The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management aims to publish perspectives on topics relevant to the study, implementation and management of knowledge management
Become a Reviewer for EJKM click here
Click here to see other Scholarly Electronic Journals published by API
For a range of research text books on this and complimentary topics visit the Academic Bookshop

Information about the European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM) is available here.

For info on the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning (ICICKM), click here
Information about the European Conference on Intellectual Capital (ECIC) is available here
 

Journal Article

Competence Matters More than Knowledge  pp387-398

A G Hessami, M Moore

© Jan 2008 Volume 5 Issue 4, Editor: Charles Despres, pp347 - 550

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

This paper develops a general framework for assessment and management of competence. It then illustrates a case study demonstrating how to pragmatically assist engineers and managers to confirm their competence, knowledge and understanding against occupational standards without placing undue pressure on their time. It proposes a form of continuous assessment over a 3‑6 month period using electronic evidence provided by the candidate in response to a set of focussed emailed questions to build up a paperless portfolio. It also briefly looks how the process can be extended to maintain and update competence and possible future steps to quantify the assessed competence based on weighted performance measures.

 

Keywords: knowledge life-cycle, competence assessment, competence management, competence benchmarking

 

Share |

Journal Article

How to Improve Your Knowledge Intensive Organisation: Implementing a Knowledge Management Scan Within Public and Private Sector Organisations  pp77-86

Hans Koolmees, Henk Smeijsters, Sylvia Schoenmakers

© Apr 2009 Volume 7 Issue 1, ECKM 2008, Editor: Roy Williams, pp1 - 198

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

The Centre of Research in Knowledge Organisations and Knowledge Management of Zuyd University has developed a knowledge management scan The scan initiates from two models. The first model is based on the Value Based Knowledge Management approach (Tissen, Andriessen & Lekanne Deprez, 1998) and includes 6 basic abilities of a knowledge‑intensive organisation that will enable the organisation to operate successfully in a knowledge based economy (.The second model, developed by Wierdsma and Swieringa (2002), categorises organisations according to their level of learning that is to say, how it develops a specific learning ability. Both models are briefly reviewed within this paper. This knowledge management scan is a tool that enables an organisation to assess the development of its six basic abilities. Once the organisation has a clear insight into its own abilities, it will be able to strengthen its overall learning ability and improve the organisations' competitive position. Additionally we take a close look at our research approach for developing and implementing the knowledge management scan. The scan encompasses 15 statements per ability (90 statements in total). The complete scan will be assessed on a five‑point scale by a representative group of selected employees and managers of an organization, supervised by a researcherconsultant. During the analysis of the results and the presentation of recommendations, specific attention is paid to those statements that achieve high and low scores respectively (invitation to implement improvement actions) and statements that have a relatively high spread across a broad range (differences of opinion or the statement is open to different interpretations). In particular we have examined how the knowledge management scan was put into practice in one of the departments of Zuyd University. After a short summary of the organisation's initial situation, we discuss subsequent steps taken during the assessment, analysis and the advisory process. This paragraph is followed by a concise summary of the results generated by the scan. Finally we offer the recommendations and subsequent steps to be taken to implement these advices in the near future.

 

Keywords: knowledge management scan, assessment, learning organisation

 

Share |

Journal Article

Perceptions on Complexity of Decisions Involved in Choosing Intellectual Capital Assessment Methods  pp615-626

Agnieta Pretorius, Petrie Coetzee

© Jan 2010 Volume 7 Issue 5, Editor: Kimiz Dalkir, pp535 - 662

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

Intellectual capital (IC) is increasingly acknowledged as a dominant strategic asset and a major source of competitive advantage for organisations. Despite an overwhelming body of literature on methods, models, systems and frameworks for assessment of IC, and increased awareness of the need for such assessment, relatively few organisations are actively and comprehensively assessing their IC. Choosing an appropriate method is problematic. It has been argued that, due to the complexities involved in choosing (selecting and customising) an appropriate method for assessing intellectual capital in a particular context, management support systems with knowledge components are needed for managing the evolving body of knowledge concerning the assessment of intellectual capital. To empirically test this argument, a survey making use of a self‑administered questionnaire was performed to test perceptions of suitable consultants, practitioners and researchers on the complexity levels of decisions to be made in selecting and customising methods for assessment of IC. Respondents were selected through convenience sampling coupled with snowball sampling. Data collected on respondents themselves confirms their expert status regarding IC and aspects thereof. The majority of these respondents indicated that, given any particular context, the decisions involved in selecting and customising an appropriate method for assessment of IC is often or always very complex. Decisions involved in selection are perceived as marginally more complex than decisions involved in customisation. Respondents provided valuable insights and rich examples of scenarios on the higher and lower regions of the complexity scale for the decisions involved in the selection, as well as, for the decisions involved in the customisation of IC assessment methods. It is concluded that the perceived complexity of the decisions involved in choosing IC assessment methods supports the notion that supporting systems are required to assist human decision makers in making sense of the complexities involved in choosing IC assessment methods.

 

Keywords: intellectual capital, intangible assets, methods of assessment, complexity of choice, management support systems

 

Share |

Journal Article

Analysing and Enhancing IC in Business Networks: Results from a Recent Study  pp245-252

Kai Mertins, Markus Will, Cornelia Meyer

© Jul 2010 Volume 8 Issue 2, ECIC 2010, Editor: Constantin Bratianu, pp181 - 266

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

 

Keywords: intellectual capital assessment, clusters, networks, SME, IC benchmarking

 

Share |

Journal Article

The Need for a Robust Knowledge Assessment Framework: Discussion and Findings from an Exploratory Case Study  pp93-106

Jamie O’Brien

© Jan 2013 Volume 11 Issue 1, ECKM 2012, Editor: Dr Juan Gabriel Cegarra and Dr María Eugenia Sánchez, pp1 - 115

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

The primary aim of this paper is to highlight the need for a robust Knowledge Assessment Framework (KAF). The development of a KAF is important for organisations for three reasons. Firstly, the use of knowledge assessment allows firms to pinpoint knowledge gaps. Secondly, it allows firms to manage knowledge more effectively. Thirdly, it gives organisations a diagnostic tool with which to gauge their knowledge base. The effective management of knowledge can be considered a competency that enables a greater level of service to be extracted from other resources within the organisation. The results of this study highlight several points for organisations interested in understanding their knowledge base. The analysis moved beyond simply looking at the framework itself and offers some interesting insights.

 

Keywords: knowledge, knowledge management, knowledge assessment framework, case study

 

Share |

Journal Issue

Volume 7 Issue 1, ECKM 2008 / Apr 2009  pp1‑198

Editor: Roy Williams

View Contents Download PDF (free)

Editorial

This special edition of the journal is a selection of the best papers from the recent European Conference on Knowledge Management, held at Southampton Solent University in 2008. Several of the papers addressed the shift to what is increasingly being called knowledge ecologies, within the more general field of digital ecologies (see IEEE 2009)

Vanessa Lawrence's keynote speech on Ordnance Survey: underpinning Great Britain with geographic information set the tone for the conference, and set the standard for key aspects of knowledge management and knowledge ecologies. The Ordnance Survey (OS) is an exemplary case study of how to create well mapped data and maximise its use in today's digital ecologies. This case study combines the best aspects of interoperability at the level of data with the best aspects of dynamic, complex and even open systems at the level of information and knowledge creation and exchange. Intelligently mapped data is at the heart of the OS topological information system, creating uniquely identified data objects which are the building blocks for the four layers of the Master Map: topography, address, integrated transport, and imagery.

More importantly from a knowledge management point of view, this integrated Master Map crosses seamlessly from data base management, to information systems, to traditional knowledge management and into knowledge ecologies. A range of commercial and community organisations can build on the Master Map, using elements from it, to create their own maps from their own perspectives, such as housing, health care, flood management, or policing. These different, user‑generated derivative maps create a knowledge ecology, which is a dynamic, flexible, and adaptable set of meta‑mappings (literally and figuratively) or what might be called 'map‑ups', which people can read, write and contribute to, link to, and mash‑up with their own data.

The intelligent data is itself dynamic and changing, and in a ""mobile, transient society and economy where location is a dynamic resource within business"" (Lawrence op. cit.), the data has to be accurate and constantly updated. The figures are impressive: 460M data fields, 1.8M changes per annum, 0.5M updates per annum, of which 99.9% are updated or added within 6 months of completion on the ground, and a potential resolution of 20mm for information on reticulation.

The Open Space initiative, for non‑commercial use only, provides a base and a framework for social mapping or map‑ups. In the first year it involved 900 developers and 156k visitors. The Explore programme allows people to create routes, tag points of interest, and share pictures, news and events.

Lawrence summed up the Ordnance Survey approach as the challenge to ""establish principles to make information sources accessible and connectable"", an elegantly simple framework for knowledge management in the service of knowledge ecologies.

Maracine et al describe knowledge ecosystems (KE) as a new kind of digital ecosystem which is an ""active and dynamic process, that … helps the building, growth, sharing and forgetting of knowledge"". They explore this in healthcare systems for home rehabilitation, which differ from other KEs because of the role and importance of the patient: in practice the entire ""life"" of the ecosystem gravitates around the patient and their personal rehabilitation chain.

Managing Intellectual Capital is now central to the EU strategy, so small and medium sized companies (SME's) must play their part in this. Mertins, Wang and Will's study analyses the different rankings of IC factors across 5 major economic sectors, and leads to some interesting conclusions, for instance that ""the traditional distinction between Industry and Services is improper for researching the strategic impact of IC. Rather companies should be classified by comparing the actual business models"".

Third sector organisations are also applying KM. In this case study, Reilly describes the way resource priorities, programme funding and dispersed Authority inhibit successful KM. There is widespread support for the discovery of knowledge, but it is subject to diverse interpretation, and consensus on how to apply it is difficult to achieve. Reilly proposes a relational knowledge domain to promote a more holistic approach in value driven organisations, to integrate and optimise KM. There seems to be similar issues in the corporate sector too, as Brännström and Giuliani have found, namely that one of the difficulties in IC reporting is that ""goodwill is substantially based not on particular components of IC, but on the synergies between them"". Another problem with IC reporting, and with FRS IFRS3 in particular is that some firms deliberately ""want to continue to use goodwill as a 'blackbox' to avoid disclosing some items to analytic scrutiny by outsiders"".

The link between descriptions and analyses of real business situations and personal experience can be used to build a real consensus. The Socratic Dialogue (Remenyi & Griffiths) involves much more than a simple verbal agreement. Participants try to clarify the meaning of what has just been said by testing it against their own experiences. In this way the limitations of individual experience which stand in the way of a clear understanding can be made conscious, and these limitations can hopefully be transcended.

Garcia‑Perez & Ayres's paper outlines an approach where elicitation and transfer, and possibly also creation, are carried out in one process. This involves identifying key experts and stakeholders, who then work together to develop a representation of the experts' domain knowledge. They conclude that ""communicational problems are minimised because the main interaction will take place between domain experts and their stakeholders. Also, discussion of their own experience with colleagues through a process of modelling their expertise significantly increases experts' motivation to share knowledge"".

Begley et al outline their 'new' theory of the firm, its relationship to networked society, and to other theories of the firm, within KM. They see the firm as a 'connected temporary coalition' perspective (based on Taylor, 1999; 2006), within an interactive model of the firm, containing diverse types of relationships, collections of both closely coupled and loosely coupled systems that configure, dissolve and reconfigure over time, forming a distinct capability in leveraging collective knowledge assets.

A new approach to systems development for KM is presented by Moteleb & Woodman, which is based in action research and Grounded Theory, using a number of business problems experienced by organizations. The KMSD approach is highly participatory, requiring full involvement of members of an organization, in three interacting aspects: envisioning knowledge work behaviour, design of knowledge management system (KMS), and identifying technology options. The KMS design integrates organizational, social and technological aspects of the system.

Landwitch et al have developed a more interactive and dynamic process for Information Retrieval in which the IR systems explicitly support the user's query requirements, but also their cognitive abilities, to realize a dynamic dialogue between the user and the system. This is aimed at satisfying both the information needs of the users, and the innovation‑process. Smith deals with the specifically human elements of what could also be called knowledge ecology, integrating cultural and process issues, and ""issues of organisational adaptation, survival and competence in and increasingly discontinuous environment. Rather than being a process problem, poor knowledge emergence from a new system is more likely to be a communication and learning problem where there is a failure to engage with the individuals who are within the system"".

Vedteramo & de Carolis advocate a community‑based approach to KM in the growing sector of project‑based organizations. Projects are typically temporary, and much learning may be lost when they disband, the storage of lessons learned is not effective, the databases are not widely used and the people are too engaged in their projects to share knowledge or help other people cope with similar problems. Vedteramo suggests the adoption of McDermott (1999)'s ""double knit organisation"", integrating project teams and communities of practice.

Webb uses open ended diaries and strategically resourced reflection on the diaries, and provides material on management and complexity theory for managers to use, to reflect on and make sense of their practice and learn from it. This provides ""multiple first person accounts and opened up new avenues of exploration and … [suggests that is could also be used for] the stimulation, initiation and development of knowledge transfer activities on particular themes.

Koolmees et al have developed and tested a new Knowledge Management Scan which assesses six basic KM abilities in an organisation , based on a survey of 15 statements per ability, and is based on work on value based KM, and different organisational learning types. The abilities are: to produce, anticipate, respond, learn, create and to last. The Scan produces an understanding of the organisation's overall learning ability, in terms of single, double and triple loop learning.

Harorimana's case studies describe how knowledge gatekeepers contribute to the benefits of the firm's internal capabilities, without being paid for their role. However, the informal nature of people's roles as gatekeepers makes their job difficult to recognize, and therefore requires some form or rewards.

Evans and Wensley's research on network structure and trust explores the extent to which network principles determine the level of trust in Communities of Practice. They provide a detailed analysis of the how trust is established and how it functions in CoP: in self‑directed teams, mutual trust takes the place of supervision, and this has a positive impact on knowledge sharing and on innovation.

Rees and Protheroe recommend the joint development of KM and kaizen practices (continuous improvement), embedded into the redevelopment of an existing strategy set, to facilitate the development of knowledge value, and show how this is implemented in the higher education sector.

Aidemark points out the ongoing confusion in the theoretical base of KM, and specifically highlights the complexity and paradoxes that arise between knowledge as information on the one hand, and as competence (or know‑how) on the other hand, and provides models which should improve our awareness of these problems, and help us in developing strategy.

And finally, Devane and Wison, in their paper on Non‑managed Knowledge, provide an interesting critique of traditional approaches to knowledge 'management' and knowledge transfer, and suggests that Coverdale's focus on the development of skills is a better foundation for a company's success. They argue that knowledge should not be seen as something extrinsic, and external that can be managed 'for' individuals, but rather as something intrinsic, in which case the best approach is to allow individuals to manage it themselves.

Conclusion

The papers in this special edition provide new ideas, new critiques, and new research on KM. Most of them in some way also address the very welcome shift from 'management' to 'ecologies', which adds more emphasis on personal roles and at the same time, more emphasis on networking, content and knowledge creation beyond the confines of the traditional Weberian institution. Lawrence's approach is an interesting exemplar of how this can be done, as it integrates well mapped data and basic information structures with flexible, customisable and personalisable knowledge creation and sharing. Perhaps this could be called 'connectable interoperability'?

 

Keywords: action research, agency, assessment, learning organisation, brokerage, case study, certification, closure, communities of practice, cultural memes, culture, digital ecosystem, dynamic knowledge, enterprise renewal, financial accounting, flows of knowledge, goodwill, grounded theory, groups design, healthcare knowledge ecosystem, home health rehabilitation, homophily, information retrieval, information visualisation, innovation intellectual capital, innovation-process, intellectual capital statement audit, interactive systems, kaizen, knowledge audit, knowledge communities, knowledge creation, knowledge elicitation, knowledge gatekeeper, knowledge management frameworks, knowledge management in higher education, knowledge management scan, knowledge management systems, knowledge management systems development, knowledge sharing, knowledge strategy, knowledge transfer, leading firms, network structure, nonprofit organizations, organisational form, organisational learning knowledge, organiz

 

Share |

Journal Issue

Volume 7 Issue 5 / Dec 2009  pp535‑662

Editor: Kimiz Dalkir

View Contents Download PDF (free)

Editorial

The 9th ICICKM conference, held at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was well attended by participants representing over 20 different countries. The international flavor of the conference continues to ensure a diverse range of papers as well as opportunities for valuable networking. As with all ICICKM gatherings, researchers, practitioners and students of KM were brought together to discuss the KM crossroads we find ourselves at in the year 2009.

Some of the key issues that emerged from the two days included a consensus that KM has evolved so we no longer need to convince people it is needed. We now need now to know how to “do KM” – that is, how to implement knowledge management in organizations in a more informed manner. In particular, the need for more how‑to guides, detailed rules, good validated practices and an overall quasi‑standard approach to KM implementation were noted as priority needs for the KM community. In addition, particular guidance is required concerning the KM teams (who should do what?) and how best to address tacit knowledge. Other issues concerned the specific components that should be present in a KM workspace and how this workspace can address the needs of different users who need to accomplish different sorts of tasks

While participants felt that we still have to convince some senior managers, we now also need to better address how to align KM processes so as to not create overhead. For example, what is the impact of KM on other parts of the organization such as training and IT units? How can we change peoples’ behaviours and how they think about the work they do? What are the new skills/competencies needed? How can they acquire them? How to integrate KM into business processes? How to integrate KM roles within existing jobs?

The good news is that the discipline and practice of KM has evolved – the bad news is that we still have a long way to go. The focus is now on how to do KM well. Educators need to focus on student competencies, skills and roles and responsibilities. Researchers need to focus on more evidence‑based and theory‑based KM. Practitioners need to focus on feedback from users and best practices.

The collection of papers in this special conference edition address the multitude of issues we currently face, and will continue to face, in the future. There is an excellent mix of practical case studies, practical tools such as intellectual capital measurement models in addition to more conceptual and theoretical approaches to solving crucial KM problems.

 

Keywords: academic education, avatars, ba, BRIC, competitive intelligence, complexity of choice, creative destruction, decision-making, developing countries, discipline, emerging markets, experiment, financial crisis, group interaction, growth drivers, human capital, Indian economy, Information Technology sector, intangible assets, Intellectual capital, intellectual value, KM in interconnected power systems, Knowledge Active Forgetting (KAF), knowledge capital, knowledge management implementation, management support systems, measurement, methods of assessment, paradigm, SET KM model, stakeholders, strategy, sustainable competitive advantage, technology, theoretical framework, UK car manufacturing industry, undergraduate degree program in Turkey, unlearning, virtual environments

 

Share |

Journal Issue

Volume 11 Issue 1, ECKM 2012 / Jan 2013  pp1‑115

Editor: Dr Juan Gabriel Cegarra, Dr María Eugenia Sánchez

View Contents Download PDF (free)

Editorial

The Papers in this issue of EJKM were first presented at the European Conference of Knowledge Management.

 

The issue was edited by the Programme Chair Dr Juan Gabriel Cegarra and the Conference Chair Dr María Eugenia Sánchez

 

 


Juan‑Gabriel‑Cegarra   Maria‑Eugenia‑Sanchez
                
  Dr Juan Gabriel Cegarra            Dr María Eugenia Sánchez

 

 

Keywords: global social knowledge management, social software, barriers, distributed teamwork, contextualization, cultural influence, cognitive knowledge, emotional knowledge, knowledge dynamics, microexpressions, negotiations, social capital, familiness, power, experience, innovation, family business, knowledge sharing, theory of planned behaviour, affective commitment and trust, scientific collaboration, collaboratory, knowledge audit, knowledge management, scientific collaboration recommendation, knowledge base, innovation outcome, cultural barriers, healthcare organizations, phase, shipyard, naval industry, relationship, reutilization, internal and external agents, intellectual capital management, ICM, knowledge, biplot, knowledge, knowledge management, knowledge assessment framework, case study, eLoyalty, satisfaction, technology acceptance model, health care, patient, information system success models

 

Share |