Journal of Knowledge Management

Emerald Article: Developing knowledge management capabilities: a

structured approach
Birinder Singh Sandhawalia, Darren Dalcher

Article information:
To cite this document: Birinder Singh Sandhawalia, Darren Dalcher, (2011),"Developing knowledge management capabilities: a
structured approach", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 2 pp. 313 - 328
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119718
Downloaded on: 07-09-2012
References: This document contains references to 28 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by SHAHEED ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO INST OF SCI & TE
KARACHI
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
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 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.
Developing knowledge management
capabilities: a structured approach
Birinder Singh Sandhawalia and Darren Dalcher
Birinder Singh Sandhawalia
is a Researcher and
Darren Dalcher is Director,
both at the National Centre
for Project Management,
Middlesex University,
London, UK.
Received: 21 July 2010
Accepted: 18 October 2010
DOI 10.1108/13673271111119718
Abstract
Purpose – Knowledge management (KM) needs a systematic approach to develop capabilities which
accelerate the evolution of knowledge into a key organizational resource. This paper aims to address
this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper reports the empirical findings of a case study offering
insights into the infrastructure and process capabilities required to provide knowledge support for
organizational routines and activities.
Findings – It also presents a four-stage framework that helps to make sense of the development of
capabilities during the implementation of KM initiatives.
Practical implications – The research moves KM capability development from being a mere concept to
being a clearly articulated set of stages, which underpin organizational growth.
Originality/value – As above, the research moves KM capability development from being a mere
concept to being a clearly articulated set of stages, which underpin organizational growth.
Keywords Knowledge management, Knowledge engineering
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Efficient knowledge use enhances competitive advantage and improves organizational
success. Knowledge management (KM) has become increasingly important as
organizations realise that effective use of their vast and varied knowledge assets and
resources provides them with the ability to innovate and respond to fast changing customer
expectations. Organizations develop KM capabilities to help support a range of vital
operational and innovative activities. The interest in organizational capabilities has created a
focus on the development and implementation of KM processes and infrastructure required
to support daily work practices.
Nielsen (2006) states that competitive advantage rests on the ability to constantly develop
capabilities that form the basis for products and services offered by organizations. To remain
competitive it is insufficient to have resources and assets, as organizations must also
possess strong KM capabilities for developing and supporting work practices and routines.
This is especially true for organizations competing in fast changing dynamic markets as KM
capabilities enable organizations to react to changing market conditions, and achieve and
sustain competitive advantage, (Wheeler, 2002; D’Aveni, 1994).
However, the processes and activities contributing to the development of KM capabilities
are not well understood because as Allee (1997) argues knowledge is recognised to be
fuzzy and messy, and KM processes are necessarily loose and collaborative. Research is
therefore needed to improve the understanding of the composition of KM infrastructure and
process capabilities that are expected to provide coherent and systematic knowledge
support to daily organizational activities, (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Zahara et al., 1999).
VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011, pp. 313-328, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 313
 ‘‘ Knowledge management (KM) has become increasingly
important as organizations realise that effective use of their
vast and varied knowledge assets and resources provides
them with the ability to innovate and respond to fast changing
customer expectations. ’’

As a discipline, KM does not have a systematic approach focusing on key factors to develop
KM capabilities to support organizational work practices. Traditionally KM can be viewed as
one of the least scientific approaches with an absence of proper methodologies for
assessment, application or implementation. A KM capability framework is therefore required
to serve as an enabler for common understanding and provide a roadmap of how to
implement a KM initiative.
This paper reports the empirical findings of a case study conducted to examine how KM
supports organizational work practices in a globally distributed organization. The findings
provide insights into the infrastructure and process capabilities needed to provide
knowledge support for organizational routines and activities. The paper thereby adds to the
research on organizational capabilities by providing a framework that helps understand the
development of infrastructure and process capabilities while implementing a KM initiative,
which is integral for effective knowledge sharing required for operational and innovative
activities. A key outcome of the paper is that it provides a structured approach to developing
the KM infrastructure and process capabilities within organizations.
The rest of the paper is as follows: the next section discusses the theoretical concepts of KM
infrastructure and process capabilities; Section 3 presents the research methodology;
Section 4 presents the research findings and discusses the development of KM
infrastructure and process capabilities at the case study organization; Section 5 presents
the discussion and analyses where the KM Capability framework is developed; and Section
6 provides the conclusions, implications, and limitations of the research, and the possibilities
for future work.

2. Theoretical framework
The ability to create, store, disseminate, and utilise knowledge and expertise has become a
primary way for organizations to compete (Hayashi, 2004). Amassing and synthesising
specialised knowledge from multiple sources is a pivotal factor in resolving the technical and
operational uncertainties that impede organizational success. Henderson and Cockburn
(1994) argue that organizational success is related to an ability to import new external
knowledge and synthesise existing internal knowledge. Access to external knowledge
represents an external-to-internal transfer of knowledge, while internal knowledge
integration captures an internal-to-internal transfer of knowledge. Henderson and
Cockburn (1994) found that higher performance was associated with knowledge transfer
mechanisms that actively encouraged the exchange of information across organizational
units and across organizational boundaries. Thus, the acquisition, integration and
availability of specialised knowledge, influence the outcome of organizational success
(Leonard-Barton, 1992; Teece et al., 1997).
Further, distinct expertise needs to be shared between employees with a sufficient level of
congruence to enable individuals to understand each other and work together towards their
common goals from different perspectives. Combining previously unconnected aspects or
recombining previously associated aspects creates common knowledge (Leonard-Barton,
1995), as individuals realise that tasks are better achieved through dynamic interaction and

j j
PAGE 314 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011
 feedback. In this way organizations are likely to create new and common knowledge and
engage in effective sharing and integration of knowledge to achieve their predefined goals.
KM capabilities are integral for effective knowledge sharing between individuals.
Knowledge use is associated with people and behaviour and organizations benefit when
knowledge is shared in context and according to need. Organizations need to adopt an
integrative approach to developing KM capabilities that covers all potential sources of
knowledge and reduces barriers to knowledge sharing and organizational learning. KM
capabilities, namely infrastructure and processes, provide the support structure required to
share knowledge within the context in which it is required. Organizations aim to develop KM
capabilities into a state where KM practices are institutionalised and embedded into its daily
work practices. For a KM initiative to achieve such an organizational state, the knowledge
infrastructure and process capabilities need to develop from an initial state of low availability,
accessibility, usage and practice to a state of organizational capability of high availability,
accessibility, usage and practice (Gold et al., 2001; Khalifa and Liu, 2003). The following
sections discuss the theoretical backgrounds of KM infrastructure and processes
capabilities.

2.1 KM infrastructure capabilities

Gold et al. (2001) identify information technology, organizational structure, and culture as
infrastructure capabilities, and acquisition, conversion, application and protection as
process capabilities, and Khalifa and Liu (2003) while advancing Gold et al.’s (2001)
proposition establish leadership, culture and KM strategy as infrastructure required to
develop a KM initiative.
Information technology is an infrastructure capability as it facilitates knowledge flow and
eliminates barriers to communication within an organization. A flexible organizational
structure encourages knowledge sharing and collaboration across boundaries within the
organization, while a rigid structure often has the unintended consequence of inhibiting such
practices. Organizational structure capability for facilitating the flow of knowledge is shaped
by an organization’s policies, processes, and system of rewards and incentives, which
determine the channels from which knowledge is accessed and how it flows
(Leonard-Barton, 1995). An organization’s culture is central to encourage interaction and
collaboration between individuals that are important to facilitate knowledge flow, and
provides individuals the ability to self-organize their own knowledge and practice networks
to facilitate solutions for problems and share knowledge (O’Dell and Grayson, 1998).
Organizational vision, mission and values embody the culture of the organization and
determine the types of knowledge that are desired and the types of knowledge related
activities that are encouraged (Leonard-Barton, 1995). Leadership sets the overall concept
and implementation plan for the KM initiative and obtains commitment from individuals to
achieve the desired objectives and outcome. The KM leader helps create the appropriate
culture to accomplish the knowledge vision and strategy of the organization. The KM
strategy identifies the knowledge requirements and how they are to be fulfilled in
congruence with the strategic goals of the organization.

2.2 KM process capabilities

The KM processes of an organization are focused towards obtaining, sharing, storing, and
using knowledge. Examples of these aspects of KM processes within the literature are:
capture, transfer, and use; acquire, collaborate, integrate, experiment (Leonard-Barton,

‘‘ Traditionally KM can be viewed as one of the least scientific

approaches with an absence of proper methodologies for
assessment, application or implementation. ’’

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 315
 1995); create, transfer, assemble, integrate, and exploit (Teece, 1998); create, transfer, use
(Spender, 1996; Skyrme and Amidon, 1998); create, process (Ivers, 1998); create, store;
transfer and apply (Alavi and Leidner, 2001); acquire, convert, apply, protect (Gold et al.,
2001). An examination of the characteristics of knowledge process capabilities enable them
to be grouped into the four broad dimensions of knowledge creation, conversion, transfer
and application.
Knowledge creation is enabled by the processes and activities of interaction, feedback,
innovation, brainstorming, and benchmarking. Knowledge conversion is made possible
through the processes and activities of synthesis, refinement, integration, combination,
coordination, distribution, and restructuring of knowledge. Shared contexts and common
representation are required for knowledge conversion, and facilitated by group problem
solving and decision-making. Information technologies like e-mail, repositories, intranet
portal, teleconferencing, and the activities of mentoring, collaboration and training play a
key role in transferring knowledge. Forums such as communities of practice and centres of
excellence, and training provide a platform for the transfer of knowledge. Knowledge is
effectively applied during the developmental processes of an organization through rules and
directives, routines and self-organized teams. Knowledge is applied to formulate and refine
the standards, procedures and processes developed to execute tasks within the
organization.
The above knowledge processes are dynamic and highly interdependent and intertwined. At
any point of time and in any part of an organization, individuals and teams maybe engaged in
several different aspects of these knowledge processes. The main focus of the knowledge
processes is to facilitate the flow of knowledge between individuals, and consequently teams,
and the major challenge for any KM initiative is to facilitate these flows so that the maximum
amount of transfer occurs. To meet this challenge, KM process capability needs be fully
leveraged, and this is not possible without the presence of KM infrastructure capability. Gold
et al. (2001) state ‘‘the presence of both KM process and infrastructural capabilities is critical
to reach the intended KM objectives’’. Appropriate KM infrastructure needs to be
implemented to routinise KM processes and practice and to enhance knowledge
application in daily work procedures, Grant (1996). The following section discusses the
research methods deployed to understand the development of KM infrastructure and process
capabilities within a globally distributed organization.

3. Research methodology
An extended case study was conducted to examine how KM processes help support
software and project management processes within a large global organization. The study
was conducted over a period of 26 months at one of the world’s largest software
organizations which currently employs more than a 150,000 individuals. For reasons of
confidentiality, the organization is referred to as XYZ. The main focus of the case study was
to identify and analyse the flow of knowledge between the functional areas of project
implementation. In order to do this, the organization’s KM initiative was studied to
understand the development of infrastructure and process capabilities required to share
knowledge effectively.
While the case study was conducted with a specific purpose to understand how knowledge
is used within a distributed project organization, it made available rich information that offers
a broader perspective into the knowledge sharing activities of a large global organization.
The empirical research was conducted through the theoretical lens of identifying knowledge
flows during software project implementation, but the data analysis provided additional and
deep insights into the development of KM capabilities required to support the knowledge
sharing activities on a globally distributed scale. The methodology and analysis of this
research are consistent with Lynd and Lynd’s (1957) and Nelkin’s (1973) works reported in
Yin’s (2004) discussion of case study research in action.
The case study organization is a leading global provider of software applications and
solutions with a reputation for excellence. Exceptional access negotiated for this research

j j
PAGE 316 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011
‘‘ A KM capability framework is required to serve as an enabler
for common understanding and provide a roadmap of how to
implement a KM initiative. ’’

project provided an opportunity to study and analyse the well established and highly mature
work methods and practices used for software development throughout the organization.
The research propositions required an analysis of the flow of knowledge between the
functional areas of the development effort. In order to achieve this, the researchers observed
knowledge management infrastructure and process capabilities which support knowledge
sharing within a highly mature organization. A cross-section of individuals within the
organization were interviewed, including an executive vice president, members of the
Software Engineering Process Group (SEPG), principal consultants, project managers and
software developers. The researchers also administered a questionnaire to receive
feedback from key members based at client sites.
The interviews were conducted on-site and were initially structured around the history and
emergence of knowledge management as a concept and practice within the organization,
and thereafter along the theoretical propositions of the study to examine knowledge
management practices and capabilities, and software and project management processes.
Miles and Huberman (1994) describe the analytic phase as consisting of three concurrent
flows of activities that are data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing, which this
research applied. The data were read, categorised, conceptualised and interpreted
iteratively. The researchers drew categories from the key words of the transcribed interviews
and observations. Attributes were assigned to each category, and the categories were
iteratively reviewed on the basis of their attributes. This resulted in categories determined by
their attributes, which enabled the researchers to conceptualise and interpret the empirical
evidence and evaluate the emerging themes. The researchers were thereafter able to draw
conclusions in accordance with the theoretical concepts of the study.
The research followed the first and ‘‘most preferred’’ strategy of ‘‘relying upon theoretical
propositions’’ recommended by Yin (2003) and Miles and Huberman (1994). An evaluation
and analysis of the categories and their attributes based upon the emerging themes,
combined with the insights gained while conducting the case study, provided a rich
empirical basis to analyse and present the flow of knowledge while implementing projects
within a software project organization. Miles and Huberman (1994) describe the activity of
conclusion drawing as ‘‘beginning to decide what things mean, noting regularities, patterns,
explanations, possible configurations, causal flows and propositions.’’

4. Findings
As organizations implement KM initiatives, the KM infrastructure and processes develop.
One might expect the development of these KM infrastructure and processes would
progress smoothly and in congruence with each other, from an initial state to an
organizational state where the KM capabilities are embedded in the daily activities and work
practices of the organization. The path of such an ideal development is represented in
Figure 1 where KM infrastructure capability development is represented on the y-axis and
KM process capability is represented along the x-axis of the graph and both capabilities
progress from low to high along their respective axis. The ideal, congruent development of
both capabilities is represented by arrow q, which depicts a smooth progress from an initial
to the more advanced organizational state.

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 317
 Figure 1 KM capabilities

y
q
Organisational State
High

KM Infrastructure Capability

Initial State
Low
x
Low KM Process Capabilities High

4.1 The initial state

In actual practice, however, the research observed that path taken at XYZ was not smooth
and ideal, as represented by arrow q. The creation of a central repository marked the
beginning of a determined effort to harness the use of technology to improve the efficiency
and productivity of existing and future projects. The realisation of the benefits of such efforts
motivated senior management at XYZ to explore further possibilities and create a knowledge
vision, thus signifying the initial state of development of KM infrastructure and process
capabilities. During this stage XYZ defined what KM meant to it as an organization, and
made clear the concepts and objectives that it wanted to achieve by implementing a KM
initiative. A KM strategy was developed ensuring that it was connected to other
organizational needs and initiatives that already existed, and resources and infrastructure
required to implement the initiative were identified.
Thereafter, XYZ started to develop the KM initiative, and consequently the infrastructure and
process capabilities. The knowledge vision was translated into action by means of mission
and value statements to encourage the growth of knowledge within the organization. A
knowledge culture of sharing was promoted and individuals encouraged to contribute, while
project managers were expected to lead their teams in a learning environment of openness,
trust and feedback. The introduction of collaborative technology was viewed as a significant
step towards establishing the knowledge culture and to a certain extent a change in the
organizational structure. The use of e-mail, teleconferencing and bulletin boards were
expected to promote collaboration and boundary crossing within departments and
development centres and hence reduce the silo effect of a previous more vertical structure.
A central repository was developed to store process assets and process improvement
proposals, while the intranet portal was developed to provide organization wide
dissemination of explicit knowledge and tools such as IPMS, EKMS, HRS, and CRM.
Training was imparted to introduce and make individuals explicitly familiar with these
knowledge infrastructure and capabilities. Knowledge sharing activities were made
mandatory within the training programmes.

j j
PAGE 318 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011
The emphasis on developing KM infrastructure capability while still providing training in
knowledge process capability, resulted in high availability of this infrastructure to individuals
within the organization and is represented by arrow i in Figure 2 Arrow i depicts the actual
progress of XYZ’s KM initiative development contrary to the expectation depicted in Figure 1,
from a state of low infrastructure and process capability to a state where the emphasis on
infrastructure capability development was greater than the practice of knowledge process
capability. In other words, this state was characterised by high availability and accessibility
of infrastructure capability for individuals compared to the extent to which they were
performing KM processes.

4.2 The deviation

When the researchers first visited XYZ and commenced research the number of individuals
employed by XYZ was 50,000. Thereafter, the researchers made numerous visits to XYZ over
the course of the next two years and the number of individuals employed by XYZ grew to
85,000. In an interview, a senior Group Lead at XYZ stated that ‘‘fifty percent of our new
employees have been at XYZ for less than three years.’’ Therefore the number of individuals
at XYZ had grown from 40,000-45,000 to 85,000 in two years. The increase in the number of
new employees was representative of XYZ’s expansion strategy which was characterised
with the acquisition and opening of development and delivery centres across the globe. This
resulted in XYZ becoming a larger global organization with employees from diverse
backgrounds and cultures working in a more distributed environment. A small number of
new employees were recruited as part of XYZ’s strategy to employ ‘‘bench strength that
would provide a bigger talent pool.’’ The idea of employing ‘‘bench strength’’ was that XYZ
would provide individuals ongoing training and therefore have reserve skilled employee
resources for job rotation, cover for absentees, and starting new projects. However, the
number of individuals employed as ‘‘bench strength’’ was less that 5 percent of the total
number of new employees.
The rapid expansion had an effect on XYZ’s KM initiative, and the infrastructure and process
capabilities. New employees were provided with training to perform knowledge process

Figure 2 KM infrastructure development

y
q
Organisational State
High i
KM Infrastructure Capability

Initial State
Low
x
Low KM Process Capabilities High

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 319
 capabilities as a part of their induction programme. A senior management consultant at the
organization stated:
[. . .] since XYZ has employed a majority of its personnel after implementing the knowledge
strategy and 50 per cent of the employees have been at XYZ for less than three years, the current
knowledge culture is an integral part of their induction and training programmes.

However, when they were assigned to projects upon completing their training, the
infrastructure capability proved inadequate and insufficient. There was a loss of knowledge
richness due to the distributed knowledge, less face-to-face interaction, and scattered
knowledge assets. There was a perceived lack of ‘‘teamness’’ that resulted in a coordination
breakdown in project management activities. The large numbers of new employees, or
inductees, were not exposed and used to the organizational culture, and therefore did not
have the requisite level of trust and familiarisation to integrate with the KM practices within
the organization.
Similarly, XYZ had to address cultural differences amongst globally distributed employees
who had to adjust to new work practices. While the new employees’ initial training helped
overcome some of these issues and inculcated knowledge processes, the infrastructure
capabilities of organizational structure, culture, information technology and KM strategy
needed to be reassessed and improved upon. This resulted in XYZ’s possessing inadequate
KM infrastructure capability compared to the number of employees seeking to perform KM
process capabilities. The progression to this state is depicted in Figure 3 by arrow p from the
previous state of high infrastructure capability and low process capability, to a new state of
low infrastructure capability and high process capability.

4.3 The correction

Having recognised the problem XYZ addressed the issues presented by the state of low
infrastructure capability and high process capability by increasing site visits and travel of
individuals amongst different development and delivery centres, having local, acculturated
knowledge champions and interaction among them at the regional and corporate level,
encouraging regional and virtual communities of practice, and also starting regional and

Figure 3 KM process capability development

y
q
Organisational State
High
i
KM Infrastructure Capability

p
Initial State
Low
x
Low KM Process Capabilities High

j j
PAGE 320 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011
corporate centres of excellence. According to a consultant, XYZ attempted to create a
combination of both ‘‘top-down and bottom-up knowledge culture. XYZ has developed a
knowledge culture at the local, branch, nodal and corporate levels. In a globally distributed
organizational environment, each local centre has a knowledge champion who is well versed
in the local culture. Local knowledge champions interact with branch knowledge managers,
who in turn interact at the nodal and corporate levels leading to an overall knowledge owner.
The overall corporate knowledge is managed and disseminated by the SEPG.’’ The
knowledge champions were made responsible of ensuring that knowledge created at the
global development and delivery centres, was made available to the local or regional
centres and the overall knowledge owner at the corporate level.
The existing EKMS was upgraded to a new KM system named DEF which as mentioned by a
senior group lead during an interview, ‘‘consolidated all scattered knowledge assets into one
system that caters to the global needs of 85,000 diverse employees’’. The KM-P was
introduced as an integral part of DEF to help identify experts and individuals with experience
for projects with specific characteristics. DEF was implemented in late 2006, and along with
the other measures mentioned above, was expected to become a catalyst that drives
knowledge flow, and progresses XYZ to an organizational state of high infrastructure and
process capability, where KM practices are institutionalised and embedded in the daily
activities and processes of the organization. This progress of XYZ’s KM initiative from a state
of low infrastructure capability and high process capability to a state high infrastructure and
process capability is depicted by arrow e in Figure 4 completing the N-shaped journey to a
higher organizational state in contrast with the initial expectation of smooth transition.
The implementation of the KM initiative at XYZ provides an example of how organizations
need to balance the growth and development of KM processes and infrastructure while
developing their KM programmes. Organizations expect a smooth path from
conceptualising a KM initiative to its successful implementation. XYZ’s experience
highlights two stages within the implementation of its KM initiative when an imbalance
existed between the KM infrastructure and process capabilities. When XYZ was developing
the concept of the KM initiative after its initial conceptual stage, the organization put an
emphasis on developing the infrastructure. This resulted in greater availability of KM

Figure 4 Towards an organizational state of KM capability development

y
q
Organisational State
High
i

c
KM Infrastructure Capability

Initial State p
Low
x
Low KM Process Capabilities High

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 321
 infrastructure capability than KM processes being practised, even though training was
introduced for these processes, thereby representing a state of higher KM infrastructure
capability and lesser KM process capability. Thereafter, with the addition of a number of
employees and their training upon induction, the KM infrastructure capability was
inadequate to support the KM processes practised by the individuals. This represented a
state of greater KM processes being practised and lesser KM infrastructure capability being
available. XYZ started progressing towards a state of organizational KM capability after it
addressed these imbalances.

5. KM capability framework
The above discussion highlighted the issues faced by XYZ while developing a KM initiative
in order to mobilise and utilise its knowledge resources. While the findings pertain to a single
organization, they may also reflect the view of Eskerod and Skriver (2007) who studied the
literature on knowledge transfer and identified persistent issues that impact such efforts
suggesting a more general trend. Eskerod and Skriver (2007) state that ‘‘however [. . .] many
companies experience serious problems when trying to make knowledge transfer work.’’ In
the case of XYZ, the organization struggled to make knowledge resources available to all
individuals when it inducted a significant number of new employees. The Vice President of
XYZ confirmed this when he said:
I would say that XYZ’s knowledge initiative evolved rather than starting of a recent knowledge
vision. Also XYZ is currently into its latest generation system and our biggest challenge is
scalability of knowledge [. . .] from the initial knowledge requirements of 10,000 employees, the
system now has to cater to the knowledge needs of more than 80000 employees.

This problem is made apparent by the downward arrow p in Figures 3 and 4 when the KM
infrastructure was found inadequate to support the knowledge needs of a larger number of
organizational individuals. Thus Eskerod and Skriver’s (2007) view helps explain the
phenomenon observed at XYZ.
The discussion also confirmed that if an organization conceptualises its KM programme in
an initial state and intends to achieve an organizational state where the KM capabilities are
institutionalised and embedded within the organization’s daily procedures, processes and
practices, two other intermediate and distinct capability states also exist. One state is of
higher KM infrastructure capability availability and lesser KM process being practised, while
the other state is of greater KM processes being practised and lesser KM infrastructure
capability being available. The four states are represented in Figure 5.
Also represented in Figure 5 is the ideal path an organization would expect to progress
along when launching a KM programme, and indirectly the possible paths along which their
KM programme might progress during implementation. The path to implementing a KM
programme does not appear to progress directly and smoothly from the initial to
organizational state as envisaged by XYZ, but might instead traverse through either of the
two intermediate states, or indeed as in XYZ’s case through both intermediate states. If an
organization initially lays more emphasis on developing its KM infrastructure capability it will
progress to the state of higher KM infrastructure capability and lesser process capability
before it can advance to an organizational state. On the other hand, if the organization was to
initially lay more emphasis on practising KM processes it will progress to the state of greater
process capability and lesser infrastructure capability before being able to move towards
the organizational state.
As XYZ’s experience depicted, a large organization could advance from one intermediate
state to another before progressing towards the organizational state of KM capability. This is
an important observation because many organizations tend to launch KM programmes
without due consideration of the organization’s capabilities to guarantee any measure of
success of implementation (Leonard-Barton, 1995). As the case study evidence revealed,
even one of the largest software project organizations with a reputation for maturity and a
CMMI Level 5 accreditation, needed to coordinate its KM capability development to achieve
a state of organizational KM.

j j
PAGE 322 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011
Figure 5 KM capability framework

y
q

High
High Infrastructure Low Process Organisational State
High Capability State

KM Infrastructure Capability

Initial State High Process Capability

Limited Infrastructure
Low Availability
x
Low KM Process Capabilities High

The framework presented in Figure 5 depicts the possible states organizations may
encounter while implementing their KM programmes. In the following sections the paper
discusses the characteristics of each state, and the possible stage of an organization’s KM
programme development.

5.1 Initial state

An organization’s KM programme can be considered to be in the initial state when the
organization is creating a knowledge vision and relating this vision to its strategic needs and
other initiatives that already exist. During this state the organization explores all possibilities
related to the KM initiative and also the opportunities present. The organization identifies the
infrastructure required to support the initiative and the KM processes to be practised.
Financial support for the programme and other resources required to implement the
programme are also identified and budgeted. An important activity or feature of this state is
the top management’s commitment to the KM initiative and development of a
cross-functional team responsible for implementing the programme. Within this state,
management needs to communicate its knowledge vision across the organization, and
make individuals aware of the KM programme and its expected benefits.

5.2 High KM infrastructure capability

The KM programme is in the state of high infrastructure capability when there is an emphasis
on developing the infrastructure. During this stage the knowledge vision is translated into
action by means of mission and value statements to encourage the growth of knowledge
within the organization. A knowledge culture of sharing and learning is promoted with
individuals encouraged to participate and contribute. The organization reviews its policies
and processes, and implements systems of rewards and incentives to motivate and reward
knowledge sharing behaviour. During this state information technology support is
developed in the form of repositories and collaborative technologies. Through the linkage

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 323
 provided by collaborative technologies the organization attempts to integrate previously
fragmented flows of knowledge, Teece (1998). Collaboration technologies are developed to
allow individuals within the organization to collaborate, thereby eliminating the structural and
geographical impediments that may have previously prevented such interaction.
Knowledge discovery technologies are developed to allow the organization to find new
knowledge that is either internal or external to the firm. Knowledge mapping and application
technologies are developed to enable the firm to effectively track sources of knowledge,
creating a catalogue of internal organizational knowledge, and apply its existing knowledge.
An organization’s KM programme could be considered to be in this state when individuals
have access to the above mentioned infrastructure but do not avail themselves of its
complete potential or capability, due to the lack of practising knowledge processes.

5.3 High KM process capability

The KM programme can be considered to be in the state of high KM process capability when
there is an emphasis on practising knowledge processes. Openness and trust characterise
the organization’s work environment and support knowledge sharing behaviours, which are
included as an integral part of the training programmes. Communities of practice and
centres of excellence evolve and individuals are encouraged to join and participate.
Activities that establish an organization’s KM programme in a state of high knowledge
process capability include identifying lessons learnt, best practices, benchmarking,
brainstorming, group problem solving, mentoring and collaboration. The daily work
processes support decision-making, feedback and interaction, which are made apparent in
the team commitment. Knowledge champions from distributed centres meet regularly and
knowledge flows across boundaries and development centres. Therefore an organization
would be in a state of high knowledge process capability and low infrastructure capability
when the above-mentioned knowledge processes are practised but do not receive
adequate support in the form of infrastructure support.

5.4 Organizational state of KM

An organization will be in a state of organizational KM infrastructure and process capability
when it achieves high availability of infrastructure capability to support frequent and regular
practice of knowledge processes. In other words, knowledge processes are embedded in
the daily routines, procedures and practices of the organization which posses the
knowledge infrastructure to support them. This state is characterised by a vibrant mix of
vision, strategy, leadership, organizational structure, culture, technology infrastructure, and
knowledge processes of creation, storage, retrieval, transfer, application and sharing.
Forums such as communities of practice evolve and the organizational structure, culture,
and technology support them. Lessons learnt are captured regularly and made available
across the organization, while best practices are implemented.
Knowledge sharing and learning permeate the organizational environment of role models,
mentoring, leadership, motivation, commitment, and training, where collaboration, feedback
and interaction drive knowledge flow between individuals and teams. Acculturated
knowledge champions and collaborative information technology support ensure that
knowledge flows are not inhibited by organizational structures and distributed geographical
locations, but instead flow across social networks and boundaries of the organization. This
state was achieved in the case study organization and confirmed by a senior Vice President
who claimed that:
[. . .] knowledge flows in XYZ as a part of the daily activities of the employees. It flows in all
directions as XYZ is a vibrant organization, and knowledge flows across hierarchies and
departments in a quasi structure.

The knowledge flows ensure that the knowledge available within the organization is current,
integrated, usable, and applied. The organization adopts a consistent approach to KM and it
becomes a way of working within standardised work methods. Thus when KM is
institutionalised within the organization, the programme can be stated to be in the
organizational state.

j j
PAGE 324 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011
5.5 KM capability framework summary
The above discussion presents the activities and characteristics of the states through which
the implementation of organizational KM programmes could possibly progress. By
assessing and focusing on the KM infrastructure and process capabilities and their
characteristics that are being developed and practised, organizations can determine the
existing state of their KM programme implementation. The framework enables organizations
to analyse if their KM programme is more focused towards developing KM infrastructure
capability rather than KM process capability, or whether limited KM infrastructure is available
for the KM processes being practised. Thus, the framework could help organizations to
better understand the issues related to developing a KM initiative, as suggested by Eskerod
and Skriver (2007), and analyse any imbalance that may exist and needs to be addressed.
In doing so, the framework will benefit organizations interested in making corrections and
restoring the balance between KM infrastructure and process capability, thereby offering the
purpose of smoothening the path of successful KM implementation and progressing
towards a state of organizational KM capability.

5.6 Implications for KM practice

The findings of this research and the framework presented within, have implications for KM
practice. The research established that KM initiatives evolve from the initial knowledge
requirements, to a state of continued growth of knowledge use within organizations. In this
state, knowledge processes need to be embedded in the daily routines of organizations and
supported by knowledge infrastructure. This need was confirmed by a senior consultant in
the case study organization who stated that the organization now ‘‘requires and needs a
system that is independent of people, and that is what our latest KM effort has tried to
address.’’ The development and growth of KM programmes and initiatives to a state of
continuous knowledge use should ideally be managed at a pace that matches the rate of
organizational growth to avoid instances of any imbalance between the requirements and
availability of KM infrastructure and processes.
The results of the analysis of this research provide additional evidence that organizations
must develop capabilities to support and facilitate interaction and feedback to ensure the
flow of knowledge. Organizations need to take steps to bring together individuals with
common interests and improve their likelihood of success in knowledge sharing.
Encouragement and facilitation of organization-wide communities of practice are a
positive step towards effective KM, especially within a distributed organization. Convincing
people to share their knowledge requires a combination of KM capabilities, such as
inculcating a level of trust among individuals and managers, and creating a ‘‘no-blame’’
culture within organizations and a rewards system. Organizational vision and value
statements need to reflect the commitment towards a knowledge culture, and be effectively
communicated throughout the entire organization.
The research provides organizations with a better understanding of the development of KM
infrastructure and process capabilities. Organizations develop KM capabilities to mobilise
and utilise their existing knowledge resources and integrate them with new knowledge in a
dynamic manner. The development of KM infrastructure and process capabilities allow
organizations to adopt a continuous view of their operations in order to manage context,
provide feedback, facilitate interaction, and enable the flow of knowledge. This leads to the
creation, sharing and integration of tacit and explicit knowledge, and ensures that the right
knowledge is available to the right person at the right time within organizations. Thus the
research provides KM practice with a long-term perspective to develop infrastructure and
process capabilities that support the continuous evolution and use of dynamic
organizational knowledge.

6. Conclusion
The case study analysed knowledge flows during the software development and project
management processes, and feedback and interaction between and within the functional

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 325
 ‘‘ Organizations aim to develop KM capabilities into a state
where KM practices are institutionalised and embedded into
its daily work practices. ’’

areas of the operations of a leading global software project organization. The study also
identified the KM infrastructure and process capabilities required to support and facilitate this
knowledge flow, and analysed the development of these capabilities from an initial state to an
organizational state. Not all organizations will manage to progress to the organizational state
of KM in one smooth journey, as observed in the XYZ case study. The paper established that
two other intermediate states exist, and identified the possible paths an organization’s KM
capabilities development might progress along. In doing so, the paper improves
understanding of KM infrastructure and process capabilities, and provides a structured
approach to developing these capabilities in tandem with the pace of organizational growth.
Generalising from a single case study, however detailed, is fraught with risk. The interviews
and observations during the extended case study were conducted within a single
organization. Moreover, the study did not attempt to isolate specific conditions that may tend
to moderate the findings within that specific organization. It is worth pointing out that while
some may view empirical work within KM practice as inherently weaker, it is essential for
research to benefit from insights gained and provide a pragmatic set of findings which can
be used by other practitioners. Future work can expand the boundaries and domains
explored. A focused study within several organizations, combined with an objective
evaluation of the flow of knowledge and capability support within the various KM initiatives,
would provide useful follow-up research. Research is needed to determine if this
phenomenon extends to global organizations in other industry domains. The findings are
based on evidence gathered during the longitudinal case study conducted at a large
software organization, and their implications provide questions and a new agenda for future
research. A research possibility is to examine how the different stages of KM capability
development relate to an organization’s progress towards KM maturity, as suggested by
Baskerville and Pries-Heje (1999) and Kulkarni and St Louis (2003). Both of the mentioned
studies provide theoretical models that are based on the Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
framework’s five maturity levels. Further research is required to establish whether KM
maturity is a staged progress along five levels, or whether progress occurs along the four
states of KM capability identified in this research towards an organizational state in order to
achieve KM maturity. Indeed KM maturity may need to encompass and address the four
states identified in this study.
The research makes two contributions. First, the research asserts that organizational
support capabilities need to develop at a rate that matches organizational growth and
sustains quality. Unbalanced growth of support capabilities affects developmental systems
and undermines daily work practices. Second, the research provides a structured approach
for global organizations to develop, diagnose and characterise KM infrastructure and
process capabilities. The research defines the characteristics that determine the state of an
organization’s KM capability development programme. The framework can be used to
identify any imbalance in the KM capability development programme and pursue corrective
action where needed. While most KM frameworks discuss knowledge processes, this
research presents a framework that addresses the development of both KM capabilities of
infrastructure and processes, and the relationship between them. Thus the research
addresses the definite need to move KM capability development from a mere concept to a
clearly structured set of stages that can lead to implementing an organizational initiative. By
doing so it hopefully opens up a new avenue for improvement and exploration and further
research that may play a part in advancing the discipline of KM.

j j
PAGE 326 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011
References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
conceptual foundations and research issues’’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-36.

Allee, V. (1997), ‘‘12 principles of knowledge management’’, Training and Development, Vol. 51 No. 11,
pp. 71-4.

Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. (1999), ‘‘Knowledge capability and maturity in software management’’,
The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 30 No. 2.

Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), ‘‘Exploitation, exploration, and process management:
the productivity dilemma revisited’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 238-56.

D’Aveni, R.A. (1994), Hypercompetition – Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Marketing, The Free
Press, New York, NY.

Eskerod, R.K. and Skriver, H.J. (2007), ‘‘Organisational culture restraining in-house knowledge transfer
between project managers – a case study’’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 110-22.

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.

Grant, R. (1996), ‘‘Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm’’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17, Winter, special issue, pp. 109-22.

Hayashi, A.M. (2004), ‘‘Building better teams’’, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 2, p. 5.

Henderson, R. and Cockburn, I. (1994), ‘‘Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in

pharmaceutical research’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 63-84.

Ivers, J. (1998), ‘‘Bringing out brilliance: enabling knowledge creation in the notes/domino
environment’’, Enterprise Solutions, Vol. 10, November/December, pp. 24-7.

Khalifa, M. and Liu, V. (2003), ‘‘Determinants of successful knowledge management programs’’,

Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 103-12.

Kulkarni, U. and St Louis, R. (2003), ‘‘Organizational self-assessment and knowledge management

maturity’’, Proceedings of Americas Conference on Information Systems.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), ‘‘Core capabilities and core rigidities’’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 13, Summer, pp. 111-26.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Source of Innovation,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Lynd, R.S. and Lynd, H.M. (1957), Middletown: A Study of Modern American Culture, Harcourt Brace,
New York, NY.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage
Publications, London.

Nelkin, D. (1973), Methadone Maintenance: A Technological Fix, George Braziller, New York, NY.

Nielsen, A.P. (2006), ‘‘Understanding dynamic capabilities through knowledge management’’, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 59-71.

O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C. (1998), ‘‘If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal
best practices’’, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-74.

Skyrme, D. and Amidon, D. (1998), ‘‘New measures of success’’, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 20-4.

Spender, J. (1996), ‘‘Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm’’, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, special issue, pp. 45-62.

Teece, D. (1998), ‘‘Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-how
and intangible assets’’, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 55-79.

Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), ‘‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’’,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 327
 Wheeler, B.C. (2002), ‘‘NEBIC: a dynamic capabilities theory for assessing net-enablement’’,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 125-46.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Yin, R.K. (2004), The Case Study Anthology, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Zahara, S.A., Nielsen, A.P. and Bogner, W.C. (1999), ‘‘Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and
competence development’’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 169-89.

About the authors

Birinder Singh Sandhawalia is a Researcher at the National Centre for Project Management
at Middlesex University. He has published several peer-reviewed conference and journal
papers on knowledge management and project management. His current research interests
include investigating the flow of tacit and explicit knowledge in project-based organizations,
knowledge management infrastructure and process capabilities, knowledge integration,
and collaboration. He was a contributing subject-matter expert for Project Management –
A Managerial Approach by Jack R. Meredith and Samuel J. Mantel (7th ed., 2009). Birinder
Singh Sandhawalia is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
B.Sandhawalia@mdx.ac.uk
Darren Dalcher is a Professor of Project Management at Middlesex University and Visiting
Professor at the University of Iceland. He is the Founder and Director of the National Centre
for Project Management. He has been named by the Association for Project Management as
one of the top ten ‘‘movers and shapers’’ in project management and has also been voted
Project Magazine’s Academic of the Year for his contribution in ‘‘integrating and weaving
academic work with practice.’’ He is active in numerous international committees, steering
groups, and editorial boards. He is heavily involved in organizing international conferences
and has delivered many keynote addresses and tutorials. He has written over 200 papers
and book chapters on project management, agile development, and software engineering.
He is Editor-in-Chief of Software Process Improvement and Practice and the Journal of
Software Evolution and Maintenance and Editor of the Advances in Project Management and
Fundamentals of Project Management book series published by Gower.

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

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

j j
PAGE 328 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011