Controls
Utilize Cultural
traits
Test-Validate-
Classify
Personal
Hardware Tools /
equipment
Support Socio-
organizational
processes
Apply- Embed
Procedural
Know-How
KM Expertise
Embed Incentive
and Rewarding
Mechanisms
Share and
Transfer
Records of
Review and
Funds for
The Focus of Managing Knowledge in the Models
Creation and
construction
Managing the
Types, Forms, and Transfer
Embedment or
Implementation
· SECI (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995)
· Choo (1998)
· Demarest (1997)
· KTA (Graham et al.,
2006)
· Boisot (1998)
· Wiig (1997)
· Hedlund and Nonaka (1991)
· Kogut and Zandler (1992)
· Frid (2004)
· Stankosky and Baldanza
(2001)
Table 6. A classification of KM models based on their focus
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 363
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
Monitoring
Meetings
KM focused
Facilities
Management
Evaluate and
Improve
Process and
Activity
Records
IT Platforms and
Databases
hardware /
software
Continual Assess
and Improve IT
Systems
Firstly, the left-hand column of Table 7 suggests the creation of a KM model should
be based on a clear and justifiable theory which might be of one or a combination of
philosophical, social, mechanistic or intellectual approaches. Secondly, the next
column calls for analysis, establishment, and improvement of each stage of
knowledge processing which starts by identifying the need for knowledge till it has
been embedded and is ready to share or transfer to the interested participants or
parties. Thirdly, supporting knowledge transfer stages there should be a clarification
of the forms and type of knowledge required and produced from each of the
knowledge processing stages. Fourthly, there is a need to identify the resources
required for supporting the process of managing knowledge which might require the
involvement of all components simultaneously or a combination of individual
elements. Fifth, represented by the right-hand column of table 7, any model
composed ought to emphasize the applicability of the model and its enablers or
facilitators by considering different aspects such as leadership organizational
structure and culture. This proposed framework which is generated as a
consequence of this critical review will be the subject of further studies in attempting
to develop a KM model.
The review shows that only Graham et al. (2006) explicitly promotes the evaluation
of knowledge management practices following the implementation and embedment
of those practices. Nevertheless, other models such as Hedland and Nonaka (1991)
examine analysis of team performance and Frid (2004) discusses the
institutionalization and evaluation stage while Demarest (1997) includes business
benefit these do not extensively consider the evaluation of knowledge management
implementation. This research study proposes that an explicit emphasis is placed on
evaluation of knowledge management hence review and monitoring, evaluation and
improvement are shown in the framework for KM model building, table 7.
Discussing the findings
As should be evident from the conceptual models reviewed above, the literature is
rich with interesting and diverse thoughts regarding knowledge management
modeling. Additionally, the models developed to understand the management of
knowledge has undergone a transformation over the years. Initial efforts (i.e. Boisot,
1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Wiig, 1997) focused on explaining the effects of
managing tacit or explicit knowledge. While, more recent efforts in modeling
knowledge management (i.e. Graham et al., 2006) have presented frameworks for
processing knowledge and their processing mechanisms. More recently, Bratianu
(2018) has presented a holistic view of the organizational knowledge dynamics
364 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
expanding on previous concepts presented to propose a knowledge multifield
construct. Bratianu presents that model with three fields of Rational Knowledge,
Spiritual Knowledge, and Emotional Knowledge. Other modern perspectives of KM
also exist such as Cerroni (2018) discusses knowledge within a construct of society,
ending up with a typology encompassing three knowledge families (intellectual,
practical and objectified) and three ways of access (direct personal knowing, indirect
social acquaintance, externally recognized and personally interjected knowledge).
More models are likely to emerge that transcendent current thinking of KM beyond
Bratianu’s (2018) thought-provoking multifield model and further stretching
Cerroni’s (2018) societal viewpoint.
Despite the widespread and evolving availability of literature on knowledge
management modeling, the conduct of this investigation provides the following
contributions to the understanding of knowledge management models and
knowledge management modeling:
1- The need for practitioners to individualize a KM model
Several scholars (Boisot, 1998; Choo, 1998; Demarest, 1997; Frid, 2004; Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995) have been studying and providing perspectives on developing
knowledge and revolve it into organization’s benefit. However, the models being
introduced and selected for the purpose of this research study do not clearly provide
a completed view of KM. As it can be seen from table 6 the selected models treat
knowledge from different angles, such as knowledge creation, codification,
application, transfer, hence define it as KM. This work considers KM as a synergy of
all of the above scopes and proposes a categorization of components (see table 7)
required for building an individualized KM model. When building a KM model for a
particular context KM element should be considered for the composition depending
upon the scenario or the reasons for modeling.
2- The Validity, Applicability, and Generalizability
The majority of the KM models have been limited in terms of testing and validating.
For instance, the SECI model receives criticism as a result of being generated from
Japanese companies which have a different managerial philosophy when compared
with western enterprises. Also, the model its self is very simplistic when discussing
knowledge creation and its transfer. On the other hand, the KTA model appears to be
very realistic in comparison with several models as it involves both aspects of
creation and application, however, this model was generated from the health sector
and more testing and application should be completed for further analysis. The
proposition of the new framework as table 7 for KM model building allows model
creators or assessors of KM to construct according to their own context.
3- Defining the criteria required for building a KM model
The KM literature has brought in light several models utilized to examine certain
aspects of knowledge and its management but as discussed previously there is
confusion between what knowledge management means and what the models
present. Thus, there is a need to re-evaluate the scope of KM and what are the criteria
required to consider for a KM model that can be rational, valid and broad-spectrum
in terms of applicability. The KM framework presented in table 7 can support the
studying of issues related to KM in a more involving scope. In other words, it provides
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 365
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
a certain criterion that creation of a KM model should include. The table 7 framework
overcomes problems seen in the literature which appears to be very diverse and
some models are considered ambiguous due to the validity, simplicity or have not
been tested sufficiently for unarguable results. In addition, there is a vague depiction
of how these models capture, process and distribute and at what extent the
generated knowledge will be useful to the interested audience or party.
4- Contribution to the science of KM
The proposed guiding framework for KM model building has shown that two
scientific perspectives are needed to provide a holistic view of knowledge when
modeling. The two perspectives are shown in figure 7 as needed to be the embedded
approaches of (i) Social Constructivism and (ii) Mechanistic/ Materialistic. Having a
purely mechanistic approach will provide a predominantly synthetic model, while
having a purely social constructivist approach may provide a more empathetic
approach but not necessarily resulting in the infrastructures required for
institutional knowledge processing. This paper argues the premise that one
approach without the other will not provide a holistic model of KM.
Implications and recommendations for policy, practice, and research
The assessment of the efficacy of the conceptual KM models presented in this
research study has led to the development of table 7 which is a proposed framework
for knowledge management model building. The proposed framework is a guide for
practitioners and researchers alike and it is highly recommended that policymakers
within organizations utilize the framework too. The way in which the framework is
envisaged as having value is fourfold as:
1. A tool for the organizational self-assessment of maturity of knowledge
management within an organization, in a manner, that other self-assessment tools
such as the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) are used.
Similarly, this is an audit tool which can be used to assess knowledge management
and identify opportunities for improvement of knowledge transfer.
2. A guide to knowledge management professionals in understanding the
requirements necessary for a holistic model of an organizations’ knowledge
management system. This allows users of the framework to model their own
organization's knowledge management systems.
3. A benchmarking tool in which policymakers, practitioners, industry observers,
and researchers can critically examine interrelated and interconnected parts of an
organizations management of knowledge. Benchmarking KM could be an
organizations way of comparing and contrasting intergroup or across sector
knowledge management in order to improve competitive advantage through better
practices of knowledge management.
4. A conceptual framework with knowledge management representations,
connected to a research project's goal of understanding knowledge management in
various contexts and hence the framework can direct the collection and analysis of
data for empirical research by organizational researchers, knowledge
management practitioners and business analysts.
366 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
Notwithstanding the aforementioned fourfold immediate possibilities of use of the
new framework for KM model building this research study does not claim to be
flawless in its approach to understanding existing KM models. On the contrary, as
with all conceptual papers limitations of the research do exist in abundance as
described next.
Limitations of the research and recommendations for further research
This research study has looked extensively at ten conceptual KM models and
consequently has provided a better understanding of knowledge management its
implementation, adaption and adoption by organizations. While the sample provides
a reasonable number of models under investigation, that number is by no means
exhaustive and not all available KM models have been investigated, the findings have
merit for policymakers, practitioners and researchers presented in the implications
and recommendations above. There is no doubt, that an opportunity exists to assess
the generalizability of findings by using the newly developed framework for KM
model building in the fourfold manner expressed above. Nevertheless, the careful
choice of the ten KM models is arguably representative of the current understanding
of knowledge management. Future studies, however, might want to add to this
research study by considering input responses from elite respondents that have
evidenced their senior role involvement in knowledge management within
organizations, those studies may want to further challenge the framework presented
and thus clarify, adapt or even considerably alter the framework.
The main analysis being a conceptual review of KM models is not an empirical
investigation and even though this research study presents a conceptual framework
for KM model building, it does consider the shortfalls discovered during the analysis.
While there were clear conceptual reasons for comparing and contrasting the ten
conceptual models of KM it is recognized that the essence of this review lies in
summarizing, synthesizing, discussing, criticizing and, showing research gaps but
has not gathered empirical or quantitative data for analysis. Thus, future research
might further open up the understanding of KM with observational studies,
longitudinal studies or more appropriately ethnographical studies were researchers
with a deep understanding of KM can be directly involved in KM activities and gather
empirical data using the developed framework as a conceptual research guide. The
emerging model recently presented by Bratianu (2018) explains knowledge
dynamics in an organizational context and further research may assess implications
of this thought-provoking multifield knowledge model towards enhancing particular
issues related to KM and organizational performance.
The review of KM models has shown that a diverse set of constructs have been used
to develop each model and each model is therefore developed from its unique
viewpoint. The developed framework recognizes that each organization will have a
set of unique viewpoints however, other researchers must be cautioned that the
methodology used in this research study is not without its flaws, but there is
recognition that an opportunity exists to further assess the generalizability of the
findings within organizations, across institutes, cultures and different countries.
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 367
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
References
Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and
knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research
issues, MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Barão, A., de Vasconcelos, J.B., Rocha, Á., and Pereira, R. (2017). A knowledge
management approach to capture organizational learning networks.
International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 735-740.
Barley, W.C., Treem, J.W., and Kuhn, T. (2018). Valuing multiple trajectories of
knowledge: A critical review and agenda for knowledge management
research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 278-317.
Boisot, M. (1998). Knowledge assets, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booker, L.D., Bontis, N., and Serenko, A. (2008). The relevance of knowledge
management and intellectual capital research. Knowledge and Process
Management, 15(4), 235-246.
Bratianu, C. (2013). The triple helix of the organizational knowledge. Management
Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 1(2), 207-220.
Bratianu, C. (2016). Knowledge dynamics. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge
Economy, 4(3), 323-337.
Bratianu, C. (2018). A holistic view of the organizational knowledge dynamics.
Holistica Journal of Business and Public Administration, 9(2), 7-22.
Cerroni, A. (2018). Steps towards a theory of the knowledge-society. Social Science
Information, 57(2), 322-343.
Choo, C.W. (1998). The knowing organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Choo, C.W. (2006). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to
construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Choo, C.W., and Alvarenga Neto, R. (2010). Beyond the BA: managing enabling
contexts in knowledge organizations, Journal of Knowledge Management,
14(4), 592-610.
Choo, C.W., and Bontin, N. (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital
and Organizational Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalkir, K. (2013). Knowledge management in theory and practice. London:
Routledge.
Davenport, T., De Long, D., and Beer, M.C. (1998). Successful knowledge
management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.
Davenport, T.H., and Prusak, L. (2000). Working Knowledge: How Organizations
Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dayan, R., Heisig, P., and Matos, F. (2017). Knowledge management as a factor for
the formulation and implementation of organization strategy. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 21(2), 308-329.
Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding knowledge management, Long range planning,
30(3), 321-384.
Edvardsson, I.R., and Durst, S. (2014). Outsourcing of knowledge processes: a
literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(4), 795-811.
Evans, M.M., and Ali, N. (2013). Bridging knowledge management life cycle theory
and practice. In Green, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on
368 | Enis ELEZI, Christopher BAMBER
A Guiding Conceptual Framework for Individualized Knowledge Management Model Building
Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning
(pp.156-165). Reading: ACPI.
Frid, R.J. (2004). Frid framework for enterprise knowledge management, A common
KM framework for the Government of Canada. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.
Frost, A. (2014). A Synthesis of Knowledge Management Failure Factors. Retrieved
on April1, 2014 from www.knowledge-management
tools.net/A_Synthesis_of_Knowledge_Management_Failure_Factors.pdf.
Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: a critique of Nonaka’s
theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1415-1436.
Graham, I.D., and Logan, J. (2004). Innovations in knowledge transfer and
continuity of care. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 36(2), 89-103.
Graham, I.D., Logan, J., Harrison, M.B., Straus, S.E., Tetroe, J., and Caswell, W. (2006).
Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?, The Journal of Continuing
Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13-24.
Graham, K., and Logan, J. (2004). Using the Ottawa Model of Research Use to
implement a skin care program. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 19(1), 18-24.
Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17(S2), 109-122.
Hedlund, G., and Nonaka, I. (1991). Models of knowledge management in the West
and Japan. In Lorange, P., Chakravarthy, B., and Roos, J. (Eds.), Implementing
Strategic Process: Change, Learning and Cooperation (pp.117-144). Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kogut, B., and Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities,
and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(2), 383-397.
Kogut, B., and Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and
learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502-518.
Massaro, M., Dumay, J., and Garlatti, A. (2015). Public sector knowledge
management: A structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 19(3), 530-558.
Massaro, M., Pitts, M., Zanin, F., and Bardy, R. (2014). Knowledge Sharing, Control
Mechanisms and Intellectual Liabilities in knowledge-intensive firms,
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 117-127.
Massingham, P., and Massingham, R. (2014). An evaluation of knowledge
management tools part 1: managing knowledge resources. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 18(5), 1075-1100.
McAdam, R., and McCreedy, S. (1999). A critical review of knowledge management
models. The learning organization, 6(3), 91-101.
Nafei, W. (2014). Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning from the
Employee Perspectives: A Study from Saudi Arabia Context. Journal of
Management and Strategy, 5(1), 73-87.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parent, M.M., MacDonald, D., and Goulet, G. (2014). The theory and practice of
knowledge management and transfer: The case of the Olympic Games. Sport
Management Review, 17(2), 205-218.
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 369
Vol.6 (2018) no.3, pp.343-369; www.managementdynamics.ro
Ragab, M.A.F., and Arisha, A. (2013). Knowledge management and measurement: a
critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), 873-901.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must
consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.
Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddin, K., and Hardie, T. (2010). A
scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital
academic literature (1994-2008). Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1),
3-23.
Smallbone, D., Welter, F., Isakova, N., and Slonimski, A. (2001). The Contribution of
Small and Medium Enterprises to Economic Development in Ukraine and
Belarus: Some Policy Perspectives. Economic Policy in Transitional
Economies Journal, 11(3), 253-273.
Stankosky, M.A., and Baldanza, C. (2001). A systems approach to engineering: a
knowledge management system. In Barquin, R.C., Bennet, A., and Remez,
S.G. (Eds.), Knowledge Management: The Catalyst of Electronic Government
(pp.263-282). Virginia: Management Concept.
Suorsa, A.R. (2015). Knowledge creation and play - a phenomenological
approach. Journal of Documentation, 71(3), 503-525.
Wiig, K.M. (1993). Knowledge management foundations: thinking about thinking.
How people and organizations create, represent and use knowledge.
Arlington: Schema Press.
Wiig, K.M. (1997). Knowledge management: where did it come from and where
will it go?. Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14.
Yin, R.K. (2010). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guilford
Press.
Received: July 18, 2018
Accepted: August 28, 2018
..
