AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH IN

ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Sabrina S. S. Fu, Matthew K. O. Lee

Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Keywords: Organizational knowledge management, Know

ledge management technology, Knowledge management

systems, knowledge management review, Research Issues in Knowledge Management

Abstract: Knowledge is an important key asset to many organizations. Organizations which can manage knowledge

effectively are expected to gain competitive advantage. Information technologies have been widely

employed to facilitate Knowledge Management (KM). This paper reviews and synthesise the main prior

conceptual and empirical literature, resulting in a comprehensive framework for research in IT-enabled KM

at the organizational level. The framework aids the generation of potential hypotheses for future research

and the understanding and classification of existing KM related research.

1 INTRODUCTION

Globalization and advanced technological

development help organizations expand markets and

diversify risk. However, they also render markets

more volatile and competitive. Knowledge which

can help organizations become more creative and

provide better quality and efficient services to

customers becomes the key to success. As

telecommunication infrastructure and information

systems become more capable, organizations and

researchers are also concerned with how IT or IS can

facilitate KM and how to justify the corresponding

investments. As there are different interpretations of

knowledge and a variety of KM

technologies/systems, people who want to conduct

KM empirical studies at the organizational level

should carefully and clearly define all knowledge

related terms in order to facilitate generalization and

comparison of studies. In order to facilitate future

research on organizational KM, a thorough and

congruent understanding of basic concepts and

limitations in existing KM research is required and a

comprehensive research framework is needed.

The paper will start with a literature review of

e basic concepts relating to knowledge, KM and

KM technologies/systems, drawn from the current

body of relevant literature. Then, a comprehensive

framework for research in IT-enabled KM at the

organizational level will be constructed through a

synthesis of prior research frameworks.

Subsequently, existing empirical quantitative KM

research will be reviewed. Conclusions will then be

drawn.

2 BASIC CONCEPTS

2.1 Knowledge

Knowledge is different from information and data. It

resides in individuals and is created only when

individuals have processed or responded to a

collection of information (Alavi et al. 2001;

Malhotra 2001). There are different classifications of

knowledge, e.g. tacit-explicit, individual-collective

(Nonaka 1994; Alavi et al. 2001) and product-

expertise (Constant et al. 1994). Besides, knowledge

is different from tangible assets which are provided

and easily declared ownership by organizations. The

difference in perceptions between self-ownership

and collective ownership of knowledge will affect

effectiveness of KM (Jarvenpaa et al. 2001). As of

the word “knowledge” is susceptible to multiple

interpretations, it is often interpreted differently by

people with different background. Therefore,

researchers who want to conduct KM studies should

carefully define the term ‘knowledge’ in order to

protect internal validity and facilitate comparison

among studies.

151

S. S. Fu S. and K. O. Lee M. (2005).

AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT.

In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 151-156

DOI: 10.5220/0002554801510156

 SciTePress

2.2 Knowledge Management

KM is process-oriented and context-specific.

Business process is not defined by functional areas.

It is a set of closely related activities carried out to

achieve a business goal. KM should be designed in

such a way that useful knowledge can be created,

captured, transferred and applied in each activity

along the entire business process if necessary.

KM is consisted of four main processes: (1)

creation, (2) storage/retrieval, (3) transfer, and (4)

application (Alavi et al. 2001). Although the concept

of KM as a process is commonly adopted by

different researchers, different KM processes have

been identified (e.g. (Holsapple et al. 1999; Gold et

al. 2001)). Organizational members within different

culture may also have different perceptions towards

KM. Besides, the KM context of organizations (e.g.

knowledge requirements, KM processes and KM

strategies, etc.) may be different according to their

competitive bases (product-based or service-based)

and the volatility of business environment

(Kankanhalli et al. 2003). Therefore, researchers

should carefully define KM and identify appropriate

samples in order to minimize errors and provide

reliable results.

2.3 KM Technologies or Systems

KM has become a socio-technical issue (Alavi et al.

2001; Lee et al. 2003). Information technologies and

systems that are used to facilitate KM processes are

called KM technologies or systems (KMS). As the

requirements of KM become higher, KMS has

become a very important factor in KM (Alavi et al.

2001; Lee et al. 2003).

Taking the advantages of rapid technological

development, a wide variety of KMS is available.

However, different KMS may differ substantially in

complexity and functionality (e.g. e-mail and

Customer Relationship Management Systems).

Therefore, researchers should be careful in selecting

KMS for their research in order to meet their

research objectives and provide reliable and valid

results.

3 A COMPREHENSIVE

FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING

IT-ENABLED KM AT THE

ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

Prior empirical studies which have gone beyond

qualitative case studies provide important pointers to

the type of variables used in conceptualizing KM

theories for studying IT-enabled KM at the

organizational level. However, prior studies of this

sort tend to be disjoint and relatively few in number.

Although there are some existing models, they all

have some limitations. It is therefore necessary to

develop a comprehensive framework in order to

provide an integrative view of potential KM research

for guiding the future empirical study and classify

existing empirical studies to obtain a more holistic

understanding of current empirical work in the KM

field.

Three models of previous empirical KM research

were used, integrated and modified. Among them,

Lee and Choi’s integrative KM research framework

(Lee et al. 2003) was found to be the most

comprehensive. It proposed that KM enablers exist

within an organizational environment (e.g. culture,

structure, people and information technology) would

affect KM processes which would then enhance

organizational performance through KM

intermediate outcome. However, KMS exist within

both an organizational environment and an external

environment (Ives et al. September, 1980). In

Moffett, McAdam, Parkison’s MeCTIP model

(Moffett et al. 2003), it has proposed that macro-

environmental factors would influence KM

indirectly through elements of organizational

environment. Besides, direct outcome of effective

IT-enabled KM process does not necessarily lead to

effective organizational performance. It is because

benefits of IT are unique to a particular organization;

and thus appropriate organizational changes should

be formed to complement IT investment and achieve

the greatest effectiveness (Brynjolfsson et al. 1998).

In Khalifa’s model (Khalifa et al. 2001), it proposed

that the effect of intermediate outcome on

performance was mediated or moderated by

appropriation. Our integrated framework with

suggested propositions was shown in figure 1.

3.1 Research Type I - Impact of KM

Enablers on KM Processes

This type of research can focus on the identification

of important KM enablers and the relationships

between variables of KM enablers and KM

processes. KM is a socio-technical issue. Factors

within an organizational context can be classified

into (1) organizational climate (e.g. culture, structure,

strategy (Khalifa et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2003)), (2)

technological climate (e.g. IT support (Lee et al.

2003), system standardization and compatibility and

technical usability (Moffett et al. 2003)) and (3)

human factors (e.g. employee emancipation and

learning capacity (Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2001))

ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

152

within an organizational environment. Significant

effect of those KM enablers on KM processes has

been found in previous studies. Therefore, a

corollary to Proposition 1 would be:

P1: Organization-environmental factors have

significant effects on KM processes.

KM enablers are those factors which can

facilitate and enhance KM processes. They can be

categorized into two types: external and internal.

External factors refers to those existed in macro-

environment (Moffett et al. 2003). They will affect

KM indirectly through an organizational context

(Moffett et al. 2003). External variables such as

partnership or alliance were found to be significantly

related to the use of IT in KM (Gottschalk et al.

2002). As a corollary, Proposition 2 would be:

P2: The association between macro-

environmental factors and KM process is

mediated by mediated / moderated by

organization-environmental factors.

3.2 Research Type II - Impact of KM

Processes on KM Intermediate

Outcome

This type of research can focus on studying the

direct benefits or costs (i.e. KM intermediate

outcome (Lee et al. 2003)) derived from changes in

KM processes after adopting or implementing new

KMS. Although KMS may facilitate KM processes,

IT-enabled KM is not a sufficient condition for

ultimate business success (Janz et al. 1997; Khalifa

et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2003). Even though

performance improvement is observed, it may be

due to other factors such as more capital investment,

change in management and establishment of reward

schemes. Moreover, organizational performance

including tangible and intangible benefits and costs

(e.g. customers’ satisfaction and service quality) is

difficult to measure and there is a lack of reliable

measurement. Therefore, in order to have a more

effective assessment of the impacts derived directly

from the use of KM, intermediate outcomes (Lee et

al. 2003) are needed to be measured. It was found

that organizational creativity would significantly be

affected by the knowledge creation process

(Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2003). As

a corollary, Proposition 3 would be:

P3: KM processes have significant effects on KM

intermediate outcomes.

3.3 Research Type III - Impact of

KM Intermediate Outcomes on

Organizational Performance

This type of study can focus on the development of

measurements for appropriation and organizational

performance; and the study of how KM intermediate

outcomes can result in improved organizational

performance. Intermediate outcome does not

necessarily lead to performance. Appropriate

organizational changes (Brynjolfsson et al. 1998)

and use of KM technologies (Triplett 1999) that are

suited to an organizational context are necessary for

Appropriation

Macro-

Environment

Knowledge

Management

Enablers

Organizational

Performance

KM Process

Intermediate

Outcome

- Creation

- Storage /

Retrieve

- Transfer

- Application

Figure 1: An Integrated Framework for Studying Multifaceted Relationships in KM at the Organizational Level

Organization

Environment

- Organizational

Climate

- Technological

Climate

- Human Factor

AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

153

improvement in organizational performance.

Existence of adequate KM processes may contribute

direct benefits. However, it does not necessarily lead

to KM effectiveness as measured by performance

impacts unless KM structures are used properly

(Khalifa et al. 2001). As a corollary, Proposition 4

and 5 would be:

P4: KM intermediate outcomes have significant

effects on organizational performance.

P5: The association between KM intermediate

outcome and organizational performance is

mediated / moderated by appropriation.

3.4 Research Type IV - Reverse

Impacts of KM on an

Organization

Most previous research in KM usually study

relationships in one direction only, e.g. the causal

effect of KM enablers on KM processes and the

effect of KM processes on KM intermediate

outcomes or organizational performance. However,

as many organizations have already adopted some

kinds of KMS to facilitate KM, it is time to study

how those components are related in another/reverse

directions.

When the impacts of KM (i.e. intermediate

outcome or performance) are recognized, macro-

environmental factors and organizational context

will be changed. If positive and satisfactory impacts

are resulted, e.g. improved communication and

decision making, more resources will be invested in

establishing and enhancing KM and employees will

be more willing to engage in KM processes. When

negative or dissatisfactory outcomes are resulted, e.g.

threat of privacy, power relations and inequities

(Schultze et al. 2002), more resources have to be

invested to find solutions and employees’ trust and

motivation will be deteriorated. Macro-

environmental factors will also be affected directly

or indirectly, e.g. market environment, inter-

organizational relationships, external pressures (Teo

et al. 2003), technological standards, law and

regulations, etc. Therefore, as a corollary,

Proposition 6 and Proposition 7 would be:

P6: Changes in organizational performance have

significant effect on KM enablers.

P7: KM intermediate outcomes have significant

effect on KM enablers.

Feedback from changes in KM processes affect

organizational context. After the KM processes are

affected, the culture of the organization, employees’

attitudes towards KM, employees’ knowledge and

requirements for organizational technological level

may be changed. Besides, more issues relating to IT-

enabled KM processes may be experienced, e.g.

problems of IS security and privacy. Organizational

members are inevitably affected and new KMS may

have to be adopted to maintain or improve the KM

process. As a corollary, Proposition 8 would be:

P8: Changes in KM processes have significant

impact on organizational factors.

The changes in organization context will

probably affect macro-environment (e.g.

government policies and technological development).

For example, more and more people are focusing on

the effect of privacy on KM and privacy regulations

have been established (Wheelwright 1999). Steps

have also been done to protect users’ privacy and

alley their concerns by securing privacy through

careful design and implementation of KMS such as

allowing notice and choice of sharing knowledge,

highly targeted message, enabling novel kinds of ad

hoc conversation and anonymous messaging (Adar

et al. 2003; Schirmer 2003). As a corollary,

Proposition 9 would be:

P9: The association between KM process and

macro-environmental factors is mediated /

moderated by organization-environmental

factors.

4 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

REVIEW

KM and KMS-related journals published between

1998 and 2003 were found. There were totally 293

articles. Only ten of them have been studied within

an IS context and covered empirical quantitative

studies. Table 1 summarizes the studies.

Most of the studies found were concentrated on the

north-east diagonal of the matrix. Type I, II and III

KM research have been studied. The hypotheses

studied were unidirectional. They focused mainly on

the impact of organization-environment KM

enablers or KM process. Besides, most of them were

interested in studying changes in organizational

performance. However, research on macro-

environment KM enabler is few. On the main

diagonal matrix, it shows that some previous

research has studied the relationships among

organization-environment enablers. There are no

studies stated on the south-west diagonal of the

matrix. Type IV KM research is currently poorly

covered and needs more attention.

Beside the problem of limited empirical

quantitative studies relating to IT-enabled KM, there

are some limitations of existing research. Among

those existing empirical quantitative studies, there is

a lack of replication of work and standard

ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

154

Table 1: Empirical Quantitative KM Research

Macro-

environment KM

Enabler

Organization-

environment KM

Enabler

KM Process

KM Intermediate

Outcome

Organizational

Performance

Macro-

environment KM

Enabler

(Gottschalk et al.

2002)

(Lee 2000)

Organization-

environment KM

Enabler

(Jarvenpaa et al.

2001; Ryan et al.

2001)

(Becerra-

Fernandez et al.

2001; Lee et al.

2003; Politis

2003)

(Lee et al. 2003)

(Lee 2000; Gold

et al. 2001; Lee

et al. 2003)

KM Process

(Janz et al. 1997;

Becerra-

Fernandez et al.

2001)

(Lee 2000; Gold

et al. 2001;

Karlsen et al.

2003; Politis

2003)

KM Intermediate

Outcome

Organizational

Performance

IV – Independent Variable DV – Dependent Variable

measurements. Most of these studies seem to be ad

hoc without much reference to each other. Different

researchers have different focuses and use different

items or variables to operationalize constructs. For

example, “Strategic Grid” (Ryan et al. 2001),

collaboration (Lee et al. 2003), trust, learning,

organizational intent and higher care (Zarraga et al.

2003) have been used in different studies to study

organizational context. These reduce the precision,

generalizability and authenticity of the theories

developed. Besides, important KM issues (King et al.

2002) recognized by KM practitioners and corporate

executives do not receive enough attentions in

academic research, e.g. how to use KM to provide

strategic advantage, how to motivate individuals to

contribute their knowledge to a KM system, how to

ensure knowledge security and how to assess the

financial gain and loss. Further research will be

needed to contribute useful solutions to the business

world.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This study gives an overview of existing research in

KM including both qualitative and quantitative

studies; and provides a basic idea of what KM at the

organizational level is. This is especially useful for

new entrants to study KM while current participants

can have an overview and be aware of some existing

problems in KM research. KM is a very broad area

of study.

There are a lot of qualitative studies and well-

known theories. However, there is a lack of

empirical quantitative studies, replication of research,

comprehensive research models and standard

measurements. This deficiency hinders the ongoing

validation of existing theories and reduces the

generalizability, realism and precision of existing

theories. Therefore, more empirical quantitative

studies will be needed. In order to facilitate future

empirical study in IT-enabled KM at the

organizational level, an integrated framework with

multi-faceted relationships was developed. Potential

research and propositions for future study were also

presented. Examples of variables were also given to

facilitate the generation of hypothesis. The

framework can help provide guidance, make

comparison of prior studies easier and facilitate the

generation of cumulative knowledge.

REFERENCES

Adar, E., R. Lukose, C. Sengupta, J. Tyler and N. Good

(2003). "Shock: Aggregating Information While

Preserving Privacy." Information Systems Frontiers

5(1): 15.

Alavi, M. and D. E. Leidner (2001). "Review: Knowledge

Management and Knowledge Management Systems:

Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues." MIS

Quarterly 25(1): 107-136.

Becerra-Fernandez, I. and R. Sabherwal (2001).

"Organizational Knowledge Management: A

AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

155

Contingency Perspective." Journal of Management

Information Systems 18(1): 23-55.

Brynjolfsson, E. and L. M. Hitt (1998). "Beyond the

Productivity Paradox." Communications of the ACM

41(8): 49-55.

Constant, D., S. Kiesier and L. Sproull (1994). "What's

Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about

Information Sharing." Information Systems Research

5(4): 400-421.

Gold, A. H., A. Malhotra and A. H. Segars (2001).

"Knowledge Management: An Organizational

Capabilities Perspective." Journal of Management

Information Systems 18(1): 185-214.

Gottschalk, P. and V. K. Khandelwal (2002). "Inter-

Organizational Knowledge Management: A

Comparison of Law Firms in Norway and Australia."

Journal of Computer Information Systems 42(5): 50-

58.

Holsapple, C. W. and K. D. Joshi (1999). Description and

Analysis of Existing Knowledge Management

Frameworks. The 32nd Hawaii International

Conference on System Services, Hawaii.

Ives, B., S. Hamilton and G. B. Davis (September, 1980).

"A Framework for Research in Computer-Based

Management Information." Management Science

26(9): 910-934.

Janz, B. D., J. C. Wetherbe, G. B. Davis and R. A. Noe

(1997). "Reengineering the Systems Development

Process: The Link between Autonomous Teams and

Business Process Outcomes." Journal of Management

Information Systems 14(1): 41-68.

Jarvenpaa, S. L. and D. S. Staples (2001). "Exploring

Perceptions of Organizational Ownership of

Information and Expertise." Journal of Management

Information Systems 18(1): 151-183.

Kankanhalli, A., F. Tanudidjaja, J. Sutanto and B. C. Y.

Tan (2003). "The Role of IT in Successful Knowledge

Management Initiatives." Communications of the

ACM 46(9): 69-73.

Karlsen, J. T. and P. Gottschalk (2003). "An Empirical

Evaluation of Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms for IT

Projects." Journal of Computer Information Systems

44(1): 112.

Khalifa, M., R. Lam and M. Lee (2001). An Integrative

Framework for Knowledge Management Effectiveness.

International Conference on Information Systems,

New Orleans, Louisiana.

King, W. R., P. V. Marks and S. McCoy (2002). "The

Most Important Issues in Knowledge Management."

Communications of the ACM 45(9): 93-97.

Lee, H. and B. Choi (2003). "Knowledge Management

Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance:

An Integrative View and Empirical Examination."

Journal of Management Information Systems 20(1):

179-228.

Lee, J. N. (2000). "The Impact of Knowledge Sharing,

Organizational Capability and Partnership Quality on

IS Outsourcing Success." Information & Management

38(5): 323-335.

Malhotra, Y. (2001). Knowledge Management for E-

Business Performance: Advancing Information

Strategy to "Internet Time". Knowledge Management

and Business Model Innovation. Y. Malhotra. London,

Idea Group Publishing.

Moffett, S., R. McAdam and S. Parkinson (2003). "An

Empirical Analysis of Knowledge Management

Applications." Journal of Knowledge Management

7(3): 6-26.

Nonaka, I. (1994). "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational

Knowledge Creation." Organization Science 5(1): 14-

37.

Politis, J. D. (2003). "The Connection between Trust and

Knowledge Management: What Are Its Implications

for Team Performance." Journal of Knowledge

Management 7(5): 55-66.

Ryan, S. D. and V. R. Prybutok (2001). "Factors Affecting

The Adoption of Knowledge Management

Technologies: A Discriminative Approach." Journal of

Computer Information Systems 41(4): 31-37.

Schirmer, A. L. (2003). "Privacy and Knowledge

Management: Challenges in the Design of the Lotus

Discovery Server." IBM Systems Journal 42(3): 519-

531.

Schultze, U. and D. E. Leidner (2002). "Studying

Knowledge Management in Information Systems

Research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions."

MIS Quarterly 26(3): 213-242.

Teo, H. H., K. K. Wei and I. Benbasat (2003). "Predicting

Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An

Institutional Perspective." MIS Quarterly 27(1): 19-49.

Triplett, J. E. (1999). "The Slow Productivity Paradox:

What do Computers do to Productivity?" The

Canadian Journal of Economics 32(2): 309-334.

Wheelwright, G. (1999). How to nurture those 'eureka

moments': PRINCIPLES AND ETHICS by Geoffrey

Wheelwright: Employees should be rewarded,

recognised and promoted for the amount of knowledge

and insight they share:[Surveys edition]. Financial

Times. London (UK): 10.

Zarraga, C. and J. M. Garca-Falcon (2003). "Factors

Favoring Knowledge Management in Work Teams."

Journal of Knowledge Management 7(2): 81-96.

ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

156