See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248535230

Knowledge management system architecture: A bridge between KM consultants

and technologists

Article  in  International Journal of Information Management · February 2004

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2003.10.003

CITATIONS READS
144 1,497

1 author:

Alton Yeow-Kuan Chua

Nanyang Technological University
190 PUBLICATIONS   4,500 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Digital influencers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alton Yeow-Kuan Chua on 01 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge Management System Architecture: A Bridge Between KM Consultants and
Technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 87 – 98

Knowledge Management System Architecture:

a bridge between KM consultants and technologists
Alton Y.K. Chua

Abstract
Many scholars and practitioners recognise the power of technology in supporting knowledge
management activities. However, in most knowledge management literature, the discussion
on related technology is either given cursory treatment or confined largely to product-specific
features. This reflects a divide between knowledge management consultants and knowledge
management technologists. For this reason, the objective of this paper is to develop a
knowledge management systems (KMS) architecture that seeks to bridge the gap between
consultants and technologists. The architecture is intended to provide a common framework
for both to review how technologies are used to support knowledge management processes.

Introduction
The power of technology in supporting knowledge management (KM) activities is widely
recognised. However, in most KM literature, the discussion on related technology is either
given cursory treatment or confined largely to product-specific features. This reflects a divide
within the KM community. One camp is represented by consultants whose paradigm is
rooted in concepts such as organisational learning and organisational memory. They tend to
view KM as a strategy and often treat technology as a “black-box” because of the intricate
technicalities involved. The other camp is represented by technologists, who tend to be
product-centric and focus on features and functionalities of the systems. They perceive
technology as the primary solution to resolve KM issues.

As a result, a KM practitioner who is not technically informed but wishes to use technology as
part of a knowledge management implementation would have difficulty in selecting from a
vast array of technology solutions. Conversely, a KM practitioner who is very familiar with
specific technologies but ignorant of KM processes could recommend solutions that may not
meet the needs the client.

For this reason, this paper aims to develop a model of the knowledge management systems
(KMS) architecture for KM practitioners. The primary objective is to provide a framework for
the review of technologies being used in supporting the fundamental knowledge management
processes. This attempt represents a modest step to bridge the gap between consultants
and technologists in the KM community.

The emphasis of this paper is on technologies that help create, share and store knowledge for
human use. Technologies that seek to replace human reasoning with machine intelligence
are therefore excluded from the discussion.

Technology and Knowledge Management

For a long time, most organisations perceived technology to be the panacea for all knowledge
management issues and they are often tempted to turn to technology as the quick solution to
implementing knowledge management (Silver, 2000). This is because technology represents
a highly visible and tangible solution. However, several researchers and practitioners have
cautioned against the excessive focus on technology (Davenport and Prusak, 1999; Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995, Anand et. al, 1998). They argued that a successful knowledge
management implementation does not rest on the deployment of a technology solution alone.
Research has revealed that the greatest difficulty in knowledge management is "changing
people's behaviour," and the current biggest impediment to knowledge transfer is "culture".
Overcoming technological limitations, on the other hand, was typically a trivial issue (Ruggles,
1998).

1
 Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge Management System Architecture: A Bridge Between KM Consultants and
Technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 87 – 98

Extant technology cannot provide a perfect substitute for face-to-face contact that is crucial
for building a culture of knowledge sharing (Roberts, 2000). Neither can technology replace
human social interaction in affording rich interactivity among individuals necessary for
knowledge creation (Fahey and Prusak, 1998). Nonetheless, technology is able to overcome
the barriers of time and space that would otherwise be limiting factors in knowledge
management activities. It also serves as a repository in which knowledge can be reliably
stored and efficiently retrieved. The key is therefore to understand how technology is most
appropriately deployed and aligned to the knowledge activities in the organisation.

Developing a Knowledge Management System Architecture

Even though several models related to knowledge management technologies have been
developed, not many could be used directly to meet the objective of this paper. For example,
the seven-layer knowledge management system architecture (Tiwana, 2000) which mirrors
the OSI Model used in data communication is not easily understandable by non-technical
consultants. The knowledge management reference model (Abou-Zeid, 2002), which is a
conceptual framework for developing technology solutions, addresses the concerns of the
technologists rather than those of the consultants. The KM spectrum (Binney, 2001) and the
Ovum KM Tools Architectural Model (Woods, 1998) are comprehensive in scope but lack
actual deployment examples and obscure references to the fundamental knowledge
management processes.

Drawing from the models described above, this paper proposes a three-tiered knowledge
management system (KMS) architecture, shown in Figure 1. The KMS architecture identifies
three distinct services supported by knowledge management technologies. They are
infrastructure services, knowledge services and presentation services.

Presentation Services
Personalisation Visualisation

Knowledge Services
Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge
Creation Sharing Reuse

Infrastructure Services
Storage Communication

Figure 1: KMS Architecture

To give greater clarity to the discussion, examples of deployment of specific technology

products have been included. However, products cited in this paper are for illustration
purposes and not to be treated as any endorsement from the author.

Infrastructure Services
The first tier in the KMS architecture model comprises the Infrastructure services.
Infrastructure services refer to the basic technology platform and features needed to
implement knowledge management. The two main infrastructure services provided by
technology are storage and communication.

Storage

A technology-enabled storage, known as a knowledge repository, is typically defined by its

content and structure. The content refers to the actual knowledge stored. The structure

2
 Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge Management System Architecture: A Bridge Between KM Consultants and
Technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 87 – 98

refers to how each ‘knowledge unit’ is specified, the format in which it is represented, the
indexing scheme and how each ‘knowledge unit’ is linked to others. In particular, a
knowledge repository could either be populated with data or documents. Table 1 summarises
the features of these two main types of repository and provides examples of how the they
have been deployed in organisations.

Types of Description Examples of Deployment

repositories
Data • Consolidates huge amounts of data
warehouse from multiple sources within an
organisation
• Facilitates data analysis
Knowledge • Builds content, creates references and
Server establishes links among documents
• Organises knowledge into
administrator-defined categories based
on text index and meta-data properties
• Allows users to browse via a web
browser
Cobe Cardiovascular, a company producing
transfusion therapy products used Cognos
Analytic Applications to capture customers’
information and transaction details in order to
better manage client relationships.
SCT Corporation, a high-technology services
organisation, deployed the Plumtree Server to
bring content from a range of systems together
on a single platform so that its consultants can
quickly pinpoint information and company
expertise to accomplish project goals.

Table 1: Types of knowledge repositories

Increasingly, repositories have been designed to capture graphical information such as

engineering drawings (Majchrzak et al, 2000), and audio, video, and multimedia documents
(Markus, 2001). The trend is to develop repositories capable of supporting content that is
less structured and of greater richness. Technology-enabled repositories also form the basis
for supporting KM processes, particularly knowledge creation and knowledge reuse.

Communication

The second main infrastructure service provided by technology is communication. Shown in

Table 2, technology supports at least three distinct communication services (Housel and Bell,
2001).

Communication Description Examples of deployment

Services
Communication • Implemented through utilities such Outlook is used commonly by organisations as
between users as file sharing and e-mailing the email tool for communication

Collaboration among • Implemented through synchronous NetMeeting supports video/audio conferencing,

users meeting and asynchronous synchronous chat and remote desktop sharing
discussion forums
Workflow • Allows user to manage workflow Reactor 5 is implemented in Cardonet, an IT
management processes by supporting online company to manage the process for receipt
execution and control of workflow and approval of its suppliers’ catalogues.

Table 2: Types of Communication Services

Increasingly, the shift is towards developing communication technologies capable of creating

social presence and which possess multimedia capabilities. Social presence is the degree of
salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the
interpersonal relationships (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1995). Multimedia capabilities allow rich
content such as voice, images and video to be transmitted. Thus, the combination of social
presence and multimedia capabilities provides a closer approximation to the actual face-to-
face interaction. This trend gives rise to technologies that are designed specifically to
support the process knowledge sharing. More details about such technologies will be
discussed in the next tier of the KMS architecture.

Knowledge Services
The second tier in the KMS architecture model comprises the knowledge services.
Knowledge services are supported by technology solutions intended to help achieve the goals

3
 Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge Management System Architecture: A Bridge Between KM Consultants and
Technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 87 – 98

of knowledge management directly. The three primary goals are to promote the process of
generating new knowledge, encourage the flow of knowledge among organisation members
and ensure the ease of access to knowledge repositories (Martin, 2000). The underlying
knowledge processes of these three knowledge management goals are knowledge creation,
knowledge sharing and knowledge reuse.

Knowledge Creation

Knowledge is created either through exploitation, exploration or codification. Exploitation

refers to the refinement of existing knowledge into new knowledge to achieve improvement in
efficiency and effectiveness. Exploration refers to the creation of knowledge through
discovery and experimentation (Manor and Schulz, 2001). Codification refers to the
articulation of tacit knowledge into formats such as formulae, manuals or documentation that
are comprehensible and accessible to others (Sanchez, 1997).

Table 3 shows the technologies that support the various means of knowledge creation
process.

Technologies Description Examples of deployment

Support knowledge creation • Possesses idea generation
through exploitation capabilities
• Stimulates thinking and association,
which enables users to detect
patterns from mounds of data and
discover relationships among entities
DynCorp, a military agency, used
PolyAnalyst to predict personnel
retention for its client and was able to
better target expensive personnel
loyalty programs on the most suitable
candidates.

Support knowledge creation • Possesses simulation capabilities
through exploration • Allows qualitative and quantitative
information to be modelled
• Identifies potential scenarios and
effectively communicate complex
ideas through graphical
representations, animations and flow
charts
Support knowledge creation • Possesses capabilities to captures
through codification and codify knowledge held by experts
Boeing, a major player in the aviation
industry, used Powersim products to
help its managers transit from a
make-to-stock to a just-in-time
manufacturing process.
By using Infinos System, a fast-food
chain of restaurants was able to
capture superior management
attitudes and behaviours from its top-
performing restaurants and used the
tool to coach the rest of the
restaurants.

Table 3: Technologies that support knowledge creation process

Codification has been traditionally supported by technology through text documentation.

Emerging technologies have augmented text documentation with other media such as digital
video and audio (Marwick, 2001). While non-text digital media are currently more difficult to
search and browse than text documents, improvements have been made to facilitate
browsing through video documents. A technique, known as summarisation, is used to
automatically produce a gallery of extracted still, searchable images (Lienhart et al, 1997).
Meanwhile, work is underway to improve the accuracy of automatic speech recognition (ASR)
that seeks to support speaker-independent recognition with unconstrained vocabulary. The
aim is to produce text transcription from digital audio to enable browsing and searching
(Marwick, 2001).

Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge transfer refers to the flow of knowledge from one part of the organisation to other
parts. If this process is not properly managed, valuable sources of knowledge in the
organisation will remain local or fragmentary, and internal expertise under-leveraged. Hence,
one important goal of knowledge management is to foster the flow of knowledge among
organisation members. Technologies developed for the former purpose are known as social

4
 Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge Management System Architecture: A Bridge Between KM Consultants and
Technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 87 – 98

network analysis tools while those developed for the latter are known as collaboration tools.
Table 4 summaries the features of these technologies.

Technologies Description Examples of deployment

Social network analysis tools
Collaborative tools
• Uncovers the pattern of knowledge A global manufacturer of fluid
flow within the across organisational engineered products deployed
boundaries KNETMAP to identify peer-evaluated
• Analyses the social network through experts in the company.
a snapshot map
• Computes various indices such as
network centrality and geodesic
distance to identify emergent experts,
opinion leaders, bottlenecks and
breakdown in knowledge flow
• Provides a platform to share Celestix Networks, a high-technology
knowledge with one another company, used Share360 among its
• Key features include shared spaces, 30 users to schedule meetings, book
calendaring, workflow management resources and exchange files
services electronically.
• May include peer polling feature to
rank postings and enable selective
reading

Table 4: Technologies that support knowledge sharing process

An emerging area in collaboration tools is social computing. Social computing is the

development of digital systems that are drawn from social information and context to enhance
the activity and performance of people and organisations (Thomas et al, 2001). Its aim is to
create social presence among the users. For example, Babble is a social computing system
developed by IBM. Babble is similar to a text-based chat system but differs significantly in its
ability to make the presence and activities of users visible through an interface known as a
social proxy. Initial research at IBM showed that the daily interactions on Babble were able to
engender relationships among its users (Thomas, et al, 2001).

Knowledge Reuse

The term 'knowledge reuse' in the knowledge management literature is largely synonymous
with 'information retrieval' in the information management literature. The process of
knowledge reuse can be described through four main stages, namely, capturing knowledge,
packaging knowledge, distributing knowledge and using knowledge (Markus, 2001). The two
salient technologies developed for knowledge reuse, namely, content management and
concept mapping are summarised in Table 5.

Technologies Description Examples of deployment

Content management
Concept mapping
• Establishes a structure to create and
maintain different types of content in
text, image and video formats
• Allows the content to be categorised
and indexed to ease future searches
• Links several related concepts within
a given theme or context
• Provides inter-disciplinary
perspectives and facilitates cross-
referencing
SemioTagger is designed for both
content management and concept
mapping.
Stanford Highwire Press, an online
publisher of life science research,
used SemioTagger to quickly build
and organise more than 22,000
categories and 300,00 concepts from
some 324 online journals.

Table 5: Technologies that support knowledge reuse process

Emerging technologies aim to provide enhanced search capabilities such as increasing

knowledge of the user’s needs and automatic generation of meta-data (Marwick, 2001).
Currently, most search systems gather information about users’ needs solely from the query
submitted. However, one study has reported that the average number of words in queries
submitted to most web-based search services is only 2.3 (Spink, et. al, 2001). This
information is apparently insufficient to build the context of the search or the profiles of the
users. Personalisation services, discussed in the next section, seek to address this issue.

5
 Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge Management System Architecture: A Bridge Between KM Consultants and
Technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 87 – 98

The second area of research is related to meta-data generation. The value of meta-data is in
encapsulating information about the document that can be used to construct selected views of
the information based on the users’ requirements (Marwick, 2001). An example of such views
is the thematic listing of documents. The future trend is for meta-data to be automatically
generated through document analysis and classification.

Presentation Services
The task of ploughing through the increasing amount of information everyday and integrating
them from a variety of sources to support decision-making has proved to be daunting (Shenk,
1998). Information overload is a syndrome that occurs when the quality of decisions is
compromised as a result of spending too much effort and time to review more information
than necessary. This syndrome is addressed to some extent in the final tier of the KMS
architecture presented here, that is, by presentation services.

Technologies that provide presentation services are primarily concerned with enhancing the
interface between the user and the information/knowledge sources. Two common features of
presentation services are personalisation and visualisation.

Personalisation

Personalisation involves gathering user-information and delivering the appropriate content

and services to meet the specific needs of a user (Bonett, 2001). It is implemented by
aligning three components, namely, users’ profile, content and business context (Instone,
2000). Users have profiles that represent their interests and preferences. A user profile is
defined by a set of attributes and assigned values. Likewise, content is profiled based on a
set of attributes and values. The business context refers to the rules that determine how
users and content are matched, based on their attributes and values. Personalisation
solutions are rarely standalone but embedded in other applications such as the email. For
instance, an intelligent agent is a type of personalisation solution that allows users to develop
rules for automatically handling email messages, based on subject matter, source, or other
characteristics.

Table 6 shows the three main features that are commonly included in personalisation
technologies, which are namely, explicit user configuration, implicit user configuration and
collaborative filtering (Instone, 2000).

Features Description Examples of deployment

Explicit user configuration
Implicit user configuration
Collaborative filtering
• Allows users to configure the
interface such as editing its look-
and-feel
• Allows users to select content
delivered to them
• Tracks user’s activities and
automatically configures the
interface to serve the unique
interests of the user
• Known also as affinity group
filtering
• Leverages knowledge about the
preferences of multiple users to
recommend content of interest to
other users having a similar profile
(Pennock and Horvitz, 1999)
National Association of Chain Drug
Stores deployed Lifecycle
Personalization Server to allow buyers
and sellers personalise the type of
information delivered to them
Paragon, a real estate firm, deployed
Vertebrae to capture visitors’ information
and deliver content specific to each
visitor
Cabela, a sporting goods retailer, used
Dynamo to enable its salespeople to
recommend to shoppers other goods
and services related to their interests
and past purchases.

Table 6: Main features of personalisation technologies

Visualisation

A second feature of presentation services is visualisation. The purpose of visualisation is to

help users better understand the information and knowledge available by making subject-

6
 Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge Management System Architecture: A Bridge Between KM Consultants and
Technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 87 – 98

based browsing and navigation easier (Marwick, 2001). Table 7 shows the various methods
through which visualisation can be implemented.

Methods Description Examples of deployment

Text-based category trees
Graphical interfaces
Two-dimensional, pseudo
three-dimensional rendered
perspective
• Facilitates navigation by using Such visualisation method is used in
hypertext to link documents and portals such as Yahoo! and Excite
texts that share related concepts
• Extracts the major themes from Belmont Abbey College Library,
massive amount of unstructured deployed Visual Net to create a visual
text from a variety of sources interface for all of their library holdings
• Creates an interactive typographic on configurable maps to ease searching
map of the information for titles
• Allows visualisation of documents Ford Motor Company deployed
in a large taxonomy through a two- BrainEKP to model the knowledge in the
dimensional or pseudo three- organisation and create a shared
dimensional rendered perspective understanding of the knowledge among
its staff

Table 7: Methods to implement visualisation

Research which compared information retrieval from text with two-dimensional and three-
dimensional interfaces found that richer interfaces provided no advantage in the search tasks
that were studied (Sebrechts, et al, 1999). This finding could explain why the use of graphical
visualisation is not as wide spread as that of text-based interfaces in search applications.

Aggregation of Services
Even though the KMS architecture model distinctly illustrates the various services supported
by technology, delineation among the services may sometimes be fuzzy. Several products
have been developed to provide aggregated services. For example, Knowledge Manager
from Microsoft offers multiple functionalities such as content management and deployment,
search and delivery of filtered information (Frid, 2000); Primus Answer Engine and Primus
eServer from Primus Knowledge Solutions allow users both to capture and share knowledge;
Lotus Domino, from IBM and Lotus, supports collaboration, knowledge discovery and
knowledge mapping.

The aggregation of services provided reflects a consciousness among software vendors of

the need to build a unified knowledge management platform upon which their suites of
products can be designed to inter-operate. By offering a comprehensive suite of solutions,
software vendors seek to offer a one-stop solution to their clients and eliminate compatibility
problems among various applications.

However, consultants must be warned against recommending a technology solution merely

for its extendibility, comprehensive functionalities and technical features. A technology
solution should be adopted on the bases of its ability to support the particular knowledge
management goal of the company and the extent to which the foreseeable usage pattern
blends well with the organisational ethos. For example, if an organisation aims to gain
knowledge from customers or create knowledge for customers, a technology solution that
primarily supports the knowledge creation process is preferred to one that supports only the
knowledge sharing process.

Conclusion

The compelling need for knowledge management in organisations is fuelled by a host of

social, economic and technological factors including the shortening of product life-cycle,
fluidity of the workforce and the prevalence of work arrangements such as telecommuting and
virtual teams. When used in tandem with an appropriate knowledge management strategy,
technology is a powerful enabler of organisational success.

While non-technically informed consultants tend to perceive technology as a “black-box”

because of the technicalities involved, technologists tend to be product-centric and focus on

7
 Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge Management System Architecture: A Bridge Between KM Consultants and
Technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 87 – 98

product features and functionalities. Through the simplicity of a three-tiered structure, the
KMS architecture model is a modest attempt to bridge the gap between consultants and
technologists on their understanding of technology in knowledge management. For
consultants, the KMS architecture model could serve as a reference to narrow the choice of
technology tools given the knowledge management goal of the organisation. Moreover,
comparisons can be made among a variety of knowledge management products situated in
the same tier of the KMS architecture.

For technologists, the KMS architecture model elucidates the characteristics of major clusters
of technologies and shows how they are related to the fundamental knowledge management
processes. Additionally, it reinforces the multi-faceted nature of knowledge management that
extends beyond the limitation of one tool or technology cluster. This enables technologists to
locate their products within the KMS architecture model and ascertain whether they will meet
client need adequately.

Future research could be related to technology adoption in organisations implementing

knowledge management. Such studies may involve investigating the types of services
identified within the KMS architecture model in conjunction with factors such as organisational
structure, culture, products and services rendered, and the profile of the users. Such studies
could give a sharper focus to consultants for selecting appropriate solutions and to
technologists for developing new products based on the needs of clients. This could be
another step to bring consultants and technologists closer to a common ground.

References:

Abou-Zeid, E., (2002), A knowledge management reference model, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp 486 – 499
Anand, V., Manz, C. C., Glick, W.H., (1998), An organizational memory approach to
information management, The Academy of Management Review Vol. 23 No. 4 pp 796 –
809, Mississippi State
Binney, D. (2001), The knowledge management spectrum - understanding the KM landscape,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5, No 1, pp 33 – 42
Bonett, M., (2001), "Personalization of Web Services: Opportunities and Challenges" Ariadne
Issue 28 at http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue28/personalization/
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L., (1999) “Working Knowledge”, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, Massachusetts
Fahey, L. and Prusak, L., (1998), The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management,
California Management Review, Vol 40, No. 3, pp 265 – 276, Berkeley
Frid, R.J., (2000) Infrastructure for Knowledge Management, Writers Club Press, San Jose,
CA
Gunawardena, C. N. & Zittle, R. (1995), An examination of teaching and learning processes in
distance education and implications for designing instruction, in Beaudoin, M.F. (ed.)
Distance Education Symposium 3: Instruction, ACSDE Research Monograph, No 12,
pp.51-63. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Housel, T and Bell, A (2001), “Measuring and Managing Knowledge”, McGraw-Hill
Instone, K., (2000), Information architecture and personalisation: An information architecture-
based framework for personalization systems, Argus Center for Information Architecture,
at http://argus-acia.com/white_papers/personalization.html
Lienhart, R., Silvia, P., and Wolfgang, E., (1997) "Video Abstracting," Communications of the
ACM Vol. 40, pp 54-62
Majchrzak, A.; Rice, R.E.; Malhotra, A.; King, N.; Ba, S., (2000) Technology adaptation: the
case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24, No.
4, pp 569-600.
Manor, B. and Schulz, M., (2001), The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational
learning and knowledge flows, Academy of Management Journal, Aug, Vol. 44 No. 4 pp
661-681
Markus, M. L., (2001) Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse
situations and factors in reuse success, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol
18, No. 1 pp 57 – 94

8
 Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge Management System Architecture: A Bridge Between KM Consultants and
Technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, 24(1), 87 – 98

Martin, B., (2000), “Knowledge management within the context of management: An evolving
relationship”, Singapore Management Review; Singapore, Vol 22. Issue 2 pp 17 – 36
Marwick, A D (2001), Knowledge management technology, IBM Systems Journal, Vol 40
Issue 4, pp 814 – 830
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Pennock, D. M. and Horvitz, E., (1999) Collaborative filtering by personality diagnosis: A
hybrid memory- and model-based approach, IJCAI Workshop on machine learning for
information filtering, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August,
Stockholm, Sweden
Roberts, J., (2000), From know-how to show-how: Questioning the role of information and
communication technologies in knowledge transfer, Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp 429 - 443
Ruggles, R., (1998), "The State of the Notion: Knowledge Management in Practice,"
California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp 80-89
Sanchez, R., (1997), “Managing articulated knowledge in competence-based competition” in
Sanchez, R. and A. Heene (eds) Strategic Learning and Knowledge Management, Wiley
and Sons
Sebrechts, M. M., Cugini, J., Laskowski, S. J., Vasilakis, J. and Miller, M. S., (1999),
"Visualization of Search Results: A Comparative Evaluation of Text, 2D, and 3D
Interfaces," SIGIR '99 22nd International Conference on Research and Development in
Information Retrieval, Berkeley, CA
Silver, C.A., (2000), Where technology and knowledge meet, The Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol 21, Issue 6, pp 28 – 33, Boston
Shenk, D., (1998) Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut, Harper, San Francisco
Spink, A., Wolfram, D., Jansen, B. J. and Saracevic, T., (2001), "Searching the Web: The
Public and Their Queries," Journal of the American Society of Information Science, Vol.
53, No. 2, pp 226-234
Thomas, J.C., Kellogg W.A. and Erickson, T. (2001) “The knowledge Management Puzzle:
Human and Social Factors in Knowledge Management”, Knowledge Management, Vol. 40,
No 4 at http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/thomas.html
Tiwana, A (2000), “The Knowledge Management Toolkit”, Prentice-hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ
Woods, M.S., (1998), Knowledge Management, Applications, Markets and Technologies,
Ovum Ltd, London

View publication stats