The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management aims to publish perspectives on topics relevant to the study, implementation and management of knowledge management
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
To join the EJKM review committee click here
 

Journal Article

Diffusion Characteristics for Community Economic  pp227-232

Scott Erickson, Helen Rothberg

© Jun 2009 Volume 7 Issue 2, ICICKM 2008, Editor: Kevin O'Sullivan, pp199 - 296

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

The intersection and common elements of the fields of knowledge management (KM) and competitive intelligence (CI) are receiving growing attention, particularly in the latter discipline. Not only are the two areas similar in terms of managing knowledge resources, albeit of different types in most cases, but the presence of competitive intelligence activities begs the question of how widely knowledge assets should be developed and shared, as well as how and whether said assets should be protected. One framework for developing a strategy to balance knowledge development with knowledge protection suggests that there are specific risks (knowledge management or KM Risk and competitive intelligence or CI Risk) that move in alternate directions as knowledge is developed and shared more widely. Previous work has measured KM potentialrisk and CI risk in a variety of industries, theoretically providing industry participants with a tool to more strategically develop and protect knowledge assets. This paper continues that work, including not only the industry evaluations but in‑depth analyses of firms within those industries, allowing for even deeper insights concerning optimal KMCI strategies. These insights are drawn from evaluation of the circumstances surrounding each industry and representative firm, including the nature of the knowledge assets (explicittacit), their complexity, and their specificity (stickiness). In a sense, this is an illustrative study, providing a template for how an individual firm can evaluate its own circumstances and better manage its knowledge assets. This paper provides another step forward in establishing a framework to help firms in discovering optimal strategies for developing and protecting knowledge by extending the discussion from industries to specific firms. Continuing to draw on the same framework that defines the KM and CI tradeoff, this paper examines illustrative firms in each KMCI situation, reviewing their circumstances and their relative place in the industry vis a vis KM and CI. From this result, we can continue to develop and refine theory and practice concerning how and when KM is practised as well as how and when CI activities are deployed and defended.

 

Keywords: intellectual capital, knowledge management, competitive intelligence, risk, strategy

 

Share |

Journal Article

Intellectual Capital in Tech Industries: a Longitudinal Study  pp559-566

Scott Erickson, Helen Rothberg

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

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

This paper reports on data collected over time on intellectual capital levels in three high‑tech industries. Data are also presented on competitive intelligence activity in the same industries. These data shed light on the idea that knowledge management is more strategic than is commonly portrayed, with the level of development and sharing of knowledge depending on circumstances at the national, industry, and firm level. Similarly, competitive intelligence offense and defense also vary according to environment. Given the evidence here that knowledge assets vary widely by industry and by firm, as do competitive intelligence efforts, organizations should scan their environments and adopt knowledge strategies appropriate to their circumstances.

 

Keywords: strategy, knowledge management, intellectual capital, competitive intelligence, technology

 

Share |

Journal Article

SPF 5 and Limitations to Investing in Knowledge Management  pp28-36

Scott Erickson, Helen Rothberg

© Mar 2011 Volume 9 Issue 1, ECKM Special Issue, Editor: Eduardo Tome, pp1 - 84

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

This paper will continue our work concerning the strategic management of intellectual capital. Based on the Rothberg/Erickson SPF framework which balances knowledge development with knowledge protection, we continue to explore differing circumstances and their impact on IC strategy. The framework differentiates between IC that needs to be aggressively developed by the firm (or not) and IC that is vulnerable to competitive intelligence incursion and needs protection (or not). Previously, we have looked at an environment within which substantial development of IC is necessary in order to be competitive but in which those same knowledge assets are at risk from competitive efforts to appropriate them (Erickson & Rothberg 2009b). In this paper, we will develop the scenario wherein aggressive development of IC may not be useful (highly tacit knowledge, difficult to share or apply in other situations) and little competitive intelligence activity is taking place (SPF 5 in the framework). In particular, we will characterize the nature of this environment in terms of theory, identify representative firms and industries, and apply data to the framework. Where appropriate, contrasts with other SPF environments will also be made.

 

Keywords: knowledge management, intellectual capital, competitive intelligence, SPF framework

 

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 9 Issue 1, ECKM Special Issue / Mar 2011  pp1‑84

Editor: Eduardo Tome

View Contents Download PDF (free)

Editorial

Guest Editor Dr. Eduardo Tomé
Eduardo concluded a PhD in Economics with a thesis on the European Social Fund in 2001 at the Technical University in Lisbon. His main research interests are Social Policy and Human Resources / Knowledge Management / Intellectual Capital. He has published papers in International Refereed Journals as the Journal of Intellectual Capital, the Journal of European Industrial Training, the International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, and the International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital. He is a member of the Editorial Board of the Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management. Since 2001 he has presented papers in around 4 international conferences every year.

 

Keywords: nalytic hierarchy process, change processes, co-creation, collective intelligence, competitive intelligence, conceptual learning, hospital-in-the-home units, intellectual capital, KIBS, knowledge interactions, trust-building mechanisms, computer services, case study, KM 2.0, knowledge, knowledge creation, knowledge management, knowledge management maturity, knowledge sharing, knowledge-based development, learning dynamics, operational learning, personal knowledge and skills, problem solving, sensitivity modelling, service business, services, social computing, SPF framework, storytelling, typology, university, user-generated content, Web 2.0, work profile,

 

Share |

Journal Issue

Volume 7 Issue 2, ICICKM 2008 / Jun 2009  pp199‑296

Editor: Kevin O'Sullivan

View Contents Download PDF (free)

Keywords: competitive intelligence, conceptual umbrella metaphor, e-business performance, elicitation, enabling context, Ba, European firms, external knowledge, framework G-U-I-N, globalization, higher education, human networks, industry attractiveness, information age, information and communication technology, information communication, integration, intellectual capital, KM in agribusiness, knowledge capitalization, knowledge complexity, knowledge maps, knowledge modelling, knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, leadership, mapping technique, merging, mind map, m-k toolkit, mobile knowledge, new technology-based firm (NTBF), ontology, research network, risk, social aspects, social network analysis, social software, strategic alliances, strategic information management, strategy formulation process, technologies, technology adoption, technology, Thailand, triple helix model, university-industry interaction, value network, virtual knowledge management, wicked problems

 

Share |

Journal Issue

Volume 7 Issue 3 / Jun 2009  pp297‑397

Editor: Dan Remenyi

View Contents Download PDF (free)

Keywords: competitive intelligence, conceptual umbrella metaphor, e-business performance, elicitation, enabling context, Ba, European firms, external knowledge, framework G-U-I-N, globalization, higher education, human networks, industry attractiveness, information age, information and communication technology, information communication, integration, intellectual capital, KM in agribusiness, knowledge capitalization, knowledge complexity, knowledge maps, knowledge modelling, knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, leadership, mapping technique, merging, mind map, m-k toolkit, mobile knowledge, new technology-based firm (NTBF), ontology, research network, risk, social aspects, social network analysis, social software, strategic alliances, strategic information management, strategy formulation process, technologies, technology adoption, technology, Thailand, triple helix model, university-industry interaction, value network, virtual knowledge management, wicked problems

 

Share |