Knowledge Management and e-Learning Integration Model

(KMELI)

Janis Judrups

Baltijas Datoru Akademija, Tallinas 4, Riga, Latvia

Keywords: Knowledge Management, e-Learning, Integration Model.

Abstract: The article offers a model for knowledge management and e-learning integration (KMELI). The purpose of

this model is to support the development of human resources in business environment and use learning as a

common field for both these disciplines, with a particular emphasis on the determination of learning needs on

the level of the organisation and the employee. The instructional design approach-based methodological

framework that describes in detail the activities conducted in each phase is offered for the practical

implementation of the model. It is important that, before training development is started, an initial analysis

takes place, in order to separate learning needs from those that cannot be met with the help of training.

1 INTRODUCTION

Knowledge management (KM) and e-learning (EL)

are developed as recognized, self-contained

disciplines for years. By shifting focus on knowledge

as the main resource of organization, these disciplines

are gaining more and more interest. With further

development, synergistic relationships should

increase between knowledge management an e-

learning (Liebowitz and Frank, 2011). Some of these

relationships are quite evident, because both

disciplines:

 Deal with knowledge capture, sharing,

application and generation;

 Have important technological components to

enhance learning;

 Contribute to building a continuous learning

culture;

 Can be decomposed into learning objects.

Several conceptual, technological, organizational

and content barriers are hindering close integration of

knowledge management and e-learning (Brown et al.,

1989, Brusilovsky and Vassileva, 2003,

Benmahamed et al., 2005, Dunn and Iliff, 2005,

Maier and Schmidt, 2007). For example, workplace

of a knowledge worker is fragmented: separated

work, knowledge and learning space; KM and EL use

separate ICT systems and different technologies (Ley

et al., 2005); amount of guidance that KM and EL

provide for learner is not appropriate; KM and EL

have limited and isolated consideration of context

(Schmidt, 2005); KM materials are missing

interactivity (Yacci, 2005).

By overcoming integration barriers we may

expect clear benefits for both disciplines and

increased quality, convenience, diversity and

effectiveness within an organization (Yordanova,

2007, Sammour and Schreurs, 2008, Islam and

Kunifuji, 2011).

There are several theoretical knowledge

management an e-learning integration models

described in literature (Woelk and Agarwal, 2002,

Schmidt, 2005, Sivakumar, 2006, Maier and Schmidt,

2007, Mason, 2008, Islam and Kunifuji, 2011,

Ungaretti and Tillberg-Webb, 2011). Analysis of

these models shows several integration ways and

approaches, however, these models are not

implemented in production environment and lack

necessary technical specification and application

support (Judrups, 2015a). As result of specific

organizational goals and needs models employ

different adaption and integration approaches

(Judrups, 2015b). The more general approach is to

base integration on common ground, which was

identified as learning.

The goal of the study was to develop a solution

that would allow a training centre to be efficient in

ensuring the development of employees to

accomplish the objectives of the organisation and

complete work tasks in business environment.

Unfortunately, none of the models described in

588

Judrups, J.

Knowledge Management and e-Learning Integration Model (KMELI).

In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2016) - Volume 1, pages 588-593

ISBN: 978-989-758-187-8

the literature was of practical use in a situation like

this. This is why a new knowledge management and

e-learning integration model (KMELI) was created.

For the practical implementation of the model, the

methodology (implementation framework) based on

instructional design approaches was designed. Thus,

the goal of this article is to describe the KMELI model

developed, as well as its implementation framework.

2 CONTEXT OF THE MODEL

The context of the development of the model was

based on a broader study of human resource and

business management processes and their interaction,

which created a competence-based human resource

management framework (Judrups, 2015a). This is

why the KMELI model must comply with the

following approaches:

 employee development uses a competence-

based approach;

 competence assessment uses e-learning-based

solutions;

 personalised development plans are composed

for employee development;

 development solutions used are described

through competences and summarised in a

development solution catalogue.

The following requirements were set for the KMELI

model:

 meet the learning needs of the organisation;

 meet the formal and informal learning needs of

the employees with the use of KM and EL;

 support automated competence assessment;

 support employee competence profile and

competence gap use;

 support the use of personalised employee

development plans;

 support the use of development solutions

described through competences: resource

creation, publication, implementation.

It is intended that these requirements and

approaches will be elaborated more on further stages

of the study; therefore, the KMELI model must be

developed as sufficiently conceptual and general.

3 BACKGROUND OF THE

MODEL

Training is the basis of both the knowledge

management and e-learning, because both these

disciplines are crucial components of training

processes. The interaction and the specific

approaches of KM and EL help achieve the learning

goals set by the organisation (Ungaretti and Tillberg-

Webb, 2011).

The understanding of KM and EL processes can

be considered and compared as value chains of both

these disciplines (Wild et al., 2002). The value chains

in both the disciplines comprise four sequential

processes that can be divided into two stages: (1)

identification of needs and goals; (2) design,

development, implementation (see Figure 1).

A comparison of the value chains of knowledge

management and e-learning shows close relations

between these disciplines. The commitment of the

organisation towards e-learning is directly related to

the first two processes in the knowledge management

value chain: that is, the necessity to identify the

strategic knowledge needs of the organisation and the

lack of required knowledge. The last two processes in

the KM value chain (the elimination of knowledge

gap, and the distribution and use of the knowledge

obtained) coresponds with the last three processes in

the EL value chain. Proper development of the

content and the learning approach, followed by the

implementation of e-learning, allows to eliminate

knowledge gap and distribute knowledge in the

organisation, boosting its development and

improving its competitiveness (Wild et al., 2002).

Figure 1: KM and EL value chain comparison.

KM and EL both serve the same purpose:

improving learning and competence development in

the organisation. However, they use two different

perspectives. KM uses the organisation-level

perspective, in order to avoid insufficient sharing of

information among the employees of the

organisation. On the other hand, e-learning

emphasises the perspective of the individual, focusing

on obtaining individual knowledge (Ras et al., 2005).

Proper selection of metrics and their consistent

use allows confirming the accomplishment of the

Knowledge Management and e-Learning Integration Model (KMELI)

589

goals set. The main problem lies not in finding the

quality standards itself, but in choosing the most

appropriate ones from the broad selection of

standards available (Ehlers, 2005).

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE

MODEL

The KMELI model demonstrates the integration of

knowledge management and e-learning with learning

as the common aspect of both these disciplines (see

Figure 2).

Figure 2: KMELI KM and EL integration model.

The organisation learning cycle begins with the

identification of knowledge needs and goals on the

strategic level of the organisation (1). This allows to

strengthen the traditionally individual aspect of e-

learning and to provide a broader learning context by

connecting learning results with the strategic goals

and objectives of the organisation.

The learning needs and objectives are further

specified on the level of individual employees and

groups of employees (2). The acknowledgement of

the context of the employee (personal learning traits,

professional functions, tasks and processes, etc.)

allows to personalise the learning solution and to

involve the employee better in the learning process,

helping the employee be more successful in achieving

the results of the learning.

During the development, implementation and

execution of the learning (3), the learning is prepared

and conducted, ensuring the acquisition, distribution

and of the relevant knowledge in the organisation. All

the three stages mentioned above are further

subjected to quality control with the help of the

metrics selected (4). In the model, this process is

deliberately shown as a block that comes out of the

common part of the integration between KM and EL

(learning), because the process of quality control

must ensure successful work of all the KM and EL

implemented. It is important that the process of

quality control allows both ensuring control and

introducing correction on all the three levels. This is

one of the aspects that will define the quality

standards to be used in a practical implementation of

the model.

5 ANALYSIS OF THE MODEL

The analysis of the KMELI model confirms that it

complies with all the requirements set for its

development:

 The learning needs of the organisation are

identified on the first step of the model (1) (see

Figure 2). The learning and knowledge needs

are related to the strategic goals of the

organisation, providing them with the context

of the organisation and allowing its employees

to understand better the goals of learning.

 The formal and informal training of employees

is planned for the second step of the model (2).

It is coordinated with the strategic goals of the

organisation. This step provides for the use of

individual development and training plans,

particularly for longer-term training and for

developing competencies that are more

difficult to learn. The acquisition of minor

knowledge necessary for daily work may not

appear in individual development plans,

because it can take place with the help of

knowledge management techniques, such as

informal training, tips from experienced

colleagues, use of an archive for the training

completed etc.

 The automated competence assessment can be

accomplished with the use of e-learning

knowledge assessment tools, which are based

on various tests and agent software that

monitors the employee during work hours. The

results obtained would then be submitted and

processed for the employee’s competence

profile. The evaluation of quality and training

results (4) allows confirming the

accomplishment of the goals of the training,

and the acquisition of the competences

planned. This information would then be

registered in the competence profile of the user,

decreasing the competence gap and updating as

needed the further development plan.

 All the knowledge and training objects used in

training can be described with the help of

ICEIS 2016 - 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

590

competences as development resources and

registered in the development solution

catalogue. In order to use these resources

successfully, it is necessary to create or

repurpose a small, self-contained module in a

way that creates a mutual content-based and

pedagogic connection among them.

Competences are used to describe the training

goal of these modules and the prerequisite

knowledge for the training (Schmidt, 2005).

It can be observed that, at its core, the KMELI

model has an organisation of learning processes with

a distinct emphasis on connecting the learning

objectives with the general strategic goals of the

organisation (1), on taking into account the specific

needs and contexts of the employees (2), on quality

control applied throughout the process, and on

achieving the goals set (see Figure 2).

Although the model is based on the knowledge

management and e-learning disciplines, this aspect is

not reflected significantly in the organisation of the

learning processes. Therefore, the use of the model

can be expanded to the entire learning process and

applied according to the needs of the organisation.

The learning needs of work groups and employees

may not arise directly from the cascading of the

strategic goals of the organisation and its needs.

These needs can be related to the performance and

performance ratings of specific employees. These

needs would, in fact, begin being met on Stage 2,

while the strategic goals would allow to confirm that

the work done is necessary and to provide a broader

context for the training.

6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Taking into account the analysis and the conclusions,

it is possible to determine the main principles of the

KMELI model:

 KMELI demonstrates the integration of

nowledge management and e-learning with

training as the common aspect of both these

disciplines;

 The identification of learning needs and goals

begins at the level of the organisation;

 The learning needs and goals of the employee

at the individual level and the level of work

groups are specified and put into the contexts

of the employee;

 The development, implementation and

execution of training provides the acquisition,

distribution and use of knowledge in the

company;

 The metrics and quality control on all the three

stages ensure the improvement of processes

and products, as well as the attainment of

results.

Practical implementation of the model developed

requires methodology, thus a KMELI implementation

framework was developed. It clarifies the activities

conducted on each KMELI phase and serves as a

detailed example for learning processes at the

organisation. The framework helps in the introduction

and development of such processes at the

organisation. The main target audience of the KMELI

framework are organisations that provide their

employees, clients and partners with training. The

organisations that provide training to external clients

may need to modify the training objective

identification processes.

A KMELI framework must be able to answer the

following questions:

 How are the strategic learning goals and needs

of the organisations defined?

 How are the learning goals and needs of

employees and their groups defined?

 How is training developed and implemented?

 What are the quality control mechanisms and

what metrics are to be used?

The KMELI framework tries to answer the

questions that are usually resolved with help of the

instructional design. The instructional design is a

systematic process that is used to turn teaching and

training principles into traininig materials and

activities (Smith and Ragan, 1993). The development

of training is based on five stages: analysis, design,

development, implementation, evaluation. This

general approach is called the ADDIE model (see

Figure 3), customised variants of which are usually

created for practical use in organisations (Molenda,

2003).

Figure 3: ADDIE dynamic model (adopted from

(Schufletowski, 2002)).

Knowledge Management and e-Learning Integration Model (KMELI)

591

During the first stage of the KMELI model, the

learning needs of the organisation are determined.

This is similar to the ADDIE model, in which the

analysis stage is used to study the needs and the

environment. Such analysis often employs need

evaluation or performance evaluation techniques. In

both cases, a list of the needs of the organisation can

be obtained, although only a part of these needs

would be directly related to the needs of learning

(Molenda and Russell, 2006).

A part of the solutions to performance problems

would not be related to the use of training at all, and

in most cases training will only be a part of a bigger

solution. During the initial analysis, the learning

needs are separated from other performance

problems. The development of training is conducted

to satisfy only the learning needs. Therefore, it is

practical to introduce the initial analysis stage of the

KMELI implementation framework, which will

determine the learning needs of the organisation and

then transfer it further for the instructional design

process (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Initial analysis and learning needs assessment.

As a result, the KMELI implementation

framework can be divided into six stages: the initial

analysis and the five stages of the ADDIE model

(analysis, design, development, implementation,

evaluation). It is clear that, in practice, the initial

analysis will be closely related to the following

analysis stage, although the decision on the necessity

and justifiability of training will be a crucial

milestone.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The KMELI model provides a theoretical foundation

for creating a practically usable knowledge

management and e-learning integration solution. For

the practical use of the model, the methodology –

implementation framework based on instructional

design approaches was designed. It provides a

detailed description of the activities conducted on

each of the stages of the model. It is important that,

before training development is started, an initial

analysis take place, in order to separate learning needs

from those that cannot be met with the help of

training.

Further study requires that the model and its

framework are verified in practice. Successful

verification results will allow their further use in the

development of a functioning knowledge

management and e-learning integration solution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research is part of project „Competence Centre of

Information and Communication Technologies” run

by IT Competence Centre, contract No. L-KC-11-

003, co-financed by European Regional Development

Fund.

REFERENCES

Benmahamed, D., Ermine, J.-L., Tchounikine, P., 2005.

From MASK Knowledge Management Methodology to

Learning Activities Described with IMS – LD. In K.-D.

Althoff, A. Dengel, R. Bergmann, M. Nick, and T.

Roth-Berghofer, eds. Third Biennial Conference, WM

2005, Kaiserslautern, Germany, April 10-13, 2005,

Revised Selected Papers. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

165–175.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., Duguid, P., 1989. Situated

Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational

Researcher, 18 (1), 32–42.

Brusilovsky, P., Vassileva, J., 2003. Course sequencing

techniques for large-scale web-based education.

International Journal of Continuing Engineering

Education and Lifelong Learning, 13 (1-2), 75–94.

Dunn, P., Iliff, M., 2005. Learning Light At Cross Purposes

Why e-learning and knowledge management don’t get

along.

Ehlers, U. D., 2005. Quality in e-learning: use and

dissemination of quality approaches in European e-

learning: a study by the European Quality Observatory.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the

European Communities.

ICEIS 2016 - 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

592

Islam, M., Kunifuji, S., 2011. Adopting Knowledge

Management in an E-Learning System: Insights and

Views of KM and EL Research Scholars. Knowledge

Management & E-Learning, 3 (3), 375–398.

Judrups, J., 2015a. Analysis of Knowledge Management

and E-Learning Integration Models. Procedia

Computer Science, 43, 154–162.

Judrups, J., 2015b. Analysis of Knowledge Management

and E-Learning Integration Approaches. In S.

Hammoudi, L. A. Maciaszek, and E. Teniente, eds.

{ICEIS} 2015 - Proceedings of the 17th International

Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Volume

2, Barcelona, Spain, 27-30 April, 2015. SciTePress,

451–456.

Ley, T., Lindstaedt, S., Albert, D., 2005. Supporting

competency development in informal workplace

learning. In Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence -

Professional Knowledge Management: Third Biennial

Conference, WM 2005, Revised Selected Papers.

Kaiserslautern, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

189–202.

Liebowitz, J., Frank, M. S., 2011. The Synergy between

Knowledge Management and E-Learning. In J.

Liebowitz and M. S. Frank, eds. Knowledge

management and E-learning. Innovations in education

and teaching international. CRC Press, 3–10.

Maier, R., Schmidt, A., 2007. Characterizing knowledge

maturing: A conceptual process model for integrating

e-learning and knowledge management. In 4th

Conference on Professional Knowledge Management.

Experiences and Visions. Berlin: GITO-Verlag, 325 –

333.

Mason, J., 2008. A Model for Exploring a Broad Ecology

of Learning and Knowing. In Supplementary

Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on

Computers in Education, Asia-Pacific Society for

Computers in Education (APSCE). Taipei, 194–203.

Molenda, M., 2003. In search of the elusive ADDIE model.

Performance Improvement, 42 (5), 34–36.

Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., 2006. Instruction as an

Intervention. In J. A. Pershing, ed. Handbook of Human

Performance Technology Improvement. Pfeiffer, 335 –

369.

Ras, E., Memmel, M., Weibelzahl, S., 2005. Integration of

e-learning and knowledge management – barriers,

solutions and future issues. In Professional Knowledge

Management. Third Biennial Conference, WM 2005,

Kaiserslautern, Germany, April 10-13, 2005, Revised

Selected Papers. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Sammour, G., Schreurs, J., 2008. The role of knowledge

management and e-learning in professional development.

Knowledge and Learning, 4 (5), 465–477.

Schmidt, A., 2005. Bridging the gap between knowledge

management and e-learning with context-aware

corporate learning. In Professional knowledge

management. Third Biennial Conference, WM 2005,

Kaiserslautern, Germany, April 10-13, 2005, Revised

Selected Papers. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 203–213.

Schufletowski, F. W., 2002. AIR Force Handbook 36-2235

Volume 1.

Sivakumar, S. C., 2006. E-Learning for Knowledge

Dissemination. In D. Schwartz, ed.

Encyclopedia of

knowledge management. Idea Group, 152–160.

Smith, P. L., Ragan, T. J., 1993. Instructional Design. New

Yourk: Merrill.

Ungaretti, A. S., Tillberg-Webb, H. K., 2011. Assurance of

Learning: Demonstrating the Organizational Impact of

Knowledge Management and E-Learning. In J.

Liebowitz and M. S. Frank, eds. Knowledge

management and E-learning. Innovations in education

and teaching international. CRC Press, 41–60.

Wild, R. H., Griggs, K. A., Downing, T., 2002. A

framework for e-learning as a tool for knowledge

management. Industrial Management & Data Systems,

102 (7), 371–380.

Woelk, D., Agarwal, S., 2002. Integration of e-Learning

and Knowledge Management. In World Conference on

E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare,

and Higher Education. 1035–1042.

Yacci, M., 2005. The Promise of Automated Interactivity.

In K.-D. Althoff, A. Dengel, R. Bergmann, M. Nick,

and T. Roth-Berghofer, eds. Professional Knowledge

Management SE - 24. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 214–

221.

Yordanova, K., 2007. Integration of Knowledge

management and E-learning – common features.

CompSysTech 07 Proceedings of the 2007 international

conference on Computer systems and technologies.

Knowledge Management and e-Learning Integration Model (KMELI)

593