Journal of Knowledge Management

Uncovering cultural perceptions and barriers during knowledge audit

Meira Levy Irit Hadar Steven Greenspan Ethan Hadar

Article information:
To cite this document:
Meira Levy Irit Hadar Steven Greenspan Ethan Hadar, (2010),"Uncovering cultural perceptions and barriers during knowledge audit",
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 114 - 127
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015606
Downloaded on: 09 March 2015, At: 14:42 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 31 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1962 times since 2010*

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Wei Li, (2010),"Virtual knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural context", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 38-50 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015552
J. Scott Holste, Dail Fields, (2010),"Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp.
128-140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015615
Mian Ajmal, Petri Helo, Tauno Kekle, (2010),"Critical factors for knowledge management in project business", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 156-168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015633

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 226873 []

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.

Uncovering cultural perceptions and

barriers during knowledge audit
Meira Levy, Irit Hadar, Steven Greenspan and Ethan Hadar

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce and illustrate the importance of uncovering tacit
perceptions during knowledge management (KM) audit, in order to identify cultural barriers that may
interfere with KM initiatives. The goal of such KM initiatives is to leverage a firms capacity to efficiently
produce value from knowledge held by employees and embedded in processes. Current audit
practices analyze the explicit information gained through interviews and questionnaires, focusing on the
organizations culture, existing KM processes and the improved KM processes it wishes to implement.
The paper seeks to suggest an approach for uncovering and analyzing tacit perceptions identified
through interviews and discussions as an inherent part of KM audit.
Design/methodology/approach The research was conducted during a KM audit in a large international
software development organization. The research methodology was composed of two disciplines. The
first, used for data collection, was a knowledge-engineering and management methodology the
CommonKADS. The second, used for qualitative data analysis, was the grounded theory approach.
Meira Levy is an Adjunct
Lecturer and Researcher
and Irit Hadar is a Faculty
Member, both in the
Department of
Management Information
Systems, University of
Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Steven Greenspan is a
Research Staff Member at
CA, Inc., Princeton, New
Jersey, USA. Ethan Hadar is
Vice President for Research
at CA, Inc., Yokneam,
Israel.

Findings The KM activities currently taking place in the organization include creation, sharing, access,
usage, and maintenance. In interviews and discussions, access was the most emphasized activity. The
cultural barriers that were identified relate to the KM roles and responsibilities that occur in daily work. A
business process analysis revealed different perspectives of KM from different stakeholders.
Research limitations/implications The findings of this study are based on a large, multi-located and
highly distributed, yet single organization. Additional research needs to be conducted in order to further
validate and generalize the findings.
Practical implications The principle of identifying tacit perceptions and cultural barriers illustrated in
the study may be beneficial in any organization. Identifying the issues that need to be addressed before
implementing a KM solution is critical for a successful implementation.
Originality/value The paper introduces the concept of uncovering tacit perceptions in order to
identify cultural barriers that may interfere with a KM initiative. For this purpose, an analysis method was
developed and used during a KM audit. Using this audit practice prior to a KM project will enable a
better understanding of the risks and challenges that need to be managed to ensure success.
Keywords Knowledge management, Culture (sociology), Auditing, Perception
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
Knowledge audits are considered as the first critical step for implementing knowledge
management (KM) practices in organizations. The audit includes business needs and
cultural assessments, and an examination of what knowledge is needed, available, missing,
applied, and contained within the organization (Joseph, 1991; Debenham and Clark, 1995;
Liebowitz et al., 2000; Tiwana, 2001; Jamieson and Handzic, 2003):
Received 23 October 2008
Revised 20 February 2009
Accepted 4 May 2009
This work is supported by
funding from CA Labs, CA, Inc.

PAGE 114

Pioneering practitioners are coming to realize that embarking into knowledge management is far
more complicated than they originally believed. It is not simply a matter of picking the right
technology. Even approaching the problem with a proven system design effort can be ineffective.
What is needed is a roadmap that reduces the inherent ambiguity and risk of knowledge
management implementation (Frappaolo and Koulopoulos, 2000, p. 418).

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010, pp. 114-127, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

DOI 10.1108/13673271011015606

Most of the current KM audit practices focus on knowledge in terms such as potential stores
of knowledge, the kind of knowledge people possess, structural overviews of the
knowledge, knowledge creation, the sources for knowledge that contribute to innovation,
knowledge flows and taxonomy, knowledge accuracy and quality, and knowledge
infrastructure (Liebowitz et al., 2000). Liebowitz et al. (2000) addressed the need to
capture tacit knowledge, but only as a metadata of the knowledge itself (data about an
explicit knowledge asset). Their audit instrument included two questionnaires. One
questionnaire was focused on identifying what knowledge currently exists in a targeted area,
while the other questionnaire was used for identifying what knowledge is missing in a
targeted area.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

In the current research, the audit incorporated a knowledge engineering methodology,

CommonKADS (Schreiber et al., 1999), as an analytic framework. The knowledge
engineering discipline aims at converting KM into a systematic methodology, like any other
scientific discipline that converts craft into methodology, with the following specific goals:
B

identify knowledge challenges;

recommend tools for corporate KM;

obtain knowledge structures and processes applied by knowledge workers; and

build better knowledge systems (Schreiber et al., 1999).

The CommonKADS organizational model enables knowledge engineers to analyze, within

an organizational context, problems and opportunities, processes breakdowns and
knowledge assets (e.g. product specifications, business processes standards, reviews and
wikis). While knowledge engineering techniques are often used for developing
knowledge-based systems (KBS), we utilized the CommonKADS worksheets for
addressing organizational aspects that affect or are affected by KM solution.
A culture audit is part of the overall organizational KM audit. The common practice is to use
interviews and surveys to examine the organizational culture (Hooff et al., 2003, Biloslavo
and Trnavcevic, 2007, Burnett et al., 2004). This paper introduces the concept of uncovering
tacit cultural perceptions in order to identify cultural barriers that may be encountered by a
new KM initiative. The methodology used in this study is based on the grounded theory
approach for analyzing qualitative data (Strauss and Corbin, 1994). Using its inductive
methodology, the KM statements that participants expressed in open discussions and
interviews were mapped to the KM life cycle activities. This analysis provides a basis for
developing an effective KM strategy and practical roadmap, while highlighting the main
challenges of the KM implementation.
The objective of the current research was to identify tacit perceptions and barriers regarding
a KM initiative in a large software development organization. In order to fulfill this objective,
the research questions are:
1. What are the KM activities currently taking place in the organization?
2. Are these KM activities currently embedded within the business processes?
3. What are the perceptions people have regarding these activities?
4. What are the cultural barriers that stem from these perceptions?
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the relevant research literature, Section
3 describes the empirical study and Section 4 presents its findings, Section 5 discusses
these findings in a broader context, and Section 6 concludes.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Existing frameworks for KM
There are many frameworks for describing KM, varying in scope and goals. For the sake of
brevity, only several major examples of such frameworks are presented here.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 115

Holsapple and Singh (2003) describe potential sources of a firms competitive advantage.
They present a knowledge chain model identifying primary knowledge manipulation
activities (e.g. knowledge acquisition and knowledge selection), and secondary managerial
activities (e.g. knowledge leadership and knowledge coordination). Hooff et al. (2003)
identify processes that KM should focus upon, i.e. determining what knowledge is needed
and how that knowledge is developed, accessed, shared, applied, and evaluated.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

ODell and Grayson (2003) illustrate a comprehensive framework that includes the
knowledge life cycle and the cultural and structural environment necessary for effective and
successful KM processes. As part of this framework, they identify the following processes:
B

using;

creating;

identifying;

collecting;

organizing;

sharing; and

adapting knowledge.

In an alternative framework, Biloslavo and Trnavcevic (2007) propose the following processes:
B

knowledge generation;

storage;

transfer; and

usage.

In a third framework, Burnett et al. (2004) suggest:

B

knowledge acquisition and learning;

storage and maintenance;

application and exploitation;

dissemination and transfer;

knowledge creation; and

performance measurement.

The above examples represent different terminologies, and at times somewhat diverse
perspectives. The authors proposed these categories of KM as a result of analyzing data
elicited in open discussions and interviews, and omitted those that were not mentioned by
the research participants.
2.2 KM audit review of current practices
KM audits provide insights into current KM practices, by means of a snapshot. This
includes crucial processes and preconditions, as well as strategies and tactics for further
KM development (Hooff et al., 2003). During the audit, participants respond to statements
using a five-point Likert scale that ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The
audit results are statistically calculated and presented according to the following categories:

knowledge needs;

knowledge development;

knowledge access;

knowledge sharing (within and between departments);

knowledge application; and

knowledge evaluation.

PAGE 116 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

 KM audits provide insights into current KM practices by

means of a snapshot.

The audit also includes cultural aspects (e.g. openness, respect and autonomy). Finally, the
audit examines the usage and satisfaction with using the KM infrastructure.
Biloslavo and Trnavcevic (2007) applied an audit instrument to a higher education institution.
The audit instrument was a questionnaire containing two parts:
1. questions designed to collect some general data about the individual characteristics of
the respondent; and

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

2. questions concerning the nature and characteristics of KM processes as perceived by

the employees.
Burnett et al. (2004) describe a KM audit that took place in a multinational oil exploration and
production company. Their audit was conducted according to the researchers KM
conceptual model, which was based on theoretical models of knowledge processes. They
used questionnaires and interviews to provide a critical first step in introducing KM into the
department, and establishing a plan of action. In addition, they used a knowledge map that
provided a visual representation of the previous steps, representing knowledge flows,
bottlenecks and sources within the organization. This map encompasses both quantitative
and qualitative analyses of the data. Burnett et al. (2004) comment that using different
methodologies helps to identify inconsistencies in employees responses.
In this paper we suggest a new audit method, specifically designated for identifying,
iteratively developing and refining employees culture-related perceptions model.
2.3 Knowledge engineering for KM
Knowledge engineering was traditionally concerned with the development of information
systems that manage knowledge and reasoning. These systems were often referred to as
knowledge-based systems (KBS) or expert systems. However, in recent years, knowledge
engineering and KM have become linked, because knowledge engineering provides value
during KM systems development, requirements elicitation, enterprise modeling and
business process reengineering (Schreiber et al., 1999). Tsui et al. (2000) claim that
knowledge engineering is a collection of micro knowledge strategies (e.g. representation
and organization), while KM is considered as a collection of macro knowledge strategies
(e.g. capturing and sharing). Therefore, KM projects should embrace some knowledge
engineering expertise in order to provide value-added services. Abdullah et al. (2006)
discuss experts knowledge and distinguish between explicit knowledge that can be
codified and managed through KBS, and tacit knowledge that is more difficult to handle and
involves human-related processes. According to Gill (1995), the successful adoption of
knowledge systems is not primarily dependent on either technical or economic reasons, but
is mainly due to organizational and managerial issues. In this spirit, we utilized the
CommonKADS knowledge engineering methodology (Schreiber et al., 1999), and in
particular its organizational model, for capturing tacit perceptions towards the KM initiative.
Our interviews were aligned with the model worksheets that address organizational issues
such as structure, process, resources, knowledge, culture and power.
2.4 Cultural constraints in implementing KM
An organizations culture must be understood before a KM solution can be implemented
successfully. To be successful, the KM solution must support and be supported by the
cultural norms, expectations and practices of the organization (Watson, 1998; Ruggles,
1998; Delong and Fahey, 2000; Leidner and Kayworth, 2008).

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 117

Gold et al. (2001) identify culture as an important infrastructure component that positively
influences organizational effectiveness. A knowledge-friendly organizational culture is one
of the most important conditions leading to successful KM initiatives in organizations
(Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Alavi and Leidner (2001) claim that there are cultural barriers
with regard to KM that prevent employees from sharing knowledge through artifacts,
teaching and mentoring others, using their expertise to innovate, and improving productivity.
In many organizations, employees feel that their promotion depends upon the expertise they
have, and not on the extent to which they help others. Another barrier is that people may not
realize what aspects of their knowledge ought to be shared. Without a systematic routine for
knowledge capturing, an organization might not benefit from its accumulative knowledge. In
many organizations, a major cultural shift is required to change employees attitudes and
behavior, so that they would willingly and consistently share their knowledge and insights.
While formalization and standard operating procedures may hinder KM initiatives
(Hargadon, 1998; Von Krogh, 1998; Huber, 1991), Hooff et al. (2003) argue that
openness, respect and communication climate are preconditions for a culture in which
mutual trust is created and new ideas and experiments are encouraged. In this study, the
current culture is analyzed and improvements to current practices are identified.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

2.5 Uncovering tacit perceptions

KM initiatives, similar to business processes reengineering (BPR), are major organizational
interventions. However, the organizations members may not fully understand the goals and
structure of the initiative. Fahey (1998) demonstrates the importance of tacit knowledge in
the early stages of BPR:
BPR was generally viewed as causing unnecessary upheaval in the organization (a tacit belief)
and consuming the total organizations attention for a considerable period of time (a tacit
perception) [. . .] These elements of tacit knowledge collectively shape how they feel about BPR,
how they initially react to the introduction of a BPR initiative, and whether and how quickly they
eventually support or refute it (Fahey, 1998, p. 112).

Fahey (1998) claims that organizations often fail when conducting BPR to overcome
operating inefficiencies, organizational redundancies and work disconnections. One reason
for this failure is the absence of attention to organizational knowledge and, especially, to tacit
knowledge. Tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) is knowledge that
individuals often find difficult to articulate, but at the same time significantly shapes how they
see the world and their choice of behaviors. It consists of perceptions, beliefs, assumptions
and projections. Although tacit knowledge develops through personal experiences, it is
often shared and reinforced in groups of people with similar backgrounds, experiences and
contexts.
Fahey (1998) argues that the knowledge challenge at this stage is twofold:
1. to build a shared understanding of the desired initiative; and
2. to involve as many people as possible in doing so.
Because the initiative might face objections, tacit knowledge quickly becomes evident while
organizational groups assess the state of current working processes:
If tacit knowledge of individuals or groups is not aligned with the proposed process change, then
its execution is likely to run into multiple problems. The experience of many organizations vividly
illustrates that these problems are often sufficiently severe to jeopardize process change (Fahey,
1998, p. 115).

An organizations culture must be understood before a KM

solution can be successfully implemented.

PAGE 118 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

Therefore, when implementing a KM program, a critical phase is to capture data about each
tacit knowledge element: perceptions, beliefs, assumptions, and values. This is can be
accomplished through interviews, surveys and observations, and should create a common
understanding among the initiatives stakeholders regarding the programs merits and
potential. This data gathering activity should be continued through all the implementation
stages. In this study, grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1994) was used to interpret the
interviews and open discussions, and to derive the tacit culture perceptions.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

3. Methodology and setting

The main objective of this study is to uncover tacit cultural perceptions of different
stakeholders in the organization, in order to identify barriers that might impede the
adoption of KM solutions. When aiming to learn a phenomenon and identify its
characteristics, rather than corroborating predetermined hypothesis, it is appropriate to
use qualitative research methods and tools. In light of the research objective, the research
tools that were developed during the study are based on the knowledge engineering
methodology CommonKADS (Schreiber et al., 1999). Following this methodology and
according to the qualitative grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1994), open
discussions, structured and semi-structured interviews were constructed and conducted
with selected stakeholders who are actively involved in the organizations key business and
KM processes. The verbal responses were transcribed and inductively analyzed using the
grounded theory approach.
The empirical study took place within three customer-facing divisions (field organizations) of
an international software development organization. The data collection was conducted in
three phases.
The first phase was a series of open discussions with nine people in different roles and
seniority. Its goal was to learn about the current KM processes that take place in the
organization, and the requirements and expectations from a new KM solution. Based on
these focus group discussions, a semi-structured interview was developed and conducted
with 12 additional interviewees in different locations and by different members of the
research team. The interview in the second phase was semi-structured for two reasons.
While the aim of the initial data collection was to gain a wide perspective about both the
users current KM processes and their expectations for a new KM process, the second
phase was focused entirely on understanding the current KM processes. Additionally, from
the methodological point of view, we wanted to make sure that the interviews would be
comparable even though they were conducted by different interviewers.
The semi-structured interview included sixteen questions focusing on the KM activities, how
they are executed, their importance within the business processes, and how they may be
improved. In this phase, we selected 12 interviewees with diverse seniorities and from three
different globally spread regions. Interviewers were permitted to ask additional questions in
order to probe responses.
The data analysis was inductive. First, the researchers marked each statement and
characterized it according to different aspects. After analyzing several interview transcripts
in this manner, the categories that emerged from the data analysis were defined and
characterized. Then all interviews were analyzed, classifying each statement according to
the identified categories. When needed, categories were added, joined or refined
iteratively until category saturation was achieved. This was conducted in parallel by two
researchers for validation purposes. Once the two researchers finished the analysis, the
categories were discussed, some refinements were made and the data analysis was
finalized accordingly. All together, 402 statements were isolated, analyzed and
categorized.
In the third phase, eight additional interviews were conducted; six participants were chosen
from previous phases and two additional participants were chosen to complement
perspectives not fully covered by participants in the previous phases. The goal of the third
phase was to understand how the KM activities are embedded within the organizations

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 119

business processes. Thus, the interviews examined the organizational context of the
business processes, their decomposition to tasks, flows, and staffing, and their
communication and KM needs (what communications and documents are created,
shared and consumed to support a business process). The interviews also examined the
cultural context of the business processes.

4. Findings

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

The data analysis process, detailed in the previous section, was conducted according to the
main activities of the KM lifecycle, as discussed in the literature review. The final categories
included:
B

create;

share;

access;

usage; and

maintain.

In addition to these KM activities, another category infrastructure was identified.

According to the data analysis, researchers defined the categories unambiguously so that
each statement could be classified to the appropriate category. Table I presents these
definitions and illustrates them, using examples of interviewees statements.
Table I Main KM categories to emerge from the data analysis
Category

Definition

Example

Create

The activity in which extracted knowledge is

documented

Share

The activity in which documented knowledge is

published to other people (including adaptation
of the document for publication)

Access

The activities of searching and finding specific

required knowledge in available sources

Usage

The activity of applying the knowledge found in a

specific context

Maintain

The activities of validating, refining and updating

existing knowledge documentation

Infrastructure

Tools supporting KM activities

I also have many notepads where I write and

save my remarks
I built a [specific tool] that provides a set of
artifacts[. . .]
The [. . .] notes are shared via e-mail with other
group member
We share information via e-mail, wiki and
chats
I use the search on the [company repository].
For technical terms I do a general web search,
Google, use the MS site and wikipedia. I also
search the intranet
I always succeed in finding it in the required
timeframe
If I find a PDF file, I forward it to [another
department]; if this is a response to a request, I
cut and paste into e-mail
I use this information in order to prepare
documents and answer questions asked by
others
I think it would have been more effective if
people could send suggestions for updating
documents (but still that a single owner will be in
charge of actually editing them)
I would never annotate a document that doesnt
belong to me. I use (digital) sticky notes, e-mails
or write my notes in a notepad, which I save on
my desktop
In our enterprise organization, we have multiple
sources of information [. . .], no single point of
contact [The firm] is built up of many
applications. It is important to connect them all and
unite information resources as much as possible

PAGE 120 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

Figure 1 presents the distribution of the statements made by the interviewees across the
different categories. Notably, statements about access to knowledge occurred most
frequently.
To better understand the tacit meaning of these statements, each of the statements was
classified as active or passive. For example, the statement The [. . .] notes are shared via
e-mail with other group member was classified as passive, while the statement We share
information via e-mail, wiki and chats was classified as active. While the literature usually
refers to the different activities from the execution point of view, the interviewees frequently
referred to the activities either from the knowledge point of view or by referring to the action of a
(non-specific) third person, i.e. the activities that need to be done, but not necessarily by the
speaker. This was very apparent in the infrastructure category, where 92% of the statements
were passive. Figure 2 presents the division between passive and active forms of each
category. Note that the activities of access and usage have the highest active form rate.

Figure 1 The distribution of statements among the KM categories

39%

18%
10%

ai

nt

en

In
fra

ce

ge
sa
U

cc

ha

es

re

e
at
re

18%

5%

an

11%

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

Occasionally, participants discussed KM activities in which items were created for their
personal use, rather than public use. In most activities, this phenomenon was marginal,
except for maintenance activities, where 36 percent of the active statements explicitly
referred to the personal (rather than public) knowledge items.

Figure 2 Main KM categories division to active and passive forms

92%
74%

69%

73%

Active
Passive

68%

56%
44%
31%

26%

32%

27%

8%

at

e
Cr

a
Sh

re

es

c
Ac

a
Us

ge
M

ai

nt

n
na

ce

fra
In

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 121

In addition to the above findings, the analysis revealed general concerns about KM
processes. One concern that was often mentioned in the interviews and confirmed in
conversations with management, was the additional work needed to document knowledge
in a manner suitable for subsequent sharing. For example, one interviewee explained that
his documents needed to be adapted for sharing: I dont give them [my colleagues] access
to my Word files they include many personal notes I wrote for myself so that I can
understand. In order to be able to share such a document, much editing and organization
effort needs to be put into these files. Later in the interview, in order to share knowledge, a
need to allocate time was specifically expressed for this task: It is important that we will
have the time as an inherent part of our work, to dedicate for handling the information we
found and created, so it will be sharable.
Another interesting phenomenon that emerged from the data was the participants heavy
reliance on social networking, in spite of the KM tools available in the organization. For
example: Most knowledge people have is in their minds and not written down. We spend a
lot of time waiting for responses from these people.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

The interviewees pointed out additional aspects: Many of the questions I get from my peers
were already acted upon in the past. They want me to provide the same information again
instead of searching for it themselves, in previously produced answers; I think many of the
questions they ask us, they could have looked for and found themselves if they had certain
access to the system, especially in the context of [. . .]. Such a solution would save both us
and them considerable time.
The above findings illustrate existing KM activities and concerns in the organization.
Contextualizing these activities and concerns in term of business processes was the
objective of the last interviews round. For each of the three studied field organizations,
critical business processes models were developed. Figure 3 presents a general business
process model built to represent the proprietary models used internally by the groups
studied. This generalization, while abstracting away specific details, allows a generic
analysis and discussion about the KM audit process.
The process represented in Figure 3 elaborates tasks (rectangles), inputs and outputs
(ellipses) of the critical business processes of the field organizations studied. The process is
triggered by an external or internal stakeholder. The first task is to clarify the requirements for
resolving an issue. The next task is conducting research about the issue, such as
Figure 3 A general representation of the field organizations business process

PAGE 122 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

discovering if a similar issue was encountered before and whether a reusable solution exists.
After identifying the requirements for a solution and what knowledge resources are available,
high-level solutions and schedule are prepared. Then, a detailed solution is generated along
with the proper documentation. Next, quality control is conducted, first via peer review and
then by the QA department. When the solution is ready, it is published for future reuse by
internal and external stakeholders as well as delivered to the customer. During the process,
the organizational repositories, project documentation and operational IT systems are
utilized and updated. However, in many teams, the main communication channel is e-mail. In
these teams, e-mail serves as the most extensively used knowledge repository.
Statements about knowledge activities were classified according to the following
characteristics: business activity; knowledge activity; interviewees role and statement
intent. Statements by interviewees with a wide business role (W) were distinguished from
statements by interviewees whose role was focused on a specific product(s) (F). Statements
about existing practice (P) were differentiated from statements indicating the Need for
improvement (N). Examples are shown in Table II.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

Examining KM in the context of business processes provided a deeper understanding about

the practical knowledge activities carried out in the organization. Different views about
Table II Examples of statements analysis regarding KM activities within the business processes context
Statement

Business activity

KM activity

Role

N/P

When QA finds a problem they open an issue in

[repository]
The test plan is supposed to be written before the
test, but often the code gets written firsta
There is a methodology that includes a process
(document structure) and notation (e.g. using
UML). In the last years, a qualified architect is
responsible to sign these documents
The repository contains all the answers to the
questions they [the employees] need to ask
Most people have issues with [a certain
repository]. Its use is mandatory but sometimes
new acquired companies will use their own. [. . .]
It is very difficult to produce reports with [the
repository]
You get an award on the best [solution-related
knowledge item] of the quarter, and you also gain
good reputation. They want to reuse the
documents
There is lack of tags and metadata on the
documents; it is organized according to their
subjects. Certain documents dont fall in a
specific category and it is hard to find them
Fix is placed in shared directory for our
department [. . .] In some cases they will also be
published in a public site, from which customers
can download the fix
The e-mails are sent to everyone. There is no
filtering or selection
Lessons learned are part of the e-mails that are
sent to the mailing list
Step-by-step processes and tools, using best
practices, are set
There are several presentations [PPT docs] in the
internal site regarding different solutions and
customers. These presentations are not updated
when creating new versions

QA

Create and share

Generate solution

Create

Construct high-level solution

Create

Research the issue

Access

Research issue and transfer

information

Infrastructure

Construct high-level solution

Share

Research issue

Access

Provide solution

Share

General

General

Share, access and

infrastructure
Share

General

Create and share

Generate solutions and

documentation

Maintenance

Note: This statement refers to a specific case within sustaining engineering

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 123

knowledge processes were articulated by different organizations and different knowledge

workers, spanning from formal to informal practices, and different levels of satisfactions with
current practices. While the interviewees with wider responsibilities described relatively
clear and well-defined standards of how KM is performed and the infrastructure that enables
it, some of the interviewees with the more focused responsibilities voiced concerns about the
usability of organizational standards and tools. In comparison to the latter, the group with
wide responsibilities discussed the current organizational KM more abstractly, seemed less
emotionally involved, and occasionally referred in present tense to planned KM tools that
exist on the company roadmap.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

Improving organizational efficiency by additional investments in KM was one of the major

suggestions that were provided implicitly by some employees with regard to their specific
work tasks. For example, one of the interviewees stated: We create a lot of documents from
scratch; if I knew that templates for these documents exist, it would have saved me a lot of
time. Other expressed their thoughts regarding organizational awareness: I would like to
raise a point: I think that there is not enough sharing; I am not aware of specific demand from
management, and as far as I can tell, it is not embedded within the business process. The
employees expressed their desire to get more feedback and evaluation regarding KM: We
can do more business process cost evaluation and more examination of plans against
execution. These statements may imply that employees expect incentives that will make
KM activities worthwhile. Moreover, the employees referred to KM infrastructure that will
facilitate KM activities: I would expect the organization to provide me with a unified portal
where all the documentation can be found, and where I will be able to manage and
collaborate with other employees, like with Google office tools. One of the interviewees
expressed his expectation for educational support when a need to learn new material arises:
Our organization fosters self-education using remote e-learning material; you just jump into
the cold water for on-the-job training. It seems that they believe that good KM would
leverage their professional capabilities and facilitate learning and professional
development.
Discussing KM in the context of business processes enables better exposure of the
interviewees perceptions. In the context of the tasks they perform, KM issues become much
less abstract, and it becomes more apparent to them how KM is related to, and may
improve, their professional work.
In the following section, the results obtained are discussed and presented through the lens
of culture audits, in order to identify the perceptions and cultural barriers influencing KM
implementation.

5. Discussion
This research analyzed and categorized prominent activities taking place during routine
work at the organization under study, in accordance with existing KM models and text
analysis of open discussions and interviews. The KM lifecycle that currently take place in the
organization include the following phases:
B

create;

share;

access;

usage; and

maintenance.

An additional category that emerged from the analysis, orthogonal to these activities, is the
KM infrastructure, which was considered as an enabler for KM. The important point is that
KM audits must consider the enabling infrastructure as well as the KM lifecycle.
Further analysis of KM in the context of the examined business processes points at the
already identified KM activities. Nevertheless, while the employees with the wider

PAGE 124 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

responsibilities (and perspective) mainly address KM strategic standards and tools,

employees with more focused, technical-oriented responsibilities refer to specific tactical
KM concerns, and at times even suggest possible solutions that may affect their daily work.
Both types of employees perspectives should be elicited and used when designing and
applying a KM solution. This follows Holsapple and Singhs (2003) knowledge chain model,
which distinguishes between primary and secondary KM activities, the latter supporting and
guiding the performance of the former.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

The analysis of perceptions about KM activities revealed differences in emphasis. The

access activity is the most referred to, while the knowledge construction activities for public
domains are mostly discussed in passive or third person form. This reflects on a need to
invest more on knowledge construction related activities (create, share and maintain) within
the daily work tasks. Specifically, the interviewees relate to the existing infrastructure and its
contribution to their work mostly in the context of knowledge consumption rather than
construction. They treat the infrastructure as a passive form of knowledge and not as a
dynamic, embedded tool of their working processes.
In general, it seems that the interviewees view knowledge consumption as an inherent part of
their work, while knowledge construction is often considered an independent activity. This is
a fundamental cultural barrier that should be addressed in our KM implementation.
Preferring consumption to construction is a natural bias (Cress and Martin, 2006). The
benefit of consumption is inherently evident, but the provider needs to be motivated to
construct and provide to others. Thus, the knowledge market will be developed where there
are both sellers as well as buyers. In the words of Davenport and Prusak (1998):
There is a genuine market for knowledge in organizations. Like markets for goods and services,
the knowledge market has buyers and sellers who negotiate to reach a mutually satisfactory price
for the goods exchanged. It has brokers who bring buyers and sellers together and even
entrepreneurs who use their market knowledge to create internal power bases. Knowledge
market transactions occur because all of the participants in them believe that they will benefit
from them in some particular way. In economists jargon, they expect the transaction to provide
utility (p. 25).

The joint effort for, and responsibility to, the overall KM lifecycle is achieved by creating a
culture that values knowledge sharing and collaboration, while embedding KM related
activities in the routine work processes. Specifically, knowledge sharing in public domains
should be acknowledged (through various incentives) and enhanced with adapted tools that
best fit the users preferences (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Hooff et al., 2003; Sackmann
and Friesl, 2007).
While cultural aspects are well recognized in the literature, the authors wish to emphasize the
importance of eliciting related data and identifying cultural barriers during a KM audit, by
capturing tacit perceptions (Fahey, 1998). On this basis, an organization can choose
solutions that overcome these barriers. Furthermore, discussing KM activities in the context
of business processes motivates commitment, as well as overcomes natural barriers with
regard to the activities of knowledge sharing. It may provide a direction for solutions that best
fit employees needs.

6. Conclusion
Identifying the cultural aspects that affect KM practices (Alavi and Leidner, 2001, Davenport
and Prusak, 1998) is a crucial step towards implementing a KM initiative in an organization
(Hooff et al., 2003). The current KM audit techniques for analyzing culture perceptions are
based on participants responses in interviews and surveys that are designed according to
theoretical KM models (Biloslavo and Trnavcevic, 2007, Burnett et al., 2004). This paper
presents an empirical study that identifies tacit perceptions and cultural barriers that may
challenge KM initiatives in an organization, similar to other BPR efforts (Fahey, 1998).
Statements by interview participants were classified according to KM lifecycle activities and
infrastructure, as well as additional emerging characteristics. Further analysis exposed tacit
perceptions, which in turn led to identification of cultural barriers that may influence the

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 125

success of KM initiatives. In this organization, at the time of the study, access issues were
most prominent.
This research also suggests the need for embedding KM activities within the business
processes, as well as the need to effectively communicate strong managerial support for the
KM initiative. Interweaving a strategic KM plan with tactical involvement of the employees will
greatly improve the likelihood of success. Moreover, embedding KM activities within their
work routine can increase business process achievements as well as the employees
performance and professional development.
It is important to note that the findings of this study are based on a large, multi-located and
highly distributed, yet single, organization. Thus generalization of these results should be
done cautiously; and additional research needs to be conducted in order to further validate
them. Nevertheless, the principle of identifying tacit perception and cultural barriers
illustrated in this study may be helpful in any organization. Tacit knowledge affects the way in
which KM processes and tools are adopted and adapted. Eliciting tacit knowledge and
identifying the issues that need to be addressed prior to designing and implementing a KM
solution is critical for a successful implementation.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

References
Abdullah, M.S., Kimble, C., Benest, I. and Paige, R. (2006), Knowledge-based systems:
a re-evaluation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 127-42.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-36.
Biloslavo, R. and Trnavcevic, A. (2007), Knowledge management audit in a higher educational
institution: a case study, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 275-86.
Burnett, S., Illingworth, L. and Webster, L. (2004), Knowledge auditing and mapping: a pragmatic
approach, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Cress, U. and Martin, S. (2006), Knowledge sharing and rewards: a game-theoretical perspective,
Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 4, pp. 283-92.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
Debenham, J.K. and Clark, J. (1995), The knowledge audit, Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 201-11.
Delong, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14, pp. 113-27.
Fahey, L. (1998), Business process redesign: the implications of tacit knowledge, Knowledge and
Process Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 110-17.
Frappaolo, C. and Koulopoulos, T. (2000), Why do a knowledge audit?, in Cortada, J. and Woods, J.A.
(Eds), The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000-2001, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA,
pp. 418-24.
Gill, G.T. (1995), Early expert systems: where are they now?, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 51-81.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.
Hargadon, A.B. (1998), Firms as knowledge brokers: lessons in pursuing continuous innovation,
California Management Review, Vol. 40, pp. 209-27.
Holsapple, C.W. and Singh, M. (2003), The knowledge chain model: activities for competitiveness,
in Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, Springer, New York, NY,
chapter 43.
Hooff, B.V., Vijvers, J. and De Ridder, J. (2003), Foundations and applications of a knowledge
management scan, European Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 237-46.

PAGE 126 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

Huber, G.P. (1991), A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational
design, intelligence, and decision making, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 47-71.
Jamieson, R. and Handzic, M. (2003), A framework for security, control and assurance of knowledge
management systems, Handbook on Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, Springer, New York, NY,
chapter 25.
Joseph, E.C. (1991), Knowledge management audits, Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Technology and Innovation Management, Portland, OR, p. 442.
Leidner, D.E. and Kayworth, T.R. (2008), Knowledge management and organizational culture,
in Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Leidner, D. (Eds), Knowledge Management: An Evolutionary View,
M.E. Sharpe, New York, NY, pp. 40-60.
Liebowitz, J., Rubenstein-Montano, B., McCaw, D., Buchwalter, J. and Browning, C. (2000),
The knowledge audit, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
ODell, C. and Grayson, J.C. (2003), Identifying and transferring internal best practices, in Holsapple, C.W.
(Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management, Vol. 1, Springer, New York, NY, chapter 31.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Anchor Books, Garden City, NY.
Ruggles, R. (1998), The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice, California
Management Review, Vol. 40, pp. 80-9.
Sackmann, A.S. and Friesl, M. (2007), Exploring cultural impacts on knowledge sharing behavior in
project teams results from a simulation study, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 142-56.
Schreiber, G., Akkermans, H., Anjewierden, A., De Hoog, R., Shadbolt, N., De Velde, W.V. and Wielinga, B.
(1999), Knowledge Engineering and Management: The CommonKADS Methodology, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994), Grounded theory methodology: an overview, in Denzin, N.K. and
Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
chapter 1.
Tiwana, A. (2001), The Essential Guide to Knowledge Management: E-Business and CRM Applications,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Tsui, E., Garner, B.J. and Staab, S. (2000), The role of artificial Intelligence in knowledge management,
Knowledge-based Systems, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 235-9.
Von Krogh, G. (1998), Care in knowledge creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40,
pp. 133-53.
Watson, S. (1998), Getting to aha!. Companies use intranets to turn information and experience into
knowledge and gain competitive edge, Computer World, Vol. 32, pp. 1-5.

Corresponding author
Meira Levy can be contacted at: lmeira@mis.haifa.ac.il

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 127

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:42 09 March 2015 (PT)

1. Alexander Serenko, Nick Bontis, Emily Hull. 2015. An application of the knowledge management maturity model: the case of
credit unions. Knowledge Management Research & Practice . [CrossRef]
2. Gillian Ragsdell, Steve Probets, Ghosia Ahmed, Ian Murray. 2014. Knowledge Audit: Findings from the Energy Sector.
Knowledge and Process Management 21:10.1002/kpm.v21.4, 270-279. [CrossRef]
3. Mina Ranjbarfard, Mohammad Aghdasi, Pedro Lpez-Sez, Jos Emilio Navas Lpez. 2014. The barriers of knowledge
generation, storage, distribution and application that impede learning in gas and petroleum companies. Journal of Knowledge
Management 18:3, 494-522. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Mohamed A.F. Ragab, Amr Arisha. 2013. Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge
Management 17:6, 873-901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Abdelkader Daghfous, Norita Ahmad, Linda C. Angell. 2013. The KCRM knowledge audit: model and case illustration. VINE
43:2, 185-209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Martie Mearns. 2012. Knowing what knowledge to share: Collaboration for community, research and wildlife. Expert Systems
with Applications 39, 9892-9898. [CrossRef]