A Critical Review of Knowledge Management Models 09696479910270416

The Learning Organization
A critical review of knowledge management models

Rodney McAdamSandra McCreedy
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rodney McAdamSandra McCreedy, (1999),"A critical review of knowledge management models", The Learning
Organization, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 91 - 101
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696479910270416
Downloaded by International Islamic University Malaysia At 16:56 09 February 2015 (PT)
Downloaded on: 09 February 2015, At: 16:56 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 36 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8699 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Maria Mrtensson, (2000),"A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp. 204-216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270010350002
Ganesh D. Bhatt, (2001),"Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between
technologies, techniques, and people", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 68-75 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270110384419
Nada K. Kakabadse, Andrew Kakabadse, Alexander Kouzmin, (2003),"Reviewing the knowledge
management literature: towards a taxonomy", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 75-91 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270310492967
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 316947 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Introduction
A critical review of
knowledge
management models
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s a new range

of business improvement philosophies, approaches and methodologies have been
continuously developed. This development
has been largely based on various combinations of business practice and academic
theory. Examples of these approaches are
myriad and include organisational learning,
the learning organisation, total quality management, business process re-engineering, to
name but a few.
Of more recent times, especially in the past
two to three years, knowledge management
(KM) has started to emerge as an area of
interest in academia and organisational practice. The literature reveals a rapidly increasing
body of knowledge relating to KM which
covers many different disciplines and areas of
interest to academics and practitioners.
For example, a search of over 100 Web sites
on knowledge management (Quintas et al.,
1997) revealed the following heterogeneous
range of interests, perspectives and issues:
economics, intellectual capital, engineering
approaches (flexible manufacturing systems),
aspects of computing and knowledge media,
organisation studies (informed by anthropology, sociology etc.), epistemology (including
learning, situated cognition and cognitive
psychology), other aspects of classification
and definition informed by artificial intelligence, human resource issues etc.
Many important questions and issues arise
in regard to KM. For example, is it an
emerging paradigm through which many
existing strands of theory and practice can at
last be beneficially integrated, or is KM a
temporary aberration promising yet more
false dawns in regard to organisation development and management learning?
Also, what is the underlying epistemology
of knowledge management? As questioned by
Richardson et al. (1987) is knowledge based
on scientific data or socially constructed or a
mixture of both? The answer to this question
has far reaching implications in choosing
approaches to embody and disseminate
knowledge within organisations as existing
knowledge transfer approaches may not be
sufficient to cover the diversity of knowledge
classifications.
As well as issues relating to the emergence,
definition and classification of KM there are
unresolved conflicts in regard to the
Rodney McAdam and

Sandra McCreedy
The authors
Rodney McAdam is Senior Lecturer and
Sandra McCreedy is a Research Assistant, both at
the Ulster Businesss School, University of Ulster, Belfast,
Northern Ireland.
Keywords
Knowledge management, Models,
Organizational development
Abstract
There is an increasing interest in the area of knowledge
management (KM) within organisations and academia.
Because of the emergent nature of the field there is a lack
of classification of suitable knowledge management
models to use in conducting further research, literature
evaluation and organisational applications. This paper
discusses the definitions and classifications of knowledge
management, representing a wide spectrum of views
from mechanistic to more socially orientated. An
evaluative framework is established from which three
knowledge management models can be critically discussed. Three KM model classifications are critiqued,
namely knowledge category models, intellectual capital
models and socially constructed models. Finally a
modified KM model is tentatively suggested to act as a
useful guide for further research and organisational
application. This model takes a holistic approach to
scientific and socially constructed knowledge, assuming
the need for both emancipatory and business benefits
from KM. The model represents KM as a highly recursive
process, rather than sequential.

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . pp. 91100
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0969-6474
91
A critical review of knowledge management methods

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100
Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy
Burgoyne and Reynolds (1997) summarise

Kemmis's (1985) account of the characteristics of a critically reflective perspective as:
.
concerned with questioning assumptions;
.
its focus is social rather than individual;
.
it is concerned with emancipation.
emancipatory elements of KM (Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995). Will the application of KM
principles within organisations lead to the
concurrent enhancement of business performance and employee emancipation or will it
ultimately lead to employees giving more of
their minds and bodies to further establish the
existing status quo?
It is contended that given the continual
change and emergent nature of the field over
the past two to three years, it is now an
appropriate time to try to have a more indepth enquiry into the KM discourse to
attempt to clarify how KM can be more
beneficially researched and applied to organisations and those who work in them.
In initially attempting to address these
questions and issues, this paper critically
examines some of the existing models of KM
which reflect the different viewpoints within
the overall field. All of the KM models
examined are built upon key philosophical
assumptions and the critical discussion seeks
to examine these assumptions and views.
Following a short description of the aims,
perspectives and objectives of the paper there
is a short discussion on the definition,
classification and emergent nature of KM.
This discussion is followed by the establishment of a critical framework through which to
evaluate some of the key existing KM models,
following which, the models are critically
discussed. Finally some conclusions are made
in regard to suggesting a suitable model
through which to further investigate the field
of KM.
To achieve the aim of the paper and apply a

critical perspective, the following objectives
have been defined:
.
to clarify the definitions and classifications of KM;
.
to establish a framework for critically
evaluating existing KM models;
.
to critically evaluate KM models which
represent a wide spectrum of views within
the field;
.
to suggest a suitable framework for
carrying out a further in-depth critique of
the field of KM, leading to improved
theory and practice within the field.
Schools of thought within knowledge
management
While definitions of any subject matter can be
helpful in regard to clarifying the scope and
depth of the subject under consideration, they
can also be notoriously difficult to articulate.
Definitions can often result in unwarranted
simplistic reductionist arguments. When the
subject which is being considered is in the
management domain the difficulty is compounded even further due to the subjective
and eclectic nature of the field. When the
subject is not only in the management field
but is also emerging rather than established,
then the difficulty with definitions is even
further magnified. Such is the case with the
emerging subject area of KM, as pointed out
by Quintas et al. (1997) who argued that `ìt is
difficult to scope and define this disparate and
emergent field and understand the processes
involved to determine programmes/interventions''.
The following definitions, which are but a
representative sample, are listed below and
then discussed:
Aims, perspectives and objectives

The aim of this paper is to investigate the
current understanding of the theory and
practice of the emerging field of KM by
critically evaluating existing knowledge management models, so that research and
improved approaches in this area can be
developed and applied to organisations and
those who work in them.
Throughout the paper a critical perspective
will be taken so that the underlying assumptions of KM can be revealed and questioned.
Although, as pointed out by Burgoyne and
Reynolds (1997), there are a number of
approaches relating to ``working out of a
critical perspective'', the ``critical reflection''
approach is adopted throughout the paper.
Knowledge management is ... knowledge creation, which is followed by knowledge

interpretation, knowledge dissemination and
use, and knowledge retention and refinement
(De Jarnett, 1996).
Powerful environmental forces are reshaping the
world of the manager of the 21st century. These
forces call for a fundamental shift in organisation
process and human resource strategy. This is
knowledge management (Taylor et al., 1996).
92

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100
stated: ``we are entering the knowledge society

in which the basic economic resource is no
longer capita ... but is and will be knowledge''.
This viewpoint effectively labels knowledge as
a resource like land or oil which has independent existence outside human and
social systems. Ultimately Drucker is considering knowledge as being capitalised
hence the term intellectual capital. This type
of capital is seen as consisting of intangible
assets not frequently recorded on the balance
sheet and can include employee skills, information, patents, copyright, brands, R&D,
licensing opportunities, innovative use of
assets such as databases etc. Brooking (1997)
suggests that KM is actively concerned with
the strategy and tactics to manage IC or
human-centred assets. KM from this standpoint is seen as leveraging IC (Peters, 1992),
or as recognising or rediscovering assets that
the organisation is not using to full potential,
ultimately employees. This approach is similar to that of Handy (1990) who spoke of
creating value from intangible assets. Thus
these approaches imply that the key areas
within KM are IC and the management of IC.
However the concept of knowledge as
simply relating to IC or a manageable asset is
a highly mechanistic view and is much
criticised by those who see knowledge as
socially constructed (Gergen, 1991; Alvesson
and Willmott, 1996). This more socialorientated view focuses on knowledge
construction as being a key area of KM.
Knowledge management is the process of

critically managing knowledge to meet existing
needs, to identify and exploit existing and
acquired knowledge assets and to develop new
opportunities (Quintas et al., 1997).
The crux of the issue is not information,
information technology ... the answer turns out
to lie more with psychology and marketing of
knowledge within the family than with bits and
bytes (Peters, 1992).
Knowledge management is the activity which is
concerned with strategy and tactics to manage
human centred assets (Brooking, 1997).
Firstly, a cursory reading of the definitions

reveals that KM is seen as relating to both
theory and practice for example the definitions of De Jarnett (1996) and Quintas et al.
(1997) respectively. Much of the existing
literature on knowledge is highly theoretical
and conceptual, especially in the field of
cognitive psychology; however, broadly
speaking, most of the reflective literature on
KM combines both theory and practice in a
fairly seamless and often recursive manner.
Secondly, the definitions are not predicated
on information technology. For example,
Peters' definition positively asserts that KM is
not situated in the technology domain. This
omission raises an important issue. Recent
advances in technology have led to faster data
transfer, but it remains a useful enabler rather
than a central tenet at the heart of KM.
Thirdly, people and learning issues are
central to KM (see the definitions of Quintas
et al.). The vast majority of the existing
literature on KM covers these two related
issues, usually in an organisational context
and covering both theory and practice.
The wide range of definitions also reflect
the fact that those people working in the field
of KM come from a wide range of disciplines,
such as psychology, management science,
sociology, strategy, production engineering
etc. (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Thus KM
not only combines theory and practice but is
also multidisciplinary. Scarborough (1996)
comments: ``the sprawling and eclectic literature and the ambiguity and definitional
problems ... allow different groups to project
their own interests and concerns onto it''.
In the literature there is a lot of confusion
between the terms knowledge management
(KM) and intellectual capital (IC); for example, EFQM (1997) and others use the
terms interchangeably. However, it is contended that KM and IC are different but
related issues. It was Drucker (1995) who
KM as an emerging paradigm
Is KM a passing fad, a significant trend or a
paradigm in its own right? Answers to these
questions will influence the investment of
organisations in KM and its ultimate credibility in the academic literature. Ultimately
there will be a reluctance to invest time and
resources in ephemeral movements.
It is important to clarify what is implied by
terms applied to emerging bodies of knowledge such as KM. Firstly, when a subject is
written about and discussed the summation of
all that is known about it is referred to as a
body of knowledge. When this body of
knowledge becomes sufficiently significant
and influential on theory or practice it is then
classified into what McLaughlin and Thorpe
(1993) called, either a toolbox of techniques,
or a philosophy. A toolbox of techniques is
largely problem-solving methodologies in a
subject area. A philosophy implies a set of
93

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100
beliefs which provide those who subscribe to

them with a distinct world view.
Secondly, the idea of views gives rise to the
term paradigm. Kuhn (1970, 1974) and
Clegg et al. (1996) defined paradigms as
theories of world views that define legitimate
problems, methods and solutions for a community. Typical components of a paradigm
are laws and theoretical assumptions, principles and methodological prescriptions. A
typical cycle in organisation study is where a
paradigm and its associated laws and assumptions develops from a body of
knowledge and acts as a guide to practice.
Then ambiguities and novelties become apparent but are overlooked for as long as
possible. Some dissipate (fads), but others
become too important and influential to be
denied and the paradigm is overthrown by a
competing paradigm, which promises to solve
the novelties or ambiguities. It is interesting to
note that Kuhn concluded that there are no
set standards for proving the superiority of
one paradigm over another, rather the switch
from one paradigm to another is akin to an act
of conversion.
How is KM classified in regard to paradigms? Firstly, KM is more than a toolbox of
techniques. Had it remained solely in the
information technology domain then it could
have been classified as another set of IT
solutions to existing problems and hence a
fad. Ramsay (1996) equates faddishness to
superficial quick fixes which implies a much
narrower viewpoint than that which currently
exists for KM. But is KM a business or
organisational paradigm in its own right? The
work of Clegg et al. (1996) implies that
paradigms can be large, all embracing, paradigms, or paradigms that relate to a particular
part of a large paradigm. For example the
large paradigm of postmodernism can include
the paradigms of feminism and ecological
views. Thus the possibility arises that KM
could emerge into a large paradigm or be a
paradigm which is a subset of a larger
emerging paradigm. Clegg et al. (1996) define
the current emerging large paradigm of
organisation theory and practice in terms of
Table I.
This representation puts Kuhn's work on
succeeding paradigms in a current organisational context in that it shows the paradigm
on the left-hand side of the table replacing the
paradigm on the right-hand side.
Table I Old and new management paradigms

New paradigm
Old paradigm
Organisational learning
Organisation discipline
Virtuous circles
Vicious circles
Flexible organisations
Inflexible organisations
Management leaders
Management administrators
Open communication
Distorted communication
Core competencies drive product

development
Strategic business units drive

product development
Strategic learning capacities are

widespread
Strategic learning occurs at the

apex of the organisation
Assumption that most organisation

members are trustworthy
Assumption that most

organisation members are
untrustworthy
Most organisation members are

empowered
Most organisation members are

disempowered
Tacit and local knowledge of all

members of the organisation is the
most important factor in success,
and creativity creates its own
prerogative
Tacit and local knowledge of

most members of the
organisation must be disciplined
by managerial prerogative
Source: Clegg et al. (1996)
It is interesting to compare Table I with the

current approaches to KM. Firstly there is a
``knowledge is truth'' view (Morgan, 1986)
which represents approaches to KM which
take a absolutist approach to knowledge
construction, associating it with the assimilation of factual inputs. These ``facts'' are
labeled as scientific and therefore cannot be
disputed. Gergen (1991) describes such
indisputability as ``scientists adding sanctity
to ideology''. Richardson et al. (1987) describe these views of knowledge as enforcing
``the removal of discriminatory power'' and
queries how ideas can be evaluated and
critiqued with this approach. Overall, this
positivist approach to knowledge and KM
equates more to the right-hand side of
Table I.
Secondly, within the field of KM, there is a
view that knowledge is socially constructed.
Burgoyne et al. (1994) state that ``philosophy
of science has largely been replaced on the
intellectual agenda by the history and sociology of knowledge which emphasises cultural
and historical processes rather than rationally
superior knowledge''. This approach agrees
with Habermass's view that knowledge constitutes human interest rather than being
restricted to a functionalist science approach.
Lave and Wenger (1991) conclude that
94

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100
structuring research and organisational applications of KM.

All models must be treated with caution.
An example (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996) is
the modelling of information systems which
sometimes can be imposed on organisations
from a technical viewpoint rather than asking
the customers (internal organisational members) what actually happens or what is
required. In commenting on the modelling of
operations research, which assumes models
are built on objective results, Alvesson and
Willmott (1992) describe such assumptions
as ``naive realism''. Thus models must be
treated with caution. It is suggested that they
are useful so long as they are critiqued to
understand the underlying assumptions in the
representation, rather than accepting them as
objective representations of reality.
Recognising these considerations and limitations, the following paragraphs give a
critique of some typical models in the field of
KM. The models have been selected as
covering a range of KM views, rather than as
an exhaustive list of KM models. Broadly, the
literature identifies three categories of KM
models, namely knowledge category models,
intellectual capital models and social constructed models.
knowledge achieved in this way is cultural and

is provided by a socio-historical context
usually made available through the everyday
experience of individuals. Overall, this social
constructionist view of KM equates more to
the left side of Table I.
If KM is to continue as an emerging
paradigm, and not simply be a convenient
mechanistic tool, then the field must address
the social side of knowledge construction
(mainly the left side of Table I) in addition to
the more scientific side of knowledge construction (right-hand side of Table I). By
taking this more holistic viewpoint KM can
play an important role in post-capitalist
deregulated organisations which emphasise
knowledge and learning (all of Table I). For
example, KM plays a key role in facilitating
communities of practice that form as learning
groups within widely dispersed or virtual
organisations (such as ABB and McKinseys).
The conception of KM as an emerging
paradigm consistent with larger movements in
organisational theory and practice has important implications. For example, Kuhn
(1974) points out that when a paradigm is
identified by the academic community then
research is undertaken to articulate and fill
out the paradigm. Perhaps this explains the
phenomenal increase in academic research in
the area of KM over the past few years. Also
when a paradigm is identified (by conversion
or otherwise) there is a wide range of
organisational applications developed from
the theory. Once again the literature reflects
an enormous growth in the number of
organisations of all types becoming involved
in KM. As knowledge is fundamental to
organisations, learning the potential implications of an emerging paradigm in this area has
potentially enormous consequences for the
field of management learning and organisational development.
Knowledge category models

These types of model categorise knowledge
into discrete elements. For example, Nonaka's model is an attempt at giving a highlevel conceptual representation of KM and
essentially considers KM as a knowledge
creation process. In its simplest form it is
shown in Figure 1 (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995).
As seen from Figure 1, knowledge is
considered as consisting of tacit and explicit
elements. Tacit knowledge is defined by
Polanyi (1962) as nonverbalised, intuitive and
unarticulated. Explicit or articulated
Figure 1 Nonaka's knowledge management model
A critique of knowledge management

Many models of KM, covering a wide
spectrum of viewpoints, are described in the
literature. A critique of these models is helpful
in that the underlying assumptions and
reasoning can be revealed. In this section a
number of KM models are critiqued and a
preferred representative model is tentatively
suggested as useful for further work on
95

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100
knowledge is specified as being in writing,

drawings, computer programs etc. (Hedlund,
1994). However, is it appropriate to solely
categorise knowledge in such a way? Where
does the concept of P and Q knowledge
(McLoughlin and Thorpe, 1993) fit with this
view, where P is programmed knowledge and
Q is knowledge gained by questioning insight.
Tacit knowledge does not exactly map onto
Q, neither does explicit knowledge exactly
map unto P. Thus P and Q represent a
different categorisation of knowledge. Therefore from a critical standpoint Nonaka's
categorisation of knowledge is perhaps limited
or unidimensional.
The model assumes tacit knowledge can be
transferred through a process of socialisation
into tacit knowledge in others and that tacit
knowledge can become explicit knowledge
through a process of externalisation (top 2
squares of the model in Figure 1). The model
also assumes (bottom 2 squares) that explicit
knowledge can be transferred into tacit
knowledge in others through a process of
internalisation, and that explicit knowledge
can be transferred to explicit knowledge in
others through a process of combination.
Therefore, the transforming processes are
assumed to be socialisation (everyday comradeship), externalisation (formalising a body
of knowledge), internalisation (translating
theory into practice) and combination (combining existing theories). However, perhaps
knowledge transfer in organisations is much
more complicated and convoluted than this
simple matrix suggests. Perhaps this model
implies a mechanistic approach to knowledge
categorisation more consistent with the righthand side of Table I, although the four
processes within the model, as described
above, could be interpreted as largely consistent with the left-hand side of Table I.
A more elaborate version of Nonaka's
model is shown in Figure 2 (Hedlund and
Nonaka, 1993).
This model assumes there are four different

levels of ``carriers'', or agents, of knowledge in
organisations (ontological axis) namely the
individual, the small group, the organisation
and the interorganisational domain (important customers, suppliers, competitors etc.).
While the model is helpful in that it relates the
carriers to the types of knowledge (albeit
limited), it remains problematic in that it
assumes the carriers, like the knowledge, can
be simply segregated (more consistent with
the right-hand side of Table I). An analogy is
drawn with the management competency
movement which assumes a simplistic desegregation of management tasks rather than a
more representative holistic approach.
Another example of a knowledge category
model is that of Boisot (1987). Figure 3
shows Boisot's model which considers
knowledge as either codified or uncodified,
and as diffused or undiffused, within an
organisation. Boisot uses the term ``codified''
to refer to knowledge that can be readily
prepared for transmission purposes (e.g.
financial data). The term `ùncodified'' refers
to knowledge that cannot be easily prepared
for transmission purposes (e.g. experience).
The term ``diffused'' refers to knowledge that
is readily shared while `ùndiffused'' refers to
knowledge that is not readily shared.
If knowledge is categorised as both codified
and undiffused (top left quadrant of Figure
3), then the knowledge is referred to as
propriety knowledge. In this case, knowledge
is prepared for transmission but is deliberately
restricted to a selectively small population, on
a ``need to know'' basis (e.g. projected profits,
share price issues). The bottom left quadrant
of Figure 3 covers knowledge that is relatively
uncodified and undiffused, which is referred
to as personal knowledge (e.g. perceptions,
insights, experiences). The top right quadrant
covers knowledge that is both codified and
diffused and is referred to as public knowledge (e.g. journals, books, libraries). Finally,
Figure 2 Hedlund and Nonaka's knowledge management model
96

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100
Figure 3 Boisot's knowledge category model
Figure 4 Intellectual capital model of knowledge management (Skandia)
the bottom right quadrant of Figure 3 refers

to common sense knowledge which is
relatively diffused but also uncodified. Such
knowledge is considered by Boisot as being
built up slowly by a process of socialisation,
harbouring customs and intuition (more
consistent with the left-hand side of Table I).
There are a number of parallels between
Nonaka's model and that of Boisot. For
example, Nonaka's categorisation of explicit
and tacit knowledge has at least some degree
of correspondence with Boisot's reference to
codified and uncodified knowledge. Also, in
both models the horizontal dimension relates
to the spread or diffusion of knowledge across
the organisation. Boisot's model suffers the
same limitations as Nonaka's model in that
codified and uncodified are but two discrete
categories of knowledge (more relevant to the
right-hand side of Table I). Also, the idea of
diffused knowledge (less defined ontological
axis than Nonaka's model) is rather general
and it is not clear if it includes incorporating
knowledge within the organisation, as well as
spreading it.
In summary, knowledge category models of
KM involve knowledge transforming processes of socialisation similar to the left-hand
side of Table I. However, some of the
categorisation of knowledge in these models is
mechanistic and more consistent with the
right-hand side of Table I.
predicated on this type of model. The model

assumes a very scientific approach to knowledge and assumes it can be commodified
hence the link with organisational capital (this
approach is consistent with the right-hand
side of Table I). Skandia was the first
company in the world to publish a supplement to its annual report on the company's
intellectual capital philosophy and activities
(Chase, 1997). However, this intellectual
capital view of KM ignores the political and
social aspects of KM. Also, like Nonaka's
model, it assumes KM can be decomposed
into objective elements rather than being a
socio-political phenomenon. This mechanistic approach, more consistent with the righthand side of Table I, can result in simplistic
mechanised approaches to complex socialrelated issues (e.g. reward and recognition,
power relations, empowerment etc.)
The Skandia example, as described by Lank
gives a strong emphasis to measurement
associated with each of these decomposed
elements of KM assuming it can be tightly
controlled, as is the case for tangible assets.
Unfortunately this approach can result in
attempts to fit objective measures to subjective elements. Once again this mechanistic
approach to measurement is more consistent
with the right-hand side of Table I.
In summary, intellectual capital models are
mechanistic in nature, and assume that
knowledge can be treated as an asset, similar
to other assets. Such an approach is largely
associated with the right-hand side of Table I.
Intellectual capital models

A number of models in the literature represent KM as essentially intellectual capital
(IC). A typical IC model is the Skandia IC
model (Figure 4 from Chase, 1997; and Roos
and Roos, 1997).
The model assumes IC or KM can be
segregated into human, customer, process
and growth elements which are contained in
two main categories of human capital and
structural/organisation capital. Lank's (1997)
account of the Skandia approach to KM is
Socially constructed models of KM

This group of models assumes a wide definition of knowledge and views knowledge as
97

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100
knowledge construction. Perhaps the solid

arrows or main flow is a limitation in that it
implies that recursive flows are less important.
It also implies a simplistic processual approach (mechanistic and hence akin to the
right-hand side of Table I) while, in reality,
the flows of knowledge transfer may be
extremely rapid and circulatory, as in the case
for some forms of action learning.
The `ùse'' box in the model is limited to
organisational outputs and does not include
emancipatory enhancements (hence, it is
more orientated towards the right-hand side
of Table I). These factors can be seen as
complementary rather than mutually
exclusive.
Figure 6 is a slightly modified version of
Demerest's model which seeks to address
these limitations by explicitly showing the
influence of both social and scientific paradigms of knowledge construction (hence both
sides of Table I). The model also extends the
`ùse'' element to cover both business and
employee benefits. If KM is to have the
support and commitment of all stakeholders
in an organisation then employee emancipation must be addressed along with the
business benefits. These issues should not be
seen as mutually exclusive but as complementary. Also more recursive arrows are
added to Figure 6 to show that KM is not
seen as a simple sequential process.
It is suggested that the model of Figure 6 is
a useful means for structuring further research
into the field of KM as it represents a
balanced view of Table I. It allows KM to be
associated with the emerging social paradigm
while at the same time contributing to the
current paradigm (Table I).
being intrinsically linked within the social and

learning processes within the organisation.
There is a large area of commonality between
these types of models and those models
seeking to represent the learning organisation
and organisational learning (e.g. Burgoyne et
al., 1994). A typical example of these types of
models is shown in Figure 5.
The model is Demerest's (1997) adaptation
of Clark and Staunton's (1989) model of KM
(Figure 5). Firstly, the model emphasises the
construction of knowledge within the organisation. This construction is not limited to
scientific inputs but is seen as including the
social construction of knowledge. The model
assumes that constructed knowledge is then
embodied within the organisation, not just
through explicit programmes but through a
process of social interchange. Following
embodiment there is a process of dissemination of the espoused knowledge throughout
the organisation and its environs (this approach is consistent with the left-hand side of
Table I). Ultimately the knowledge is seen as
being of economic use in regard to organisational outputs. The solid arrows in Figure 5
show the primary flow direction while the
plain arrows show the more recursive flows.
The model is similar to that of Jordan and
Jones (1997) who speak of knowledge acquisition, problem solving, dissemination,
ownership and storage. There are also similarities with Kruizinga et al.'s (1997) model
which includes knowledge policy, infrastructure and culture. There are also parallels with
Scarborough's (1996) approach which covers
strategic knowledge, structural and cultural
knowledge, systems knowledge and communities of practice and routines. The model in
Figure 5 is attractive in that it does not
assume any given definition of knowledge but
rather invites a more holistic approach to
Figure 6 Modified version of Demerest's knowledge management model
Figure 5 Knowledge management model
98

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100
Burgoyne, J., Pedlar, M. and Boydell, T. (1994), Towards

the Learning Company, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead.
Brooking, A. (1997), ``The management of intellectual
capital'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 364-5.
Clarke, P. and Staunton, N. (1989), Innovation in
Technology and Organisation, Routledge, London.
Chase, R. (1997), ``The knowledge based organisation: an
international survey'', Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1.
Clegg, S., Barrett, M., Clarke, T., Dwyer, L., Gray, J., Kemp,
S. and Marceau, J. (1996), ``Management knowledge for the future: innovation, embryos and new
paradigms'', in Clegg, S. and Palmer, G. (Eds),
The Politics of Management Knowledge, Sage,
London.
Demerest, M. (1997), `Ùnderstanding knowledge management'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 374-84.
De Jarnett, L. (1996), ``Knowledge the latest thing'',
Information Strategy, The Executives Journal,
Vol. 12, pt 2, pp. 3-5.
Drucker, P. (1995), ``The information executives truly
need'', Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb,
pp. 54-62.
EFQM Report (1997), Knowledge Management in Europe,
Current Practice Survey Results, September.
Gergen, J. (1991), The Saturated Self, Basic Books, USA.
Handy, C. (1990), ``The age of unreason'', Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Hedlund, G. (1994), `À model of knowledge management
and the N-Form Corporation'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 73-90.
Hedlund, G. and Nonaka, I. (1993), ``Models of knowledge
management in the West and Japan'', in Lorange,
B., Chakravarthy, B., Roos, J. and Van de Ven, H.
(Eds), Implementing Strategic Processes, Change,
Learning and Cooperation, Macmillan, London,
pp. 117-44.
Jordan, J. and Jones, P. (1997), `Àssessing your
company's knowledge management style'',
Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 392-8.
Kemmis, S. (1985), `Àction research and the politics of
reflection'', in Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D.
(Eds), Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning,
Kogan Page, London, pp. 139-63.
Kruizinga, E., Heijst, G. and Spek, R. (1997), ``Knowledge
infrastructures and intranets'', Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, Aug/Sept, pp. 27-32.
Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolution,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kuhn, T. (1974), ``Second thoughts on paradigms'', in
Suppe, F. (Ed.), The Search for Philosophical
Scientific Theories, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL.
Lank, E. (1997), ``Leveraging invisible assets: the human
factor'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 406-12.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press.
McLoughlin, H. and Thorpe, R. (1993), `Àction learning
a paradigm in emergence: the problems facing a
challenge to traditional management education and
development'', British Journal of Management,
Vol. 4, pp. 19-27.
Conclusions and recommendations

The examination of existing definitions and
classifications of KM show a wide spectrum
of viewpoints. These range from the more
mechanistic to more socially orientated. The
mechanistic type of definitions and classifications assume an intellectual capital
approach (knowledge viewed as an asset)
while the social type assumes a social constructionist approach where knowledge is
constructed in the social relationships within
organisations.
Clegg et al.'s (1996) classification of old
and new paradigms enabled Table I to be
constructed which was found to be a useful
evaluative framework for examining KM
models and their associated assumptions.
Three broad classifications of models were
identified and critiqued. Firstly, knowledge
category models made reference to social
processes for transforming knowledge; however the categorisation of knowledge in these
models was somewhat mechanistic. Secondly,
the intellectual capital models were found to
be more mechanistic, assuming that knowledge can be treated similarly to other assets
(right-hand side of Table I). Thirdly, socially
constructed models were found to give a more
balanced approach between the scientific and
social approaches to KM.
Finally, Figure 6 was constructed, a suggested approach to KM (based on socially
constructed models Figure 5). This model
takes a balanced approach between scientific
and socially constructed knowledge. Also the
`ùses/benefits'' of KM are viewed as both
emancipatory and as business oriented.
Throughout the model, knowledge flows are
seen as highly recursive rather than as
sequential. It is suggested that this model
could act as a useful guide for further research
and literature evaluation in the area of
knowledge management.
References
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992), Critical Management Studies, Sage, London.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996), Making Sense of
Management, Sage, London.
Boisot, M. (1987), Information and Organisations: The
Manager as Anthropologist, Fontana/Collins,
London.
Burgoyne, J. and Reynolds, M. (1997), Managing
Learning, Integrating Perspectives in Theory and
Practice, Sage, London.
99

Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91100
Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organisations, Sage,

London.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, K. (1995), The Knowledge
Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Peters, T. (1992), Liberation Management, Pan Books,
New York, NY.
Polanyi, M. (1962), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post
Critical Philosophy, Harper, Torchbooks, New York,
NY.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997), ``Knowledge
management: a strategic agenda'', Journal of Long
Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 385-91.
Ramsay, H. (1996), ``Managing sceptically: a critique of
organisational fashion'', in Clegg, S. and Palmer, G.
(Eds), The Politics of Management Knowledge,
Sage, London.
Richardson, J., Eysenck, M. and Piper, D. (1987), Student

Learning: Research in Education and Cognitive
Psychology, Open University Press, London.
Roos, G. and Roos, J. (1997), ``Measuring your company's
intellectual performance'', Journal of Long Range
Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 413-26.
Scarborough, H. (1996), Business Process Re-design: The
Knowledge Dimension, http://bprc.warwick.ac.uk/
rc-rep-8.1, November.
Taylor et al. (1997), International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 385-91.
Further reading
Edvinsson, L. (1997), ``Developing intellectual capital at
Skandia'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 366-73.
100
This article has been cited by:

1. Nadine Newman, Dunstan Newman. 2015. Learning and knowledge: a dream or nightmare for employees. The Learning
Organization 22:1, 58-71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Mikko Dufva, Toni Ahlqvist. 2014. Knowledge creation dynamics in foresight: A knowledge typology and exploratory method
to analyse foresight workshops. Technological Forecasting and Social Change . [CrossRef]
3. Silvia Martelo-Landroguez, Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro. 2014. Linking knowledge corridors to customer value through
knowledge processes. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:2, 342-365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Guillaume Boutard. 2014. Towards mixed methods digital curation: facing specific adaptation in the artistic domain. Archival
Science . [CrossRef]
5. Alexia Mary Tzortzaki, Athanassios Mihiotis. 2014. A Review of Knowledge Management Theory and Future Directions.
Knowledge and Process Management 21:1, 29-41. [CrossRef]
6. Karim Moustaghfir, Giovanni Schiuma, Karim Moustaghfir, Giovanni Schiuma. 2013. Knowledge, learning, and innovation:
research and perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management 17:4, 495-510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Ravi Shankar, Neha Mittal, Samuel Rabinowitz, Alok Baveja, Sourish Acharia. 2013. A collaborative framework to minimise
knowledge loss in new product development. International Journal of Production Research 51:7, 2049-2059. [CrossRef]
8. Ritesh CHUGH. 2013. Workplace Dimensions: Tacit Knowledge Sharing in Universities. Journal of Advanced Management
Science 1:1, 24-28. [CrossRef]
9. Dursun Delen, Halil Zaim, Cemil Kuzey, Selim Zaim. 2013. A comparative analysis of machine learning systems for measuring
the impact of knowledge management practices. Decision Support Systems 54, 1150-1160. [CrossRef]
10. Guillaume Boutard, Catherine Guastavino. 2012. Archiving electroacoustic and mixed music. Journal of Documentation 68:6,
749-771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Edgar Serna M.. 2012. Maturity model of Knowledge Management in the interpretativist perspective. International Journal
of Information Management 32:4, 365-371. [CrossRef]
12. Jayanthi Ranjan, Rajat Gera. 2012. Bridging the gap in knowledge transfer between academia and practitioners. International
Journal of Educational Management 26:3, 252-273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Charles EgbuConstruction Innovation through Knowledge Management 235-249. [CrossRef]
14. J. Zhang, T. E. El-Diraby. 2012. Social Semantic Approach to Support Communication in AEC. Journal of Computing in
Civil Engineering 26:1, 90-104. [CrossRef]
15. Rasheed Sulaiman V, Laxmi Thummuru, Andy Hall, Jeroen Dijkman. 2011. Tacit knowledge and innovation capacity:
evidence from the Indian livestock sector. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 7:1, 32-44. [CrossRef]
16. Edda Tandi Lwoga. 2011. Knowledge management approaches in managing agricultural indigenous and exogenous knowledge
in Tanzania. Journal of Documentation 67:3, 407-430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Bijaya Mishra, A. Uday Bhaskar. 2011. Knowledge management process in two learning organisations. Journal of Knowledge
Management 15:2, 344-359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. P. Chasek, W. Essahli, M. Akhtar-Schuster, L. C. Stringer, R. Thomas. 2011. Integrated land degradation monitoring and
assessment: Horizontal knowledge management at the national and international levels. Land Degradation & Development
22:2, 272-284. [CrossRef]
19. Graeme SmithCase study from Ordnance Survey: social networking and the transfer of knowledge within supply chain
management 131-154. [CrossRef]
20. Iftikhar Hussain, Shakeel Ahmed, Steven Si. 2010. Personal Knowledge Abilities and Knowledge Management Success.
Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 09:04, 319-327. [CrossRef]
21. Mara De Los ngeles Briceo Moreno, Csar Augusto Bernal Torres. 2010. Estudios de caso sobre la gestin del
conocimiento en cuatro organizaciones colombianas lderes en penetracin de mercado. Estudios Gerenciales 26:117, 173-193.
[CrossRef]
22. Tanya Linden, Jacob Cybulski. 2010. A Hermeneutic Study of Pattern Mining as a Knowledge Creation Process: Exploring
Multimedia Design Practices. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 09:03, 263-275. [CrossRef]
23. Yacine Rezgui, Christina J. Hopfe, Chalee Vorakulpipat. 2010. Generations of knowledge management in the architecture,
engineering and construction industry: An evolutionary perspective. Advanced Engineering Informatics 24:2, 219-228.
[CrossRef]
24. Jean-Pierre Booto Ekionea, Grard Fillion, Prosper Bernard, Michel Plaisent. 2010. Les technologies de linformation, la
gestion des connaissances et un avantage concurrentiel soutenu: une analyse par la thorie des ressources. Revue de l'universit
de Moncton 41:1, 247. [CrossRef]
25. John P. Moriarty, Clive Smallman. 2009. En route to a theory of benchmarking. Benchmarking: An International Journal
16:4, 484-503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Champika Liyanage, Taha Elhag, Tabarak Ballal, Qiuping Li. 2009. Knowledge communication and translation a knowledge
transfer model. Journal of Knowledge Management 13:3, 118-131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Mohammad Hosein Rezazadeh Mehrizi, Nick Bontis. 2009. A cluster analysis of the KM field. Management Decision 47:5,
28. Mohammed Arif, Charles Egbu, Ola Alom, Malik M.A. Khalfan. 2009. Measuring knowledge retention: a case study of
a construction consultancy in the UAE. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 16:1, 92-108. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
29. CHALEE VORAKULPIPAT, YACINE REZGUI. 2008. Value creation: the future of knowledge management. The
Knowledge Engineering Review 23:03. . [CrossRef]
30. Abdulaziz O. Alsadhan, Mohamed Zairi, Kay Hooi Alan Keoy. 2008. From P Economy to K Economy: An empirical study
on knowledge-based quality factors. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19:7-8, 807-825. [CrossRef]
31. Soo-Jin Park, Myeong-Hee Lee. 2008. Awareness of the Privacy Concerns in Knowledge Management in Scholarly
Publications from 2000 to 2004. Journal of the Korean Society for information Management 25:2, 99-114. [CrossRef]
32. Zhichang Zhu. 2008. Knowledge, knowing, knower: what is to be managed and does it matter?. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice 6:2, 112-123. [CrossRef]
33. Chalee Vorakulpipat, Yacine Rezgui. 2008. An evolutionary and interpretive perspective to knowledge management. Journal
of Knowledge Management 12:3, 17-34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Meliha Handzic, Amila Lagumdzija, Amer Celjo. 2008. Auditing knowledge management practices: model and application.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6:1, 90-99. [CrossRef]
35. M Begoa Lloria. 2008. A review of the main approaches to knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice 6:1, 77-89. [CrossRef]
36. Bill Martin. 2008. Knowledge management. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 42:1, 369-424. [CrossRef]
37. Murat Hakan Altnta, Tuncer Tokol, Talha Harcar. 2007. The effects of export barriers on perceived export performance.
EuroMed Journal of Business 2:1, 36-56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Meliha Handzic, Amila Lagumdzija, Amer Celjo. 2007. A Survey of Knowledge Management Adoption in Public
Administration. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 06:03, 219-230. [CrossRef]
39. Tayyab Maqsood, Derek H.T. Walker, Andrew D. Finegan. 2007. Facilitating knowledge pull to deliver innovation through
knowledge management. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 14:1, 94-109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Miltiadis D. Lytras, Athanasia Pouloudi. 2006. Towards the development of a novel taxonomy of knowledge management
systems from a learning perspective: an integrated approach to learning and knowledge infrastructures. Journal of Knowledge
Management 10:6, 64-80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Stephen Gourlay. 2006. Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation: A Critique of Nonaka's Theory. Journal of Management Studies
43:7, 1415-1436. [CrossRef]
42. Steffen Jrgensen, Peter M. Kort, Engelbert J. Dockner. 2006. Venture capital financed investments in intellectual capital.
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 30:11, 2339-2361. [CrossRef]
43. Saurabh Gupta, Amy Scott Metcalfe. 2006. Using peer-to-peer technology for collaborative knowledge management: concepts,
frameworks and research issues. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 4:3, 187-196. [CrossRef]
44. Yacine Rezgui. 2006. Ontology-Centered Knowledge Management Using Information Retrieval Techniques. Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering 20:4, 261-270. [CrossRef]
45. Michael Stankosky, Ellen F. Mac Garrigle. 2006. Validating Enterprise Management Engineering Through the Use of
Knowledge Capital Assessments. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 05:02, 129-142. [CrossRef]
46. Bino Catass, JanErik Grjer. 2006. Indicators: on visualizing, classifying and dramatizing. Journal of Intellectual Capital
47. Miguel Baptista Nunes, Fenio Annansingh, Barry Eaglestone, Richard Wakefield. 2006. Knowledge management issues in
knowledgeintensive SMEs. Journal of Documentation 62:1, 101-119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Carla Laurentis. 2006. Digital Knowledge Exploitation: ICT, Memory Institutions and Innovation from Cultural Assets. The
Journal of Technology Transfer 31:1, 77-89. [CrossRef]
49. Adrian Bueren, Ragnar Schierholz, Lutz M. Kolbe, Walter Brenner. 2005. Improving performance of customerprocesses
with knowledge management. Business Process Management Journal 11:5, 573-588. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Ravi Shankar, Amol Gupta. 2005. Towards framework for knowledge management implementation. Knowledge and Process
Management 12:4, 259-277. [CrossRef]
51. Snunith Shoham, Alon Hasgall. 2005. Knowledge workers as fractals in a complex adaptive organization. Knowledge and
Process Management 12:3, 225-236. [CrossRef]
52. Karen Anderson, Rodney McAdam. 2005. An empirical analysis of lead benchmarking and performance measurement.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 22:4, 354-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Meliha Handzic, Albert Z. ZhouAn integrated view of KM 3-15. [CrossRef]
54. Rachel McLean, Nigel M. Blackie. 2004. Customer and company voices in ecommerce: a qualitative analysis. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal 7:4, 243-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Charles O. Egbu. 2004. Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational innovations in the
construction industry: an examination of critical success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 11:5,
56. Karen Anderson, Rodney McAdam. 2004. A critique of benchmarking and performance measurement. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 11:5, 465-483. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Ioannis E. Diakoulakis, Nikolaos B. Georgopoulos, Dimitrios E. Koulouriotis, Dimitrios M. Emiris. 2004. Towards a holistic
knowledge management model. Journal of Knowledge Management 8:1, 32-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Tatiana Sotirakou, Mary Zeppou. 2004. The MATE model: a strategic knowledge management technique on the chessboard
of publicsector modernization. Management Decision 42:1, 69-88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Henning Gebert, Malte Geib, Lutz Kolbe, Walter Brenner. 2003. Knowledgeenabled customer relationship management:
integrating customer relationship management and knowledge management concepts[1]. Journal of Knowledge Management
60. Rumesh Kumar Sharma. 2003. Understanding Organizational Learning Through Knowledge Management. Journal of
Information & Knowledge Management 02:04, 343-352. [CrossRef]
61. Fang Zhao. 2003. Transforming Quality in Research Supervision: A knowledge-management approach. Quality in Higher
Education 9:2, 187-197. [CrossRef]
62. Thou Tin Lim. 2002. Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management
01:01, 57-63. [CrossRef]
63. Jeffrey R. Puddy, If Price, Louise Smith. 2001. FM policies and standards as a knowledge management system. Facilities
19:13/14, 504-515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Rodney McAdam, Renee Reid. 2001. SME and large organisation perceptions of knowledge management: comparisons and
contrasts. Journal of Knowledge Management 5:3, 231-241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Philip C. Wright, Frederick K.C. Tao. 2001. The missing link: coaching as a method of improving managerial skills in smaller
businesses in Asia. Career Development International 6:4, 218-225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Majed Al-Mashari. 2001. Process orientation through enterprise resource planning (ERP): a review of critical issues.
Knowledge and Process Management 8:3, 175-185. [CrossRef]
67. Anne Christie, Eric Sandelands. 2000. The knowledge harvest: ensuring you reap what you sow. Journal of Workplace Learning
68. Jamie OBrienLessons from the Private Sector 173-198. [CrossRef]
69. Neeta BaporikarOrganizational Barriers and Facilitators in Embedding Knowledge Strategy 149-173. [CrossRef]
70. Sari MetsoA New Perspective on Knowledge Management Research 193-206. [CrossRef]

A Critical Review of Knowledge Management Models 09696479910270416

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of Knowledge Management Models 09696479910270416

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Learning Organization