A Knowledge Management Literature Review based on Wiig´s

Prognosis of 1997

Zuzana Crhová

, Drahomíra Pavelková

and Jana Matošková

Department of Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Management and Economics,

Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Mostní 5139, Zlín, Czech Republic

Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Management and Economics,

Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Mostní 5139, Zlín, Czech Republic

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Information Technology, Activities Supporting Knowledge Management,

Knowledge Management Effectiveness.

Abstract: Knowledge is an important asset that can result in innovation and competitive advantage for companies.

This paper provides a literature review based on perspectives proposed in a paper written by Karl M. Wiig

almost two decades ago which forecasted development of Knowledge Management. The aim of this paper is

to compare Wiig’s predictions with the current state of Knowledge Management literature to see how true

his forecasts turned out to be. Moreover, the current literature is reviewed in order to find out which

subtopics of Knowledge Management should be key topics for future research.

1 INTRODUCTION

Knowledge Management is the creation, collection,

organization and spreading of knowledge (Qureshi

et al., 2006). In 1997, Karl M. Wiig wrote an article

charting the development of Knowledge

Management and forecasting its future. Since then,

his article has been cited at least 138 times in the

Web of Science database.

Wiig considered the future evolution of

Knowledge Management (KM) from five

perspectives: management practices, information

technology, organizational efforts, development,

supply, and adoption rate, and lastly the possible

monitoring of KM effectiveness. Our idea was to

compare Wiig´s forecast about the future

development of KM with the current state of KM

literature from the perspectives mentioned.

This was done by examining the current

literature in the KM field. Each of the five

perspectives proposed by Wiig is compared with

contemporary KM literature. The result is that

Wiig’s prognostications were surprisingly accurate,

as evidence of his proposed shifts in each of the

perspectives was found in the current literature.

The second part of this paper provides a

qualitative analysis of current literature to determine

key subtopics for future research. It was found that

knowledge use and knowledge sharing are the most

popular topics in reviewed papers and, quite big

groups of papers are focused on KM in health care,

innovations and information technologies. From

geographical point of view center of research on KM

is mainly in European countries.

2 METHODOLOGY

The first part of this paper uses a literature review to

compare the 1997 predictions of Karl M. Wiig about

KM with present state of KM literature.

For the second part of the paper, we went

through the newest papers on the Web of Science

database – key word “knowledge management”.

Titles, abstracts, and key words of 150 papers from

2015 were analysed. Only papers relevant to KM

topics were chosen and subtopics based on the KM

practices proposed by Heisig (2009) – knowledge

use, knowledge identification, knowledge creation,

knowledge retrieving, knowledge sharing and

knowledge storing - were used for analysis.

Crhová, Z., Pavelková, D. and Matošková, J..

A Knowledge Management Literature Review based on Wiig´s Prognosis of 1997.

In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2015) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 281-286

ISBN: 978-989-758-158-8

281

3 COMPARISON OF WIIG´S

PROGNOSIS WITH CURRENT

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

LITERATURE

This chapter compares Wiig´s 1997 predictions

about the future development of KM with current

KM literature.

Each subchapter deals with one of five of Wiig’s

proposed perspectives. It starts with a short

summary of Wiig´s predictions and then continues

with a short review of current literature.

3.1 Management Practices Perspective

Wiig (1997) predicted that KM would not only be

integrated as a part of the strategic management of

companies but would be a part of everyday activities

of each company. Knowledge and KM would be a

key factor of competitiveness. Except for sharing

explicit knowledge, activities supporting sharing of

tacit knowledge would be incorporated into

activities of companies.

Knowledge is a key asset of a company,

especially in times of increasing competitiveness

and globalization (Lee, Leong, Hew and Ooi, 2013;

Ragab and Arisha, 2013). Companies can create a

sustainable competitive advantage by using their

knowledge (Calantone et al., 2002; Hung et al.,

2010).

Many KM activities have been recognized.

Currently, there is talk about usage, identification,

creation, retrieving, sharing and storing of

knowledge (Heisig, 2009). Sharing knowledge can

create new knowledge which could be beneficial to

an organization (Minbaeva et al., 2014). Except for

the sharing of explicit knowledge, methods of

sharing of tacit knowledge have evolved. Mentoring,

story-telling or communities of practices are

methods that spread tacit knowledge.

3.2 Information Technology

Perspective

According to Wiig (1997), information technology

should play a key role in KM. According to Alavi

and Ledner (2001), information technology (IT) can

support knowledge sharing in companies. Electronic

databases are also used for the storing of company

knowledge (Wong, Tan, Lee and Wong, 2015). The

need to use information systems is highlighted in

large companies where the systems are often too

bureaucratic (Sparrow, 2001).

Qureshi et al. (2006) call the information systems

which focus on creation, collection, organization and

dissemination of knowledge within an organization

as KM systems.

Tseng (2008) documents that IT is helpful in

supporting the implementation of KM systems, but it

is not able to help the sharing of tacit knowledge.

Yuan et al. (2013) focus on different generations

of information systems used in organizations.

Information systems have to fulfil three main

requirements of KM: awareness of expertise

distribution, motivation for sharing, and network

ties. The authors conclude that social networks can

be helpful for searching and sharing knowledge

within a company. But the choice to use one or

another type of information or communication

technology is biased towards the functional

background of the worker.

Casimir et al. (2012) suggest that companies

should use IT to create online communities of

practices that can help reduce the time it takes

workers to find necessary information and

knowledge, to enable access to a wide range of

knowledge and to utilize it within the organization.

3.3 Organizational Efforts Perspective

Wiig (1997) states that Companies should know how

to manage knowledge and how it can help to

improve organizational success. Activities

supporting KM are part of daily activities and can

help to make these activities easier.

In the area of activities supporting KM, there is a

strong connection between KM and certain practices

of Human Resource Management (Matošková,

2011; Afiouni, 2007; Gloet, 2006). Activities like

recruitment, job organization, occasions for formal

or informal knowledge sharing, an open

organizational structure, targeted work with older

employees, or an elaborate system of rewards can

help to improve KM in companies (Matošková,

2011).

Yahya and Goh (2002) state that companies

should start with new employee training. This

training focuses on improving creativity, team

building or strengthening of position, all of which

should lead to better knowledge creation,

documentation and sharing.

Then, the environment-supporting knowledge

sharing has to occur. Casimir et al. (2012) present

the necessity of creating a system enabling

knowledge sharing, social networks, an

organizational structure supporting communication

flows, or interdisciplinary interactions.

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

282

When company management is planning a

system of rewards for knowledge sharing, it has to

keep in mind that this system should appreciate

taking risk, creative problem solving or knowledge

sharing among employees instead of a system based

on competitiveness between employees (Yahya and

Goh, 2002).

3.4 Development, Supply, and

Adoption Rate Perspective

Wiig (1997) predicted that developers will provide

many operational models, methods and technologies

supporting KM practices.

In accordance with Wiig´s prediction, many such

developers can be found. For example, The KM

World magazine prepares a list of 100 companies

that matter the most in KM every year. These

companies provide tools or services to help other

companies deal with KM. Companies like APOC

(which deals with KM business research and

searches for KM best practices), Microsoft (software

solutions), Bamboo Solutions (share points),

Calabrio (contact centres for faster decision-

making), and PeopleFluent (social networking

software) can be found in this list (KM World,

2015).

3.5 Possible Monitoring of Knowledge

Management Effectiveness

Wiig (1997) proposed that some system of

accounting allowing a description of the state of the

enterprise´s knowledge assets will be introduced.

The contribution of knowledge assets to company

performance should be substantial.

Stewart (2001) claims that measurements of KM

initiatives have to be in relation with corporate

strategy and financial performance. He suggests four

steps to designing a working system of intellectual

capital management. Each step is connected with

employing the right measures. Firstly, the role of

company knowledge has to be identified. Secondly,

knowledge revenues have to be matched with

knowledge assets. The third step includes

developing KM strategies and planning investments

aimed at increasing the value of the knowledge

assets. Lastly, the productivity of the knowledge

assets and the knowledge of the staff have to be

increased. (Stewart, 2001)

Based on a literature review, Ragab and Arisha

(2013) divided the methods of measuring knowledge

into four groups. Financial measures are based on

using data from financial statements (e.g., Human

Capital Value Added or Revenues per Employee).

Questionnaires are used to construct non-financial

measures (e.g., an Employee Satisfaction Index or

Training Return on Investments). Measures of

intellectual capital try to evaluate the value of

intellectual capital present in a company (e.g.,

Scandia Navigator). Performance metrics measure

the impact of knowledge when it is applied (e.g.,

Balanced Scorecard). (Ragab and Arisha, 2013,

Marr, 2012)

Wong et al., (2015) then identified another six

categories of KM performance measurement

approaches. These are traditional, advanced,

deterministic, stochastic, general result oriented, and

specific result oriented measures.

4 SUBTOPICS OF KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT RESEARCH IN

2015

The 150 latest papers on the Web of Science

database containing the key word “knowledge

management” were analysed so as to ascertain the

current main research areas. A quantitative analysis

included an analysis of the titles, abstracts and key

words of these papers. Then, 96 relevant papers

were chosen and an analysis of the subtopic was

performed.

Table 1: Subtopics of KM based on a Literature Review of

Articles Published in 2015 (source: own analysis).

Subtopic Research problem of the paper

Knowledge

use

Decision-making, risk reduction, quality

systems, talent management, importance

of information, innovation, R&D

roductivity, KM performance

measurement

Knowledge

identification

Documentation structure, measure of

individual knowledge, intellectual

capital disclosure, knowledge audit

Knowledge

creation

SECI model, knowledge creation in

R&D, knowledge creation in nursing

education, generation of knowledge,

knowledge combination mechanism

Knowledge

retrieving

Knowledge seeking patterns, extracting

knowledge from web sources, access to

strategic information

Knowledge

sharing

IT technologies, knowledge transfer in

health care, e-learning, language

clustering, factors for knowledge

transfer, support of knowledge sharing

Knowledge

storing

KM domains, IT technologies, corporate

memory, medical record system

A Knowledge Management Literature Review based on Wiig´s Prognosis of 1997

283

Figure 1: Map of Concentration of Knowledge Management Research in 2015 (source: own analysis).

Figure 2: Number of Papers in each of the Subtopics of

KM (source: own analysis).

In this way, the main research subtopics of 2015

were identified. These subtopics are based on the

KM practices proposed by Heisig (2009) –

knowledge use, knowledge identification,

knowledge creation, knowledge retrieving,

knowledge sharing and knowledge storing. The

identified subtopics together with corresponding

research problems stated in the papers are listed in

Table 1.

The results show that knowledge use is the

category with the highest representation in the

sample. This subtopic includes a wide range of

research problems like personal knowledge

measurement, KM performance measurement,

decision making or innovations.

Knowledge sharing is also quite a large group of

papers, which is important especially in European

countries like Finland, Germany, Scotland, Austria,

followed by the United States and Taiwan. These

papers deal with topics of language clustering,

social media for knowledge exchange, and effects of

supporting knowledge sharing.

The number of papers in each category of

subtopics is show in the figure below (Figure 1).

Across the identified subtopics, there are three

research problems which should be highlighted.

A research area common across the identified

groups of subtopics is the area of health care (12

papers). Researchers worldwide are interested in

how to share knowledge in hospitals and also how to

use information technology and databases for

learning and improving decision making.

Researchers in Taiwan, China, the United States,

Spain, and the United Kingdom are interested in

innovations (10 papers). The papers connected with

innovations are focused on innovation ability, the

relationship between learning and innovations, the

relationship between human resources, KM practices

and the innovation performance of R&D

productivity.

Information technology is a group of papers

focused on using social technologies, organizational

memory, e-learning, information systems, and

documentation structure. These topic are popular in

European countries like the United Kingdom,

Denmark, France, and Belgium, as well as in Brazil

and India (8 papers).

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

284

4.1 Geographical Concentration of

Knowledge Management Research

Figure 2 depicts the geographic concentration of KM

research in 2015.

To prepare this figure we used the authors’

affiliations. Each bubble in the figure contains the

number of papers produced in a certain country,

either as the only authors or co-authors in

cooperation with researchers from abroad. If the

paper was prepared together with foreign

researchers, then we entered also the link between

these countries.

The results show that the center of research on

KM in 2015 was Europe, where 68 papers were

written. The main concentrations of KM research in

2015 were found in England and Spain (12 papers in

England and 11 papers in Spain). In England, the

research is focused, among other things, on health

care, and in Spain on innovations.

A strong focus on KM research could be found

also at U.S. universities where the researchers are

focused on health care topics or KM activities like

knowledge creation, use and sharing.

5 CONCLUSIONS

KM is still an important area of research worldwide.

An often cited paper by Karl M. Wiig was published

in 1997. This paper described the evolution of KM

and also the proposed future development of this

area in the next two decades. The aim of this paper

was to compare Wiig´s prognosis with the current

state of literature in KM and find out if these

predictions were accurate.

Results of the short literature review provided

proof that Wiig was remarkably correct about the

future of KM. All five perspectives proposed by

him 18 years ago are supported by some evidence in

current literature. In the Management Practices

Perspective, KM became a key competitive factor,

and many activities of KM were implemented. From

the Information Technology Perspective, IT can

enable the storing and sharing of knowledge in a

company. There is also evidence that organizational

effort in the area of Human Resources Management

can support KM activities in a company. At present,

many companies act as a developers or suppliers of

technologies or services that assist in KM. Lastly,

researchers are also focused on methods and metrics

enabling the measurement of KM effectiveness.

Some of Wiig’s predictions relate to using KM

practices, supporting practices or IT to support KM

activities in companies. These predictions are

thoroughly verified by the literature review.

The second part of the paper contained a

quantitative analysis of KM literature in 2015 with

the aim to identify which subtopics of KM will be

the main focus of future researchers. Based on the

analysis, it was concluded that biggest group of

papers was focused on knowledge use subtopic that

contains research problems like KM performance

measurement or innovations. Across all identified

groups of subtopics three groups of research

problems were identified. These are KM in health

care, innovations and IT. KM literature should be

focused on knowledge sharing and decision making

in the health care branch and also KM performance

measurement. This research was limited by the

number of papers analysed and also by the focus on

papers from just 2015. With such a limited analysis,

it is hard to make definite conclusions about the

future focus of KM research. Therefore, this is a

work in progress. More extended research of KM

literature with the same methodology will be

conducted in the future to derive more concrete

results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to the Internal Grant

Agency of Faculty of Management and Economics,

TBU in Zlín, project No. IGA/FaME/2015/040,

“The Proposal of System of Targeted Support of

Knowledge Sharing and its Impact on Financial

Performance of Organizations.”

REFERENCES

Afiouni, F., 2007. Human Resource Management and

Knowledge Management: A road Map toward

Improving Organizational Performance. Journal of

American Academy of Business, 11(2): 107 – 136.

Alavi, M., Ledner, D. E., 2001. Review: Knowledge

Management and Knowledge Management Systems:

Conceptual Foundantions and Research Issues. MIS

Quarterly, 25(1): 107 - 136.

Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, T. S., Zhao, Y., 2012. Learning

Orientation, Firm Innovation Capability, and Firm

Performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31:

515 – 524.

Casimir, G., Lee, K., Loon, M., 2012. Knowledge Sharing:

Influences of Trust, Commitment and Cost. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 16(5): 740 – 753.

Gholami, H. M. et al., 2013. Investigating the Influence of

Knowledge Management Practices on Organizational

A Knowledge Management Literature Review based on Wiig´s Prognosis of 1997

285

Performance: An Empirical Study. Acta Polytechnica

Hungarica, 10(2): 205-216.

Gloet, M., 2006. Knowledge Management and the Links

to HRM: Developing Leadership and Management

Capabilities to Support Sustainability. Management

Research News, 29(7): 402 – 413.

Heisig, P., 2009. Harmonisation of Knowledge

Management – Comparing 160 KM Frameworks

around the Globe. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 13(4): 4 – 31.

Hung, R. Yang, B., Lien, B. Y. H., McLean, G. N., Kuo,

Y. M., 2010. Dynamic Capability: Impact of Process

Alignment and Organizational Learning Culture on

Performance. Journal of World Business, 45(3): 285 –

294.

KM World, 2015. 100 Companies that Matter in

Knowledge Management. Retrieved August 27, 2015

from http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/Editorial/

Features/KMWorld-100-COMPANIES-That-Matter-

in-Knowledge-Management-102189.aspx.

Lee, V. H., Leong, L. Y., Hew, T. S., Ooi, K. B., 2013.

Knowledge Management: A Key Determinant in

Advancing Technological Innovation? Journal of

Knowledge Management, 17(6): 848 – 872.

Lin, H. F., 2014. A Multi-Stage Analysis of Antecedents

and Consequences of Knowledge Management

Evolution. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1):

52 – 74.

Marr, B., 2012. Key performance indicators: the 75

measures every manager needs to know, Pearson.

Harlow, 1

ed.

Matošková, J., 2011. How to Support Knowledge

Management through Human Resource Management

Activities. The International Journal of Knowledge,

Culture and Change Management, 11.

Molochodnik, M., Shakina, E., Bykova, A., 2012.

Intellectual Capital Transformation Evaluation Model.

Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13(4): 444 – 461.

Minbaeva, D. B., Pedersen, T., Bjormnab, I., Fey, C. F.,

2014. A Retrospective on: MNC Knowledge Transfer,

Subsidiary Absorptive Capacity, and HRM. Journal of

International Business Studies, 45(1): 52 – 62.

Qureshi, S., Briggs, R. O., Hlupic, V., 2006. Value

Creation from Intellectual Capital: Convergence of

Knowledge Management and Collaboration in the

Intellectual Bandwidth Model. Group Decision and

Negotiation, 15(3): 197 – 220.

Ragab, M., Arisha, A., 2013. Knowledge Management and

Measurement: A Critical Review. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 17(6): 873 – 901.

Sparrow, J., 2001. Knowledge Management in Small

Firms. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(1): 3 –

16.

Stewart, T. A., 2001. The wealth of knowledge:

intellectual capital and the twenty-first-century

organization, Currency. New York, 1

ed.

Tseng, S. M., 2008. The Effects of Information

Technology on Knowledge Management Systems.

Expert Systems with Applications, 35: 150 – 160.

Yahya, S., Goh, W. K., 2002. Managing Human

Resources toward Achieving Knowledge

Management. Journal of Knowledge Management,

6(5): 457 – 465.

Wang, Z., Wang, N., Liang, H., 2014. Knowledge

Sharing, Intellectual Capital and Firm Performance.

Management Decision, 52(2): 230 - 258.

Wiig, K. M., 1997. Knowledge Management: Where Did

It Come from and Where Will It Go? Expert Systems

with Applications, 13(1): 1 – 14.

Wong, K. Y., Tan, L. P., Lee, Ch. S., Wong, W. P., 2015.

Knowledge Management Performance Measurement:

Measures, Approaches, Trends and Future Direction.

Information Development, 31(3): 239 – 257.

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

286