Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jas I Muddin 2006
Jas I Muddin 2006
Jas I Muddin 2006
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115318 []
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.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to reflect on the development of knowledge management so
as to argue whether knowledge management (KM) is a multidisciplinary field.
Design/methodology/approach – To set the scene by reviewing and synthesizing the scholarly
works and published practices of knowledge management, this paper presents an overview of the
recent and rapidly growing literature on knowledge management.
Findings – The paper presents a discussion, addressing the question of what those disciplines are on
which knowledge management discourse is exactly drawn on. The fact is that knowledge management
draws from a wide range of disciplines. Although scholars from several disciplines attempt to claim
ownership of the knowledge management, today both practitioners and academics alike recognize that
knowledge management is an eclectic field rather than grounded in a specific ideology.
Research limitations/implications – The paper does not offer comprehensive understanding of
the disciplinary roots of knowledge management because it has not reviewed all the papers available
in KM.
Practical implications – The paper does raise awareness of the genesis of knowledge management.
It will encourage insightful managers to examine this research in more depth as a means of guidance
for making use of KM initiatives in their organization.
Originality/value – Highlighting the growing interest in knowledge management, the paper
inspires knowledge management researchers to be rigorous in both disciplinary grounding and
integration. Although the paper does not attempt to detail the origins and the gradual development of
the KM field, it contributes to improving theory, practice, and pedagogy in the field of KM by
articulating its origin.
Keywords Knowledge management, Organizations
Paper type Viewpoint
During the past 20 years, and especially during the last decade, knowledge
management (KM) has received much attention both in academic and practitioner
circles. Majority of the knowledge management research focuses on topics such as
knowledge typology (Polanyi, 1962; Nonaka, 1994; Spender, 1996; Blackler, 1995;
Jasimuddin, 2005), knowledge transfer (Argote and Ingram, 2000; Jasimuddin et al.,
2006), knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Kanno, 1998;
Jenkins and Balogun, 2003), and knowledge storage and retrieval (Walsh and Ungson,
1991; Stein and Zwass, 1995; Sherif, 2002; Jasimuddin et al., 2005a, b). However, there International Journal of
are many other issues surrounding knowledge management that are yet to explore. Organizational Analysis
Vol. 14 No. 2, 2006
One very important issue that is found missing or has relatively neglected is the pp. 171-180
disciplinary roots of knowledge management. This is supported by several scholars q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1934-8835
(e.g. Raub and Ruling, 2001; Moffett et al., 2003; Gu, 2004; Hazlett et al., 2005; Chae and DOI 10.1108/10553180610742782
IJOA Bloodgood, 2006), who argue that there are many areas within the knowledge
14,2 management domain that have remained unexplored. One of such areas is the origin of
knowledge management. What available is some isolated descriptions on the
background of knowledge management. In the literature, there are contradictory views
on the genesis of knowledge management. Against this background, the paper
attempts to partially fill that gap by providing stimulating debate on the origin and
172 development of KM, based primarily on reviewing and synthesizing the scholarly
works and published practices of KM.
This paper is structured as following. Section 2 explains the role of KM in
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:32 01 February 2016 (PT)
organizations. The origins of KM are outlined in section 3. The next section presents a
discussion to address the question of what those disciplines are on which knowledge
management discourse is exactly drawn on, highlighting the main contributions,
limitations and directions for future research. Finally, the paper ends with conclusion.
knowledge management has got much attention among practitioners when Tom
Stewart introduced it for the first time in the popular press by writing an article
“Brainpower” in Fortune magazine in 1991.
Gu (2004), for example, argues that the origin of KM research can be traced back to
the mid seventies of the previous century. Gu (2004) also provides the evidence by
citing the works that were “authored by four pioneers respectively affiliated to
institutions of higher learning in the US, published in Public Administration Review,
Vol. 35, Iss 6, 1975” (pp. 171-172) which can be thought to be the earliest contributions
to the field of KM.
However, other scholars, most notably Cooper (2006) argues that the research and
practice of KM has grown rapidly since the 1990s, driven by economic, technological,
and social trends in the knowledge based economy. Beckman (1999), for example,
asserts that Karl Wiig had first coined the “knowledge management” concept in 1986
at a conference for the International Labour Organization held in Switzerland. Wiig
(1997) addresses the history of knowledge management from its modest beginnings in
the mid eighties to its current status, showing it is the logical next step in a sequence of
societal developments that has already been going on for a very long time.
The fact is that there are contradictory views regarding the origin of knowledge
management. While reviewing and synthesizing the scholarly works on KM, it is found
that KM has received increased attention over the last decade or so among academics
and practitioners from across a broad range of subjects. In some cases, it is found that
these disciplines are closely related, which makes difficult to separate them.
Consider a classic example of organizational learning. Rahim (2002) defines
organizational learning as the activities that involve knowledge acquisition,
knowledge distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memorization
for future access and use. While Jasimuddin (2005) states “knowledge management
involves activities related to capturing, utilizing, creating, transferring, and storing of
organizational knowledge” (p. 39). It appears that this definition of KM has been
borrowed ideas from organization learning (see Rahim, 2002). Additionally, it can be
argued that organizational learning and knowledge management are closely linked
and the latter is a part of the former or vice versa. Such increased interest from across a
wide variety of disciplines has also made it difficult to finding a comprehensive
definition of KM. This has further brought out the controversy regarding the origins of
KM. Lopez (2004) supports this by contending that “the concept of knowledge
management is difficult. This is due to the fact that this subject has been studied by
several disciplines and from different approaches” (p. 94). The next section will address
to answer the question of what those disciplines are on which knowledge management
discourse is exactly drawn on.
IJOA Discussion
14,2 Having reviewed the knowledge management literature, there is an agreement among
the academics. That is, KM discourse is not derived from one particular discipline, for
example, information systems. Rather KM field draws from many different disciplines.
Scholars (e.g. Chae and Bloodgood, 2006; Argote, 2005; Styhre, 2004; Moffett et al.,
2003; Raub and Ruling, 2001; Prusak, 2001) observe that KM discourse draws on
174 multiple disciplines.
Prusak (2001), for instance, attempts to find the roots of KM going beyond the
broader area of management, and argues that the origins of KM can be located in
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:32 01 February 2016 (PT)
Information systems KM systems that support the Alavi and Leidner (2001); Blumentritt
identification and distribution of and Johnston (1999); Hendriks (2001);
knowledge in organizations Hislop (2002); Boland and Tenkasi
(1995); Moffett et al. (2003); Argote
(2005)
Organization theory KM for the creation, transfer and use Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995);
of knowledge in organizations Davenport and Prusak (1998); Probst
et al. (2000); Swan and Scarborough
(2001); Styhre (2004)
Strategic management Knowledge as an organizational Barney (1991); Prahalad and Hamel
resource of strategic significance (1990); Spender (1996); Grant (1996);
Argote (2005)
Human resources Knowledge workers for Drucker (1988); Solaiman and Table I.
management organizational value creation Spooner (2000); Scarbrough (1999); Origin of knowledge
Moffett et al. (2003) management field
IJOA Implications for management
14,2 In recent years, knowledge management is widely viewed as crucial to ensuring
growth and survival of an organization. Managers from a variety of disciplines have
come to view KM as the new “serious issue” in business (Bushko and Raynor, 1998;
Martiny, 1998). But to many managers it may still remain unclear what “knowledge
management” really is. Since the notion of knowledge management has very diverse
176 academic and practical roots, managers might find difficult to understand what is KM
is about and how the challenges it presents can best be tackled. Furthermore, a wide
variety of disciplines, and different perspectives on KM can yield different dimensions
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:32 01 February 2016 (PT)
and meaning.
The paper seems to give managers a clearer picture of the status of KM from
disciplinary angle, as it provide stimulating debate on the origin and development of
KM. Such debate will also greatly improve managers understand how various
disciplines have contributed to the development of KM, and provide them some
conceptual depth which will enable them to develop better approaches to addressing
knowledge management problems.
In order to reap the anticipated benefits from knowledge management,
organizations need to fit the overall organizational culture and structure. The
organizations have to change their traditional organization structure, replacing
traditional hierarchical model of management by horizontal decentralized teams of
organizational members. Similarly, since organizational culture is an important
element for the successful implementation of KM, efforts have to be taken to encourage
and develop supportive knowledge sharing culture in organizations. Moreover, it is
hoped that the paper will encourage insightful managers to examine this research in
more depth as a means of guidance for making use of KM initiatives in their
organization.
Limitations
There are still gaps in our understanding the disciplinary roots of KM and its
implications for firms and managerial practices. While there are many other topics on
which research can be conducted in knowledge management, the paper emphasizes the
disciplinary roots of KM only based on existing KM literature. Although the article
opens a KM debate on its genesis, it has not reviewed all the papers available in KM.
earlier, KM draws from a wide range of disciplines, and there are contradictory views
regarding the origin of knowledge management. To balance this, it can be said that
while the strategic role of organizational knowledge as a competitive resource has long
been recognized, however, the emergence of KM as an academic field is much more
recent, dating from the 1990s. The KM research has advanced and enriched by brining
diverse perspectives and concepts, and topics of inquiry into the KM field. It is a
multi-disciplinary paradigm and eventually will become a fully-fledged discipline. The
paper offers a historical perspective on the development of the KM field in terms of its
disciplinary roots over the last 20 years. Although the paper does not attempt to detail
the origins and the gradual development of the KM field, it contributes to improving
theory, practice, and pedagogy in the field of KM by articulating its origin.
References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (2001), “Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 107-36.
Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2001), “Odd couple: making sense of the curious concept of
knowledge management”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 995-1018.
Argote, L. (2005), “Reflections on two views of managing learning and knowledge in
organizations”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 14, pp. 43-8.
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in
firms”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, pp. 150-69.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, pp. 99-120.
Beckman, T.J. (1999), “The current state of knowledge management”, in Liebowitz, J. (Ed.),
Knowledge Management Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 1-22.
Blackler, F. (1995), “Knowledge, knowledge work and organization: an overview and
interpretation”, Organization Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 1021-46.
Blumentritt, R. and Johnston, R. (1999), “Towards a strategy for knowledge management”,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 11, pp. 287-300.
Boland, R.J. Jr and Tenkasi, R.V. (1995), “Perspective making and perspective taking in
communities of knowing”, Organization Science, Vol. 6, pp. 350-72.
Bushko, D. and Raynor, M. (1998), “Knowledge management: new directions for IT (and other)
consultants”, Journal of Management Consulting, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 67-8.
Chae, B. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2006), “The paradoxes of knowledge management: an eastern
philosophical perspective”, Information and Organization, Vol. 16, pp. 1-26.
Cooper, C. (2006), “Knowledge management and tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 47-64.
IJOA Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage what
they Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
14,2
DeJarnett, L. (1996), “Knowledge the last thing, information strategy”, Executives Journal, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 3-5.
Drew, S. (1999), “Building knowledge management into strategy: making sense of a new
perspective”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 130-6.
178 Drucker, P.F. (1988), “The coming of the new organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Garavelli, C., Gorgoglione, M. and Scozzi, B. (2004), “Knowledge management strategy and
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:32 01 February 2016 (PT)