Knowledge Management, Organizational Memory, and Transfer Behavior: Global Approaches and Advancements

Murray E. JennexSan Diego State University, USA

Hershey New YorkInformatIon scIence reference

Director of Editorial Content: Kristin KlingerDirector of Production: Jennifer NeidigManaging Editor: Jamie SnavelyAssistant Managing Editor: Carole CoulsonTypesetter: Carole Coulson Cover Design: Lisa TosheffPrinted at: Yurchak Printing Inc.

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200Hershey PA 17033Tel: 717-533-8845Fax: 717-533-8661E-mail: cust@igi-global.comWeb site: http://www.igi-global.com

and in the United Kingdom byInformation Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)3 Henrietta StreetCovent GardenLondon WC2E 8LUTel: 44 20 7240 0856Fax: 44 20 7379 0609Web site: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com

Copyright 2009 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.

Product or company names used in this set are for identi.cation purposes only . Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Knowledge management, organizational memory, and transfer behavior : global approaches and advancements / Murray E. Jennex, editor.

p. cm. -- (Advance in knowledge management research)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Summary: "This book captures an in-depth knowledge base on the most current and useful concepts, applications, and processes relevant to the successful management of knowledge assets"--Provided by publisher.

ISBN 978-1-60566-140-7 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-141-4 (ebook) 1. Knowledge management. 2. Corporate culture. 3. Organizational learning. I. Jennex, Murray E., 1956-

HD30.2.K63767 2009

658.4'038--dc22

2008043804

British Cataloguing in Publication DataA Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book set is original material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

Knowledge Management, Organizational Memory, and Transfer Behavior: Global Approaches and Advancements is part of the IGI Global series named Advances in Knowledge Management (AKM) Series, ISBN: 1935-360X

If a library purchased a print copy of this publication, please go to http://www.igi-global.com/agreement for information on activating the library's complimentary electronic access to this publication.

Advances in Knowledge Management Series (AKM)ISBN: 1935-360X

Editor-in-Chief: Murray Jennex, San Diego State University, USA

Knowledge Management in Modern Organizations IGI Publishing copyright 2007 404 pp H/C (ISBN: 1-59904-261-4) US $89.96 (our price) E-Book (ISBN: 1-59904-263-0) US $68.76 (our price)

Knowledge management has been growing in importance and popularity as a research topic and business initiative. Knowledge Management in Modern Organizations documents the latest key issues of knowledge management. The innovative chapters in this book discuss the philosophical foundations of knowledge management, serving as a viable resource for academicians, practi-tioners, researchers, and students. Knowledge Management in Modern Organizations depicts a global perspective as the contributors come from Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and the United States, and adds value to any course focused on KM in organizations.

Current Issues in Knowledge ManagementInformation Science Reference copyright 2007 300pp H/C (ISBN: 978-1-59904-916-8) $180.00 (list price)

As global enterprise grows increasingly reliant on electronic data, processes, and procedures, studies of the management of organizational knowledge are emergin at the forefront of criti-cal research. Current Issues in Knowledge Management combines cu.ing-edge research on the cultural, technical, organizational, and human issues surrounding the creation, capture, trans-fer, and use of knowledge in todays organizations. Providing foremost information on topics such as organizational memory, knowledge management in enterprises, enablers and inhibitors of knowledge sharing and transfer, and emerging technologies of knowledge management, this estimable reference offers vital research information to practitioners and scholars in a variety of settings.

The Advances in Knowledge Management (AKM) Book Series covers all aspects of the knowledge management discipline, from organizational issues to technology support to knowledge representation. AKM provides a forum for global aspects of knowledge management and for di.ering cultural perspectives on the use of knowledge and knowledge management. The book series also focuses on cultural and organizational issues as well as technical issues associated with the creation and implementation of knowledge management systems. The Advances in Knowledge Management actively seeks out interna-tional depictions of knowledge management and how these applications are implemented into practical functions, as well as how these technologies create new developments for the advancement of information systems and the knowledge society. Because of the growing importance of knowledge management technologies, this series aims to bridge the gap in available literature, while furthering research principles.

Order online at www.igi-global.com or call 717-533-8845 x 100 Mon-Fri 8:30 am - 5:00 pm (est) or fax 24 hours a day 717-533-7115

Hershey New York

Associate Editors Frada Burnstein, Monash University, AustraliaDavid Croasdell, University of Nevada Reno, USA Robert Galliers, Bentley College, USAUday Kulkarni, Arizona State University, USA Anne Massey, Indiana University, USA Lorne Olfman, Claremont Graduate University, USAFons Wijnhoven, University of Twente, The Netherlands

Editorial Review Board

Theo Addo, San Diego State University, USA Peter Baloh, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Nassim Belbaly, Montpellier Business School, France Hind Benbya, Montpellier Business School, FranceArtur Caetano, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal Elayne Coakes, University of Westminster, UKLynne P. Cooper, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, USAJim Courtney, Central Florida University, USA Alexandra Durcikova, University of Arizona, USAJohn S. Edwards, Aston University, UKIrma Becerra-Fernandez, Florida International University, USAAndrew L. S. Goh, University of South Australia, Australia Meliha Handzic, Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, Bosnia and HerzegovinaG. Harindranath, Royal Holloway, University of London, UKClyde Holsapple, University of Kentucky, USAK.D. Joshi, Washington State University, USAMuhammadou Kah, Rutgers University, USASherif Kamel, American University of Cairo, Egypt Atreyi Kankanhalli, National University of Singapore, SingaporeKarlheinz Kautz, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Matthew H. S. Kuo.e, University of Michigan, USASungho Ha, Kyungpook National University, Republic of Korea

Dorothy Leidner, Baylor University, USAHenry Linger, Monash University, AustraliaFred Lins, August Enterprises, USARonald Maier, Leopold-Franzens-University of Innsbruck, AustriaThomas Menkhoff, Singapore Management University, Singapore Lisa Murphy, University of Alabama, USAMark Nissen, Naval Post Graduate School, USA Rajesh K. Pillania, Management Development Institute, IndiaMurali Raman, Monash University, MalaysiaDavid Schwartz, Bar-Ilan University, Israel Stefan Smolnik, European Business School, GermanyDick Stenmark, Viktoria Institute, SwedenLuba Torlina, Deakin University, AustraliaJiri Vorisek, Prague University of Economics, Czech RepublicKahled Wabba, Cairo University, Egypt Eleanor Wynn, Intel, USA Bin Zhang, Renmin University, Peoples Republic of ChinaSuzanne Zyngier, La Trobe University, Australia

Table of Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................................................. xix

Chapter IReflections on Knowledge Management Research and Practice ............................................................ 1 Murray E. Jennex, San Diego State University, USA Chapter IIKnowledge Fusion: A Framework for Extending the Rigor and Relevance of Knowledge Management ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Peter Keen, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Margaret Tan, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Chapter IIITapping Tacit Knowledge ................................................................................................................... 26 Hazel Taylor, The Information School, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Chapter IVAdvances in Knowledge Management: Mapping Ideas that Shape Practice ....................................... 42 Andrea Hornett, The Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA, USA Eric W. Stein, The Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA, USA

Chapter VKnowledge Chain Activity Classes: Impacts on Competitiveness and the Importance of Technology Support ......................................................................................................................... 68 Clyde W. Holsapple, The University of Kentucky, USA Kiku G. Jones, The University of Tulsa, USA

Chapter VIDeveloping a Knowledge-Based Organizational Performance Model for Improving Knowledge Flows in Discontinuous Organizations ................................................................................................ 89 Rahinah Ibrahim,Universiti Putra, Selangor, Malaysia Mark E. Nissen, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, USA

Chapter VIIAccountability and Ethics in Knowledge Management ..................................................................... 109 Frank Land, London School of Economics, UK Urooj Amjad, London School of Economics, UK Sevasti-Melissa Nolas, London School of Economics, UK

Chapter VIIISocial Capital and Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge-Based Organizations: An Empirical Study ............................................................................................................................ 119 Chay Yue Wah, SIM University, Singapore Thomas Menkhoff, Singapore Management University, Singapore Benjamin Loh, University of Cambridge, UK Hans-Dieter Evers,University of Bonn, Germany

Chapter IXA Structured Method for Evaluating the Management of a Knowledge Management System Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 140 Charlie C. Chen, Appalachian State University, USA Rong-An Shang, Soochow University, Taiwan Albert L. Harris, Appalachian State University, USA Zhi-Kai Chen, ASUSTek Computer, Inc., Taiwan

Chapter XToward a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition ................................................... 163 Murray E. Jennex, San Diego State University, USA Stefan Smolnik, European Business School, Germany David T. Croasdell, University of Nevada, Reno, USA

Chapter XIAn Evaluation of Factors that Influence the Success of Knowledge Management Practices in U.S. Federal Agencies ......................................................................................................................... 172 Elsa Rhoads, Pension Bene.t Guaranty Corporation, USA Kevin J. OSullivan, New York Institute of Technology, USA Michael Stankosky, The George Washington University, USA

Chapter XIIInterdepartmental Knowledge Transfer Success During Information Technology Projects ............... 189 Kevin Laframboise, Concordia University, Canada Anne-Marie Croteau, Concordia University, Canada Anne Beaudry, Concordia University, Canada Mantas Manovas, Concordia University, Canada

Chapter XIIIImproving KMS Acceptance: The Role of Organizational and Individuals Influence ...................... 211 Claudio Vitari, CETIC, Universit Carlo Cattaneo, Italy Jennifer Moro, CETIC, Universit Carlo Cattaneo, Italy Aurelio Ravarini, CETIC, Universit Carlo Cattaneo, Italy Isabelle Bourdon, CREGO, Universit Montpellier 2, France

Chapter XIVIS Support for Knowledge Management and Firm Performance: An Empirical Study ..................... 234 Michael J. Zhang, Sacred Heart University, USA

Chapter XVChinese Culture and Virtual Knowledge Sharing in a Multinational Corporation ............................. 255 Wei Li, University of Illinois, USA Alexandre Ardichivili, University of Minnesota, USA Martin Maurer, University of Illinois, USA Tim Wentling, University of Illinois, USA Reed Stuedemann, Caterpillar University, USA

Chapter XVISelecting the Right Knowledge Management Tools: Software Trends and Key Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................................ 270 Gilles Balmisse, KnowledgeConsult, France Denis Meingan, KnowledgeConsult, France Katia Passerini, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA

Chapter XVIIKnowledge Patterns and Knowledge Refactorings for Increasing the Quality of Knowledge ........... 281 Jrg Rech, Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering, Germany Raimund L. Feldmann, Fraunhofer USA, Center for Experimental Software Engineering, USA Eric Ras, Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering, Germany Andreas Jedlitschka, Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering, Germany Bjrn Decker, empolis GmbH, Germany

Chapter XVIIIKnowledge Elicitation and Mapping: Ontology as an Instrument of Design and Organizational Learning .............................................................................................................................................. 329 Paul Jackson, Edith Cowan University, Australia Ray Webster, Murdoch University, Australia

Chapter XIXHelping to Develop Knowledge Management Systems by Using a Multi-Agent Approach ............. 348 Aurora Vizcaino, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain Juan Pablo Soto, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain Javier Portillo, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain Mario Piattini, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

Chapter XXAdopting the Grid Computing & Semantic Web Hybrid for Global Knowledge Sharing ................. 365 Mirghani Mohamed, New York Institute of Technology, USA Michael Stankosky, The George Washington University, USA Vincent Ribire, Graduate School Bangkok University, Thailand, and Institute for Knowledge and Innovation (IKI-South-East-Asia), Bangkok, Thailand

Chapter XXIThe Effect of Knowledge Process Capabilities and Knowledge Infrastructure Capabilities on Strategy Implementation Effectiveness ......................................................................................... 382 Sineenad Paisittanand, Bangkok University, Thailand L. A. Digman, University of Nebraska, USA Sang M. Lee, University of Nebraska, USA

Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 411

About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 450

Index ................................................................................................................................................... 465

Preface ................................................................................................................................................. xix

Chapter IReflections on Knowledge Management Research and Practice ............................................................ 1 Murray E. Jennex, San Diego State University, USA This short chapter focuses on two key issues, the relevance of KM to information systems research and the risk of KM becoming a fad like business process reengineering. The role of the integrator is introduced and the idea that KM is the solution to the productivity paradox is discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the future of KM and proposes that KM can be the bridge to the knowledge society.

Chapter IIKnowledge Fusion: A Framework for Extending the Rigor and Relevance of Knowledge Management ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Peter Keen, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Margaret Tan, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

The aim of this chapter is to identify some of the gaps in the current body of knowledge about KM and in doing so to suggest extensions to its frameworks and to areas of investigation that build on its strengths. The authors propose a simple framework for what is termed Knowledge Fusion.

Chapter IIITapping Tacit Knowledge ................................................................................................................... 26 Hazel Taylor, The Information School, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

This chapter explores the concept of tacit knowledge and how organizations can foster the sharing and exchange of tacit knowledge. Various views of tacit knowledge are discussed and a framework is devel-oped distinguishing different conceptualizations of knowledge and how different types of knowledge are acquired, held in memory, and manifested. An understanding of these distinctions can aid in determining the best approach for transferring tacit knowledge and skills at the individual and organizational levels. Finally, I review various tacit knowledge transfer approaches based on the distinctions identified in the framework and discuss their suitability for different aspects of tacit knowledge transfer.

Detailed Table of Contents

Chapter IVAdvances in Knowledge Management: Mapping Ideas that Shape Practice ....................................... 42 Andrea Hornett, The Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA, USA Eric W. Stein, The Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA, USA

This chapter adds to our understanding of KM as an evolving body of concepts, relationships, strategies and practices. Using qualitative research methods, we examined activities of a community of practice for knowledge management professionals operating in a large metropolitan U.S. region. Accordingly, we produced an organizing framework that maps KM topics according to the tactical-strategic orientation of the KM issue and level of analysis (individual-group-enterprise). We constructed and populated the framework based on a content analysis of forty-four presentations made from 2001-2005, from survey data, from interviews conducted with key informants, and from data collected as participant-observers. The work provides insight into the decision-making processes of stakeholders with competing interests and adds to our understanding of collective sensemaking in a community of practice. From the data, we generated a framework that can be used by practitioners to allocate resources for KM activities, technologies, and projects.

Chapter VKnowledge Chain Activity Classes: Impacts on Competitiveness and the Importance of Technology Support ......................................................................................................................... 68 Clyde W. Holsapple, The University of Kentucky, USA Kiku G. Jones, The University of Tulsa, USA

Just as Porters value chain model identifies classes of business activity that can be performed in ways that contribute to a firms competitiveness, the knowledge chain model contends there are classes of KM activity that can be performed in ways that enhance firm competitiveness. These KM activities pervade the value chain, being inherent in the implementation of each value chain activity. Derived from a collaboratively engineered ontology of knowledge management, the knowledge chain model is supported by anecdotal evidence and a survey has found support for the propositions that its activ-ity classes are linked to enhanced productivity, agility, innovation, and reputation. Here, we present a study of leaders of KM initiatives that examines each of the nine knowledge chain classes in terms of its competitive impact and the extent to which its positive impact on competitiveness is associated with the importance of technology in performing activities within that class. The study provides confirming evidence that each of the knowledge chain activity classes can be performed in ways that contribute to competitiveness. Moreover, we find that for five of the activity classes there is a significant positive correlation between impact on competitiveness and the importance of computer-based technology in implementing the classs activities.

Chapter VIDeveloping a Knowledge-Based Organizational Performance Model for Improving Knowledge Flows in Discontinuous Organizations ................................................................................................ 89 Rahinah Ibrahim,Universiti Putra, Selangor, Malaysia Mark E. Nissen, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, USA

Tacit knowledge attenuates particularly quickly in organizations that experience discontinuous mem-bership: the coming and going of organizational roles or positions during a workflow process. Since knowledge flows enable workflows, and workflows drive performance, theory suggests that dynamic knowledgeparticularly tacit knowledgeis critical for competitive advantage. This research seeks to extend established organization theory, through integration of emerging knowledge-flow theory, to inform the design of discontinuous organizations. Toward this end, we build a computational model based upon ethnographic study of an affordable housing project that experienced severe discontinuous membership. Analysis of this model reveals problematic theoretical gaps, and provides insight into how scholarly understanding of knowledge flows can extend organization theory to address discontinuous organizations. This research contributes new knowledge for designing knowledge-based organizations in discontinuous contexts.

Chapter VIIAccountability and Ethics in Knowledge Management ..................................................................... 109 Frank Land, London School of Economics, UK Urooj Amjad, London School of Economics, UK Sevasti-Melissa Nolas, London School of Economics, UK

The purpose of this chapter is to make the case for integrating ethics and with it accountability into research about KM. Ethics refers to the motives and methods for KM processes, and their impact on individuals, on organizations, and on society. Ethical issues are also relevant to the researcher studying KM, where the subject being researched and the way the research is conducted can raise ethical issues. The interaction of actors, processes, and technology in all aspects of KM from research to design, and actual use can raise a wide range of ethical dilemmas.

Chapter VIIISocial Capital and Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge-Based Organizations: An Empirical Study ............................................................................................................................ 119 Chay Yue Wah, SIM University, Singapore Thomas Menkhoff, Singapore Management University, Singapore Benjamin Loh, University of Cambridge, UK Hans-Dieter Evers,University of Bonn, Germany

This chapter presents a study that aims to understand the social and organizational factors that influence knowledge sharing. A model of KM and knowledge sharing was developed inspired by the work of Nahapiet and Ghoshal. Data on KM processes and various social capital measures were collected from a sample of 262 members of a tertiary educational institution in Singapore. Rewards & incentives, open-mindedness, and cost-benefit concerns of knowledge hoarding turned out to be the strongest predictors of knowledge sharing rather than pro-social motives or organizational care. Individuals who are highly competent in their work abilities are less likely to share what they know when they perceive that there are few rewards or when sharing is not recognized by the organization. The findings provide evidence for the importance of social capital as a lubricant of knowledge sharing and engaging performance management systems in knowledge-intensive organizations.

Chapter IXA Structured Method for Evaluating the Management of a Knowledge Management System Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 140 Charlie C. Chen, Appalachian State University, USA Rong-An Shang, Soochow University, Taiwan Albert L. Harris, Appalachian State University, USA Zhi-Kai Chen, ASUSTek Computer, Inc., Taiwan

A knowledge management system (KMS) project transcends functional departments and business part-ners. The success of KMS implementation is highly contingent upon a well-orchestrated integration of multiple systemic contexts, such as communication channels, user involvement, power structure among stakeholders, corporate culture, project champion, interorganizational networks, etc. These organizational factors are embedded throughout the life cycle of a KMS project and within an organization. Understand-ing the influences of these organizational factors to the success of KMS projects can provide lessons for systems developers and management to increase the success rate of system implementation. The study is based around AMC, a major Taiwanese motor company faced with the challenge of deploying a knowledge management system. Over a period of 3 years (1999-2002) structured interviews were conducted to examine organizational factors contributing to the success of KMS efforts in AMC. The major emphasis of this chapter is to apply the concepts of structuration theory to assess the interaction of corporate management with users of a knowledge management system. The findings suggest that management and users must be engaged in a sustained and reciprocal communication method when implementing a KMS. The pattern of communication, power structure, sanction power, and degree of cooperation are dynamically changed during the interaction process. Therefore, it is important to ma-neuver these factors into a win-win situation for management and users to successfully implement a KMS. Practical implications resulting from this research provide feasible real solutions to improve the relationship between users and management during a KMS implementation.

Chapter XToward a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition ................................................... 163 Murray E. Jennex, San Diego State University, USA Stefan Smolnik, European Business School, Germany David T. Croasdell, University of Nevada, Reno, USA

This chapter explores KM and KMS success. The inspiration for this chapter is the KM Success and Measurement minitrack held at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences in January of 2007 and 2008. KM and KMS success are issues needing to be explored. The Knowledge Management Foundations workshop held at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39) in January 2006 discussed this issue and reached agreement that it is important for the credibility of the KM discipline that we be able to define KM success. Additionally, from the perspective of KM academics and practitioners, identifying the factors, constructs, and variables that define KM success is crucial to understanding how these initiatives and systems should be designed and implemented. This chapter presents results of a survey looking at how KM practitioners, researchers, KM students, and others interested in KM view what constitutes KM success. The chapter presents some background on KM success and then a series of perspectives on KM/KMS success. These perspectives were derived

by looking at responses to questions asking academics and practitioners how they defined KM/KMS success. The chapter concludes by presenting the results of an exploratory survey on KM/KMS success beliefs and attitudes.

Chapter XIAn Evaluation of Factors that Influence the Success of Knowledge Management Practices in U.S. Federal Agencies ......................................................................................................................... 172 Elsa Rhoads, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, USA Kevin J. OSullivan, New York Institute of Technology, USA Michael Stankosky, The George Washington University, USA

This chapter investigates the status of KM practices implemented across federal agencies of the U.S. government. It analyzes the extent to which this status is influenced by the size of the agency, whether or not the agency type is a Cabinet-level Department or Independent Agency, the longevity of KM Practices implemented in the agency, whether or not the agency has adopted a written KM policy or strategy, and whether the primary responsibility for KM Practices in the agency is directed by a CKO or KM unit versus other functional locations in the agency. The research also tests for possible KM practitioner bias, since the survey was directed to members of the Knowledge Management Working Group of the Federal CIO Council who are KM practitioners in federal agencies.

Chapter XIIInterdepartmental Knowledge Transfer Success During Information Technology Projects ............... 189 Kevin Laframboise, Concordia University, Canada Anne-Marie Croteau, Concordia University, Canada Anne Beaudry, Concordia University, Canada Mantas Manovas, Concordia University, Canada

This chapter reports on a study that investigates the knowledge transfer between an information sys-tems/technology (IT) department and non-IT departments during information technology projects. More specifically, we look into the link between the KM capabilities of the IT department and the effectiveness and efficiency of the knowledge transfer to a client department. KM capabilities are defined by Gold et al. (2001) as the combination of knowledge infrastructure capabilities (structural, technical, and cultural) and knowledge processes capabilities (acquisition, conversion, application, and protection). Data col-lected through a web-based survey result in 127 usable questionnaires completed by managers in large Canadian organizations. Data analysis performed using PLS indicates that knowledge infrastructure capabilities are related to the knowledge transfer success, and more specifically to its effectiveness whereas knowledge processes capabilities are only related to the efficiency of such transfer. Implications of our results for research and practice are also discussed

Chapter XIIIImproving KMS Acceptance: The Role of Organizational and Individuals Influence ...................... 211 Claudio Vitari, CETIC, Universit Carlo Cattaneo, Italy Jennifer Moro, CETIC, Universit Carlo Cattaneo, Italy Aurelio Ravarini, CETIC, Universit Carlo Cattaneo, Italy Isabelle Bourdon, CREGO, Universit Montpellier 2, France

The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the improvement of the acceptance of information sys-tems devoted to the codification and sharing of knowledge (a type of Knowledge Management Systems, KMS). A research model was developed through a multi-staged and multi-method research process and its test supports the hypotheses that the acceptance of KMS is determined, in addition to the classi-cal constructs of the technology acceptance model (TAM), by a few organizational factors, and by the influence exerted on the user by individuals close to her/him.

Chapter XIVIS Support for Knowledge Management and Firm Performance: An Empirical Study ..................... 234 Michael J. Zhang, Sacred Heart University, USA

While a great deal has been written about how information systems (IS) can be deployed to facilitate knowledge management for performance improvements, there is little empirical evidence suggesting such IS deployment can actually improve a firms bottom-line performance. This study attempted to as-sess the impacts of IS support for two key KM activities, knowledge generation and knowledge transfer, on labor productivity and profitability with both survey and archival data. The potential moderating effects of firm-specific, complementary organizational resources on the performance impacts of the IS support were also examined and tested. The results showed that IS support for knowledge generation and IS support for knowledge transfer both had direct positive effects on labor productivity. Coupled with firm-specific, complementary organizational resources, both types of IS support exerted positive effects on profitability.

Chapter XVChinese Culture and Virtual Knowledge Sharing in a Multinational Corporation ............................. 255 Wei Li, University of Illinois, USA Alexandre Ardichivili, University of Minnesota, USA Martin Maurer, University of Illinois, USA Tim Wentling, University of Illinois, USA Reed Stuedemann, Caterpillar University, USA

The goal of this chapter is to explore how national (Chinese) culture influences knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice at a large U.S.-based multinational organization. The study involved qualitative interviews with the companys employees in China, and managers who are involved in man-aging knowledge-sharing initiatives. The study findings suggest that the influence of the national culture could be less pronounced in online knowledge sharing than what the literature has suggested. Although Chinese employees tendency to draw sharp distinctions between in-groups and out-groups, as well as the modesty requirements were barriers to knowledge sharing online, the issue of saving face was less

important than expected, and attention paid to power and hierarchy seemed to be less critical than what the literature indicated. A surprising finding was that despite widely assumed collectivistic nature of the Chinese culture, the high degree of competitiveness among employees and job security concerns seemed to override the collectivistic tendencies and resulted in knowledge hoarding. The reasons for these unexpected findings could be associated with differences between face-to-face and online knowl-edge sharing environments, the influence of the companys organizational culture, and the recent rapid changes of the overall Chinese cultural patterns.

Chapter XVISelecting the Right Knowledge Management Tools: Software Trends and Key Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................................ 270 Gilles Balmisse, KnowledgeConsult, France Denis Meingan, KnowledgeConsult, France Katia Passerini, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA

This chapter updates earlier research on the state of the art of KM tools and presents key evaluation criteria that can be used by organizations to select the applications that best meet their specific KM needs. We briefly describe tools currently available in the software industry to support different aspects of knowledge management and offer a framework for understanding how these tools are clustered based on the functionality they support.

Chapter XVIIKnowledge Patterns and Knowledge Refactorings for Increasing the Quality of Knowledge ........... 281 Jrg Rech, Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering, Germany Raimund L. Feldmann, Fraunhofer USA, Center for Experimental Software Engineering, USA Eric Ras, Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering, Germany Andreas Jedlitschka, Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering, Germany Bjrn Decker, empolis GmbH, Germany

KM is a relatively young discipline. It has accumulated a valuable body-of-knowledge on how to structure and represent knowledge, or how to design socio-technical knowledge management systems. A wide variety of approaches and systems exists that are often not interoperable, and hence, prevent an easy exchange of the gathered knowledge. Industry standards, which have been accepted and are in widespread use are missing, as well as general concepts to describe common, recurring patterns of how to describe, structure, interrelate, group, or manage knowledge elements. In this paper, we introduce the concepts knowledge pattern and knowledge anti-pattern to describe best and worst practices in knowledge management, knowledge refactoring to improve or change knowledge anti-patterns, and quality of knowledge to describe desirable characteristics of knowledge in knowledge management systems. The concepts are transferred from software engineering to the field of KM based on our expe-rience from several KM projects.

Chapter XVIIIKnowledge Elicitation and Mapping: Ontology as an Instrument of Design and Organizational Learning .............................................................................................................................................. 329 Paul Jackson, Edith Cowan University, Australia Ray Webster, Murdoch University, Australia

This chapter is concerned with engaging end-users in the design and development of KMS. The identifica-tion, capture and use of contextual knowledge in the design of KMS are key development activities. It is argued that tacit knowledge, while often difficult to capture, can be extremely useful as contextualising knowledge to designers of KMS. A methodology was developed to combine soft systems methodology, causal cognitive mapping, and brainstorming to provide a set of knowledge requirements. The methodol-ogy appears to offer an effective platform for making sense of non-routine yet rigorous knowledge work The interventions enacted by the consultant and involving project stakeholders and end users facilitates individual, group and organizational learning through a metacognitive process of understanding the re-lationships and dynamics of shared group knowledge. Engagement with the methodology, in addition to causing tacit knowledge to be made explicit, enables second-order deutero learning, or learning how to learn. The combination of activities presented forms a metacognitive process which is both a form of proactive individual and organizational learning and an endeavour which adds to organizational memory. The identification, capture and use of contextual knowledge and their use in engaging end-users in the design of KMS will result in better user-system interaction.

Chapter XIXHelping to Develop Knowledge Management Systems by Using a Multi-Agent Approach ............. 348 Aurora Vizcaino, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain Juan Pablo Soto, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain Javier Portillo, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain Mario Piattini, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

Efforts to develop KM have increased in recent years. However, many of the systems implanted in companies are still not greatly used by the employees because the knowledge that these systems have is often not valuable or on other occasions, is useful but employees do not know how to search for that which is most suitable. Moreover, employees often receive too many answers when they consult this kind of systems and they need to waste time evaluating all of them in order to find that which is most suitable for their necessities. On the other hand, many technical aspects should also be considered when developing a multi-agent system such as what knowledge representation or retrieval technique is going to be used. To find a balance between both aspects is important if we want to develop a successful system. However, developers often focus on technical aspects giving less importance to knowledge is-sues. In order to avoid this, we have developed a model to help computer science engineers to develop these kinds of systems. In our proposal, firstly, we define a knowledge life cycle model that, according to literature and our experience, ponders all the stages that a knowledge management system should give support to. Later, we describe the technology (software agents) that we recommend to support the activities of each stage. The paper explains why we consider that software agents are suitable for this end and how they can work in order to reach their goals. Furthemore, a prototype that uses these agents is also described.

Chapter XXAdopting the Grid Computing & Semantic Web Hybrid for Global Knowledge Sharing ................. 365 Mirghani Mohamed, New York Institute of Technology, USA Michael Stankosky, The George Washington University, USA Vincent Ribire, Graduate School Bangkok University, Thailand, and Institute for Knowledge and Innovation (IKI-South-East-Asia), Bangkok, Thailand

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the requirements of KM services deployment in a Semantic Grid environment. A wide range of literature on Grid Computing, Semantic Web, and KM have been reviewed, related, and interpreted. The benefits of the Semantic Web and the Grid Computing conver-gence have been investigated, enumerated and related to KM principles in a complete service model. Although Grid Computing model significantly contributed to the shared resources, most of KM tools obstacles within the grid are to be resolved at the semantic and cultural levels more than at the physi-cal or logical grid levels. The early results from academia, where grid computing still in testing phase, show a synergy and the potentiality of leveraging knowledge, especially from voluminous data, at a wider scale. However, the plethora of information produced in this environment will result in a serious information overload, unless proper standardization, automated relations, syndication, and validation techniques are developed.

Chapter XXIThe Effect of Knowledge Process Capabilities and Knowledge Infrastructure Capabilities on Strategy Implementation Effectiveness ......................................................................................... 382 Sineenad Paisittanand, Bangkok University, Thailand L. A. Digman, University of Nebraska, USA Sang M. Lee, University of Nebraska, USA

The creation and the use of knowledge have increasingly been regarded as important issues for man-agement. A wide range of studies have investigated this topic during the past decade. Notwithstanding these contributions, very little systematic attention has been paid to the linkages between knowledge capabilities and strategy implementation. Drawing from knowledge capabilities theory and strategy implementation literature, two aspects of knowledge capabilities in an organization and their effect on strategy implementation effectiveness are investigated; knowledge process capabilities (KPC) and knowl-edge infrastructure capabilities (KIC). This study hypothesized that KPC affects strategy implementation effectiveness (SIE) and that KPC affects KIC. The third hypothesis proposed the effect of KIC on SIE by examining the mediating role played by KIC in linking KPC and SIE. 1,321 middle-managers were sent questionnaires via electronic mail and 162 were returned. The findings indicated the presence of a mediation effect of KIC on the relationship between KPC and SIE. This study provides guidelines for middle-managers to better understand how to develop activities of KPC and KIC for SIE. It is hoped that the results of this study will enhance our understanding of the strategic importance of knowledge in an organization, especially in the area of strategy implementation.

Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 411

About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 450

Index ................................................................................................................................................... 465

xix

Preface

Introduct Ion

Welcome to the third volume in the Advance in Knowledge Management Research book series. This book series is dedicated to publishing top knowledge management (KM) research on an annual basis. Each of the below chapters was originally published in the third volume of International Journal of Knowledge Management with most being updated and expanded to include more data and discussion that could not be included in the journal version.

Knowledge management is at a cross roads. Fundamental research is maturing as models and theories are being developed and accepted. Applied research is evolving and making KM pervasive in many disciplines. This is resulting in less research focusing on what is knowledge and more research focusing on how can KM be applied in various disciplines and how can KM be done successfully. Additionally, KM is being applied globally, by countries and industries afraid of being left behind in a knowledge divide. The following chapters summarize much of this research.

Chapter IRe.ections on Knowledge Management Resear ch and Practice / Murray E. JennexThis short chapter focuses on two key issues, the relevance of KM to information systems research and the risk of KM becoming a fad like business process reengineering. The role of the integrator is introduced and the idea that KM is the solution to the productivity paradox is discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the future of KM and proposes that KM can be the bridge to the knowledge society.

Chapter IIKnowledge Fusion: A Framework for Extending the Rigor and Relevance of Knowledge Manage-ment / Peter Keen and Margaret TanThe aim of this chapter is to identify some of the gaps in the current body of knowledge about KM and in doing so to suggest extensions to its frameworks and to areas of investigation that build on its strengths. The authors propose a simple framework for what is termed Knowledge Fusion.

Chapter IIITapping Tacit Knowledge / Hazel TaylorThis chapter explores the concept of tacit knowledge and how organizations can foster the sharing and exchange of tacit knowledge. Various views of tacit knowledge are discussed and a framework is devel-oped distinguishing different conceptualizations of knowledge and how different types of knowledge are acquired, held in memory, and manifested. An understanding of these distinctions can aid in determining the best approach for transferring tacit knowledge and skills at the individual and organizational levels. Finally, I review various tacit knowledge transfer approaches based on the distinctions identified in the framework and discuss their suitability for different aspects of tacit knowledge transfer.

xx

Chapter IVAdvances in Knowledge Management: Mapping Ideas that Shape Practice / Andrea Hornett and Eric W. SteinThis chapter adds to our understanding of KM as an evolving body of concepts, relationships, strategies and practices. Using qualitative research methods, we examined activities of a community of practice for knowledge management professionals operating in a large metropolitan U.S. region. Accordingly, we produced an organizing framework that maps KM topics according to the tactical-strategic orientation of the KM issue and level of analysis (individual-group-enterprise). We constructed and populated the framework based on a content analysis of forty-four presentations made from 2001-2005, from survey data, from interviews conducted with key informants, and from data collected as participant-observers. The work provides insight into the decision-making processes of stakeholders with competing interests and adds to our understanding of collective sensemaking in a community of practice. From the data, we generated a framework that can be used by practitioners to allocate resources for KM activities, technologies, and projects.

Chapter VKnowledge Chain Activity Classes: Impacts on Competitiveness and the Importance of Technology Support / Clyde W. Holsapple and Kiku G. JonesJust as Porters value chain model identifies classes of business activity that can be performed in ways that contribute to a firms competitiveness, the knowledge chain model contends there are classes of KM activity that can be performed in ways that enhance firm competitiveness. These KM activities pervade the value chain, being inherent in the implementation of each value chain activity. Derived from a collaboratively engineered ontology of knowledge management, the knowledge chain model is supported by anecdotal evidence and a survey has found support for the propositions that its activ-ity classes are linked to enhanced productivity, agility, innovation, and reputation. Here, we present a study of leaders of KM initiatives that examines each of the nine knowledge chain classes in terms of its competitive impact and the extent to which its positive impact on competitiveness is associated with the importance of technology in performing activities within that class. The study provides confirming evidence that each of the knowledge chain activity classes can be performed in ways that contribute to competitiveness. Moreover, we find that for five of the activity classes there is a significant positive correlation between impact on competitiveness and the importance of computer-based technology in implementing the classs activities.

Chapter VIDeveloping a Knowledge-Based Organizational Performance Model for Improving Knowledge Flows in Discontinuous Organizations / Rahinah Ibrahim and Mark NissenTacit knowledge attenuates particularly quickly in organizations that experience discontinuous mem-bership: the coming and going of organizational roles or positions during a workflow process. Since knowledge flows enable workflows, and workflows drive performance, theory suggests that dynamic knowledgeparticularly tacit knowledgeis critical for competitive advantage. This research seeks to extend established organization theory, through integration of emerging knowledge-flow theory, to inform the design of discontinuous organizations. Toward this end, we build a computational model based upon ethnographic study of an affordable housing project that experienced severe discontinuous membership. Analysis of this model reveals problematic theoretical gaps, and provides insight into how scholarly understanding of knowledge flows can extend organization theory to address discontinuous organizations. This research contributes new knowledge for designing knowledge-based organizations in discontinuous contexts.

xxi

Chapter VIIAccountability and Ethics in Knowledge Management / Frank Land, Urooj Amjad, and Sevasti-Melissa NolasThe purpose of this chapter is to make the case for integrating ethics and with it accountability into research about KM. Ethics refers to the motives and methods for KM processes, and their impact on individuals, on organizations, and on society. Ethical issues are also relevant to the researcher studying KM, where the subject being researched and the way the research is conducted can raise ethical issues. The interaction of actors, processes, and technology in all aspects of KM from research to design, and actual use can raise a wide range of ethical dilemmas.

Chapter VIIISocial Capital and Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge-Based Organizations: An Empirical Study / Chay Yue Wah, Thomas Menkhoff, Benjamin Loh, and Hans-Dieter EversThis chapter presents a study that aims to understand the social and organizational factors that influence knowledge sharing. A model of KM and knowledge sharing was developed inspired by the work of Nahapiet and Ghoshal. Data on KM processes and various social capital measures were collected from a sample of 262 members of a tertiary educational institution in Singapore. Rewards & incentives, open-mindedness, and cost-benefit concerns of knowledge hoarding turned out to be the strongest predictors of knowledge sharing rather than pro-social motives or organizational care. Individuals who are highly competent in their work abilities are less likely to share what they know when they perceive that there are few rewards or when sharing is not recognized by the organization. The findings provide evidence for the importance of social capital as a lubricant of knowledge sharing and engaging performance management systems in knowledge-intensive organizations.

Chapter IXA Structured Method for Evaluating the Management of a Knowledge Management System Implementation / Charlie C. Chen, Rong-An Shang, Albert Harris, and Zhi-Kai ChenA knowledge management system (KMS) project transcends functional departments and business part-ners. The success of KMS implementation is highly contingent upon a well-orchestrated integration of multiple systemic contexts, such as communication channels, user involvement, power structure among stakeholders, corporate culture, project champion, interorganizational networks, etc. These organizational factors are embedded throughout the life cycle of a KMS project and within an organization. Understand-ing the influences of these organizational factors to the success of KMS projects can provide lessons for systems developers and management to increase the success rate of system implementation. The study is based around AMC, a major Taiwanese motor company faced with the challenge of deploying a knowledge management system. Over a period of 3 years (1999-2002) structured interviews were conducted to examine organizational factors contributing to the success of KMS efforts in AMC. The major emphasis of this chapter is to apply the concepts of structuration theory to assess the interaction of corporate management with users of a knowledge management system. The findings suggest that management and users must be engaged in a sustained and reciprocal communication method when implementing a KMS. The pattern of communication, power structure, sanction power, and degree of cooperation are dynamically changed during the interaction process. Therefore, it is important to ma-neuver these factors into a win-win situation for management and users to successfully implement a KMS. Practical implications resulting from this research provide feasible real solutions to improve the relationship between users and management during a KMS implementation.

xxii

Chapter XTowards a Consensus Knowledge Management Success Definition / Murray E. Jennex, Stefan Smolnik, and David T. CroasdellThis chapter explores KM and KMS success. The inspiration for this chapter is the KM Success and Measurement minitrack held at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences in January of 2007 and 2008. KM and KMS success are issues needing to be explored. The Knowledge Management Foundations workshop held at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39) in January 2006 discussed this issue and reached agreement that it is important for the credibility of the KM discipline that we be able to define KM success. Additionally, from the perspective of KM academics and practitioners, identifying the factors, constructs, and variables that define KM success is crucial to understanding how these initiatives and systems should be designed and implemented. This chapter presents results of a survey looking at how KM practitioners, researchers, KM students, and others interested in KM view what constitutes KM success. The chapter presents some background on KM success and then a series of perspectives on KM/KMS success. These perspectives were derived by looking at responses to questions asking academics and practitioners how they defined KM/KMS success. The chapter concludes by presenting the results of an exploratory survey on KM/KMS success beliefs and attitudes.

Chapter XIAn Evaluation of Factors that Influence the Success of Knowledge Management Practices in U.S. Federal Agencies / Elsa Rhoads, Kevin J. OSullivan, and Michael StankoskyThis chapter investigates the status of KM practices implemented across federal agencies of the U.S. government. It analyzes the extent to which this status is influenced by the size of the agency, whether or not the agency type is a Cabinet-level Department or Independent Agency, the longevity of KM Practices implemented in the agency, whether or not the agency has adopted a written KM policy or strategy, and whether the primary responsibility for KM Practices in the agency is directed by a CKO or KM unit versus other functional locations in the agency. The research also tests for possible KM practitioner bias, since the survey was directed to members of the Knowledge Management Working Group of the Federal CIO Council who are KM practitioners in federal agencies.

Chapter XIIInterdepartmental Knowledge Transfer Success During Information Technology Projects / Kevin Laframboise, Anne-Marie Croteau, Anne Beaudry, and Mantas ManovasThis chapter reports on a study that investigates the knowledge transfer between an information sys-tems/technology (IT) department and non-IT departments during information technology projects. More specifically, we look into the link between the KM capabilities of the IT department and the effectiveness and efficiency of the knowledge transfer to a client department. KM capabilities are defined by Gold et al. (2001) as the combination of knowledge infrastructure capabilities (structural, technical, and cultural) and knowledge processes capabilities (acquisition, conversion, application, and protection). Data col-lected through a web-based survey result in 127 usable questionnaires completed by managers in large Canadian organizations. Data analysis performed using PLS indicates that knowledge infrastructure capabilities are related to the knowledge transfer success, and more specifically to its effectiveness whereas knowledge processes capabilities are only related to the efficiency of such transfer. Implications of our results for research and practice are also discussed.

xxiii

Chapter XIIIImproving KMS Acceptance: The Role of Organizational and Individuals Influence / Claudio Vitari, Jennifer Moro, Aurelio Ravarini, and Isabelle BourdonThe purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the improvement of the acceptance of information sys-tems devoted to the codification and sharing of knowledge (a type of Knowledge Management Systems, KMS). A research model was developed through a multi-staged and multi-method research process and its test supports the hypotheses that the acceptance of KMS is determined, in addition to the classi-cal constructs of the technology acceptance model (TAM), by a few organizational factors, and by the influence exerted on the user by individuals close to her/him.

Chapter XIVIs Support for Knowledge Management and Firm Performance: An Empirical Study / Michael J. ZhangWhile a great deal has been written about how information systems (IS) can be deployed to facilitate knowledge management for performance improvements, there is little empirical evidence suggesting such IS deployment can actually improve a firms bottom-line performance. This study attempted to as-sess the impacts of IS support for two key KM activities, knowledge generation and knowledge transfer, on labor productivity and profitability with both survey and archival data. The potential moderating effects of firm-specific, complementary organizational resources on the performance impacts of the IS support were also examined and tested. The results showed that IS support for knowledge generation and IS support for knowledge transfer both had direct positive effects on labor productivity. Coupled with firm-specific, complementary organizational resources, both types of IS support exerted positive effects on profitability.

Chapter XVChinese Culture and Virtual Knowledge Sharing in a Multinational Corporation / Wei Li, Alexandre Ardichivili, Martin Maurer, Tim Wentling, and Reed StuedemannThe goal of this chapter is to explore how national (Chinese) culture influences knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice at a large U.S.-based multinational organization. The study involved qualitative interviews with the companys employees in China, and managers who are involved in man-aging knowledge-sharing initiatives. The study findings suggest that the influence of the national culture could be less pronounced in online knowledge sharing than what the literature has suggested. Although Chinese employees tendency to draw sharp distinctions between in-groups and out-groups, as well as the modesty requirements were barriers to knowledge sharing online, the issue of saving face was less important than expected, and attention paid to power and hierarchy seemed to be less critical than what the literature indicated. A surprising finding was that despite widely assumed collectivistic nature of the Chinese culture, the high degree of competitiveness among employees and job security concerns seemed to override the collectivistic tendencies and resulted in knowledge hoarding. The reasons for these unexpected findings could be associated with differences between face-to-face and online knowl-edge sharing environments, the influence of the companys organizational culture, and the recent rapid changes of the overall Chinese cultural patterns.

Chapter XVISelecting the Right Knowledge Management Tools: Software Trends and Key Evaluation Criteria / Gilles Balmisse, Denis Meingan, and Katia PasseriniThis chapter updates earlier research on the state of the art of KM tools and presents key evaluation

xxiv

criteria that can be used by organizations to select the applications that best meet their specific KM needs. We briefly describe tools currently available in the software industry to support different aspects of knowledge management and offer a framework for understanding how these tools are clustered based on the functionality they support.

Chapter XVIIKnowledge Patterns and Knowledge Refactorings for Increasing the Quality of Knowledge / Jrg Rech, Bjrn Decker, Eric Ras, Andreas Jedlitschka, and Raimund L. FeldmannKM is a relatively young discipline. It has accumulated a valuable body-of-knowledge on how to structure and represent knowledge, or how to design socio-technical knowledge management systems. A wide variety of approaches and systems exists that are often not interoperable, and hence, prevent an easy exchange of the gathered knowledge. Industry standards, which have been accepted and are in widespread use are missing, as well as general concepts to describe common, recurring patterns of how to describe, structure, interrelate, group, or manage knowledge elements. In this paper, we introduce the concepts knowledge pattern and knowledge anti-pattern to describe best and worst practices in knowledge management, knowledge refactoring to improve or change knowledge anti-patterns, and quality of knowledge to describe desirable characteristics of knowledge in knowledge management systems. The concepts are transferred from software engineering to the field of KM based on our expe-rience from several KM projects.

Chapter XVIIIKnowledge Elicitation and Mapping: Ontology as an Instrument of Design and Organizational Learning / Paul Jackson and Ray WebsterThis chapter is concerned with engaging end-users in the design and development of KMS. The identifica-tion, capture and use of contextual knowledge in the design of KMS are key development activities. It is argued that tacit knowledge, while often difficult to capture, can be extremely useful as contextualising knowledge to designers of KMS. A methodology was developed to combine soft systems methodology, causal cognitive mapping, and brainstorming to provide a set of knowledge requirements. The methodol-ogy appears to offer an effective platform for making sense of non-routine yet rigorous knowledge work The interventions enacted by the consultant and involving project stakeholders and end users facilitates individual, group and organizational learning through a metacognitive process of understanding the re-lationships and dynamics of shared group knowledge. Engagement with the methodology, in addition to causing tacit knowledge to be made explicit, enables second-order deutero learning, or learning how to learn. The combination of activities presented forms a metacognitive process which is both a form of proactive individual and organizational learning and an endeavour which adds to organizational memory. The identification, capture and use of contextual knowledge and their use in engaging end-users in the design of KMS will result in better user-system interaction.

Chapter XIXHelping to Develop Knowledge Management Systems by Using a Multi-Agent Approach / Aurora Vizcano, Juan Pablo Soto, Javier Portillo-Rodrguez, and Mario PiattiniEfforts to develop KM have increased in recent years. However, many of the systems implanted in companies are still not greatly used by the employees because the knowledge that these systems have is often not valuable or on other occasions, is useful but employees do not know how to search for that which is most suitable. Moreover, employees often receive too many answers when they consult this kind of systems and they need to waste time evaluating all of them in order to find that which is most

xxv

suitable for their necessities. On the other hand, many technical aspects should also be considered when developing a multi-agent system such as what knowledge representation or retrieval technique is going to be used. To find a balance between both aspects is important if we want to develop a successful system. However, developers often focus on technical aspects giving less importance to knowledge is-sues. In order to avoid this, we have developed a model to help computer science engineers to develop these kinds of systems. In our proposal, firstly, we define a knowledge life cycle model that, according to literature and our experience, ponders all the stages that a knowledge management system should give support to. Later, we describe the technology (software agents) that we recommend to support the activities of each stage. The paper explains why we consider that software agents are suitable for this end and how they can work in order to reach their goals. Furthemore, a prototype that uses these agents is also described.

Chapter XXAdopting the Grid Computing & Semantic Web Hybrid for Global Knowledge Sharing / Mirghani Mohamed, Michael Stankosky, and Vincent RibireThe purpose of this chapter is to examine the requirements of KM services deployment in a Semantic Grid environment. A wide range of literature on Grid Computing, Semantic Web, and KM have been reviewed, related, and interpreted. The benefits of the Semantic Web and the Grid Computing conver-gence have been investigated, enumerated and related to KM principles in a complete service model. Although Grid Computing model significantly contributed to the shared resources, most of KM tools obstacles within the grid are to be resolved at the semantic and cultural levels more than at the physi-cal or logical grid levels. The early results from academia, where grid computing still in testing phase, show a synergy and the potentiality of leveraging knowledge, especially from voluminous data, at a wider scale. However, the plethora of information produced in this environment will result in a serious information overload, unless proper standardization, automated relations, syndication, and validation techniques are developed.

Chapter XXIThe Effect of Knowledge Process Capabilities and Knowledge Infrastructure Capabilities on Strategy Implementation Effectiveness / Sineenad Paisittanand, L. A. Digman, and Sang M. LeeThe creation and the use of knowledge have increasingly been regarded as important issues for man-agement. A wide range of studies have investigated this topic during the past decade. Notwithstanding these contributions, very little systematic attention has been paid to the linkages between knowledge capabilities and strategy implementation. Drawing from knowledge capabilities theory and strategy implementation literature, two aspects of knowledge capabilities in an organization and their effect on strategy implementation effectiveness are investigated; knowledge process capabilities (KPC) and knowl-edge infrastructure capabilities (KIC). This study hypothesized that KPC affects strategy implementation effectiveness (SIE) and that KPC affects KIC. The third hypothesis proposed the effect of KIC on SIE by examining the mediating role played by KIC in linking KPC and SIE. 1,321 middle-managers were sent questionnaires via electronic mail and 162 were returned. The findings indicated the presence of a mediation effect of KIC on the relationship between KPC and SIE. This study provides guidelines for middle-managers to better understand how to develop activities of KPC and KIC for SIE. It is hoped that the results of this study will enhance our understanding of the strategic importance of knowledge in an organization, especially in the area of strategy implementation.

Chapter IRe.ections on Kno wledge Management Research and

PracticeMurray E. Jennex

San Diego State University, USA

Copyright 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Abstr Act

This is the third volume in the Advances in Knowledge Management and I thought it appropriate to start this volume with some reflection on where KM is at and where it is going. This chapter reflects on two key issuesthe need to ensure KM is relevant and the risk of KM becoming a fad. The chapter concludes with reflection on the future of KM.

KM r elev Ance

In December 2006, I presented a keynote speech at the Australian Conference on Knowledge Management and Intelligent Decision Support, ACKMIDS. The theme of the conference was integrating doing and thinking: KM as re-flective practice. While preparing my talk I got to reflecting on KM and the differences between doing and thinking and contemplated the issues of rigor and relevance in KM research. Research relevance has been an issue in IS for several years (see the 2001 special issue on research relevance

in the Communications of the Association of Information Systems, CAIS). It is argued that aca-demic researchers are not looking at the problems of interest to business and are losing credibility from the perspective of practitioners. Researchers argue that basic research will ultimately lead to knowledge that can be used by practitioners but should not be judged on its immediate usefulness. Many believe this is leading to a relevance gap between practitioners and academics.

Is there a relevance gap between doing and thinking in the KM discipline? As editor in chief of the International Journal of Knowledge

Re.ections on Knowledge Management Research and Practice

Management, an active researcher and consultant, and a contributor to the research relevancy debate I believe there is a relevance gap in KM between doing and thinking. This section explores the dif-ferences between doing and thinking and proposes that a third function, integrating, is needed and should be done by researchers using qualitative research methods and who can reflect on KM. Integrating are those activities focused on bridging the gap between doing and knowing.

To begin this discussion lets define three groups of KM professionals, doers, thinkers, and integrators. Doers are those who build and implement KM systems, KMS, with the goal of solving business problems. This is the group as-sociated with doing. Thinkers are those seeking to understand how and why KM and KMS work or dont work. This is the group associated with knowing. Doers are looking for solutions to help their specific organizations utilize knowledge better; they dont care about generic issues un-less they affect their organization. Thinkers are looking at the organization as a unit of measure and interest, but arent necessarily focused on changing or improving a specific organization. This leads to the need for integrators. Integra-tors understand the theory and transfer it to the doers using methods such as case studies, action research, actor-network theory, ANT, and socio-technical interaction networks, STIN. Integrators are focused on improving performance in specific or groups of organizations and on generating generic KM theory.

Thinkers and integrators tend to be academics but with differing philosophies. Thinkers tend to be positivists, academics who validate theory through quantitative methods. The academic world is dominated by positivists. The higher ranking journals tend to publish articles with heavy quantitative components and more credence is given to theory that has been proven through statistical analysis of large populations.

Integrators also tend to be academics but with a differing philosophy from positivism.

Integrators tend to be interpretists, academics who discover theory and hypotheses through the direct observation of and sometimes participa-tion within organizations. The higher ranking journals tend to not publish articles with heavy interpretist methodology with the result that most interpretist research tends to be published in the second tier journals (Note though that these are still quality journals).

So why do we need integrators? I have found that my jobs of consultant, engineer, manager, and now editor in chief have led me to being predominately an integrator. I found that I have little knack for doing basic KM research that I cant see as being able to be applied right away. If I never read another paper discussing the defi-nition of knowledge I will be a happier person (this is a pure editorial comment and not meant to influence current or potential authors and journal contributors in any way, note that this book contains an article discussion basic tacit knowledge). This doesnt mean I cant do basic research, I think all good integrators can, but it means I want to see my work used and applied to helping solve problems right away. However, I am not a doer. I also have little knack for staying with one organization and doing the necessary but mundane tasks needed to build and implement a KMS. I find that integrators are those doing the job of walking around and applying theoretical knowledge to the problems and tasks that need it. This is where the integrator becomes impor-tant. Many doers do not have the time or desire to read the academic literature and to determine how the knowledge in them can be applied to real problems. Integrators do just that, and more. We also perform research focused on solving current business problems, only we use case and action research methodologies so that we can gain new insight into how something may have worked in an organization. This insight is what we provide back to the thinkers, we provide them the raw ideas and theories that need validation. We in effect take lessons learned from the doers along with our

Reflections on Knowledge Management Research and Practice

own observations and turn them into constructs that the thinkers can further investigate.

Is there backing for an integrator role? Integra-tors seem to be common to several disciplines. Some examples include registered nurses and nurse practitioners who act as integrators between the doctor thinkers and the mother and parent doers who are implementing healthcare in their homes. Another example are engineers and field engineers who integrate between construction manager and general contractor doers who are building things and the research engineer and physicist thinkers who do the basic research on materials and component design that ultimately gets incorporated into building designs. This seems to support the need for integrators; that they are used in many industries and organiza-tions suggest they fill an important role.

Is this a good role to be in? I think so, for the academic who likes to get involved with their subjects and who likes to see their knowledge used to solve problems in real time being an in-tegrator is good and rewarding. However, there is a danger. Integrators still need to publish and be perceived as legitimate academics in order to get tenure and promotion. This is a real issue, the top research institutions and academic journals tend to not reward this type of research. This may mean that integrating is not something new academics should try to pursue. This may be a function that more senior academics should be performing. I tend to like this view and believe it would also serve the secondary purposes of keeping senior academics involved and current in their field as well as providing a relevant base of knowledge and experience that can be used to enhance our teaching. I also tend to think that the integrators are the better teachers, they also bridge the doing knowing gap with students as they can answer the question of how will I ever use this when I graduate? Finally, we need to encourage journals to publish integrator work. I do seek out this work and give it access to the

International Journal of Knowledge Management and encourage other editors in chief to do so.

This leads to the value of integrators and the conclusion of this section. KM needs integrator academics that can bring focus to KM research. Integrators need to be involved with practitioners to see what they are doing, to determine what is working at the specific organizational level so that they can bring this to the researchers as hypotheses and theories needing to be tested. This is also where the traditional academic journals are letting KM down. These journals dont want to publish this research and are leaving it for the newer KM focused journals to publish and push this research. The International Journal of Knowledge Management and the Advances in Knowledge Management book series are actively doing this, having issued calls for research in several areas deemed important to KM practice and building the KM disciplines body of knowledge, and it will continue to do so.

t he rI sK of beco MIng A f Ad

Peter Keen and Margaret Tan follow this chapter with a chapter discussing a knowledge fusion framework for KM research. Their concern is that KM research will get pigeonholed into end-less discussion and debate on definitions of what KM and knowledge are. They want to help ensure that KM research has rigor and relevance. This is an important point and something we need to do. Research relevance has been an issue in IS for several years as discussed in the previous secton. However, as Keen and Tan point out, the converse of this, practitioners defining KM without regard to theory, research, and rigor is also bad and can lead to what they and I consider to be the greatest threat to the KM discipline, the risk of becoming a fad.

I believe KM is the answer to why IS/IT Mat-ters and even the Productivity Paradox. KM is making organizations more productive, but is in

Reflections on Knowledge Management Research and Practice

danger of becoming a buzz word or a fad. Already some would rather call it Business Intelligence, Competitive Intelligence, Social Capital, or some other term other than KM and actually go to great pains to avoid the use of the KM term. We also have an identity crisis as to what KM is. Some consider KM to be a document management sys-tem, a data warehouse, a web portal, or a wiki or other collaboration tool.

First let me restate how I define KM (Jennex, 2005):

KM is the practice of selectively applying knowl-edge from previous experiences of decision-making to current and future decision making activities with the express purpose of improving the organizations effectiveness.

This does not quite agree with Keen and Tan but that is okay, we dont need to exactly agree but we need to have a starting point. This definition does fit what they call a corporatist view of KM in that it is mission focused on using knowledge as an asset to improve processes. I dont see this as a bad thing and go a step further by stating that KM is really about two issues:

Leveraging what the organization knows so that it can better utilize its knowledge assets

Connecting knowledge generators, holders, and users to facilitate the flow of knowledge through the organization

Also, I use the term organization very loosely. I view an organization as any group with a purpose. This means that an organization can be a formal business organization, a governmental organization, a multinational organization, or even an informal organization such as a com-munity of practice. Also, an organization may have a formal command structure, an informal command structure, or be leaderless. This is a purposefully broad definition because were find-

ing that KM can help all sorts of organizations. Im realizing that organizations are evolving into a variety of structures with various governance approaches and with various knowledge needs and tying ourselves to a set view of an organization will only limit the application of KM.

Keen and Tan use Business Process Reen-gineering, BPR, as an example of a discipline that became a fad because of a lack of academic research understanding its concepts and support-ing its development. While there is a great deal of academic research into KM, I also see there is a mismatch between what researchers are doing and what practitioners and consulting firms are touting as KM and KM solutions. The issue is over-selling what KM technology can do. Many vendors claim all in one technical solutions that solve all of an organizations knowledge needs. Many KM failures come from disappointment in not realizing expectations raised when the KM so-lution was purchased and implemented. Of course to be fair, it isnt necessarily the technology that is at fault, in many cases its other organizational factors that cause the failure such as culture, management support, etc. Additionally, many managers hear of the benefits of KM and see KM working in other organizations but dont under-stand what it means or what it takes to do it well. They are willing to purchase solutions promising success but then do not create the environment necessary for KM to succeed. When their KM investment doesnt provide the expected returns these managers blame the KM hype instead of trying to understand what happened. This is where academic research becomes important; academics can help managers understand the total KM picture. Academics understand that KM is a people, process, and technology discipline and that all are needed to work together for KM to succeed. This is the crux of what I consider our KM crisis the danger of becoming a fad or a buzz word because practitioners are not utiliz-ing academic research to help create their KM solutions.

Reflections on Knowledge Management Research and Practice

Im worried that the proliferation of new terms for what is essentially KM is a reflection on practitioners considering KM a fad. Some terms being used and their definitions include:

Business intelligence: Using IT to gather and analyze data and information about an organizations processes to better understand how to make the organization more competi-tive.

Competitive intelligence: Using IT to gather and analyze data and information about an organizations customers, competi-tors, and business environment to aid the organization in its strategic planning.

Social capital: The advantage created by a person's location in a structure of rela-tionships, it is used to describe a persons knowledge network.

Intellectual capital: The advantage created by what a person knows, usually resulting in intellectual property and other intangible assets for the organization

While their adherents claim these terms are different than KM and should not be associ-ated with KM, I look at them and see that they each apply to some facet of KM. Business and Competitive Intelligence are knowledge creation processes very much focused on decision-mak-ing. Social and Intellectual Capital are variations of organizational knowledge and knowledge transfer networks. Also, other variations in KM are becoming prominent, fields such as Supply Chain Management, SCM, Customer Relation-ship Management, CRM, and Data Warehouses. These fields combine KM with data/information management and business processes to create spe-cialized variations of KM, as these fields also are focused on using knowledge to improve decision making. This is where I differ from Keen and Tan as they view the above areas as knowledge mobilizationsituational uses of knowledge and not KM. Still, we all agree we need to take

action to prevent KM from becoming a fad, and Keen and Tans proposed Knowledge Fusion framework for providing a grounded theoretical foundation for KM is an essential piece of this action. Grounding KM in a KM theory (or theory that can be applied to KM) would provide a basis for practitioners and researchers to understand and apply KM as an organizational objective. The second part of this action is to add the integrator role. The integrator role is an interpretist research role focused on integrating theory into practice through action and case based research methods. The third part is an action Ive started with the IJKM, integrating practitioner focused articles into research in an effort to join the two communi-ties. I believe many of the articles appearing in the International Journal of Knowledge Mangament help fulfill these last two actions and we are start-ing to see more submitted articles coming jointly from practitioners and researchers. I also believe that by actively promoting and publishing these types of articles the IJKM is also fulfilling Keen and Tans call for KM thought leadership. The IJKM has accepted the responsibility of leading KM research publication efforts and only time will tell how well we do at this and how well we are accepted as thought leaders.

t he f uture of KM

Granted that we prevent KM from becoming a fad, we are looking at true changes in how organiza-tions and people work and live. The knowledge organization will not be constrained by national boundaries or cultures limiting the capture and application of knowledge and will lead to the knowledge haves and have nots. The knowledge have nots will be those who are not aware of their knowledge, or who have not made investments in KM to create a knowledge infrastructure, or who have not implemented initiatives that utilize knowledge for specific decision-making (knowl-edge mobilization). The knowledge have nots

Reflections on Knowledge Management Research and Practice

may be companies that ultimately fail; and they likely will not be leaders in their field if their field involves the use of knowledge.

The knowledge haves will be those using KM to better utilize what they know and to better con-nect those that produce and/or possess knowledge to those that need to use knowledge; or, to use Keen and Tans view, these are the organizations that have implemented knowledge mobilization along with an effective KM system, KMS. The KMS will utilize technology, processes, and p