Analysis of Knowledge Management and E-Learning Integration
Approaches
Janis Judrups
Baltijas Datoru Akademija, Tallinas Street 4, Riga, LV-1001, Latvia
Keywords: Knowledge Management, E-Learning, Integration, SWOT Analysis.
Abstract: The development of knowledge Management (KM) and E-Learning (EL) naturally brings both disciplines
closer and encourages integration. Assessment of integration possibilities showed a number of conceptual,
technological, organizational and content barriers, which are interfering with integration, and the
organization by dealing with them will increase quality, convenience, diversity and effectiveness. Use of
KM and EL as equal disciplines is called an integration approach, but using one of them as a support to the
other is described as an adoption approach. KM and EL integration may be based on common ground –
learning. SWOT analysis was performed to summarize integration possibilities.
1 INTRODUCTION
Traditional competitive advantages of the
organization – capital, land, raw materials and
technologies start to lose their importance. Instead,
employees of the organization with their
competency, knowledge, contacts and ideas are
becoming the most significant resource.
Knowledge-based organizations may face
increasing risks, if they do not pay attention to
knowledge of the organization and development of
its human resources. The following problems may
arise as a result:
 An organization may lose important
knowledge, if an employee leaves the
organization;
 Significant part of the working time may be
spent looking for or recreating the necessary
information;
 Employees are not sufficiently trained, they
work inefficiently and make mistakes;
 Employee trainings are sporadic, without clear
objectives and evaluation of results;
 Knowledge of the organization is not fully
utilized for creation of business value.
Aforementioned problems are well identified in
the organizations. They may be addressed with
knowledge management (KM) and e-learning (EL)
approaches and solutions. Each of these approaches,
however, has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Furthermore the two disciplines are traditionally
seen as unrelated.
Hence, the purpose of the paper is to evaluate
KM and e-learning conjoining possibilities and
approaches with respect to quality of the use of
knowledge in the organization. The following tasks
were defined in order to reach the set goal:
 To identify and assess KM and EL integration
obstacles and benefits;
 To assess KM and EL integration approaches;
 To perform integration SWOT analysis.
2 DEVELOPMENT OF
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
AND E-LEARNING
Both knowledge management and e-learning have
been independent disciplines for quite some time. A
term “knowledge management” became popular in
the 1980s when the conferences and books on KM
began appearing, and the term was frequently found
in business-oriented journals (Dalkir 2005).
Successful use of knowledge in the organization
with a purpose to promote innovations, cultivation
of the sense of community, preservation of
institutional knowledge and rising of organizational
efficiency was important already much earlier. New
stage in development of KM is characterized by the
use of Web 2.0 and social network technology inside
451
Judrups J..
Analysis of Knowledge Management and E-Learning Integration Approaches.
DOI: 10.5220/0005462704510456
In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2015), pages 451-456
ISBN: 978-989-758-097-0
Copyright
c
 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

the organizations, and by the efforts to integrate KM
in the employee’s daily work processes.
History of e-learning is similar. Term “e-
learning” appeared in 1998 (Brooks 2008), but the
first attempts to use computers for learning needs
were in 1960s (Woolley 1994). The development of
Web in 1990s had serious impact on e-learning,
when educators started creating text-based training
websites (Ellis-Christensen 2015). New
communication technology and multimedia
development also changed techniques used in e-
learning. E-learning currently comprises a
significant part of learning both in educational and
commercial organizations.
As these two fields continue to develop,
synergistic relations will form between KM and EL
(Liebowitz and Frank 2011). Some of these relations
are quite evident, since both disciplines:
 Deal with capturing, sharing, application and
generation of knowledge;
 Have important technological components to
enhance learning;
 Contribute to continuous learning culture;
 Can be split into learning objects to facilitate
retention and transfer of knowledge;
 Have numerous journals and communities,
which have recognized the importance of the
synergy between those two disciplines.
Potential barriers, benefits and approaches must
be understood to evaluate integration possibilities of
KM and EL.
3 PROBLEMS IN KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT AND
E-LEARNING INTEGRATION
Despite obvious connections between KM and EL,
the integration ideas are rarely implemented in
practice (Ras et al. 2005). There are several groups
of problems, which may be identified as obstacles to
closer integration between both disciplines.
3.1 Conceptual Obstacles
Significant conceptual problem is related to human
cognition. A typical workplace of a knowledge
worker consists of three separate spaces: work,
knowledge and learning space (Ley et al. 2005).
Work space represents knowledgeable colleagues
and information systems, learning space – training
classes, laboratories and e-learning systems, but
knowledge space – intranet, knowledge bases, etc.
These spaces must be connected for successful and
convenient learning, but in cognition domain they
are disconnected.
Another problems is to connect already available
conceptual KM models with the learning activities
and existing learning standards, such as IMS
Learning Design (Benmahamed et al. 2005).
3.2 Technological Problems
Each of the three aforementioned spaces (i.e. work,
knowledge, learning space) is implemented on
different technical platform. For example, work
space may consist of learning management system
(LMS), intranet portal, knowledge base, wiki, etc.
Integration will be even more difficult with
dissimilar content structure (Ley et al. 2005).
Real life shows technological disconnection –
KM systems and LMS are purchased and
implemented separately (Dunn and Iliff 2005). To
technically integrate EL and KM, technology needs
a single infrastructure and the support of standards.
3.3 Organization of Learning Processes
Knowledge management looks at learning as a part
of knowledge sharing process in the organization
and focuses on certain forms of informal learning.
KM does not focus on learning processes
themselves, even though they are vital for successful
learning. The language of KM is thus to some
degree naive, because it assumes that knowledge is
an almost tangible good that can be “produced”,
“captured” or “transferred” and that can be summed
up to a corporate memory (Schmidt 2005).
The incorrect amount of guidance provided for a
learner is serious integration problem - while many
KM systems provide limited guidance to
inexperienced users, many EL courses provide too
much guidance and prevent self-directed learning,
free navigation and content selection/hiding.
According to constructivist learning
perspectives, knowledge cannot be transmitted to
learners, but must be individually constructed and
socially co-constructed by learners (Jonassen 1999).
Learning systems should provide learners with
services to assist and facilitate knowledge
construction, the amount of guidance should be
adapted to learners’ needs and context.
3.4 Problems with Learning Content
Schmidt highlights the problem that both KM and
EL have a limited and isolated consideration of
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
452

context (Schmidt 2005). First, e-learning solutions
often do not consider that organizational learning
takes place in specific context, and that learning
goals are based on real-world needs. Secondly, many
KM approaches neglect the fact that the delivery of
information chunks does not necessarily mean that
the user acquires new knowledge. If the individual’s
context and characteristics are ignored (i.e.,
knowledge structures, preferred needs and learning
styles) learning might not take place at all.
All organization’s knowledge resources (i.e.,
documents, people, how-to) in event of ideal KM
and EL integration may be used as learning
materials. This is hindered by the specifics of e-
learning materials with their personalized content,
internal connections, links and references. Materials
for this reason must be converted to small fragments
with a possibility to unify them in bigger objects and
annotate with metadata about connection to other
objects, technical prerequisites, training styles etc.
Unfortunately, this may require significant manual
work and a lot of time.
The most part of content in a typical e-learning
scenario is prepared in advance, and it is not very
dynamic. In contrast, KM content is created
continuously and often by the employees
themselves. Content structuring and annotation as a
result is very difficult, and there is simply no time to
do this. A midway with an easy authoring on the one
hand and interconnectedness and personalization of
content on the other hand, is required.
Another obstacle in the use of KM for EL is the
fact that information chunks in KM systems often
lack interactivity (Yacci 2005). Learning tasks and
activities are important for engaging learners and
increasing motivation. The information chunks in
KM systems must be embedded in the interactive
learning activities for successful re-use in learning.
Tailoring of content and teaching strategy to the
learner’s individual needs can make instruction more
effective. Adaptive systems try to monitor students
and select next learning steps. Dynamic courseware
generation may be able to adapt learning to existing
context, and can help reuse knowledge chunks for
learning needs. Unfortunately, traditional EL
systems are not able to dynamically select and
sequence learning materials yet (Brusilovsky and
Vassileva 2003).
3.5 Management and Organizational
Problems
Top level managers of the organizations probably
would not be able to make visionary decisions, as
they don’t understand enough about emerging
trends. This may lead to situations, when KM and
EL customers are purchasing products offered in
markets, but not the ones they really need (Dunn and
Iliff 2005).
Another problem arises when KM and EL are
under control of different organizational units,
sometimes with conflicting measures (Maier and
Schmidt 2007). KM and EL departments for KM
and e-learning integration should have common
physical proximity, reporting lines, coherent
objectives and compatible performance measures.
Without that they will compete for resources instead
of collaborating to meet business needs.
3.6 Cultural Barriers in Organization
Organization may face different and conflicting
learning and information sharing models in different
departments (training vs. technology culture;
delivery/broadcast vs. collaboration/sharing; etc.)
(Dunn and Iliff 2005). Prevention of cultural barriers
formed by conflicting values of different
departments may be a hard and long task. This will
require open thinking, serious investments in human
resource development, clear understanding of
business needs and outstanding leadership.
KM and EL have several internal problems
unrelated to integration of both fields. There are no
clear and widely accepted measures to evaluate KM
and EL implementation and usage. Many employees
are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with sharing
knowledge and don’t understand their KM systems
(Dunn and Iliff 2005). Both disciplines thus need
some maturing in addition to understanding and
overcoming barriers to integration.
4 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
AND E-LEARNING
INTEGRATION BENEFITS
Joint use of KM and EL to achieve organizational
goals will require management to find balance
between both disciplines (Dunn and Iliff 2005):
 Businesses with good employee training have
less need for KM. Those with effective
knowledge management need less training;
 Employees searching for a knowledge source
might be open to relevant e-learning content.
When they look for training, they might use
relevant KM content as well;
AnalysisofKnowledgeManagementandE-LearningIntegrationApproaches
453

 A business collecting special knowledge
should be able to make an even-handed
decision between putting it in the KM system
and creating an e-learning (or both).
Closer use of KM and EL approaches will
provide a more flexible set of options for
organization’s learning needs. Each discipline might
be able to address some of the weaknesses of the
other, and their integration should reduce wasted
investment in learning.
Islam and Kunifuji suggest adoption of KM
approaches in EL systems to encourage conversion
of tacit knowledge, facilitation of knowledge
organization, retrieval and sharing, and proper
management of knowledge resources (Islam and
Kunifuji 2011).
The interaction of both disciplines may be
summarized like this: KM facilitates e-learning by
increasing the effectiveness of knowledge
dissemination; e-learning and its enhanced
technologies stimulate important changes in KM
processes (Yordanova 2007).
Joint studies of both domains point out the
opportunity for increased quality, convenience,
diversity and effectiveness within an organization.
Jointly applied, they are a catalyst for organizational
learning, which improves the performance of team
members, and is a basis for better results (Sammour
and Schreurs 2008).
KM and e-learning both serve the same purpose:
facilitating learning and competence development in
organizations, but they are using two different
perspectives. KM is related to an organizational
perspective to addresses the lack of sharing
knowledge among employees. In turn, e-learning
emphasizes an individual perspective, as it focuses
on the individual acquisition of new knowledge (Ras
et al. 2005).
5 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
AND E-LEARNING
INTEGRATION APPROACHES
AND DIRECTIONS
Ras et al. in their paper mention several ways to
connect knowledge management and e-learning
disciplines. One way is to encourage or improve
learning with the help of KM systems, other –
extend EL with opportunities from KM technologies
(Ras et al. 2005).
While describing connection of KM and EL
domains, terms “integration” and “adoption” are
used with close meaning. There are following
situations (see Figure 1):
 Knowledge management is the basis. E-
learning provides technologies and tools for
KM needs. This situation may be described as
adoption e-learning for KM;
 E-learning and e-learning systems are the
basis. KM techniques and approaches are
tailored and used to increase e-learning
efficiency. This may be described as
knowledge management adoption for e-
learning (Islam and Kunifuji 2011),
(Sivakumar 2006);
 Knowledge management and e-learning are
seen as two equal, parallel operating
disciplines. Their common, consistent
implementation and use is integration of KM
and e-learning (Maier and Schmidt 2007),
(Schmidt 2005), (Ungaretti and Tillberg-Webb
2011).
Figure 1: KM and EL adoption and integration
approaches.
Learning objects are the common topicality of both
KM and EL. According to Web-Based Training
Information Centre the radical changes are expected
in learning object design to provide following
functionality (Kilby 2009):
 Reusability: learning content modularized into
small units of instruction suitable for assembly
and reassembly into a variety of courses;
 Interoperability: instructional units that
interoperate with each other regardless of
developer or learning management system;
 Durability: units of instruction that withstand
ever evolving delivery and presentation
technologies without becoming unusable;
 Accessibility: learning content that is available
anywhere, any time - learning content that can
be discovered and reused across networks.
E-learning with such learning objects will be
made stronger and more mature. Some of these
learning objects may be also knowledge objects.
Another direction for connecting KM and EL is
the incorporation of dynamic knowledge features
into the LMS. The main goal will be to ensure “just-
in-time” approach, where an employee receives the
required information. This solution may utilize
intelligent agents to assess user learning or work
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
454

progress, build a dynamic, extensive user profile,
perform text summarization and collect needed
information from different sources.
Both learning object development and “just-in-
time” information approach are related to learning
which may be used as common ground for KM and
EL integration.
6 SWOT ANALYSIS
SWOT analysis is performed to summarize KM and
e-learning integration possibilities. The following
strengths are identified as a result:
 KM and EL have a common goal – to promote
learning and competency development.
Integration will facilitate continuous learning
culture in the organization;
 KM and EL is related to the knowledge
capture, sharing, application and generation;
 Technological components to enhance
learning are important both in KM and EL;
 KM and EL use different perspectives, so
integration gives a better opportunity to adapt
to different situations;
Experts recognize KM and EL as practice
disciplines and look for their integration;
 KM and EL use both types (tacit and explicit)
of knowledge;
 KM and EL can be split into learning objects
to facilitate knowledge retention and transfer;
 KM facilitates EL by increasing the
effectiveness of knowledge dissemination;
 EL and its enhanced technologies stimulate
important changes in KM processes.
The weaknesses of KM and EL integration are as
follows:
 Workplace of a knowledge worker is
fragmented: separated work, knowledge and
learning space;
 KM and EL use separate ICT systems and
different technologies;
 KM models are not related to EL standards;
 Amount of guidance that KM and EL provide
for learner is not appropriate;
 KM and EL have limited and isolated
consideration of context;
 KM materials are missing interactivity.
The KM and EL integration will provide
following opportunities:
 More effective use of organizations
infrastructure and resources;
 Dynamically adaptive systems may use
materials from KM systems for learning;
 EL and KM can use shared learning objects;
 Common measures will allow assessing the
results of integration;
 Smaller organizations may use simpler or free
systems for integration.
The following threats to KM and EL integration
are identified:
 Management of the organization doesn’t
understand potential of KM and EL;
 Culture of the organization doesn’t accept KM
and EL approaches and integration;
 KM and EL are managed by competing
departments with different outcome
measurements;
 KM does not pay needed attention to learning
processes;
 Since KM and EL have different perspectives,
they may be seen as non-related disciplines.
7 CONCLUSIONS
The development of KM and EL naturally brings
both disciplines closer and encourage integration.
SWOT analysis shows that there are number of
conceptual, technological, organizational and
content barriers interfering with integration, but the
organization by dealing with them will increase
quality, convenience, diversity and effectiveness.
A situation, when approaches and techniques of one
discipline are used to improve another discipline, is
described as adoption. KM and EL implementation
and use as two equal, parallel disciplines is
integration. Learning is a common part of both
disciplines and may be used as base for integration.
The future research will be dedicated to
exploration of theoretical approaches to KM and EL
integration as well as evaluation of ways to
implement these approaches in practice. This would
allow developing the theoretical approach, which
will be the basis for building practical KM and EL
integration framework and solution.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Research is a part of the 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.
AnalysisofKnowledgeManagementandE-LearningIntegrationApproaches
455

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 et al., eds. Third Biennial Conference,
WM 2005, Kaiserslautern, Germany, April 10-13,
2005, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp.
165–175.
Brooks, H., 2008. Improve Your Bottom Line! Careful
Consideration of Learning Technologies Pays. The
eLearning Guild. Available at:
http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/96/impr
ove-your-bottom-line-careful-consideration-of-
learning-technologies-pays.
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), pp.75–94.
Dalkir, K., 2005. Knowledge management in theory and
practice, Burlington: Elsevier Butterworth–
Heinemann.
Dunn, P. & Iliff, M., 2005. Learning Light At Cross
Purposes Why e-learning and knowledge management
don’t get along.
Ellis-Christensen, T., 2015. What Is Virtual Education?
wiseGEEK. Available at: http://www.wisegeek.com/
what-is-virtual-education.htm.
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), pp.375–398.
Jonassen, D., 1999. Designing constructivist learning
environments. In C. M. Reigeluth, ed.
Instructionaldesign theories and models. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, pp. 215–239.
Kilby, T., 2009. Learning Objects: Trends. Web-Based
Training Information Center. Available at:
http://www.wbtic.com/trends_objects.aspx.
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,
pp. 189–202.
Liebowitz, J. & Frank, M.S., 2011. The Synergy between
Knowledge Management and E-Learning. In J.
Liebowitz & M. S. Frank, eds. Knowledge
management and E-learning. Innovations in education
and teaching international. CRC Press, pp. 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, pp.
325 – 333.
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), pp.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, pp. 203–
213.
Sivakumar, S.C., 2006. E-Learning for Knowledge
Dissemination. In D. Schwartz, ed. Encyclopedia of
knowledge management. Idea Group, pp. 152–160.
Ungaretti, A.S. & Tillberg-Webb, H.K., 2011. Assurance
of Learning: Demonstrating the Organizational Impact
of Knowledge Management and E-Learning. In J.
Liebowitz & M. S. Frank, eds. Knowledge
management and E-learning. Innovations in education
and teaching international. CRC Press, pp. 41–60.
Woolley, D.R., 1994. PLATO: The Emergence of Online
Community. Available at: http://thinkofit.com/plato/
dwplato.htm.
Yacci, M., 2005. The Promise of Automated Interactivity.
In K.-D. Althoff et al., eds. Professional Knowledge
Management SE - 24. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 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, 1, pp.1–6.
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
456